Jonathon M. Floyd

@jfloyd314.bsky.social

Incoming BYU Law student (class of '29). BYU grad (Political Science '21). QMUL (History MA '25). Latter-day Saint. Utah Jazz, RSL, Utah Mammoth. I love politics (moderate), history, sports, aviation.

Since people are still relentlessly abusing me over this, here’s why the so-called “boots theory” doesn’t make any sense. First, what is it? Some people have suggested I haven’t done the background reading, but it’s not a deep idea. It’s from a passage that’s four sentences long.

BildBild

I feel like decades of treating China as essentially the successor to the USSR as our near-peer Communist adversary have perhaps blinded a lot of Americans to what 77 years of inept and corrupt single-party totalitarian governance has done to that country.

Aaron Grote@aarongrote.com · yesterday

Some of purges were for reasons like, "We checked and this missile force commander sold most of his rocket fuel on the black market and all these missiles are empty shells."

I thought we all understood this in the year 2026, but in general quality of goods increases with price, but price increases much faster. There may be a point where you can “save by spending” but it’s typically a lot closer to the bottom of the range than the top.

It's going to be really important in 2029 for Democrats--and the people on the ground investigating these strikes--not to get hung up on whether the victims were actually drug traffickers or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if every person killed was a trafficker, the strikes were still war crimes!

CNN@cnn.com · 2d ago

The US military’s strikes on alleged drug boats have likely illegally killed “individuals who are not involved in narcotrafficking,” Sen. Tim Kaine told the White House, following “a careful review” of classified information he has seen so far.

Even healthcare is kind of a complicated case. In the past you were paying for treatments that didn't work, or sometimes not paying because no treatment was available. Yes, treating cancer costs a fortune... but fifty years ago, a lot of the time, the treatment plan was "wait for death"

Josh Sternberg@joshsternberg.com · yesterday

had this convo w/my folks just over the weekend, explaining to them that the things that were expensive 50yrs ago (TVs, VCRs, etc) are now cheap, but the things that were cheap are now expensive (housing; healthcare; etc).

also, cheap stuff has actually gotten way better quality now. this is a 1985 chevy cavalier. 88hp engine (although it was fuel injected!), and basically no creature comforts [a/c was an option, same with an FM radio]. it would last you maybe 100k miles. It cost the equivalent of $27,000 today.

image of a chevy cavalier
Will Stancil@whstancil.bsky.social · yesterday

I guess my question is, when was the time that consumer goods were mostly high-quality, durable, and a good value for the price? What decade was the ideal time to be a consumer in America? Not saying you’re wrong but I’m inherently suspicious about any kind of declinist narrative like this

One of the things that sticks in my brain is how Jeffries suggested representatives not come to Minneapolis, supposedly because they'd be a distraction. No one on the ground wanted national politicians to stay away. We wanted people to come see what was being done to us. It infuriated me.

Eric Blair@protecttruth.bsky.social · 2d ago

How can we see this? if Schumer and Jeffries wanted to rally the grassroots they’d have been on the streets in Minneapolis and other cities leading, like Brad Lander. Instead they’ve been courting $$ into the DSCC and DCCC.

MAHA is a eugenicist movement and you do not negotiate with eugenicists. This is a thing a high proportion of people who will tell you not to frequent the Nazi bar apparently forget when the patrons of the Nazi bar share their priors about food dyes or whatever.

In the United States, on January 20, 2025, the air, the food, the medicine, the water were all as clean and pure and safe as they have ever been in this country. Yeah, sure, there were and are real problems, and our army of nerds in lab coats devoted to solving them was the envy of the world.

You also run into the issue is that you will never promise to shoot glonzo more convincingly than the people who fully believe he's real. This dynamic just got done eating the Republican party and it would be wise to be cautious

“They are behind all your problems” quickly becomes “(((they))) are behind all your problems” Dems can win some of the cranks, some of the time, but a democratic republic can’t survive with an electorate that can’t do anything but scapegoat

There is a charitable interpretation of this, which is that there is a small but real segment of MAHA that mostly does care about food additives and harmful chemical use in agriculture, and AOC feels like she can reach them. But even *that* interpretation leaves her looking disqualifyingly naïve.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez@ocasio-cortez.house.gov · 2d ago

There is pervasive corruption across our healthcare and agricultural systems that defy party lines. I meet with MAHA activists because a lot of their concerns are bipartisan issues that major corporations paint as partisan. The fight isn't left and right, it's top and bottom.

This is an extremely disappointing “three people in a diner in Omaha” bothsidesism. MAHA uses ‘big evil pharma corps” as a shibboleth to make it seem as if it is not entirely about returning medical care to a pre-industrial level. It is a death cult.

One of my lessons from the last few years is that maintaining a firewall against the absolute crank loons is far more important than ever, and it’s so depressing to see so many prominent politicians with the exact opposite takeaway

Dad gum right. Also, elected Democrats should be saying stuff like this a lot louder and more explicitly: do not participate in this administration's corrupt schemes, because we will come after you in 2029 and you will pay a stiff price.

Denny Carter@dennycarter.bsky.social · 2d ago

heard an interview recently with an anonmyous wall street bro who said his employer would not subscribe to the president's truth social insider trading scheme because they did not want to go to prison when the rule of law returns

This also happened back in like 2023, before the Trump administration fried the entire immigration system. Back then, the process was difficult, complicated, expensive, and ridiculously time-consuming, but it was theoretically possible. Now, it's not even that for most people.

Jonathon M. Floyd@jfloyd314.bsky.social · 2d ago

Even getting a green card is incredibly difficult. I had a college roommate who became engaged to a woman from Mongolia who he had met as a missionary in the Philippines, and they spent six months struggling through the visa process before giving up and canceling their engagement.

It's genuinely a massive problem that the median voter both 1) believes "criminal illegal immigrants" to be an astronomically more serious threat than they actually are, and 2) believes that the legal immigration process is substantially easier than it actually is.

Sunsette / Cynthia Skye@sunderedmarches.com · 2d ago

I understand your position, but those are different situations. People straight up both envision a system much milder than exists and cannot imagine a modern world without that imaginary system. By default they have no real grasp of reality on the matter, but are usu. sympathetic to individuals.