Yeah, so saying it makes January 6th look like “child’s play” is simply pointing out a double standard.
January 6 wax obviously different in that it involved crimes against people and property and the intentions were to upset the results of a fair election, but the likelihood of success was minimal and there was no actual success. It was at the end of the day violent and malicious theater.
The Democrats' removal of a name from the ballot is real and will impact an election.
One is a street level blue collar crime and the other an organized white collar crime. The results are typical. With the former, a bunch of people get hurt and things get destroyed. The other is more precise.
I'm not seeing anything criminal in Dems pursuing legal challenges.
There is nothing criminal in that for sure. And there's nothing criminal in carving out districts that give advantage to one party over the other, to putting polling places in unreachable locations by those without transportation, to closing polling places at earlier times to benefit one party over the other. These are the games the parties play to interfere with the will of the people being expressed.
It's the way it always works. A sophisticated player creates rules to benefit him (like regulations, tax code, or whatever) and makes out like a bandit. An unsophisticated player kicks open a door a busts heads.
The question then isn't one of legality, but morality. If you place a moral value on the successful candidate being the one who the public most wants to win, then you won't try to enforce rules that do the opposite.
I will also repeat that there is a difference between the morality of injuring persons or damaging property versus manipulating social procedures like voting. That is, I do beleive its worse morally to bust someone's head open and to set fire to his property in an effort to obtain an unfair result than to do the same through a more peaceful and calculating means.
The point I made in comparing January 6 to the efforts to remove RFK from ballots wasn't to suggest an equivalency in terms of how rogue and violent they both were. It was to point out that in terms of the specific harm we were pointing to - impeding the democratic will - what the Democrats are doing exceeds what the Republicans have done. I get that the Democrats didn't go about it by throwing chairs through windows or wearing viking hats, but their result has been more successful.
These are the games the parties play to interfere with the will of the people being expressed.
Right. I don't necessarily like Democrats trying to keep third parties off the ballot, but I know they're no different than any other political party that would do the same thing. The GOP would not hesitate to keep third parties of the ballot if they thought it would help their chances.
Jan 6th and the GOP's rallying around Trump after the stolen election drama are quite different, though. I like to think that in a parallel universe, where Trump is just as awful a person as he is now, but a champion of climate change, medicare-for-all, and high taxes on the rich, the Democrat party would still have nothing to do with him. What do you think?
Reply to Hanover Yea, but that's child's play compared to the way the Republican party has gerrymandered North Carolina. So the attack on the Capitol where they appeared to be prepared to freakin execute the Vice President is like infant's play. Like with a rattle or something.
Today's New York Times frontpage is basically BIDEN MUST GO, with terrible polling and yet more senior democrats calling for his retrenchment. His situation is plainly untenable, you can't go into the National Convention with the Party split and the press all over you, up against the Trump juggernaut, which really is a civilization-ending threat.
His situation is plainly untenable, you can't go into the National Convention with the Party split and the press all over you, up against the Trump juggernaut, which really is a civilization-ending threat.
Republicans say democrats are a clear and present danger, etc. But that’s mostly crap — although you could argue that they’re taking us close to nuclear war with their foreign policy. In that case, democrats are an existential threat.
Republicans are the party of climate denial. That’s also an existential threat. More likely to cause widespread damage and suffering, given that it’s already happening and the threat of nuclear war is low.
That's one of the factors, but there are others. The perils are environmental, economic, political and military, and each one, or a combination of them, could pose a threat to the Western democratic social order. It's going to take very much higher orders of problem-solving and political management than the Republican clown-car have demonstrated since Trump took the wheel.
Yea, but that's child's play compared to the way the Republican party has gerrymandered North Carolina. So the attack on the Capitol where they appeared to be prepared to freakin execute the Vice President is like infant's play. Like with a rattle or something.
I doubt that. I think the removal of a competitor from the race is about as anti-competitive and anti-democratic as it comes. You won that race in the back room without a single vote cast.
Today's New York Times frontpage is basically BIDEN MUST GO, with terrible polling and yet more senior democrats calling for his retrenchment. His situation is plainly untenable, you can't go into the National Convention with the Party split and the press all over you, up against the Trump juggernaut, which really is a civilization-ending threat.
Remind me why your party (technically still mine) chose not to have competitive primaries, where they could have solved their Biden problem in an open and democratic manner?
Isn't it ironic that the Dems are the victims of their own failed machinations?
And when they swap in Kam in a back room deal to avoid an open convention, will the rank and file just fall into line like they always do? Probably.
I have to admit I've been on record saying they won't be able to move Joe out. But he's looking pretty shaky right now. Lot of party heavyweights are against him.
Reply to NOS4A2 Nobody cares about Covid anymore. I doubt he even has it. I think he's holing up in preparation for dropping out this weekend. Maybe he'll say Covid convinced him he's too old to campaign.
Reply to frank Probably. But apparently there's some internal polling Democrats have that has convinced them Biden will not only lose, but cost them the House and Senate.
Trump's going to win, then Vance. Vance will change the presidential term limits and rule for the rest of his life.
Trump isn’t going to win. Biden campaigned from his bunker, drew crowds of max. 50 people at his rallies, was the first virtual candidate, and for some strange reason got the most votes in US history. Never underestimate the corrupt abilities of his party.
His party is telling him to step aside because he’s doing bad in the polls, and for no other reason.
No other reason? Do you think the NYTimes is telling him to drop out simply because he's "doing bad in the polls"? Biden is unfit to run. He's unfit to be president. The debate was horrifying.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you start speaking in questions. The NYT argued Biden should step aside because he might lose to Trump, not for any democratic reason.
The NYT argued Biden should step aside because he might lose to Trump, not for any democratic reason.
There is no "democratic reason" for Biden to step aside, except maybe that 70% of Democrats wanting him gone, but that wasn't the Times' point. The NYTimes wants him out because he's in such bad shape:
"The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence."
Which was my point. This isn't just about polls. Biden is unfit.
That’s just not the case. They weren’t describing his fitness; they were describing his debate performance. They don’t seem to care that no one is leading the country, that a dementia patient holds the nuclear codes. They want him out because they think he’s going to lose.
Mr. Biden answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for. But if the risk of a second Trump term is as great as he says it is — and we agree with him that the danger is enormous — then his dedication to this country leaves him and his party only one choice.
The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November.
It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation — the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 — from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long.
First it was Schiff, then it was Chuck Schumer who have pushed to Biden to give up his candidacy.
But the Democrats have really a problem even this way, because in this age of DEI, they simply cannot bypass a black female vice president.
Well, the Democrats will loose just like the Conservative party lost in the UK. Perhaps it's not going to be such a loss as the Conservatives had (worst election defeat in 190 years), but still.
Trump isn’t going to win. Biden campaigned from his bunker, drew crowds of max. 50 people at his rallies, was the first virtual candidate, and for some strange reason got the most votes in US history. Never underestimate the corrupt abilities of his party.
So you predict a Biden win. I'll take it. Trump isolated himself until he was just flailing. Biden at least can gather a group capable of doing the job.
18July24
[quote=NOS4A2]Trump isn’t going to win.[/quote]
Yeah, buddy! JD Vance is the *misogynistic gift* that will keep on giving. More of the Ultra-MAGA Hillbilly speaking in public, please. :clap:
I don’t get why the Republican shakes woman’s hands and in the Democrat cartoon there are apartments. Does this imply that Republicans are as friendly with women as Democrats are with town planning?
The whole platform is based on delusions. Examples:
——
There is no invasion at the border, and immigrants are a net good for the country. You’ll hear exactly the opposite.
The economy is as good or better than under Trump — but you’ll hear the opposite.
Crime is down, not up.
Climate change is real, not a Chinese hoax.
We’re pumping more oil and gas now than ever, not less. (Unfortunately.)
The 2020 election was one of, if not the most, secure in history.
January 6th was an insurrection — the crowd’s goal was to stop the counting of electoral votes, based on the lie that it was a “stolen election” (see above).
Donald Trump was one of the worst, if not the worst, president in history.
——
Just some basic facts. But in Trump world, where literally everything is inverted, Trump does nothing wrong, the election was stolen, the January 6th criminals are heroes, etc.
So what’s left? Tax cuts and destroying government (besides the parts that corporate America likes)? Ugh…
Reply to Mikie I agree with every word, but it probably belongs in the Trump thread.
It seems the gig is up for Biden, he's going to announce 'the passing of the torch' this weekend (to put a positive spin on it.) For the time being, the nominee designate will probably remain Kamala Harris, but if the Democratic National Committee so decides, there will be an open convention beginning Aug 19th and another Presidential nominee might be chosen. Me, I don't think Kamala Harris would be a winning choice, but I can think of some. As I've said before, I think the electorate is crying out for an alternative to Trump v Biden, and if a credible candidate is presented, it might generate a big uptick.
He already won the primary election, meaning he has already been chosen to be the candidate. That simply cannot be erased because he is not winning in the general.
He already won the primary election, meaning he has already been chosen to be the candidate. That simply cannot be erased because he is not winning in the general.
You're talking about the procedure.
But the [i]reason[/I] given does sound entirely democratic to me. People don't want to vote for him, therefore he shouldn't run.
Like 2020, don't vote for the man (or the woman); vote for the mission in Roevember 2024 which is to defeat The Neofascist Crininal Clown & his rabid MAGA junta-in-waiting. :victory: :mask:
Although I was not included in your illustrious list I will comment anyway.
I agree with him regarding "democracy by the polls", but the concern about Biden's current abilities is not simply a matter of what the polls say. I also agree with his criticism of the press, but the press plays a less significant role when a propaganda machine has a significant portion of the population believing that what it tells them is the news and the truth. Lichtman's track record on prediction election outcomes is impressive but I am not confident that Biden will win or that the attempt to get him to step down is self-destructive.
Based on his evaluation of this administration's performance his prediction might have been right up until the debate, Biden's past performance does not matter if he is no longer capable of performing as well as he once did.
Reply to 180 Proof I agree with Lichtman's argument on the power of incumbency. If there are no quagmire-conflicts going on, if the voter's 401K's are up and there is no recession, the incumbent is posed to win. And Americans seem to have forgotten that they indeed lost a war in Afghanistan as nobody is talking about it, since it was also Trump's fault also. And yes, there's no billionaire third party candidate running.
And I agree with Lichtman that Democrats are shooting them into the foot, but then again no incumbent running for the second term has been ever so senile (at least in the open). So even Lichtman is unsure of the outcome and waits for the Democratic convention.
However, even if Trump wants to follow the Orban model, as Lichtman says, what this great populist orator lacks is the needed leadership qualities. We already know this from the last time. And the idea that Trump can wreck American democracy, well, just look what happened on January 6th:
Trump wanted to go with his supporters to Capitol Hill, but his own security team simply drove him to the White House. There he watched mesmerized from television how his supporters took over the Capitol Hill building and finally, after calls from his inner circle and family, he just said to his supporters to go home.
Now, sincerely, ask yourself: is a person that acts in this way even capable of overthrowing one of the oldest democracies in the World, if he actually wanted to do it? Because you don't get a better chance ever for an autocoup like January 6th, with your supporters breaking into Capitol Hill. Democrats were totally stopped in their tracks as a deer in the headlights on that day. But then you would have to have a real plan, you would have to have people that support you, understand it's either they go through all the way or they face a life sentences, even capitol punishment. Nothing like that happened.
Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them?
Or does JD Vance, a former marine that wrote in 2016 "Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation’s Highest Office" among other comments, wants to now wreck democracy of the US? Isn't the last VP of Trump a clear example of the Trump team not having these kind of thoughts?
If you think that the intent of Republicans is this, I disagree with you. I think you taken in too much of the rhetoric which causes the political polarization in the US.
Hence in my view in 2028, even after a Trump presidency, there will be a democracy in the US. What kind of ride would it be to 2028 is a different question.
It’s a tough one. I have to respect Lichtman’s record, so I listen to what he says carefully. It’s true people always say “this time it’s different,” and it certainly looks like the last few years truly have been. The keys will be right until they’re not.
I can’t help but have the feeling like there’s a bit of luck involved with his predictions. But who knows? That’s the point: I don’t. And no one here does either.
Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them?
You're assuming they think of it as "wrecking democracy". They might instead consider it safeguarding democracy from the mob.
Consider some of the rhetoric right wing pundits have been putting out there: how the USA are not a democracy but actually a republic. And they mean to imply by this that only certain people - true Americans - should be allowed a say. It's a take that relies on very old concerns about the tyranny of the majority, only adopted to feature new villains.
Reply to 180 Proof That's 3 elections where voting is intended to stop Trump. It's insane the Democrats aren't capable of fielding candidates people actually like. Lichtman only considers this in terms of winning; I think there's more to elections than winning. It's also about why you're winning. This just further entrenches Dem vs GOP and sets up the terms for the next election which will not be about policy (again).
Biden has to go because he's unfit. Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan.
Well said. And arguably the state of the democratic party is more worrying than the state of President Biden. That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.
In retrospect it seems like warning signs have been accumulating since Obama's second term that the democrats are no longer able to effectively coordinate responses to challanges - like the refusal to allow Obama to fill a SC seat.
That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.
It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction.
That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.
It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? The donor money has dried up, the polling has gotten even worse for him, the media is completely dogpiling the Biden campaign now, and members of the party have been defecting en masse and increasingly so.
Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.
Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.
The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. Entirely uninspired. They deserve the dog piling and the whining it's bad for Biden is not the media's fault but a direct consequence of their own arrogance. Democrats should just rename themselves to "never Trump" because that's what it's been about since Hillary.
Its actually funny that people complain about the DNC and RNC for nominating unlikable and forced candidates. Such things are too important to allow chance or random candidates to get elected.
Yet, as someone pointed out, Trump was a wild card for the RNC in 2016, and still is until he likely is reelected.
The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy.
There are plenty of reasons why the US isn't a democracy and alot of them involve the SCOTUS, particularly their decisions in 2000, 2010, and this year. Of course the primaries are also pretty terrible too and the way general elections have locked out serious third party contenders since the 90s.
I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020.
It was actually fear that got us Biden in 2020, not of Trump but of Bernie Sanders. In 2020, there was a point where Sanders was about to run away with the nomination and the entire establishment rallied behind Biden in a matter of a few days before Super Tuesday in order to stop him. Biden wasn't the best candidate but he was the one they settled with because he's the easiest one to rally behind. If Biden ends up dropping out this year then we will see the exact reverse of that, as all the anti-Biden forces will likely coalesce around Kamala this time around, not because she's the best candidate but she's the easiest one to rally behind. The lord almighty have giveth and the lord almighty will have taketh away, to use some of Biden's own words.
It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here?
I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.
So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.
Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.
I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.
I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.
I think there's starting to become a more organized movement here as more time passes and Biden continues to not reassure his party while pissing them off with his arrogance. It's clear that leadership is not happy with him and are not letting things move on as much as the Biden campaign would like to pretend like nothing happened.
So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.
There's always challenging him at the convention and putting up somebody else which is an extreme measure that's very unlikely but who knows with a party that finds Biden's presence increasingly unacceptable. One could argue that it may hurt Biden's chances if they continue to complain, but as more and more polling suggests he's a goner anyways and will drag the entire party down with him, then there's also reason to think that it won't matter much anyways so might as well complain.
I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.
Well like I told Benkei, Bernie tried to run in 2020 but was stopped by the establishment that gave us Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2024. If Trump ends up winning again because of their shenanigans then hopefully we will see such a reformation. I don't blame the Democrat voters for what is happening because the problem really was they never had a say in the process.
Let's all enjoy this brief window of hope before they undemocratically shove through another centrist loser offering absolutely nothing, guaranteed to lose to the evil clown.
Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux.
I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular.
There are several people who make better candidates, Dems who have won in deep red states.
If she wants it she can probably get it though because this is the Democratic Party so who is going to want to say: "we need to pass over the Black woman candidate?" All the speculation I've read sort of centers around this.
I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out.
There are a handful of very moderate Republicans who have won is very Democrat-leaning states who would be good to throw on the ticket to offset the "California liberal" vibes she gives off, but I don't know if either side would be willing to do that. It would be a brilliant move IMHO though. These folks are already exiles for failing to say the election was stolen though, so they might go along with it.
Things are falling into place quickly. Biden—at least we think it was Biden—resigned by tweet. Harris has been endorsed by Dem elites. Delegates voice support for her. The apparatchiks are already out praising Biden’s self-sacrifice. All of this within an hour. You can’t help but admire the craven political ruthlessness of that organization.
She is a woman, and thus automatically at a disadvantage. She's also of color, so the DEI-hire narrative writes itself. In fact if you ask in more right wing leaning circles, she's universally reviled already for being a supposed DEI-hire who allegedly has zero qualifications, and is stupid because her laugh sounds weird. That's unfortunately the level of political discourse we can expect.
Apart from that she seems solid, if nothing more. She has attracted significant left wing criticism for her policies as DA but that probably won't matter against Trump and is not something that I think most voters would care about deeply.
Really it's all about whether she can effectively deal with the fact that she is a woman.
I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular.
I guess the deciding question would be whether the administration is popular enough among swing state voters.
I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out.
Probably, yeah. She'll be hard to get past if she decides to push it. Nor Do I think the democrats could afford another public pressure campaign.
Edit: So I just read that she reacted to Biden's endorsement by saying she hopes to "earn and win" the nomination. So she considers herself in the race, but not the heir apparent. This leaves her space to back out, so at least she apparently does not intend to run come what may.
Honestly overall I think at this point the democrats should embrace chaos and focus on making the most grassroots-based choice possible. Find some way to let the base vote for a candidate, take the hands off the convention and just make it really, really obvious that you're not pushing anyone and whoever makes the best case wins.
I think such a spectacle might energize voters who are on the fence, but what do I know.
She is a woman, and thus automatically at a disadvantage. She's also of color, so the DEI-hire narrative writes itself. In fact if you ask in more right wing leaning circles, she's universally reviled already for being a supposed DEI-hire who allegedly has zero qualifications, and is stupid because her laugh sounds weird. That's unfortunately the level of political discourse we can expect.
The political discourse "there" is right as usual. Hillary got millions of votes for being a woman, Obama for being black. Odds are that, if Hillary were Hilbert and Barack Obama were Barry O'Bryan, they wouldn't have won.
So I just read that she reacted to Biden's endorsement by saying she hopes to "earn and win" the nomination. So she considers herself in the race, but not the heir apparent.
That’s encouraging. I’ve been reading that there’s the chance of an ‘open convention’, but that in the past these haven’t been very successful. But if it is an open convention, I hope another candidate comes of it.
I visit x.com, Elon Musk's playground, and the way things stand is something to the matter with how Harris speaks. It's a little troubling that she can't speak with diction at all. It's actually so pathetic in videos of CNN interviews and past debates that I don't know what to say myself.
Joe has to resign the presidency, the sooner the better. There's are negative and positive reasons.
The negatives are that as long as he's President, Karine Jean-Pierre is going to be asked:
1) If Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to run for President; then isn't he too cognitively impaired to BE President? And since Joe is clearly not running the country and hasn't been for some time, who has been and IS running the country? Obama? Jill "Edith Wilson" Biden? And remember, the media smell a wounded politician like a herd of rabid jackals. Have you noticed the tone shift in the White House briefing room lately? KJP is under attack like she's never experienced before.
2) Is Joe going to preemptively pardon son Hunter, brother James, and other members of his family, for Federal felonies they may be subject to regarding the Biden family's decades of grift, bribery, and influence peddling involving foreign countries? This family business is a well known open secret in Washington, and is denied by the Dems in exactly the same way that they denied Biden's progressive cognitive impairment. Meaning, they'll deny it everyone finds out about it, then they'll all pretend to be shocked and they'll savage him. So he has to issue the pardons before he leaves office, and he might as well get it over with fast.
But there's a huge positive and beneficial reason he should resign the presidency first thing tomorrow morning.
It makes Kamala the incumbent. The "historical" incumbent. Incumbency by itself is a huge advantage, easily worth five or ten percent of the vote. And just as in 2008, centrist-minded Republicans might have said, well, McCain's a corrupt wamongering jerk, war hero nothwithstanding; and I don't want to have to think of myself as a closet racist. So I'll vote for Obama. A lot of votes went that way. If you were any kind of independent or centrist who was not a doctrinaire Republican, you voted for Obama for the historical symbolism of a black man becoming President in this country.
Kamala would get those same independents. She'd energize all the women in this country. As bad a politician as she is, she could win on symbolism. Symbolism has a lot of power among us humans, like the Trump bloody fist flag photo.
So I say that if Biden pardons his family and drops out tomorrow morning, that is the Dems' best shot at an electoral victory in 2024. Get it all over wish and by election day the public will have forgotten Biden entirely. The longer this fiasco goes on, the more the American people are reminded every single day of the massive fraud the Democrats ran on the nation. The sooner they get past that the better.
Personally I hope he doesn't do it. Let the press ask KJP every day. Let the party civil war continue. Already Pelosi and the Obama have not endorsed Kamala, calling for an open process. Under the circumstances a non-endorsement is equivalent to an anti-endorsement. The Clintons and the Bidens are behind a Kamala coronation, for the third consecutive DNC back-room deal rammed down the throats of their own voters. Saving democracy indeed.
Now you can see why the Dems forced Bobby Jr. to leave the Democratic party. Else he'd be the heir apparent and the DNC hates Bobby Jr.
I'm just curious, I get that some people just hate Trump. But aren't the liberals getting sick and tired of getting shafted by the DNC? They could have held a competitive primary this year, Joe's condition would have been exposed, and Gavin or Gretchen would be a strong candidate. The Dems did this to themselves. And to the fourteen million Democratic primary voters who voted for Joe, while the media were telling them Joe's sharp as a tack. Aren't any liberals righteously angry about all this chicanery going back to 2016 and 2020 and now 2024? The DNC does not give a hoot about the will of their own voters, or "democracy." The centrist warmongers pick their candidate no matter what their voters think. How long will Dem voters just fall into line behind whatever corrupt hack the central party coronates? After Trump is gone and Trump hate is no longer a factor, what will hold the Dem party together?
What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got...
Yes it's funny that the other day Biden himself said, "That's how we got Trump in 2016," meaning the Dems letting the party insiders override the will of the voters. He still has political instincts. It's very unclear whether the Democrats have improved their situation or not.
If Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to run for President; then isn't he too cognitively impaired to BE President?
The question should be, "Is he too cognitively impaired to BOTH run for president and be president?" There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected.
I was in favor of him NOT running for another term before the famous debate. Both Biden and Trump are too old, and Trump has even more cognitive problems, particularly with the reality situation, than Biden.
Kamela has more than enough on her plate successfully campaigning, never mind trying to become an experienced incumbent in just a few months.
I'm not quite that generous. Significant brain damage, but recoverable after at least 4 years of intensive therapy for people who have brain injuries. Additional therapy will be needed to rehabilitate his faulty morals and his poor comprehension of the reality situation. Since his misfortunes are self-induced, he would need to pay for this out of his own funds. Once he's impoverished by the medical industry, Medicaid will kick in to cover some (???) level of services.
If Kamala steps up, she has to reflect deeply about who her VP will be. It must be someone with experience, connections in congress, someone who has been elected before and who is comfortable working under a person of colour president. Someone comes to mind.
[hide="Reveal"]
Welcome back, Mr. President.[/hide]
Coming from the same people who until last week denied that JB has dementia.
I wonder if the September debate is still on. Of course Trump may dip out of it like he did during the primaries now that he's going up against someone who's not a senile old man but we'll see.
I think there’s less than a 5% chance that happens. They’re sticking with Biden.
Alright— I was dead wrong. Either that or this really was an unlikely event, but ended up happening anyway. But it’s more likely I underestimated the chances.
It’s nutty how ruthless the DNC is compared to the RNC, which couldn’t even stop a Trump.
Notice that the resignation letter isn’t on official Whitehouse letterhead, and he apparently resigned by X post, which has been ran by social media handlers for years. Does anyone really believe he resigned?
Notice that the resignation letter isn’t on official Whitehouse letterhead,
I believe he did not resign. I believe he dropped out of the running for nomination for reelection. A party matter, not an official presidential matter.
It should be reported as: ‘President Biden has decided not to contest the next election, and instead to retire. He has endorsed his VP…’ etc, instead of all this breathless hyperbole.
Still, it would have been far better had he made the decision before the primaries. Regardless, it’s still imperative that the MAGA cult is thwarted.
The political discourse "there" is right as usual. Hillary got millions of votes for being a woman, Obama for being black. Odds are that, if Hillary were Hilbert and Barack Obama were Barry O'Bryan, they wouldn't have won.
Of course representing certain parts of the electorate is relevant, I did not want to dismiss that. Nevertheless, Kamala Harris wasn't randomly swept off the street because she fit a certain profile.
I'm not quite that generous. Significant brain damage, but recoverable after at least 4 years of intensive therapy for people who have brain injuries. Additional therapy will be needed to rehabilitate his faulty morals and his poor comprehension of the reality situation. Since his misfortunes are self-induced, he would need to pay for this out of his own funds. Once he's impoverished by the medical industry, Medicaid will kick in to cover some (???) level of services.
Thank for that. A powerful, factual based ad. I don't know how effective it would be today. The Trumpsters just don't care. They believe he is their savior and either overlook his faults or think it is all liberal lies. Those who are less fanatical may regard it as a trade-off they are willing to accept. Perhaps there are still enough voters who have not made up their mind who might be swayed.
It’s nutty how ruthless the DNC is compared to the RNC, which couldn’t even stop a Trump.
To be fair, Trump earned his nomination in 2016 while Biden didn't in 2024. As much as he brags about 14 million votes in the primary he was running as an incumbent against an anti-vaxxer, a hippie lady, a progressive talk show host who wasn't even born in the country, and a no-name guy named Dean Philips. He has no true base of support and because of that it's far more rational to just push him out. The RNC can't do the same with their candidate lest they piss off the cult.
Reply to Echarmion It is not about "representation", a sorry concept that is never applied when whites are a minority in a country. It is about that many, perhaps millions, voted on Hillary and Obama because he/she is black/female.
What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got...
It is not at all clear that Bernie would have won. He is a "socialist" and this scares lots of voters. To them the qualification 'democratic' socialist does not matter. Although Clinton won the popular vote, the states in which she lost are the states that are strongly opposed to socialism.
The irony is that many of the same people who oppose socialism because they equate it with government control are if favor of autocracy. The power of the demagogue to persuade the people!
I forget how she did in the debates. It seems like it should be easy to bait and trigger Trump into a meltdown. I would just pull out all the quotes from his own cabinet members calling him incompetent. Then when he called them "RINOs" point out that he was the one who appointed them and promised to "pick the greatest people."
He even whiffed his core issue, illegal border crossings hit a 13 year high under his administration and he didn't get his party to old even one vote on migration the whole time he had the House, Senate, and Court, showing how the GOP just uses the issue for votes. Oh, and almost quadrupling government borrowing during an economic expansion.
Virtually any Democrat would have won in 2008. Bush was historically unpopular and the GOP had just overseen a military disaster and the entire economy imploding. Dems had the House handily and a super majority in the Senate, no way they lose up ticket. Obama won both his elections so handily they were called almost as soon as polls closed and almost certainly would have won handily again in 2016. Aside from Reagan, who had dementia issues, he's the only guy who could have realistically been confident in getting a third term since term limits became a thing.
Are the guy that lost his mind and started punching himself in the head in their car on tik tok when Biden announced this? Same vibe from you throughout htis thread.
Top Dems threatened to forcibly remove Biden from office unless he resigned, set him up to fail at Trump debate: Sources
Operatives at the very highest levels of the Democratic Party threatened Joe Biden with forcibly removing him from office unless he stepped down, sources told The Post.
The well-orchestrated “palace coup” to stop the faltering president seeking re-election has been in place for weeks, but stubborn Biden fought against it every step of the way, a source close to the Biden family told The Post Monday.
Wow I don’t normally follow politics that much but this is big news. Are there really enough people that want Trump back in office? He already got a chance and now seems like old news.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus I am talking about primaries as well. The appeal of those candidates over others (for many) was exactly that they were not white men.
Fun to watch our resident fascist cry about the will of voters— provided it’s the Democrats. Overturning an election? Hillary winning the popular vote? Silence.
Repeat Party slogans. “Overturn an election!” Literally overturns an election. “But it’s ok when we (D)o it, because when we take power, one of the biggest polluters on Earth is going to save the environment.”
What 'election' has been overturned? The votes from the primaries are not formally attached to a candidate until the Convention. It would be quite possible for a winning candidate to be injured or fall ill and so not be the final choice at the Convention. This is no different, the candidate in question has simply, and sensibly, decided to retire rather than seek another term.
And although obviously a close-run thing, I would have thought that any candidate who DID NOT try and overthrow the 2020 election would have a clear advantage.
Care to bet? So far I’m one for two. I don’t think they’ll want two people from California, and waste a chance to make inroads with swing states. Shapiro would be a better choice. Would shore up PA, which is a must win. More electoral votes.
Contesting an election is quite common in the 21st century, but removing a presumptive nominee, forcing him to step aside, and replacing him with someone else isn’t. Do you think the primaries mean nothing? Why bother going to the booth if your vote is null and void?
Oh dear. Accusation in a mirror. All you can do is accuse others of that which you are guilty. No case in point because you can neither make a case or point. Sorry, friend.
removing a presumptive nominee, forcing him to step aside, and replacing him with someone else isn’t.
He wasn't removed, or threatened with the noose :rage: He was persuaded to retire rather than contest and made a principled decision in the interests of the greater good (although in my view about 6 months too late.)
I think it's utterly hilarous that Mike Johnson is threatening to sue the Democratic Party to force them to bring Biden back. They're upset over the $10million they spent on Biden attack ads and want their money back. Hilarious.
He wasn't removed, or threatened with the noose :rage: He was persuaded to retire rather than contest and made a principled decision in the interests of the greater good (although in my view about 6 months too late.)
I think it's utterly hilarous that Mike Johnson is threatening to sue the Democratic Party to force them to bring Biden back. They're upset over the $10million they spent on Biden attack ads and want their money back. Hilarious.
He was threatened with the 25th amendment if he didn’t drop out, according people close to the family. The party bosses and donors were mad he got trounced by Trump in that debate. It had everything to do with pure political power and cold hard cash, not principle, and especially not some concern for any greater good.
Some are calling it a coup. Certainly if you saw this plot play out in some corrupt foreign country you'd call it what it is. Biden hasn't been seen in five days. I heard that he called in to Kamala's rally, but his remarks were brief and he sounded cogent. It may well have been a deep fake. The technology is very good.
The last thing he said was that he is in the race to win it. Then we saw him creaking slowly up a flight of airplane stairs, and then someone posts his resignation letter on his X account, which is known to be run by staffers and not personally used by Joe. An image is flying around social media of his signature on his four recent executive actions, which do not match the signature on his letter. The letter does not bear the presidential seal. No photograph or video exists of him signing it. Then he disappeared totally for five days, officially recovering from covid.
This raises another question. If he's too sick to even have his picture taken signing a letter, is he too sick to fulfill his presidential duties. In November, 201, Biden was placed under general anesthesia fo his colonoscopy, and Kamala officially assumed presidential authority for an hour an a half or so.
If Biden is too impaired, even temporarily, to perform the duties of his office, the public has a right to know. And if he's not impaired, why haven't we even seen a still photograph of him in five days, let alone live video.
Some people online are snarkily asking for proof of life, which is what you typically demand of kidnappers to show that their hostage is still alive before you pay the random. And it's not a bad question. Where is Joe, and who is acting as president? Is he even alive? And if he is too cognitively impaired to run for president, how on earth can he continue to BE president? With two war going on? Who's in charge?
It's entirely possible that he has no idea that he's dropped out of the race. Nothing is being told to us, and the Democrats are so happy to be rid of their Biden problem they aren't asking any questions.
Kamala's got the Dems thrilled. It's very similar to her 2020 campaign launch in Oakland, California, in 2019. She drew 20,000 people and immediately became the rock star candidate. Calling Biden a racist and selling "That little girl was me" T-shirts turned out to be her high point. The next debate she got taken apart by Tulsi Gabbard, and never recovered. She dropped out in 2019, never even making it to the first primary election. She was polling badly in her home state of California.
That's Kamala. On paper she looks terrific, checks all the right boxes. The more people get to know her the less they like her. Also she has a big negative. She owns all of the Biden-Harris administration's problems. The inflation, the wars, the immigration disaster. Especially the latter, as Biden appointed her immigration czar and she was an utter failure, only managing to humiliate herself telling Lester Holt, "I've never been to Europe," when he challenged her on not going to the border. That's Kamala. She flusters and screws up when she has to go off-script under even mild pressure.
Biden was polling badly on the issues before the public saw his humiliation at the debate. It's Biden's policies the public doesn't like, and Harris owns those policies herself.
If she gets traction the Dems will go all-in behind her. If not, they'll give her the hook and trot out the next contestant. They have four weeks from today till the start of their convention.
I do congratulate the Dems for getting their act together and settling on a provisional candidate they can all live with. I can see why they don't want an open convention. Too much risk and potential chaos. Kamala's nice and safe for now. She appeals to a lot of Dems. She delivers scripted lines and speeches very well. And she can stay up past 4pm, a big upgrade from Biden.
But what did happen to Biden? The Dems propped him up for three years, then rigged their own primaries to get him nominated with only token opposition (anyone remember Dean Phillips?) and now they throw him over when he's polling badly. Reportedly Nancy Pelosi went to Joe and said he could go "the easy way or the hard way." This is the guy who got fourteen million votes in the Democratic primaries, and allegedly eighty one million in the 2020 general election. No American has ever cast a single vote for Kamala Harris for president.
I don't want to hear anyone ever again telling me that Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy. The Democratic party wouldn't know democracy if it bit them in the donkey. The back-room honchos decide what they want, and screw their own voters. 2016, 2020, and now 2024. Will the public punish the Democrats for lying to us about Biden's condition for four years and now running a coup to install a candidate chosen by the inner party and not their voters? Whether or not it ultimately succeeds, it's not democracy. It's not the will of the people.
A lot of people hate Trump and Kam has some strengths. She's got a great angle, a former DA who prosecuted sex crimes versus sexual assaulter Trump. She's strong on abortion. She will be a tough candidate if she can overcome her known issues. I'd give her a 25% chance to win. It could happen.
In other news, the condemnation of Kimberly Cheatle is savage and bipartisan after her train wreck testimony today. We still don't know how many shots were fired, what directions they came from, who killed the 20 year old. Usually when a crime occurs, the cops hold a press conference and tell us what they know. Why are we being stonewalled on the attempted assassination of Trump, not even allowed to hear the most basic facts? I caught some of the hearings this morning, it was bad. Even Dems Ro Khanna and AOC lit into her for incompetence and stonewalling.
What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got...
Biden made that same point the other day, noting that the same kind of Dem chicanery that they're using on him is how they ended up losing to Trump in 2016. And speaking of Joe, where is he? Hasn't been seen for five days since posting his resignation letter on an X account run by staffers, on letterhead missing the presidential seal, and bearing a signature that appears not to match his signatures on several recent executive orders.
If this happened in a corrupt foreign country it would look like a coup. Since it's happening right in front of our faces in our own country, a lot of people take it all at face value. I do not personally believe anything going on lately, from the Trump assassination attempt to Joe dropping out of the race but remaining our invisible president, is to be taken at face value.
An apt comparison, but even rabid jackals, never mind healthy ones, form 'packs' or 'tribes'. As in 'a pack of wild dogs'. Jackals are canids.
Not entirely sure I caught that. Was I right or wrong to analogize the media to a pack of rabid jackals?
I'm always struck by the way the narrative turns on a dime. One day, news videos of Joe's decrepitude and senescence are cheap fakes. The next day everyone turns and stabs the guy in the back. It's ugly to watch.
The question should be, "Is he too cognitively impaired to BOTH run for president and be president?" There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected.
It's a good question if he's doing the job today. Missing in action for five days. He signs a letter dropping out of the race and he's too ill to have his picture taken. But he's perfectly fine to do his job?
I was in favor of him NOT running for another term before the famous debate. Both Biden and Trump are too old, and Trump has even more cognitive problems, particularly with the reality situation, than Biden.
If the Dems had just held competitive primaries, Biden's problems would have been exposed and they'd have a younger and stronger candidate right now who was actually chosen by the Democratic voters, and not by the party insiders.
As to whether Trump or Biden are farther gone, we can agree to disagree. I will agree that Trump's lost a couple of steps from eight years ago. Look at what he's endured. Whether you think he's guilty or not, all those court cases must have taken a lot out of him.
This is not the first election where people had to hold their nose and vote for the candidate they hate a little less thanthe other one.
Kamela has more than enough on her plate successfully campaigning, never mind trying to become an experienced incumbent in just a few months.
I can see your point. But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. And if Joe is in as bad shape as he appears to be, it would be better for the country and certainly better for Kamala to just 25A the guy and be done with it. Or have Nancy get Joe to resign the presidency. Report is that she told Joe he could drop out of the race "the easy way or the hard way." Nancy seems to be the one running things in the Dem party.
The last thing he said was that he is in the race to win it. Then we saw him creaking slowly up a flight of airplane stairs, and then someone posts his resignation letter on his X account, which is known to be run by staffers and not personally used by Joe. An image is flying around social media of his signature on his four recent executive actions, which do not match the signature on his letter. The letter does not bear the presidential seal. No photograph or video exists of him signing it. Then he disappeared totally for five days, officially recovering from covid.
Why would it have been necessary to forge a resignation letter if he is incapacitated anyways?
If Biden is too impaired, even temporarily, to perform the duties of his office, the public has a right to know. And if he's not impaired, why haven't we even seen a still photograph of him in five days, let alone live video.
They faked his voice but faking a still photograph is a step too far for the conspiracy? Or is this one of those conspiracies that is masterfully manipulating dozens of world leaders but leaves easily traceable evidence for random guys on the internet to find?
The back-room party honchos decide what they want, and screw their own voters.
Ok so the democrats rigged the primaries to get Biden the nomination, but also these primaries are now the legitimate will of the voters? That's having your cake and eating it.
I can see your point. But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. And if Joe is in as bad shape as he appears to be, it would be better for the country and certainly better for Kamala to just 25A the guy and be done with it.
What difference does it make to the country? The net result is the same.
I'm not a member of the Democratic Party and I never have been.
I do not care one bit whether or not the party organization or its nominating primary process is democratic.
I only care that the Democratic Party is as ruthless, disciplined and united going forward to victory in Roevember 2024 as it was in 2020.
I don't care how they engineered ("forced" "bullied") POTUS to step aside ("palace coup"?) so long as the outcome is a candidate to replace him who can curb stomp The MAGA Cult Clown to Electoral College defeat in just over a hundred days.
In the UK, the Tories were just given their worse electoral beating in two centuries. In France, the right-wingnut populists were defeated by a concerted unity of centrist and leftist parties. The US Democratic Party with moderate independents and "Never Trump" suburban college-educated Republicans together, can do the same thoroughly rejecting the neofascist MAGA-GOP again just like 2020.
THIS ELECTION IS NOW ABOUT TRUMP, LIKE 2020, AND NO LONGER ABOUT BIDEN. :clap:
VPOTUS Harris isn't my first choice by a long shot, but I am confident that with a well-funded, united coalition and superior ground game (especially in the SWING STATES), aided and abetted by the deranged, angry-whining babbling bilge of bullshit The MAGA Cult Clown will continue to senilely spew and sputter this fall after Labor Day when the other 80% of the potental electorate will finally be paying attention, VP Harris (or whomever the nominee is) will win the 2024 election. Civil unrest by MAGA brownshirts & GOP shitheads notwithstanding. :fire: :mask:
Reply to 180 Proof "let's get politically organised by not having a weak nominee" equals fascism when you're a trump turd. For all their differences, in the end progressives and collectivists are always better organised when they believe it's necessary.
Edit: which is why the Democrats are still perfectly positioned to fuck up again because they're neither progressive or collectivists but those that are see the Democratic Party ad the only viable ticket at the moment.
I include on that your state collectivism, legal positivism, Keynesianism, activism. Your prevalence for organization is simply the manifestation of the fasces as you engage in politics.
Joe Biden was discarded by the same billionaire class he assiduously served throughout his political career. Barely able to stumble his way through the words on a Teleprompter and not always cognizant of what is happening around him, his billionaire supporters pulled the plug. He was their creature – he has been in federal office for 47 years - from start to finish. He was used as a foil to defeat Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primaries and was anointed as the candidate in 2024 in a Soviet-style primary campaign. The billionaire class will now anoint someone else. Democratic Party voters are stage props in this political farce. Donald Trump, unlike Kamala Harris or any other apparatchik the billionaire class selects as a presidential candidate, has a genuine and committed base, however fascistic.
In Hitler and the Germans, the political philosopher Eric Vogelin dismisses the idea that Hitler — gifted in oratory and political opportunism but poorly educated and vulgar — mesmerized and seduced the German people. The Germans, he writes, supported Hitler and the “grotesque, marginal figures” surrounding him because he embodied the pathologies of a diseased society, one beset by economic collapse and hopelessness. Voegelin defines stupidity as a “loss of reality.” The loss of reality means a “stupid” person cannot “rightly orient his action in the world, in which he lives.” The demagogue, who is always an idiote, is not a freak or social mutation. The demagogue expresses the society’s zeitgeist.
Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs. As I write in America, The Farewell Tour, this assault on the working class created a crisis that forced the ruling elites to devise a new political paradigm. Trumpeted by a compliant media, this paradigm shifted its focus from the common good to race, crime and law and order. Biden was at the epicenter of this paradigm shift. Those undergoing profound economic and political change were told that their suffering stemmed not from rampant militarism and corporate greed but from a threat to national integrity. The old consensus that buttressed New Deal programs and the welfare state was attacked as enabling criminal Black youth, “welfare queens” and other alleged social parasites. This opened the door to a faux populism, begun by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, which supposedly championed family values, traditional morality, individual autonomy, law and order, the Christian faith and the return to a mythical past, at least for white Americans. The Democratic Party, especially under Bill Clinton and Biden, became largely indistinguishable from the establishment Republican Party to which it is now allied.
The Democratic Party refuses to accept its responsibility for the capture of democratic institutions by a rapacious oligarchy, the grotesque social inequality, the cruelty of predatory corporations and an unchecked militarism. The Democrats will anoint another amoral politician, probably Harris, to use as a mask for outsized corporate greed, the folly of endless war, the facilitation of genocide and the assault on our most basic civil liberties. The Democrats, tools of Wall Street, gave us Trump, and the 74 million people who voted for him in 2020. They look set to give us Trump again. God help us.
Reply to Mikie Muh Hitler. Muh Germany. Not comparable. If Operation Paperclip hadn't happened, your "country" would be less relevant than Canada. And I don't know who Chris Hedges or Eric Voegelin are, but Chris Hedges' rendition of Voegelin is an idiotic idea. Germany was a diseased society during Weimar with prostitution of all ages and shemale bars. Hitler campaigned exactly against that. How can someone who campaigns against a disease embody the pathologies? It can't, even if Hitler later came to embody different diseases.
Ironically, everything that the "grotesque, marginal" Göbbels said about Burgerland 100 years ago still applies today, and the entire planet would agree:
One is never sure which of two characteristics is more prominent in the American national character and therefore of the greater significance: naivete or a superiority complex. When for example they say things about our region, our surprise at their ignorance is surpassed only by annoyance at their stupid insolence. The less they know about a matter, the more confidently they speak. They really believe that Europeans are eagerly waiting to hear from them and heed their advice.
[...]
They cannot believe that there are cultural values that are the result of centuries of historical development, which cannot simply be bought. It was no bad joke when, after the war, they bought the ruins of German castles and moved them stone by stone to the USA. They really thought that they had purchased a piece of national history embodied in stone, and were naive enough to think that mocking laughter from Europe was respect for the wealth that enabled them to buy what their own tradition and culture lacked.
If someone who is grotesque and marginal can reproduce correct moral judgement of you, there is a lot of soul searching you should, but yet:
We would not say anything if the USA were aware of its intellectual and moral defects and was trying to grow up.
The constant comparison with Germany (and other countries) is not genuine because the comparisons are always illiterate. It is instead a sorry attempt from both sides of the political aisle to input culture and history to a country that has none.
Reply to NOS4A2 Your lack of knowledge of political organisation shines through when you insist on collectivism being statist. Your don't know what you're talking about because you've never spend the time to actually study the subject. You're not dumb simply uninformed and uneducated and entirely boring as a result.
Germany was a diseased society during Weimar with prostitution of all ages and shemale bars. Hitler campaigned exactly against that. How can someone who campaigns against a disease embody the pathologies? It can't, even if Hitler later came to embody different diseases.
Oh, can you pinpoint for us when Hitler went from an anti-shemale-bar-campaigner to the guy who wanted to remake Europe according to his racial ideology?
Ironically, everything that the "grotesque, marginal" Göbbels said about Burgerland 100 years ago still applies today, and the entire planet would agree:
Of all the things I did not expect to read to today, a reverent recitation of Goebbels (his name is actually written without the Umlaut), is probably the thing I expected the least.
I think this is somewhat misleading. The demagogue taps into the dissatisfaction of some portion of society and promises to fix things. In part he does this by setting up a scapegoat. Eliminate the scapegoat and you eliminate the problem.
Unfortunately, and I think inadvertently, Hedges contributes to the problem when he says such things as:
Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.
Is there a generally agreed upon cause of deindustrialization? Has it been clearly shown that Biden and the Democratic party are responsible? Why does Hedges blame the Democrats?
What you really got was the transformation of the Democratic party into the Republican party.
When he blames democrats for becoming republicans I take it he is doing two things. The first is historical analysis. The second is to tell democrats that they have lost their way and need to reorient themselves. But things might look quite different when he places the blame at the feet of the Democratic party. This might be taken and used as a sound bite endorsement of the Republicans.
But I still think that incumbency is very powerful.
Right. Incumbency IS very powerful, BUT as the calendar says, the November election is a little over 100 days away. No matter what the POTUS or VPOTUS does or doesn't do from July 23 onward, it's going to be a tough scramble.
No surprise here: our economy and politics are run by overlapping elites. That fact provides so much of the story behind the headlines. That, and the rocket-engine personal drive of people who want to be at the top, be they Democrats or Republicans. It takes a lot of drive to get to, and stay at, the top anywhere.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the prime example of holding on to his high office when he was in seriously failing health. Wilson planned on a third term, too, but had a stroke in October, 1919. Nixon held on till he faced impeachment and probably forced removal from office. Reagan served with diminished faculties. Trump has a now very familiar problem with the reality situation.
[quote=VPOTUS Kamala Harris (D-CA)]I waa a courtroom prosecutor ... I took on perpetrators of all kind: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped-off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say,I know Donald Trump's type.[/quote]
I don't care how they engineered ("forced" "bullied") POTUS to step aside ("palace coup"?) so long as the outcome is a candidate to replace him who can curb stomp The MAGA Cult Clown to Electoral College defeat in just over a hundred days.
Yeah, I'm very cynical when it comes to why no one has just put the facts out there. It seems even the lots of the 'left wing' so called 'liberal' mainstream media see neutral to positive Trump coverage and the repetition of propaganda as a means to an end. Profit is the sole motive. The more viewers the better in those terms.
I'm not sold on Harris' motivations. Or should I say, I'm not very confident that she has the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans at heart. That said, Trump and the republican congress members who were/are complicit in his committing fraud against the United States of America need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There were many of his actions that were not performed under the recent protective language of SCOTUS's immunity decision.
A very large share of Germans cooperated with the Nazi regime because non-cooperation (let alone opposition) was a high-risk choice. Yes, Post-WWI Germany was hungry, bitter, and resentful and was ready to punish somebody for their loss in the war and their further humiliation in the peace agreement. And yes, after WWII, many Germans sang the I Was Not a Nazi Polka
Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.
Deindustrialization began long before Biden won his first local election. The leather, shoe, and woven textile and clothing industries in New England started outsourcing manufacturing before WWII, and continued after WWII. Other industries followed suit over time. Cheap, non-unionized labor was irresistible. Other factors also contributed to job losses, among them automation. It took fewer workers to run a new, more efficient steel mill. Automation increased the per-man-hour of productivity, so fewer workers were needed. Moving unskilled manufacturing to benefit from extremely cheap labor costs picked up speed in the 1970s.
I don't want to let the political and economic elites off the hook -- their policies devastated broad swathes of America. Did Biden behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Will Trump behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Ditto for Harris.
Just last week: Biden tanking with donors and polls. Trump shot and gets a photo-op. Picks a VP. RNC convention. Elon Musk endorses. One lawsuit thrown out.
Old news. He already peaked, and too early. All downhill from here. Could still pull it off, but what a difference a week makes from the hysterics.
A lot more are calling it a coup than are claiming the earth is flat. What would you call it? The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup.
Biden did make a brief appearance today. So the narrative has gone from "Sharp as a tack" to "Remarkably lifelike." Still no idea who is running the country.
Of course the MSM spin is that Joe is a patriot for gracefully putting his country first. Caesar stepped down gracefully the same way.
He's the old one now. Kam at least has put some youth into our political process. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
If anything we can now test the theory of whether replacing one of the two unpopular candidates would ensure their victory. I mean Kamala is far from a generic Democrat, but it seems like voters don't really know much about her apart from her being VP and both sides are scrambling to define her right now so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Just last week: Biden tanking with donors and polls. Trump shot and gets a photo-op. Picks a VP. RNC convention. Elon Musk endorses. One lawsuit thrown out.
Old news. He already peaked, and too early. All downhill from here. Could still pull it off, but what a difference a week makes from the hysterics.
I don't think it was intentional but Biden dropping out right after the RNC when the GOP was doing a victory lap with Trump's vanity VP pick was probably the worst time for that to happen to them. The race is reset and the party is now stuck with a flawed running mate, a wasted convention, and thousands of carefully crafted Biden dementia ads that will probably never see the light of day.
[quote=WaPo;https://wapo.st/3WkjWzM]Kelly’s credentials begin with his dazzling biography as a combat-tested Navy pilot and NASA astronaut who commanded shuttle missions aboard both the Discovery and Endeavour and traveled more than 20 million miles in space.
He has also turned out to be a supremely skillful politician in a tough state where the Biden-Harris ticket has been running behind. Kelly won a close race in 2020 to fill the unexpired term of John McCain (R) and then turned around to win it again two years later — this time, with a more comfortable five-point margin against a hard-right Republican election conspiracy theorist endorsed by Donald Trump.
Border Politics: “When I first got to Washington, it didn’t take me long to realize that there are a lot of Democrats who don’t understand our southern border and a lot of Republicans who just want to talk about it, don’t necessarily want to do anything about it, just want to use it politically,” he told me shortly after his 2022 victory. “So my approach has been — to the extent that we could and can — to make progress on securing it, but also doing it in a way that’s in accordance with our ethics and our values, not to demonize people.”[/quote]
The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup.
They stabbed him in the chest, not the back. It was very visible and very public. Nothing hidden or conspiratorial about it.
Even before the debate the common refrain was that Biden must demonstrate that he's not senile. He didn't. Biden had a lot of support at the time but he was not unassailable as the candidate. And in fact he failed to weather the storm. Nothing about this resembles a "coup", no organised group seized power in an orchestrated operation. One man lost his backing and the best placed person moved into the resulting vacuum.
When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup.
I had to go and look that up, but that's absolutely crazy. Mob level shit.
Reply to Tzeentch What is? So far I've only seen inferences, which is mostly wishful thinking from GOPhers. The DNC would've had options during their convention to sideline Biden within the rules as well.
A lot more are calling it a coup than are claiming the earth is flat. What would you call it? The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup.
I wager that this little story is not over. The 25th amendment is invoked by the vice president and the cabinet. The vice president is Kamala Harris. Now she is the candidate for president. That’s a real, third-world coup, and that’s how desperate they are.
What is? So far I've only seen inferences, which is mostly wishful thinking from GOPhers. The DNC would've had options during their convention to sideline Biden within the rules as well.
Imagine Rutte saying something along the lines of "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" to get Yesilgöz to drop out of the seat of party leader. (Doesn't translate perfectly to Dutch politics, but I think you catch my meaning)
Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public.
Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public.
Why? What do you think "the hard way" implies that makes it unthinkable? Power struggles within parties do happen, and they do often get pretty ugly, though not as often publicly ugly.
I thought it was annoying when Harris' critics panned her as a "DEI hire" when they should perhaps focus on her horrible politics. But in trying to discover whether in fact Kamala Harris was chosen for reasons of DEI, one can't help to find that "racial diversity" was a big concern for Biden when selecting a vice president, but only after promising he was going to select a woman.
Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader, said race had been essential to Mr. Biden’s decision.
“I think he came to the conclusion that he should pick a Black woman,” Mr. Reid said. “They are our most loyal voters and I think that the Black women of America deserved a Black vice-presidential candidate.”
The demands to pick a black woman are growing louder, and not just from black voters. Polling from a Politico/Morning Consult survey this week found 46% of Democrats say it's important for Biden to choose a candidate of color as his running mate. That's up from 36% in early April.
Former DNC Chair and 2o04 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said he's witnessed an evolution in his own thinking in just the past two weeks.
"I haven't lived through a time like this since 1968," he said. Dean said prior to the past few weeks, he thought having a black running mate "would have been nice." Now he thinks it's critical.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden committed Sunday to picking a woman for his vice president if he were to win the party’s nomination.
Speaking during a CNN-hosted primary debate with fellow candidate Bernie Sanders, Biden said: “There are a number of women who would be qualified to be president,” and that he would choose a woman as his running mate.
You cannot be seriously encouraging hiring practices which are overtly racist and sexist, diminishing the value and achievement of those marginalised groups in the crosshair? Tbf, you openly wish Trump had been assassinated successfully. It's a shame that otherwise intelligent people let their brains fall out their ass and become moral monsters within politics.
Someone remarked about the similarities between the upcoming DNC convention and the 1968 one.
Back then Johnson backed out of the race, supposedly due to his poor showing in the primaries. The assassination of potential candidate RFK had left supporters disillusioned with the prospects. Given the recent statement of BLM’s opposition to the way Harris was coronated, against their democratic principles, can we expect to see some fireworks at the convention like they had in 1968?
The evasion is only a sign that you do not want to answer, but I suspect it is to hide a contradiction. The dissonance you feel occurs when two contradictory values are colliding, and I suspect these values are your love of power and party versus your sense of justice. In order to rid yourself of that dissonance you need to align them, either by ridding yourself of one of them, or to continue lying to yourself. The change will occur, but I hope it benefits your sense of justice more than your love of power and party. You only really need one of them.
I am outraged that people are given power based on race and gender, yes.
We agree for once, NOS. Here in America we've been "outraged" about thatsince1619 ... 1701 ... 1787 ... (1791-1804) ... 1857 ... 1896 ... 1954 ... 1963 ... and now in 2024 this "outrage" may culminate again (like 2008) in another (merely symbolic?) step up and forward out of America's whitemale caste system. TBD.
Biden’s address: fine. Boring. Underwhelming. Didn’t really answer the question about what changed his mind — but that’s to be expected.
He’s declined over the years, looked too old, and feeble, and donors were panicking. The polls didn’t look great either, even though they’re useless this far out. The Republican attacks would have been too easy after the disaster of a debate. So that was that. I’m surprised the pushback was as intense and sustained as it was.
The DNC and their rules aren’t, and never have been, democratic. They’re about as democratic as the electoral college. In the end, they and their delegates can do whatever the fuck they want. Biden doesn’t have the loyal following that Clownshoes has. The money and the nomination will go up Harris — whether Trump and his worshippers like it or not.
Let them scream about democracy— they lost all rights to even talk about it back in January of ‘21. They can pretend to care about it all the want— and we have the right to laugh in their faces.
I thought the speech was fine. Only that he was obviously reading a prompter, but the point was clear enough. I believe Biden when he says democracy is on the ballot.
Looks like Kamala Harris is the nominee. So far I'm cautiously optimistic. The campaign ought to concentrate on Trump as not a fit and proper person, as he's obviously not, and also on the legislative wins and prospects for the Biden period. I really do think Harris will run rings around Trump on the debate stage but I wouldn't be surprised if we never see that. Trump has reverted to form, hurling insults and incomprensible grievances. How anyone can think he should be electable will forever be beyond me.
Reply to Tzeentch I don't see the problem. If a party leader is clearly incompetent or does things contrary to the principles of the party they ought to be ousted.
If anything we can now test the theory of whether replacing one of the two unpopular candidates would ensure their victory. I mean Kamala is far from a generic Democrat, but it seems like voters don't really know much about her apart from her being VP and both sides are scrambling to define her right now so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Mr Bee, I saw your post last night. As I processed my news stream today it was "top of mind," as KJP once said. I found six items to help people process the Kamala phenomenon. This did come out a bit long, my apologies in advance.
For the record I lived in the San Francisco bay area since the mid 1970s (no longer there) and have followed her career since before she became DA. I'm a seasoned observer of all things Kamala.
So, six recent stories to put Kam in perspective.
1) Brett Stephens questions the rush to coronation.
I've heard that some people can't read past the Times paywall, but it always comes up for me. I'll supply some quotes.
Stephens is described by Wikipedia as a conservative, which perhaps mitigates my point a bit. Still, what he has to say is interesting. It gives people permission to think about putting the brakes on the runaway Kamala train.
[quote=BrettStephens]
The last two times Democrats attempted to stage a coronation instead of a contest in choosing a presidential nominee, it did not go well. Not for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Not for Joe Biden this year.
So why would anyone think it’s a good idea when it comes to Kamala Harris — the all but anointed nominee after barely a day?
Maybe the answer is that a competitive process, either before or during the Democratic convention, would have been divisive and bruising. Or that Harris’s fund-raising advantages over any potential rival were already insuperable. Or that Democratic Party big shots (though not Barack Obama, at least not publicly yet) genuinely think the vice president is the best candidate to beat the former president.
But the one thing the Democratic Party is not supposed to be is anti-democratic — a party in which insiders select the nominee from the top down, not the bottom up, and which expects the rank and file to fall in line and clap enthusiastically. That’s the playbook of ruling parties in autocratic states.
It’s also a recipe for failure. The whole point of a competitive process, even a truncated one, is to discover unsuspected strengths, which is how Obama was able to best Clinton in 2008, and to test for hidden weakness, which is how Harris flamed out as a candidate the last time, before even reaching the Iowa caucus. If there’s evidence that she’s a better candidate now than she was then, she should be given the chance to prove it.[/quote]
A point he makes is that she is a bad manager. Later in the piece he notes:
[quote=Stephens]
The Washington Post reported in December 2021, following a series of high-level staff exits. “Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared."[/quote]
She doesn't put in the work. This point will be echoed in my next link.
2) Kam missed an opportunity today to be seen as the next US president by everyone in the world.
Israel's prime minister Bibi Netanyahu addressed Congress today. Kamala did not attend.
Many Democrats, particularly those on the left, are upset with Israel at the moment and want to make a point of insulting the leader of one of America's strongest allies. That is their right. About half of Congressional Dems chose not to attend.
But Kamala is running for president. She COULD have risen above her partisanship and seized the opportunity to represent herself as the head of State at a moment when there is a power vacuum at the top. (Biden gave speech tonight. I've seen more convincing hostage videos).
Imagine Kamala had gone to the airport to meet Bibi. If she had, every newspaper in the world would have published a front page photograph of Harris, representing the United States, greeting a close ally. One she has differences with, to be sure ... but she'd be seen as rising above politics to perform the duties of a head of State.
Everyone in the world would have seen her as the acting US president.
Instead, here's what she did. She decided to go express her partisanship and boycott Bibi. Instead, she went off to give a speech to a council of black sororities.
The article makes the point, amplifying the reports that she doesn't put in the work, that she doesn't actually want to be bothered with doing the work of being president. She just wants the title and the perks.
In the end she leaned into the you-go-girl feminism that's driving her recent popularity; at the expense of an incredible missed opportunity to present herself to the world as the acting president of the United States.
She demonstrated her terrible political instincts and her unsuitability to be the leader of the free world. She is not up to the job. She doesn't know what the job is. In her mind she's still a leftist making a political point, not a head of State.
This was a very telling episode to understand Kamala Harris.
3) Jamal Trulove.
A black man in San Francisco was wrongly convicted of a murder. As Wiki puts it:
[quote=Wiki]
After he was framed by police for the 2007 murder of an acquaintance, Trulove was convicted in 2010, sentenced to 50 years to life, and imprisoned for six years.
A California appeals court overturned his conviction in 2014 and he was retried in 2015 and acquitted. In 2016 he sued the city of San Francisco. In April 2018 a jury found the two officers accused of framing him guilty of fabricating evidence and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. In 2019 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve a settlement of $13.1 million.[/quote]
The prosecutor on that case was Kamala Harris.
It's very worth noting that Wikipedia does not mention her involvement in this case. Wouldn't it be useful for readers to know that a candidate for president framed a black man for murder and fought against his exoneration?
That's why Wikipedia is not to be trusted on political issues. You see this kind of thing over and over.
[quote=Appeal]
At last week’s Democratic primary debate, Harris rightly won plaudits for confronting Joe Biden on his history of opposing busing. But Harris cannot escape her past as San Francisco DA and California attorney general, which includes wrongful convictions like Trulove’s and inaction in other cases of law enforcement misconduct, including an informant scandal that consumed the Orange County DA’s office and its sheriff’s department. If Harris does not reckon with her failures in the criminal legal system, she could find herself in Biden’s position at the next debate: defending the indefensible. [/quote]
4) A Facebook meme is going around to the effect that as California Attorney General, Harris put 1500 black men in jail for smoking pot.
The article went on to admit that she imprisoned 1974 people for weed ... but that some of them might not have been black men. Some were women or whites.
You call that a debunking?
After she was no longer Attorney General, she told black radio host Charlamagne tha God that "I have. And I inhaled – I did inhale. It was a long time ago. But, yes"
That's Harris in a nutshell. When she wants to look tough on crime, she throws pot smokers in prison. When she wants to look cool, she tells a black radio host she smoked weed.
She stands for nothing. She has no beliefs, no principles, and no convictions. She says and does whatever she thinks will bring momentary advantage to her ambition.
5) BLM agrees with Bret Stephens.
People who've followed Harris's career know her record of incarcerating black men. That's why today, Black Lives Matter came out against her un-democratic coronation.
[quote=BlackLivesMatter]
Black Lives Matter demands that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) immediately host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country prior to the DNC convention in August. We call for the Rules Committee to create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates. The current political landscape is unprecedented, with President Biden stepping aside in a manner never seen before. This moment calls for decisive action to protect the integrity of our democracy and the voices of Black voters.[/quote]
They go on to enumerate complaints similar to ones I've made recently. That the DNC rigged their primaries. That "the DNC Party elites and billionaire donors bullied Joe Biden out of the race."
Black women tend to like Kamala. Black men often don't. I don't have the statistics but there are a lot of black people coming out against Kamala online today. In her disastrous 2020 campaign (that ended in 2019), she polled badly with blacks.
6) Two striking instances of Orwellian retconning of her past.
- A study by GovTrack, "an organization that tracks congressional voting records," showed that in 2019 Kamala Harris was the most liberal Senator.
Today, that web page is gone. "But the web page with the ranking, which was widely covered in news reports during the 2020 election, was recently deactivated. The link now displays a "Page Not Found" message. The Internet Archive shows the page was deleted sometime between July 10 and July 23, with some on X claiming the page was still up on July 22."
- In 2021 Biden had a crisis on the border, the result of his overturning all of Trump's policies that were keeping a lid on the problem. Biden appointed Kamala border czar. She did nothing at all except humiliate herself in an interview with Lester Holt. When he called her on her lie that she'd been to the border, she said "I haven't been to Europe, either." Classic Kamala. Great with a scripted line, but defensive and careless when speaking off the cuff. You know the clip. People were shocked when they saw it. Liberals especially. They had no idea.
The border is therefore a legitimate line of criticism from the Republicans. So what are the leftist media doing? Denying she was ever the border czar. If you claim Kamala was ever the border czar, you're repeating Republican propaganda.
Axios ran a story today (Wednesday) that Harris "never actually had" the title of border czar.
Of course numerous critics quickly pointed out that they had indeed claimed exactly that. Axios said, "After being called out, Axios issued an editor’s note to acknowledge that “Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ back in 2021.""
Of course they were not incorrect in 2021. They were caught lying today when they claimed she wasn't the border czar. There are dozens of news videos showing Dem politicians and MSM reporters calling her the border czar at the time.
This Orwellian retconning is exactly what Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, did for a living. He made news accounts of the past conform to the ever-changing party narrative of the present. In the digital age it's all too easy.
Well that's my curated list of Kamala miscellany this evening.
It's possible that Hollywood and the media will sanitize her past, coronate her, and get her over the top. She could win. I still give her a 25% chance. She's having a Brat summer dontcha know.
Or, the Kamala scam could blow up the way the Biden scam did, and the American people will hand the Democrats a defeat for the ages.
In which case they'll blame it on racism and sexism and learn nothing.
I watched the Biden speech tonight. I've seen more believable hostage videos.
As I understand it, he is not quitting the race for any particular reason; only "for the good of democracy." Meaning ignoring the will of fourteen million Democratic primary voters and replacing it with the decision of some Hollywood actors and big party donors.
With respect only to his speech; that is, if you woke up from a year long coma and just saw his speech on tv tonight; why is Biden quitting the race? Can a president really get away with competing in primaries rigged for his nomination; keep insisting to the end that he is running; and then drop out while giving no reason at all?
Are people going to buy this Soviet-level plot? Have we at last come to this?
Even before the debate the common refrain was that Biden must demonstrate that he's not senile. He didn't. Biden had a lot of support at the time but he was not unassailable as the candidate. And in fact he failed to weather the storm. Nothing about this resembles a "coup", no organised group seized power in an orchestrated operation. One man lost his backing and the best placed person moved into the resulting vacuum.
They rigged their primary to get him nominated. They've been running a scam for three years. It blew up. But he is the legitimately nominated candidate. The insiders threatened him with God knows what, and he gave in. That's a coup.
I mean probably the same people who run it most of the time? It's not like the president is required for day to day decisions.
So we don't actually have a president, just a figurehead run by an invisible cabal? We all knew that was true, but isn't it significant that this has now been demonstrated in public?
And in a crisis, is there or isn't there an executive decision maker? And who, exactly, is that right now?
It's half a coup. There's no president. This is very unseemly and there are great risks to this country right now. The Dems have arguably committed treason. They didn't lawfully 25A him. They did something unlawful. You want to defend that, knock yourself out.
I wager that this little story is not over. The 25th amendment is invoked by the vice president and the cabinet. The vice president is Kamala Harris. Now she is the candidate for president. That’s a real, third-world coup, and that’s how desperate they are.
They won't 25A him. They've just humiliated him, forced him to make a hostage video, and left a huge power vacuum at the top of the government. This could blow up very badly in the next six months.
No surprise here: our economy and politics are run by overlapping elites.
Never so obvious before. Propping up Biden for four years then swapping him out in a humiliating operation, if someone doesn't want to call it a coup. There will be repercussions from all this that are hard to see at the moment, but they won't be good.
They rigged their primary to get him nominated. They've been running a scam for three years. It blew up. But he is the legitimately nominated candidate. The insiders threatened him with God knows what, and he gave in. That's a coup.
I think we just don't agree on what a coup is. To me, not every power struggle that the incumbent loses is a coup.
To me, a coup is an organised movement using illegal or at least extra legal means to seize power swiftly, creating a fait accompli that pre-empts organised resistance. Usually by isolating the centre of power and preventing it from rallying it's supporters.
The slowly building pressure on Biden under which his campaign ultimately collapsed doesn't fit, imho.
So we don't actually have a president, just a figurehead run by an invisible cabal? We all knew that was true, but isn't it significant that this has now been demonstrated in public?
I don't really understand the show of indignation here. I'm sure you didn't just realise that the USA have a huge bureaucratic apparatus and that the president isn't actually required to make day to day decisions?
The cabal is less invisible than ignored. Most people just don't really think about how the government actually runs.
And in a crisis, is there or isn't there an executive decision maker? And who, exactly, is that right now?
That is a much better question. It's impossible to know without having information from within the "war room". But even being in a situation where you're no longer sure whether the president is still capable of making emergency decisions is bad.
It's half a coup. There's no president. This is very unseemly and there are great risks to this country right now. The Dems have arguably committed treason. They didn't lawfully 25A him. They did something unlawful. You want to defend that, knock yourself out.
I agree it's unseemly. I'm not as worried though. At the end of the day there have always been weaker and stronger presidents. Under a weak president, power will tend to devolve to the VP, department heads and advisors. The fact that Biden's weakness is age related doesn't in and of itself make it more dangerous.
I remember that everyone agreed that GW Bush was a fucking idiot. But noone called it treason.
I was kind of hoping Biden would take a stand from the Oval Office and let his voters and constituents know that he is not just some weak, husk of a human being, and push back against The Party. But no; as his last act of cowardice and corruption and lies, he reminds everyone who he has always been, and submits to the will of his party elites and donors. Now we have to pretend he is running the country for the next six months.
I don't really understand the show of indignation here. I'm sure you didn't just realise that the USA have a huge bureaucratic apparatus and that the president isn't actually required to make day to day decisions?
If there were a crisis, there's nobody making executive decisions. That's very dangerous for all of us.
That is a much better question. It's impossible to know without having information from within the "war room". But even being in a situation where you're no longer sure whether the president is still capable of making emergency decisions is bad.
I agree it's unseemly. I'm not as worried though. At the end of the day there have always been weaker and stronger presidents. Under a weak president, power will tend to devolve to the VP, department heads and advisors. The fact that Biden's weakness is age related doesn't in and of itself make it more dangerous.
Even in deciding not to run, Joe Biden did something Trump could never do - which was to put the interests of the Party and the nation above his own.
I’m not particularly swayed by the euphoria sorrounding Harris today. Let’s see how it plays out over the weeks and months ahead (although there’s not that many of them.) I think it is true to say that it’s the politics of hope against the politics of hate and fear. All Trump has, is hate and fear. Harris is a ‘psychopath’, the country is ‘being overrun by Mexican rapists’, Democrats are ‘radical communists’. He has nothing positive to say - no policies, no ideas, no real platform. In the end it will probably come down to the progressive/diversity vote vs the scared old white guys vote (which is why the Republicans have been frantically gerrymandering the last ten years). But I hope and believe the former will have the numbers in the end.
Even in deciding not to run, Joe Biden did something Trump could never do - which was to put the interests of the Party and the nation above his own.
I’m not particularly swayed by the euphoria sorrounding Harris today. Let’s see how it plays out over the weeks and months ahead (although there’s not that many of them.) I think it is true to say that it’s the politics of hope against the politics of hate and fear.
If Harris does make a major misstep in the next few weeks, I wonder who the powers that be will replace her with so that I can know who to vote for. I think the total vote count for the candidate of the party that hails itself as the protector of democracy is zero, as in exactly zero people voted for her to be the Democratic nominee.
What happened has nothing to do with love for country and selflessness. It has to do with the Democrats having selected Biden as the nominee, blocking any other candidate from running against him, denying he had become mentally incompetent over objections by the right, finally being exposed and realizing they couldn't win with him, and then forcing him out and finding someone they thought might be able to win.
I'm not saying anything positive about the Republicans here. I'm just refusing to pretend that some higher ideals drove the Democrats, that there is anything particularly democratic about the Democrats, or that either side is interested in anything other than maintaining power.
Well, now that the Democrats have gotten rid of Biden, what are the chances that the GOP is gonna get rid of their weirdo? No, not the old one that's 78 and rambles incoherently on occasion but his running mate who apparently is so bad that he's dragging his boss down. It's only been a week since he was chosen but now there's already talk about replacing him.
I know they’re going to win the election. The rigging and cheating has already begun. Not a single person has voted for Harris and she’s already the nominee.
I’ve been doing the same thing for years, but now it’s entertaining. Now you feel the need to fake laugh about it for some reason. Is something wrong, Benkei?
The cracks are emerging. That feeling in your brain is the cognitive dissonance. It’s when two contradictory values collide. You know what’s going on is wrong but you don’t want to admit it because it makes your tribe look bad, so naturally, you try to deflect it on someone else. But that’s your body telling you to quit lying. The stress of it all is too much. It isn’t healthy. It’s ok to let it go.
Reply to NOS4A2
It's that Vance's approval rating sucks and he doesn't balance the ticket. People think it was a mistake. Trump isn't known for loyalty, so maybe he'll ditch the guy.
Everyone already forgets the historic month of July: the unprecedented palace coup by Obama Inc. and the attempted assassination of their folk devil, president Trump. It’s already back to “Trump said…” before the month is even out.
President Harris and her puppet Biden calls for anti-constitutional reforms to the Supreme Court, which appears to be the last line of defense against their authoritarian rule.
I’m just kidding, frank. What do you think about Biden’s proposal?
Well, having no term limits on the SCOTUS means that it reflects the way Americans have been voting over the span of a generation or so. That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. Historically, it works for us to have that temporal anchor. Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob.
I wouldn't change it just because we're irritated by where we landed with the court. For democracy to work, you need to have a little faith in it.
That's also true with trading. Once you settle on a strategy, you need to have the discipline to let your strategy work. Sometimes you lose, even with a good strategy. You have to accept that and think about the long term
That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades.
The reason the Court is now so conservative is because McConnell blocked Obama's nominee and Trump, who lost the popular vote, went with the Federalist Society's recommendations.
According to Politico:
Our research shows the Court took a sharp swerve two years ago — and its decisions now closely mirror the views of the average Republican, not the average American.
According to the Pew Research Center, favorable views of the Supreme Court have fallen to an historic low.
Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob.
The Founders worked to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority can be just as dangerous. And when lifetime appointments reflect the will of that minority we are all dragged down by a mob calling itself "patriots" and "the people".
A term limit of 10 or 15 years combined with staggered start dates seems long enough to counteract changing whims.
Reply to NOS4A2 Sleepy Joe is (again) a day late and dollar short. Here's more disingenuous grist for your MAGA-grievance mill, NOS: a late-2020 post of mine on equitable 'SCOTUS reform' ...
I’m beginning to think Tim Waltz is the best choice for Harris after hearing him interviewed. Supposedly it’s down to Kelly, Shapiro, and him. I was thinking Shapiro because he’d potentially lock up PA. But I’m leaning towards Waltz now…which probably means Harris will pick Kelly.
Could you explain how misinformation works? Is it supposed to be picked up by bots? Is it supposed to become part of a cloud of misinformation so that people don't trust anything anymore?
Could you explain how misinformation works? Is it supposed to be picked up by bots? Is it supposed to become part of a cloud of misinformation so that people don't trust anything anymore?
It doesn’t work. Those with some modicum of governing power use the phrase as an excuse to censor information, which does work. But it does have some technical use insofar as it distinguishes between various types of information, for instance false info, knowingly false info with intent to mislead, and so on.
Reply to Mikie I still think Gretchen Whitmer would be the best VP candidate: an attractive white woman, popular governor of a large swing state, target of a wingnut Trumper/MAGA-affiliated kidnapping conspiracy in 2020; very smart politician, pro-civil rights, pro-labor & pro-choice. Checks more boxes than the other prospects. Makes too much sense and that's why Harris & her team probably won't pick Whitmer.
Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes.
:lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:
LOL. Like Caesar decided not to be head of the Roman empire.
Where do you get such nonsense? Seriously, you actually believe what you wrote? That Biden, the great statesman, woke up and decided not to run of his own volition? At the end of the USSR, the people stopped believing Pravda. You still believe.
Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama called Biden and told him that Kamala was on board using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.
Hersh's Substack is behind a paywall, but his information has been widely repeated.
Rachel Maddow points out that Trump has said on a number of recent occasions that ‘I don’t need your votes, we have plenty of votes’. She also notes around 70 known 2020 election deniers have found their way into management positions in electoral offices in swing states. Trump/MAGA has form trying to stitch up or throw elections and will have had plenty of time to work on it this time around. I wouldn’t like to believe it, but I also wouldn’t put it past them.
At some point his public speaking style changed from that of a fifth grader struggling to do a report on a book he had not read to that of a third rate comic doing borscht belt shtick.
Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama called Biden and told him that Kamala was on board using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.
Unfortunately Seymour Hersh has been on a downward trend for 10 years now, with increasingly fanciful takes on events which, unlike his previous work, have not later been corroborated. I would not take his word as gospel these days.
Unfortunately Seymour Hersh has been on a downward trend for 10 years now, with increasingly fanciful takes on events which, unlike his previous work, have not later been corroborated. I would not take his word as gospel these days.
I take your point that Hersh, for all his achievements, has had some misfires over the years. He's certainly no spring chicken. He broke the story of the My Lai massacre in 1969.
I mentioned Hersh to show that there is an alternative narrative in the news to @Wayfarer's claim, stated as fact though it's nothing of the kind, that Biden left of his own free will.
But I don't need Hersh to make my point. Biden was forced out. Wayfarer's claim that "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run," is opinion, not fact. And on its face, it's not even a particularly well-informed opinion. The facts reported by the mainstream outlets like the NYT and WaPo support the forced out narrative.
Following the debate debacle, first the low-level Dems came out against Joe. Then George Clooney. I don't remember voting for George Clooney to be the arbiter of when the duly nominated candidate may be shoved aside. But he looks good on camera and speaks words written by others. Good enough for me.
Then the big dogs, Jeffries and Schumer. And in the end, the REALLY big dogs. Pelosi and Obama. And Joe finally gave in.
If he even did give in. On Saturday he reiterated that he was dug in and staying. Then they announced he had covid. There were unconfirmed reports that he suffered a medical emergency.
Then on Sunday someone posted to X a letter bearing a signature clearly not Biden's, saying he was dropping out of the race. And then a few minutes later another letter endorsing Kamala.
Can we even convince ourselves that he knew he was dropping out? More likely they posted the letters then presented Joe the facts of life as a fait accompli.
Five days then go by with no sighting. Then he shows up for his 11 minute hostage video. And since then, if what little we've seen of Biden is supposed to constitute proof of life, I would not pay the ransom.
The day after the greatest humiliation of his political life, his wife flits off to Paris to lead the US Olympic delegation. She's been all over the news cozying up to hunky athletes and hobnobbing with the Macrons and the other beautiful people.
And we're supposed to sit back and accept all this. The Democrats do, but that's only because they've abandoned their critical thinking in favor of momentary political gain.
I think it's perfectly fair to say Joe was forced out. I don't claim to know what really happened behind the scenes. Only that the evidence that's been reported supports what Josh Hammer, writing in Newsweek, called a "bloodless coup."
[quote=Newsweek]
The Democratic Party ruling class's bloodless coup of their own democratically elected presidential nominee, who also happens to be the nominal sitting president of the United States, is one of the most astonishing political developments of my lifetime. Joe Biden, though clearly physically and mentally impaired, has sought the presidency for quite literally longer than I have been alive. Biden had been defiant ever since the June 27 presidential debate debacle that he was not going anywhere, despite overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs demanding he do precisely that. He has a Lady Macbeth-like wife who craves power, and he has a felonious son in desperate need of a presidential pardon.
[/quote]
Overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs. That's what it means that Joe was forced out. Whether there was a little good-old fashioned extortion at the end, and exactly what that extortion consisted of, seems beside the point.
I did say earlier that Biden's exit was not by "lawful means." I retract that. It was lawful. At least they didn't give him the Julius Caesar treatment on the floor of the Senate. Unless they already have and we just don't know it. Perhaps Wayfarer was only reacting to that over-statement of mine, in which case he's right. But he said, "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run."
Nobody believes that.
And not that it matters, what with a hot war between Israel and Hezbollah about to break out ... but where's the President? Who's minding the store? And why isn't anyone but me worried?
You think Anthony Blinken has a freaking clue? You're more sanguine than I.
DonOLD The Clown – adjudicated¹ ra[c/p]ist, MAGA-GOP candidate for "dictator-for-a-day"– who is very afraid of a much younger & stronger, incredibly smarter, and charismatic black woman (who happens to be the current VPOTUS) and too chickenshit – must be them ol' "bonespurs" – to debate her in the fall.
Reply to fishfry This is as usual written by people who barely understand what a democracy is and what a political party is. Biden was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party not the "democratically elected presidential nominee". The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. Biden could either leave on his own, or get booted during the convention. In fact, it would be a breach of trust towards Democratic voters to allow an incompetent, senile grey-tufted old fogey to run as the nominee all but ensuring Democratic values would not be pursued for 4 years due to losing the presidency.
The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention.
The worst is they lied and covered for Biden’s condition for years. So not only did they nullify the primaries and deny the votes of tens of millions of people with their palace coup, they did so only because they couldn’t keep up the charade any longer.
Votes and elections and so-called democratic institutions mean very little to them in principle. It’s probably why they dropped the “threat to democracy” schtick and went with calling their opponents “weird”. But remember all this when they avail you of the sanctity of elections.
I don’t think it sticks because it implies those who say it are in some way normal. For instance they just had a whites-only Harris rally. The years of child-sniffing and gender ideology and hoaxes kind of renders it hilarious.
But the speed with which the phrase was downloaded and installed in pliant brains was quite extraordinary. It’s like Skynet.
Reply to NOS4A2
You're right on both counts. It highlights the way Harris is normal compared to Trump and Vance. And it's catchy. Trump is probably secretly applauding it. It's something he'd be proud of.
The dropping of Biden does indeed seem like a coup from within the party. I’m glad the DNC can move quickly and efficiently, as long as another milquetoast neoliberal career politician is waiting in the wings. They rallied against Bernie too, very effectively. Good for them. It’s as admirable as the Republicans turning themselves into slobbering slaves for a degenerate con man in 8 years. The groupthink and loyalty is off the charts. Cultists, every one of them.
The whole “weird” thing was fine, coming out of Waltz’s mouth. Now that it’s become a “thing,” it’s cringey and pathetic.
It was awesome. The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik. The other two were at least professional. But the whole thing was sabotage from the get-go, and it made them and their organization look like a shit-show. Kamala avoided it like the plague.
At any rate, nativists and racists would be unhappy about Trump’s statements.
schopenhauer1August 01, 2024 at 20:15#9221260 likes
The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik.
I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.
I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.
Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so. Personally I see nothing wrong with it, especially when it's defensive in nature, as it was against most of the comments she mentions, painted as they were in identity politics. Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician.
Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents. That wasn't what was going on with that one particular journo. What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest. The journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process. But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though.
schopenhauer1August 01, 2024 at 21:24#9221330 likes
Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so.
Yeah, Trump's rhetoric is just "normal" political rhetoric. No difference in content or style whatsoever from other US politicians running in the last 60 years or so :roll:.
Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician.
Or how about just a politician and not a crazy juvenile-sounding name-calling reality show host/failed real estate celebrity using xenophobic/bigotted language to whip up his base?
Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents.
In this case, it's informing us of Trump's rhetoric and why some might take offense to it, understandably. Of course he can get away with anything, right? As long as he pivots and says "I love (put identity group here)". As long as he does that anything he says before that is okie dokie, is that right?
What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest.
Trump's whole existence is about smearing. Obama wasn't born a US citizen, if you remember? Now Kamala is not half black? WTF? Trump is above identity politics. Sure is.
he journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process.
Well, that shouldn't be hard, he is a silly, unserious person. Frankly, any journalist should be able to make him look silly.
But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though.
Again, any other politician, probably a fair point. He acts like a belligerent asshole, who is reckless with his rhetoric, he should be treated like one.
"And when [DJT] attacks, he reveals a bit of himself; and what we saw was an elderly, obese, orange-tinted racist with a comb-over." ~Steve Schmidt, Never Trumper & former GOP campaign official :up:
Yeah, keep running your trashy, gutter mouth, DonOLD The Clown. :sweat:
"This" meaning the post I wrote? Or the Newsweek article I quoted? Unclear whether I need to defend what I think, or what Newsweek thinks. Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why. You saw the same escalating pressure on Biden that I did. You saw that he was dug in right up to the Saturday before the Sunday he dropped out. You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.
You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom.
You can spin this all you want as "statesman Joe" being a great patriot. That's the public face of a nasty back room business. Anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history and politics knows that.
is as usual written by people who barely understand what a democracy is and what a political party is.
Democracy has many meanings. Democracy as in the vote of the people, or an abstract word casually applied to our political system. But we are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. Our system is designed as a Constitutional republic, a Federal system of (in principle) autonomous states with rights and powers that sometimes supersede those of the Federal government.
Of course you know all this. You are playing fast and loose with the word democracy as if it's a talisman against anyone who holds a different opinion.
Biden was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party not the "democratically elected presidential nominee".
He won fourteen million primary votes. He won over 3800 delegates, to his collective opponents' 43 or so. He had twice the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.
Kamala Harris, by contrast, got zero delegates when she was forced, by lack of popularity, out of the 2020 primaries before the elections even began. She did not run in the 2024 primaries, which were rigged for Biden, only for the Dems to shove him aside when they could no longer hide his cognitive troubles.
It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it. It's like the line in the film Patton, where George C. Scott as Patton says, "We defend democracy here, we don't practice it." But he was talking about the Army. The Democratic party does not do democracy. They swindled their voters in 2016, as even Biden pointed out recently; saying that he could have beaten Trump, and that Hillary, whom the party insiders elevated against the will of the voters, couldn't. And didn't.
They swindled their voters again in 2020 with the Clyburn deal, elevating Biden over several more popular liberals.
It's an opinion piece. I don't claim they're right or wrong. Only that prominent observers see what I see, and ask the same questions. I have no investment in these links, they just popped up near the top when I put in my keywords about democracy and the coronation of Kamala.
Here's a legal site with a provocative title on-topic to our conversation:
Confused appeals to democracy. Exactly what you just did. Kamala's ascent was anything but democratic. It's you who "barely understands what a democracy is ..." if you think there was anything democratic about the Biden/Kamala swapout. Not to mention the ascension of Biden in 2020 with his basement campaign and three and a half years of gaslighting the country about his deteriorating (and for the record, tragic) cognitive health.
The Party is not a democracy and has its own process for nominating the nominee and had every option available to it to not nominate Biden at the upcoming convention. Biden could either leave on his own, or get booted during the convention. In fact, it would be a breach of trust towards Democratic voters to allow an incompetent, senile grey-tufted old fogey to run as the nominee all but ensuring Democratic values would not be pursued for 4 years due to losing the presidency.
Haha. I admire your pluck in pressing a point that I personally know to be absurd.
But tell me, why do you bother to insist on the point? The Dems won. Everyone thought they had an insoluble Biden problem on their hands. They moved Biden out and the party and the mainstream media fell into line. Saint Kamala it is.
And Trump, I'm the first one to admit, has been stumbling lately. That "Kamala's not black" line was a freaking disaster. The man is his own worst enemy. Likewise Vance, he's also a disaster. It's a highly gendered election and Vance is very nasty towards women. Trump and Vance are busy repelling the centrist voters they need to attract. It's as if they didn't get the memo that the primaries are over and that the general election is about winning the center.
So Benkei, your side won this round. Kamala's ascendent and Trump is struggling to regain his footing.
We don't know how long this will last, and how exogenous events (Israel-Iran war, anyone?) will affect the race.
But in the past two weeks the Dems are kicking the GOP's butt. You should be happy. Give it a rest. You don't like the word coup, so be it. You think Biden was a statesman who willingly stepped aside, I say he all but got a shiv in the back; and for all we know, he got one for real.
So be happy, allow me to call a coup a coup. It won't do you any good to say it wasn't, because it was. Bloodless coup, palace coup, intra-party coup, soft coup. But a coup, regardless.
If you disagree, that's ok. Be happy, you won the last two weeks of the news cycle.
By the way, when's your gal Kam going to hold a press conferene or sit for an interview? 11 days and counting. She does scripted appearances with Megan Thee Stallion. You go girl.
The worst is they lied and covered for Biden’s condition for years. So not only did they nullify the primaries and deny the votes of tens of millions of people with their palace coup, they did so only because they couldn’t keep up the charade any longer.
I yearn for the American people to punish the Democratic party for the fraud they've perpetrated on us these past four years. It's not going to happen.
Votes and elections and so-called democratic institutions mean very little to them in principle. It’s probably why they dropped the “threat to democracy” schtick and went with calling their opponents “weird”. But remember all this when they avail you of the sanctity of elections.
They're hardly in a position to talk about democracy! And of course the weird line is stupid, but if they repeat it often enough it might stick with some voters. Politics is a dirty business and the Dems are united with new found enthusiasm and hope. Solving their Biden problem has energized them incredibly. Trump and Vance are back on their heels. They better smarten up soon or it's going to be president Kamala.
Reply to fishfry It's not a coup which you keep using because you insist something bad or illegal happened. It didn't. It doesn't matter how many votes he got as a nominee, he wasn't confirmed as the nominee. He stepped down or would've been removed at the convention in accordance with party rule. His presumptive nomination didn't confer any powers either. For a coup both rules need to be broken and power shifted. Neither happened.
Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency. Learn to read.
It's not a coup which you keep using because you insist something bad or illegal happened.
I didn't say it was necessarily bad. Clearly it's been a big win for the Democratic party. Every coup is bad for the coup-ee and good for the coup-er. Julius Caesar had a bad day, but the fifty Roman senators who conspired against him were no doubt pleased with their handiwork.
I already conceded that nothing illegal happened.
You are locked in to the word. I'll leave you to it.
It didn't. It doesn't matter how many votes he got as a nominee, he wasn't confirmed as the nominee. He stepped down or would've been removed at the convention in accordance with party rule. His presumptive nomination didn't confer any powers either. For a coup both rules need to be broken and power shifted. Neither happened.
I'm getting dizzy just watching you spin.
Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it.
Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency.
Then why did they promote someone whose door knobitude was already evident in 2019? That's how long this breach of trust, this massive fraud on the American people, has been going on. And they only did something about it because their little fraud blew up in their faces. Else it would still be going on.
You are impute virtue to the Democrats in this corrupt charade? You don't even believe what you're writing. It's all partisan spin.
Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it.
What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules.
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.
Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why.
I think my problem with this is that it implies that Biden had power or control taken away from him. Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party.
But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party.
You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.
You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom.
What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double?
It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it.
And what would the democratic move have looked like?
I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false. But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you.
My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. This sort of language is designed so that you don’t have to think about politics, so it’s no strange wonder that one might resent when he sees its opposite. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious.
Isn’t this so? Or is it something else?
schopenhauer1August 02, 2024 at 14:17#9222830 likes
I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false.
Firebrand? What do you mean by that? You can have politicians with enthusiasm with out being race-baiters, promote conspiracies and misinformation if elections don't go your way (thus destroying the very platform of government itself), and violent rhetoric (bloodbath if you don't win..). Yeah there's being a fiery, inspiring speaker, and there's being a juvenile hack that barks out loud the (previously) less pronounced alt-right echo chambers.
But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you.
Yeah the major difference is I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. :lol:. Yeah, if I was running for office, I wouldn't be speaking in public speeches like a casual debater from a relatively obscure internet forum.
My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep.
It's called decorum and there was a reason these norms came about. It allows for shared space of differences without leading to inflammatory rhetoric that gets increased until it tears the system itself apart.
It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war.
If you are saying there should be more transparency for decision making in executive actions and legislative policy (as well as financial aspects of interest groups and campaigns), then I am totally in agreement. But do not make the false equivalency that this kind of systemic transparency is the same as carnival barker/inflammatory rhetoric. Also, just because Trump OPENLY tries to break or subvert the system (asking for votes, promoting pressure for Pence to throw the votes out, etc.), doesn't make the corruption any better! His one trick is to do the quiet part out loud and shock the people into daring to stop him. Luckily, they did and are trying to.. except for the immunity given to the office of President so that he can get away with whatever he wants.
It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious.
You mean like Orwellian ideas like "If I lose, then the election was corrupt" or kissing up to dictators as an international relations strategy? You mean the pithy slogans like "Lock her up!", and "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? This is all laughable rhetorical strategies that work for a segment of the population that has been primed from the 80s/90s by other carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and almost all of Fox News apparatus.
As you all bicker over which clown should get to play pretend in the White House, US Congress gave 50+ standing ovations to a war criminal, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator while they were visiting Iran, bringing wider Middle-East conflict and a US-Iran war ever closer.
Don't you all realize how petty this shit is compared to actual things that are happening in the world as a result of your out-of-control government?
This thread is a living testament to how "they" win.
And before you ask who "they" are: have you ever wondered where all these wars keep coming from that no one ever asked for and were part of neither party's campaign?
But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.
My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. This sort of language is designed so that you don’t have to think about politics, so it’s no strange wonder that one might resent when he sees its opposite. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious.
Great speech. :clap: Now back to the endless apologetics for the Trump cult.
But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.
Interesting you took offense...
Are you the expert then? Is this admission ;)?
I guess I'm asking, what are you talking about? My comments to @NOS4A2? The irony of the meta-narrative here...
The old narrative of not being (at least openly!) narcissistic, non-empathetic, authoritarian, xenophobic, etc. and holding some decorum...
The new framework that has been "normalized" under Trump (@NOS4A2's odd brand of propaganda).
The CON- that the old narrative is "parroting bullshit" willingly, because "as we all should know now" the Trump new framework is just the way it is now, and ironically asking for the old framework is extremely regressive, because it asks for politicians to have civility and normalized leadership styles for a world leader (one that doesn't act like a carnival barking petty-dictator/cult leader).
@schopenhauer1 laments the loss of decorum in politics, and Trump, through his magic words, is making it all happen. No greater example of magical thinking has been published.
schopenhauer1August 02, 2024 at 23:21#9224440 likes
laments the loss of decorum in politics, and Trump, through his magic words, is making it all happen. No greater example of magical thinking has been published.
Yeah Trumps rhetoric is normal shit a leader should be saying :ok:.
If nothing else, his association in trying to find any way to thwart election results and peaceful transfer of power should give you pause. But I know, I know, I’m just parroting the clearly biased left wing media, even though as you look into it more and more, even though he literally needed immunity from the Supreme Court to give him an out :lol:. What a joke.
Right, contesting an election is wrong in your strange world… or at least only when Donald Trump does it. Yeah, the Supreme Court had to shut down a politicized Justice Department and prove the unconstitutionality of their politicized indictments, but it’s all Trump’s fault.
schopenhauer1August 02, 2024 at 23:39#9224520 likes
Reply to NOS4A2
Right, because organizing fake slates of electors, organizing (but with just enough plausible deniability!) violent mobs at the capitol to pressure the VP to “do the right thing” and making an openly blatant call to Georgia’s SoS to find him votes and overturn the election results have nothing to do with Trump. Nothing to see at all, right?
Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection.
Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection.
The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT. He did everything out in the open. He pulled one over on you with his neat trick ;).
So when he asked for the votes, it wasn't just that he was voicing "concern" over (in that case, boo-hoo, and so what), it was the nature of his request to overturn the election results. When the wording is "find him some votes- 11,700), he is a man in search of a desperate ploy to get as much as needed to win and subvert the system. I can't imagine even Nixon would do something that blatant!
The "faithless electors" thing is a non-issue being that it was not supported or carried out by Democratic leadership in 2016, if that's what you are talking about. There was also no coordination with attempting to not recognize the legitimate electors for fake ones. And with this case there's more a few moving parts with the conspiracy to defraud the public from a position of power in the federal government.
As far as election collusion with Russia, not only was Trump asking Russia to help him publically, but even the Muller Report pointed out people in his campaign like Paul Manafort directly having ties with Russia, even if the supposed "Steele Dossier" was incorrect. That is to say, why was he even dealing with the Russians at all in this campaign, being that, you know, Russia is not on friendly terms with the US, and it is a CLEAR conflict of interest in sharing things like internal polling data to people associated with the Kremlin.
As for the violence regarding the BLM situation, I am actually against any violence that rioters were doing in the name of the cause, especially when the cause itself is regarding violence. I am with MLK's non-violence strategy regarding this. Clear destruction of property doesn't help anyone's cause. However, all that being said, it is a false equivalency to to say that the BLM movement was subverting the democratic process, rather than various protest groups protesting a social cause.
The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT.
:up:
It was very easy to predict that Trump, if he lost, would claim it was stolen. He’s been doing it since Ted Cruz won Iowa.
And he only lost the popular vote in ‘16 because of millions of illegal votes, of course.
Imagine believing this stupid shit? I thought the Russia thing was silly, but this takes the cake. Especially from those who are quick to agree about the Russian narrative being silly.
Reply to schopenhauer1 NOS is the dude insisting words don't matter because they've never caused anything while being a sucker for absolute free speech.
Reply to schopenhauer1 I didn't take offense, nor was my comment a jab at you. Rather, it was a general observation that interest groups get people to spread their propaganda willingly.
I myself just try to talk some sense into people. It is a thankless job that I wish I got paid for. :lol:
IMO the best alternative to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (from the short list of "six prospective running-mates" according to press reports) is Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Of course, the Harris campaign has nothing to worry about selecting her running-mate since almost any elected mouth-breather with a working brain will embarrass the hell out of MAGA Mini-me Vance ...
I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included.
I read in The Hill a few years ago that 65% of girls in US high schools and colleges declare to be "progressive", whereas only 28% of boys do that.
This thing has started to trouble me a little, since in my family I know that we share similar opinions regardless of gender. We are all leftists and once upon a time I was the only theist/religious in my family, till that day when I became a copy of my parents: another proud agnostic.
So I guess I need to go back to high school in order to find out how come gender will have a saying on one's probability to be a democrat or a republican, a theist or an agnostic, etc.
Do schools nowadays (and/or social media) have more impact on young people than their own parents? I don't know how kids are brought up in other parts of this planet, but in Europe and US (which I know enough) I thought parents do not tell sons different stories from those they tell their daughters.
So it is a big puzzle to me how sisters and brothers do not think the same anymore. Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays? I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.
Reply to Eros1982 The suicide rate for men is four times higher than women. I think men are struggling to find their purpose in life these days. Society in first world countries has reached a point where women don't need men, but men feel like complete losers if they can't get a woman. So they go down these weird rabbit holes, and the rabbit holes are all conservative in nature, pining for a lost age where a man could have a factory job, a decent house, provide for his family, and the Mrs would have his slippers and martini ready when he came home.
Good point Rogue Al, but I think is true for certain countries. In the US the suicide rate for men is four times greater than for women (biggest difference in the whole world I think). In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this).
Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist".
I respect people's choices, but someone needs to convince me that gender should play a role in this. From history books I know that certain cultures had different rules for women and different rules for men, but I also know that communist and fascist regimes (and all religions) had equal support among women and men, insofar as both women and men were "educated" properly by these regimes.
Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist".
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly.
So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled.
In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this).
In places where women have not reached parity with men, I would expect the suicide rate of women to be much higher. Who wants to live as a second-class citizen?
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly.
,
Very interesting. To the best of my knowledge there is one single country in the western world that has accepted that "traditional elementary schools" are failing boys and that country is Finland. Finland, to the best of my knowledge, is thinking seriously to make a few reforms so that elementary schools will stop failing boys.
So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled.
I see your point here. Although a leftist, I do not agree with all the ways democrats have chosen to keep power and I have seen so many times that they shift priorities after they come in office. I am a green-new-deal supporter (in general, not in every detail), but I saw how Biden administration did nothing in that direction, I saw how black lives did not improve within four years, and I saw that gun violence did not fade. So, I support some democrats, but I consider it really weird when some young women ask me what I think about Trump, before they make any other questions. That really makes me ask if I am living in George Orwell's 1984, where everyone uses newspeak and is brainwashed time after time :) And Orwell, to the best of my knowledge, was a leftist too, but he was courageous enough to see how ideology may take a turn towards the darkest sides.
Since I vote democrats (sometimes) for a few causes I consider good (not for all the causes democrats say are good), I personally would never mock a person for voting Trump (cause I don't know all the reasons why he makes Trump important, as he doesn't know all my reasons for voting some democrats).
But we are living in strange times and the strangest of all things is having so many young people to believe that other people will love and educate them better than their own families.
Since we are in the election discussion, I wish to add something.
I have been surprised with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few liberal outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago. Whereas three years ago all these outlets seemed to agree that something is really wrong with Kamala Harris (she had a few scandals in her office, she was eclipsed by Biden, she made gaffes and there were times none knew her whereabouts in the White House), now all these liberal outlets post only positive things on Harris and do not make any references to their own old posts about her.
Does any democrat here feel good with that? I mean it seems as CNN, The Guardian, NY Times, etc., have forgotten their older articles on Kamala Harris. Is that normal for you guys or is just the way journalists use to do their work?
(I remember well, by the way, in 2011 when The NY Times ran an article were some Syrians praised ISIS for doing better work in their town than Bashar Al-Asad!!! Just six months or so after that article, I heard again about ISIS. This time isis invaded Iraq and started making videos with human heads being cut. So, I guess that ISIS article in the NY Times, in 2011 or 2012, was a good example of never being enthusiastic about the people these outlets will praise. I better wait to see Kamala in her debates with Trump, before deciding if she deserves my vote.)
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly.
Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays?
I think so. However, are both parents in the home? or in the daily lives of their children? Are the parents mature, stable, healthy, educated? or immature, unstable, addicts/drunks, mis/un-educated? Are they sectarian or secular? bigoted or cosmopolitan? Is the home run by a single mother raising boys? Etcetera ...
My guess is, having been neither a parent nor teacher, that schools and social media only reinforce, even amplify, what the parental / family home cultivates in children in the first place. Just like getting drunk doesn't make people a-holes, alcohol only takes away the sober inhibition to expose their a-holery. Reactionary culture and politics, imo, is like booze and "boys" learn to be resentful a-holes to a social order increasingly stabilized by 'pro-female' policies and institutions not unlike the single mother / wife-dominated households they were (mis)raised in.
In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison.Not (primarily) schools – though RogueAI might disagree. Thus, males react violently against the first two and embrace the pack-animal, alpha dominance of the third (à la gang / thug-life ... or as enlisted military).
I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.
According to exit polls, in 2016 & 2020 more women overall voted for The Clown than against him. In 2022, those same women lost their reproductive healthcare rights; whether or not they still like The Clown, I'm confident most will against him this year to get back what was taken from them, their daughters and even their granddaughters.
That said, some "sons" want a surrogate daddy to rule the country the way their absentee or divorcee fathers did not rule their single mom-dominated homes. Quite a few "sons" are easily triggered by their deep-seated "mommy-issues" which is why jackbooted reaction appeals to many of them as a cartoon-masculine, hyper-caffinated, faux-expression of manhood (e.g. alt-right, incel misogyny & homophobia).
I have been surprised, however, with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few [s]liberal[/s] [corporate media] outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago.
This hypocrisy doesn't bother me at all because Kamala Harris – in fact, any (moderate) neoliberal candidate for president – is not the clear and present danger to US national security, the constitutional rule of law, all civil rights & the US economy, so the proper emphasis should be on promoting whomever can/will eliminate that danger: DonOLD The NeoFascist Clown.
This was the most funny part. It sounds like an abortionist revolution being cooked behind the curtail lol
With regard to the other things you said, the only difference between genders in my view is volume, nothing else.
Democrats are right in saying gender does not matter, but they are wrong in using gender in order to gain votes (and they are wrong in implying that genes do not matter as well). History and science can verify that only volume divides the genders, but in the case of genes, that's a kind of prohibited debate at this moment. In the future maybe people and scientists will feel more free to discuss genes.
If my mother is great with numbers and my father great with words, and I am great with numbers too, but weak with words, then there's a big probability that I took after my mom's genes. Schopenhauer, also, loved his dad and hated his mom, but I guess he got his love for the letters from his poetical mom, not from his entrepreneur dad (from the second he inherited enough money to become a great intellectual).
Women and men long for the same things, but with different volumes. A woman may think about sex 12 times a day, a man 270 times. A woman may want to pull the hair of the woman who takes her husband, a man may want to kill that who touches his wife. There may be many women who have higher IQ than Kant or Einstein, but the reason why these women will not become Kant or Einstein in my view is volume (or call it will). Though these women may have enough brain cells, intelligence and skills to become Einstein, if they don't do so, then they somehow lack that "male volume" or "male will" which enable many men to annihilate their egos in order to achieve their goal/task.
That's my view and that's what brain science seems to support. Female and male brains work the same, but male brains seems to consume more energy always ;)
A few years ago I was thinking to register with the Green Party, but then listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and came with the wrong opinion that democrats will fix this country and the whole world (which would follow the US example of Green New Deal).
Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words; they just use different vocabularies and do the same exact thing (rewarding whomever supports/votes them, with federal money).
Should I consider Stein now or is she another traditional politician whose only concern is to get sponsors and to reward only the people who vote for her? Will her name appear on the ballot in NYS?
Speaking for myself, I only vote for a third party presidential candidate when living in a state that's safe for either Democrats or Republicans. I live in Washington state so I'll vote for Cornel West this year. In 2020 I lived in Georgia and decided early in 2020 to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate wound up being because polling trends showed Georgia to be a swing state for the first time since 1992. Biden won Georgia and I voted for him (only the second time since 1982 I'd voted for a Democratic candidate for president). As a non-partisan "progressive leftist" (who, like Bernie Sanders and most thoughtful leftists, abhors "identity politics"), I've considered the last sixty years of the Democratic Party policy agenda (i.e. neoliberal sodomy of the working class with lube (less harmful) the lesser evil compared to that of the Republican Party policy agenda (i.e. plutocratic / autocratic sodomy of everybody south of the upper middle class without lube (more harmful)), and therefore I always support the Democratic candidate when I live in a swing state. Btw, in 2016 I voted for Jill Stein because polling trends suggested HRC would lose Georgia (which she did by just over 5%).
Reply to Eros1982 This 'biological determinism' is too reductive to be meaningful at the complexity of level social practices and electoral politics. After all, it doesn't explain at all (e.g.) decades of robust male support for democratic market socialism in Scandanavian countries.
Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words
There are commonalities to the two parties and major differences. Some of the major differences:
- gay/trans rights
- abortion
- subsidies for green energy (majority of Republicans reject the science of climate change)
- raising taxes on rich
- gun control
- environmental regulation
- border control
- immigrants' rights (Dems want amnesty/pathway to citizenship, Repubs want to deport tens of millions of people)
- healthcare
- education (Dems are for public schools, Repubs favor charter schools and vouchers for private school)
- minimum wage
Now, why is it that Biden struggled to get a lot of that done? In our system, if you don't have 60 of your people in the senate, the other side can filibuster and stop legislation, and it's very hard for either party to get 60 senate seats. The last time the Dems had 60 senators, they used their political capital to pass Obamacare, for which they suffered catastrophic losses in the next election.
I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words
So you’ve settled on the tired, fossilized view — that passes as sophisticated but is in fact lazy and absurd — which absolves you of having to know anything in detail. Not the great progression you think it is.
That view may have been tenable at some point, but it’s simply ridiculous now. The Democratic Party, for all it’s faults (and I have always been critical of them), are radically different than Republicans. Plenty of examples; guns, abortion, climate change, etc. If you can’t see that, you’re not paying attention.
Yes, they mostly agree on military spending — but even that is showing cracks (on both sides) — and apparently in panicking about China, but that hardly makes them “only different in words.”
The destruction of Roe, the Inflation Reduction Act, the raising of corporate taxes, budgetary priorities, appointments of administrative heads (Lina Kahn at FTC, Jennifer Abruzzo at NLRB, Regan at EPA, Gensler at SEC, and so on), appointments to the Supreme Court — these things actually matter. To throw up our hands and say “Well they’re all the same anyway” is just aggressively ignorant.
I live in Washington state so I'll vote for Cornel West this year.
:up: If I lived in a safe state, like Massachusetts, I’d vote for West as well. But since I don’t (I’m in swingy New Hampshire), I’m not throwing my vote away and, mathematically, putting Trump +1, I’ll be voting for the awful Harris. But I envy you.
Funny fact: I met a girl on a dating app and she deleted me after I wrote those things about the Democratic Party lol So, I don't blame you for considering untenable those views.
I just follow some kind of "economical thought processing".
Although I know that I was born a prodigy with very high IQ and gifted stature, same as Don the Clown, and if I wanted I could become Schopenhauer, Einstein, Michael Jackson, Leon Messi, Rocky Marciano, Shakespeare, and so on, life taught me that the whole universe (out of jealousy, surely :) ) would conspire against me.
Hence, though I never doubted myself (for the sake of this debate, you know) I found out that (because the whole universe is jealous about me and about Hillary Clinton) there's a hope that I may achieve a couple of things in this life, but not everything.
That kind of economical thought processing seems totally absent among Democrats and this thing has started to make me suspicious about their intentions in general. Democrats want growth, equality, peace, free education for all, reforms, gun control, better infrastructure, general welfare, thriving American families, women rights, trans rights, Muslim rights, Natives rights, technological progress, control of the space, etc. etc. and their ever expanding list of "priorities" makes me sometimes ask if these people are serious or they just create as many priorities and needs as they can in order to appeal to all those groups who take these "priorities" seriously.
Lately I have started believing that it is a leftist tactic (around the world) to imagine as more needs and problems as you can in order to make more and more people feel that they need to be protected by the leftists. So, if I travel to Luxembourg or San Marino and see how different these countries are from the US, I am sure that a 10 mins talk with a Luxembourghian or Sanmarinian leftist would instill in me the feeling that in Luxembourg and San Marino people have the same problems like here in the States. But that feeling, I insist, will not come from what I see and experience there, but from a political discourse that sounds the same among the politicians around the world.
Though the left traces its history in those workers unions who fought for the working classes in Europe and US, we see how the change in living standards and working ethics has made leftists change priorities as well. It is hard to attain today that leftists care more about EU/US majorities than right wing politicians, for the simple reason that the leftists will keep talking about poverty and working conditions, even though in the 21st century labor has been radically transformed and poverty is not as widespread as it used to be in the beginning of the 20th century. Democrats want to speak about the poor and the rich, forgetting that 70% of people in this country are neither poor nor rich.
But I think I know why they do it now. Most of the people in this country do not care to vote at all and in these circumstances both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that they may keep power through appealing to the few, not to the many. If they really cared about majorities they would set a couple of priorities that majorities seem to care (like crime, inflation and infrastructure) and they wouldn't invent so many needs and priorities.
I lost faith in Democrats when they gave people 3 trillion in covid relief, but they could afford only 800 billion for the infrastructure. They put the blame on the Republicans for that too, but this absence of economical thought processing among the Democrats has started to trouble me.
In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison.
IMO Christianity does have a more feminine ethic, but this is not the case for Judaism or Islam. Certain branches like Eastern Orthodoxy are more patriarchal. Still, I would say that the Christian ethic as expressed in the gospels could reasonably be considered a more feminine one -- not a weaker one, but a more feminine one.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos Yes, interesting, but I was referring to the institution of religion as such (i.e. its social function/s) and not the belief-system or ritual-practices of any particular sect. IMO, active participation in a congregation tends to 'feminize' (i.e. de-emphasize 'masculine' strength, ego, aggression and competition) even though e.g. "Abrahamic & Vedic faiths" are predominantly patriarchal.
What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules.
You are focussed on this one word, which really is not important in the scheme of things. Many interesting things are going on in this election and perhaps we can talk about them some time.
[/quote]
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.[/quote]
Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party.
Which is exactly why I used the phrases "palace coup" and "intra-party coup." Making your point for you.
But you are hung up on the word coup. If I call it a coup and you prefer to call it a not-a-coup, I'm fine with that. It's unimportant in the scheme of things. As I told @Benkei, I'm happy to talk about the latest developments in this unprecedented election as we live through this very dangerous moment in history. You can call it a coup or not. I'll keep calling it a coup.
But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party.
No doubt. But they covered it up in the hopes of swindling the American people. I fervently hope the people will hold them accountable and punish them for it at the ballot box. But it won't happen.
Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts.
What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double?
All I'm sayin' is I'm not payin' the ransom till I see proof of life.
Did you see him at the hostage press conference? Man has one foot in the grave. And Kamala tossed out word salad and she doesn't even have the excuse of being senile.
And what would the democratic move have looked like?
Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.
The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders.
If that's the argument, then neither are republicans after all the undemocratic shit they pulled since at least Obama's presidency.
Trump was nominated in a spirited and competitive primary. You're just flailing with the rest of it. "But he's ORANGE HITLER, whatabout that??"
That all you've got? Many commentators, not just me, are remarking on the Democrats' highly undemocratic manner of swapping in a new candidate with no popular electoral support whatsoever. Then having the MSM whitewash and scrub her actual record. Then having her avoid press conferences and interviews in the hopes of running another 2020-style basement campaign.
Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade.
I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included.
The definition of a "far right" protest is anger at the stabbing death of three little girls as young as 6. Apparently if you're against stabbing little girls, you're a right winger. So says Keir Starmer, new PM of the UK.
Reply to fishfry Don't try to gaslight me. You used that word and it was the wrong word to use. I point that out and you keep using it, I point it out again and then I'm the one hung up on the word. No mate, you were simply wrong and your interpretation of the whole situation along with the pundits you like to quote is wrong and dumb for the reasons I've stated.
But of course he did. You might as well argue the sun rises in the west.
You're telling me you're very, very sure that's what happened but you haven't told me why I should believe that - i.e. what the evidence is for someone who doesn't already believe what you believe.
Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts.
I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support.
Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.
The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders.
I'm not calling it democracy. But if your only remedy is a retroactive plan that can't possibly be executed without a time machine your complaints sound kind of hollow.
When Mitch McConnell declared that the republican party would do everything to stymie Obama, that was undemocratic.
When republicans under his leadership refused to allow Obama to fill a SC seat, that was undemocratic.
When Trump claims that every election he is or was in (regardless of outcome) is rigged against him, that's undemocratic. Arguably you can't blame the rest of the Republicans for all of this, but you can blame them for supporting it to the point of ostracizing his opponents.
When Trump refused to make an official concession in 2020, that was undemocratic. When the republican party, after some hand-wringing, ended up wholeheartedly backing it they became complicit.
Those are just the obvious, highly public events. I'm not including any of the "controversial" events. I'm also not including all the lower level procedural steps like gerrymandering (a "both sides" issue that republicans pioneered).
So even if I accept all your claims as to this "coup", it merely moves the democratic party closer towards the republican party in terms of power politics.
Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade.
US politics has moved far beyond being ashamed of your side several cycles ago. You're asking liberals to sabotage themselves in favour of an ideal that their political opponents have long since thrown by the wayside. That is at best naive, at worst it's a cynical attempt to get your chosen candidate into power with less of an opposition.
I would very much like to believe its over, but I don't. I doubt that the continued focus on Trump will sway voters. Outside of the MAGA cult most who will vote for him will do so despite who he is and what he says. The Dobbs decision will play a role. Beyond that the key factor will be the voter's own financial well-being, both in fact and perception. The case can and I think will be made that Trump failed on his economic promises and Biden did more and Harris will continue to do more for American industry, small business, infrastructure, and jobs.
Republicans are not copying with UK and European conservatives who, although not so alarmed as the progressives, do not dare to say in public that climate change is not happening. Many polls show, also, that even in conservative voting states like TX and FL, the majorities think that climate change is happening.
Because some of the biggest donors to the Republicans are fossil fuel giants. Not only that, but they own think tanks and election infrastructure as well. The propaganda was so strong that it lingers even today, when we’re seeing the effects of a warming planet all around us.
Because it was associated with “liberals” (thanks in part to Al Gore’s involvement), it’s become politicized and thus Trumpers would rather die, literally, then face the reality. So goes US politics.
The most educated people in this country buy his very expensive Tesla cars, and Elon Musk says now that he is going to give a 42 million check per month to a climate change denier. :vomit:
That’s part of it. He’s also very Twitter-minded, and the biggest voices on there are Trump trolls and the alt-right. If it were SNL, it would have been different.
The more cynical view is that he wants to sell cars to the Trump crowd. Which as you see now, Trump has changed his tune on EVs a bit, and was just recently gifted a Cybertruck by some online influences— which he praised. Good publicity for Tesla.
The most simple theory is that Musk is basically an idiot, and always has been. That’s the most likely case, I think.
kind of crazy when you compare VP choices. Kamala’s choice is smart and strategic. Trump picked a phony sycophant, presumably only because he intends to surround himself with weak yes-men.
There is an article in the NYT: "JD Vance Just Blurbed a Book Arguing That Progressives Are Subhuman" Until recently the book, Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) could be be dismissed as too far to the extreme right to be taken seriously, but with Vance's endorsement and a forward by Stephen Bannon, it has entered the Republican mainstream. The author, Jack Posobiec, promoted the conspiracy theory that Democrats ran a satanic child abuse ring beneath a popular Washington pizzeria.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as:
... a political operative and internet performer of the anti-democracy hard right, known primarily for creating and amplifying viral disinformation campaigns ... He helped lead the “Stop the Steal” campaign ...He has also collaborated with white nationalists, antigovernment extremists, members of the Proud Boys, and neo-Nazis in his capacity as an operative.
Past Marxist revolutions are reviewed to provide a better understanding of the cultural Marxism of the Left in America today. While the history lesson is important, the real value of this volume is a discussion of why the radical Left needs to be defeated and effective measures to take to end their scourge.
From what I gather the book glorifies Franco. Not sure if the suggestion is that his way is the way to end the scourge. In any case, I don't think MAGA is big on reading books.
Don't try to gaslight me. You used that word and it was the wrong word to use. I point that out and you keep using it, I point it out again and then I'm the one hung up on the word. No mate, you were simply wrong and your interpretation of the whole situation along with the pundits you like to quote is wrong and dumb for the reasons I've stated.
I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.
I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.
I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you.
I respectfully exit this interesting conversation. Thank you for the chat.
But to change the subject:
Hey man aren't you watching this wild election? Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. She's been tacking to the center and now Walz pulls her back to the left, ties her to the Antifa/BLM riots that she supported.
That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years.
But either way, Biden's exit from the race (but not from the presidency) is yesterday's news. Although he is still allegedly the president, as war is breaking out in the Middle East. But never mind all that.
My meta-point is that I am wondering if anyone here likes to talk politics! Not just argue semantics or yell partisan talking points at each other. This is the craziest election I've ever seen.
I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support.
Seems like a trivial thing. If you search around you can find Democrats discussing whether this was the best process they could have done. Of course everyone has gotten into line. The Democrats have indeed shown tremendous party discipline. They turned on a dime and all got marching in the new direction. So when you say support, of course they're all on board the Kam train in public. It was a brilliant political operation, the Kam switcheroo. Biden's gone, Kam's coronated, the media are swooning, the past is being digitally retconned in a manner that Orwell can only envy.
So the Dems pulled it off.
But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point. That if you support the guy who ends up losing, you line up behind whoever the party chooses. But still, you support your guy and maybe dislike the extreme hardball politics that have been played on them.
Some of them might even be resentful. It's only human nature.
You seem to be denying all of that, and saying that overnight what was in their hearts changed in lockstep with what's on their Kamala signs. I hope you'll clarify this point.
But you did. You're just dismissing the evidence as insufficient. What further evidence do you require? A personal meeting with Biden?
Saying I'm not paying the ransom is a way of drawing attention to his obvious near-death condition, in a slightly humorous way. Not payin' the ransom. I suppose humor, if there was any at all, does not translate over this medium. No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to.
It's unusual, and suspicious, when a political leader disappears from public view for days at a time, then posts this fishy letter, then disappears for more days at a time, then gets wheeled out to mumble and look like a standing corpse for a few minutes, as he did the other night.
It reminds me of nothing so much as Chernenko and those other end-time Soviets, guys who were alive in strict biological terms only, very little actual life left in them. They'd sit in the big chair, or be propped up in it, till they died, and the next near-corpse was put in charge.
Will you assert to me that you have not seen this, that I am lying, that I am the victim of Republican propaganda? That when you saw Biden at the hostage presser, you thought to yourself, "That guy looks fit as a fiddle, probably beat me at chess while running the world." Is that your view? Or do you see the same far gone man I do?
Will you grant me the right to call out the massive swindle being played by the Biden administration and the Democratic party: to pretend that the president is fit to do his job; when everyone in the entire world knows he's not.
I have the right to call that out. I am calling that out. And if my saying "I wouldn't pay the ransom," doesn't strike you as a light-hearted reference to the entire issue ... well, I guess not everyone appreciates my fine sense of humor.
But still. You have to say that, partisanship aside, this is a very dangerous state of affairs, with war breaking out in the Middle East. Who is in charge of the country? Who is commander in chief of the military?
Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,
Of course if the "unhumans" are not regarded as human they need not be treated as human. As such things go, it is likely that just who is or will be counted as unhuman will be a growing group that will include everyone that does not support their revolution.
Wow, she actually made the best choice. I’m surprised, but I’m happy she did it. Now I can spell his name correctly (Walz).
Let me explain why she hurt herself with this pick.
I am not making a partisan point. I'm just analyzing this as I would a sporting event that I don't have a rooting interest in. Or, if I do, I'm not allowing that to bear on my observations. I know you are a bit partisan, but you're the one who claims she made a good choice and I disagree, so I'll tell you why. I'd say this if I were for Trump, which I am; but especially if I were for Harris, which I'm not. But the analysis goes either way.
Or to put that another way: I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say. But perhaps someone else will.
Kamala made the exact same mistake that Trump did!
A few weeks ago, Trump was asked his position on abortion. Many of his supporters are rabid pro-lifers. But Trump did something he rarely does, think strategically. He simply said he'd leave it to the states and he'd say no more. That angered his pro-life base, but where else are they going to go? And he was smart enough to realize that he blunted the worst attacks of the left. They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states.
So Trump makes this clever strategic tack towards the center; something every politician has to do after they win their primaries. (Well, assuming one is in a political party that actually bothers to hold primaries, unlike certain UNdemocratic parties I could name).
Then what does he do? He selects Vance, who is in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, wants to arrest women who cross state lines for an abortion, makes snide remarks about women in a highly gendered election.
His VP choice completely undermined his own clever strategy! So he screwed up with Vance.
Now Kamala has been doing the same thing, tacking back to the center. Her MSM minions are busy scrubbing the Internet so that she was never a leftist, was never against fracking, never supported a bail fund for violent BLM/Antifa rioters, never wanted to defund the police.
The Dems have been brilliant at this. Most people don't really follow politics, they don't know that she was named the most leftist Senator in 2019, especially because that Web page got taken off the Internet. Orwell would be proud.
So the Dems have pulled it off. They solve their Biden problem, they coalesce around Kam, they rebrand her as a centrist.
Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit.
That's the exact same error Trump made. They both tacked cleverly to the center, then picked veeps that undermined their own strategy.
There's a quote from Walz's wife.
I could smell the burning tires. That was a very real thing, and I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,”
Pardon the Daily Caller link, the New York Times didn't deign to report this information to their readers.
In other words she sat in the safety of the governor's mansionm protected by armed guards no doubt. And she play-acted in her mind being a great revolutionary, inhaling the smell of the uprising of the people; when what she was doing was fetishizing a poor black neighborhood being burned to the ground to give her a little thrill.
Believe me, Walz is going to wear that quote, and his delay in getting control of the situation, for the next three months. And every day it's going to remind people that Kamala supported a bailout fund for the people who set the fires.
It's all the rest of Walz's extreme liberalism. He supports abortion up to the moment of birth. That's an extreme position supported by a small minority of Americans. He has said "socialism is like neighborliness," a lie that will not play with the very same midwestern voters he's supposed to appeal to.
In short, Kam rebranded herself as a centrist, then picked a leftist that undermines her rebranding. It shows she has bad judgment. She just stalled the two weeks of momentum she'd had, and she's given Trump and Vance a potent avenue of attack. Many such avenues.
You might think you like Walz's politics. That is not at all the point. I hope you can see that. The point is that from an electoral standpoint, Walz shines a light on the very leftism that Kamala was trying to hide.
That's why Walz was a bad pick.
Not to mention the talk, true or not, that she couldn't pick Shapiro because it would upset the Hamas wing of the Democratic party, especially in Michigan.
Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.
ps -- A GOP never-Trumper just wrote a piece in The Hill making the same points I did, but with better writing.
Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection reinforces that left-wing brand.
They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states.
Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future.
As far as words go, Trump said women who get abortions should be punished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-SgCndBWE
Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future.
Not disagreeing. Just saying that he wisely tacked toward the center, at least in rhetoric. Talking campaign tactics, not abortion policy. His VP pick undermined his centrist move. I mentioned that to compare it to Kamala doing the exact same thing ... tacking to the center and then undermining herself by picking a leftist. Remember in 2008 Obama was a leftist trying to brand himself a centrist, and he picked Joe Biden, a Washington fixture everyone thought of as a centrist. Obama didn't pick Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. That's my point.
Reply to fishfry I was wondering why she picked Walz, but then I watched him speak, and he's very talented on the stump, very folksy and much better than she is, so I think I know their strategy now. The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris. Democrats, for all their DEI talk, would be thrilled if Harris could morph into a liberal Mitt Romney-esque white guy. They didn't want her in the first place. Black women are risky in American politics. White guys are safe bets. Dems think Trump is an existential threat, and they want to beat him more than they want to check off racial boxes. They don't want risk. If they could get away with Harris and Walz trading places, they would do it in a heartbeat, but they're stuck with Harris.
One thing Tim Walz immediately brings to the campaign is JOY! He just looks so darned happy to be there. He radiates joy. As opposed to The Other Guy, who scowls, mocks and ridicules, and is also looking increasingly miserable as his rating points sink slowly (or actually, not so slowly) in the west. Again, it's a simple campaign theme: hope v hate. Let's hope for hope.
I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.
I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.
I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you.
You haven't even begun to address the points I raised so you reducing this to mere opinion reflects your inability to actually have a converation. It's not just semantics, which is a ridiculous reduction of the discussion. You are claiming to analyse the situation but in fact are just repeating dumb shit from Fox News. No power has transferred, no rules were broken. No coup. Having actually lost this discussion since you fail to provide a rebuttal to actual arguments you first try to gaslight me and now pretend it's just another opinion. Only reason you're doing it is because you're incapable of investigating and challenging your own opinions on the matter.
That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years.
I've repeatedly stated what it was: he withdrew his candidacy. And no, it doesn't matter who's idea it was.
It's quite clear, also in your interactions with other posters you don't want to talk politics at all. You're only here to display your unswerving loyalty to a buffoon. That's fine but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.
But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point.
I just don't believe Biden ever had much personal support. He was the incumbent and the default choice with no serious opposition.
No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to.
Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.
I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side).
Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing.
Reply to Mr Bee Exactly. The selection of Tim Walz has been publicly supported, afaik, by AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Manchin and a gang of well-known Never/former Trumpers – across the ideological spectrum from far left to center-right (at least). And as a "Bernie Bro" myself, I approve whole heartedly of Walz now that I've reviewed his CV and record as governor & congressman and watched some of his speeches & interviews. The Harris-Walz campaign already seems (feels) to me Obama-Biden 2.0 (even better!)
One thing Tim Walz immediately brings to the campaign is JOY! He just looks so darned happy to be there. He radiates joy.
I saw an attack ad about him yesterday, the words painting him out to be a Stalinesque monster, but the photo they used was an adorable snapshot of him holding a piglet at a country fair with a big smile on his face. Hilarious.
The demagogue appears to be the champion of the people, but with his rise to power reveals what he is, an autocrat. The rhetoric of the book is transparent. The "innocents" versus the "unhuman". Only some of the people are truly "the people". At a minimum the unhuman should have no role in government.
Can we do away with the “I’m not biased, I’m just a straight shooter.” No one believes that. It’s ridiculous.
I’m not a member of either political party, but I’m certainly against Trump. That will undoubtedly bias me in Harris’ direction, and will creep in unconsciously, however much I try not to let it. You’re no different.
Anyway— that’s silly enough, but the fact that you’re actually for Trump basically disqualifies you as someone worth taking seriously, I’m sorry to say. Your judgment is awful. It’s rooted in ignorance and failure to recognize or prioritize basic problems in our society.
Which according to you is “tacking to the center.” This is what I mean by silly, shallow analysis. I can hear this on CNN and Fox too. As if Harris isn’t anything but a right-of-center candidate to begin with. I wish she were centrist — because that would mean she’s more left.
You might think you like Walz's politics. That is not at all the point. I hope you can see that. The point is that from an electoral standpoint, Walz shines a light on the very leftism that Kamala was trying to hide.
That's why Walz was a bad pick.
What’s hilarious is that you feel this is somehow hard to understand. Not something I’ve heard about 1,000 times from every political analyst out there who pretends to be non-partisan. Way to go! You’re officially the forum’s right-wing Chuck Todd.
Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.
You have to be fairly delusional to believe this.
He’s an excellent pick. And not just because he’s well liked and well regarded, but because his policies in Minnesota have been fantastic. I hope he runs on that strength non-stop. They’re extremely popular both in Minnesota and the US generally.
But thanks for providing watered-down versions of what Fox News and Tucker Carlson told you to believe.
Yeah, "heroes,” but Spain couldn’t be a member of the European Union until Franco’s death, and Chile was forgotten in its little corner of South America for decades.
How simple it is to exalt a despot when you are constantly on the side of a prosperous, rich and democratic country. The eternal incongruity of – some – Americans.
Franco and Pinochet were puppets of the White House. It would be interesting to put those authors and lovers of freedom in a country where you can’t vote, you are forced to go to church, your daughter counts zero because she is just a reproductive machine, the incomes are shite and you don’t have most of the amenities because the rest of the world turned its back on you, and it is impossible to have a TV, washing machine, light, modern cars, etc.
What bothers me the most is that they fantasize about such an authoritarian model, but only far away from their territory. Let’s see if it works in the Hispanic countries. We are already happy, developed, and modern in our democratic country called USA.
What bothers me the most is that they fantasize about such an authoritarian model, but only far away from their territory.
I agree but the territory in question is not just geographical. It is a growing threat in the U.S. and Europe. Those who favor authoritarianism want change, but change in itself is not good. They cannot see that change can be for the worse.
The selection of Tim Walz has been publicly supported, afaik, by AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Manchin and a gang of well-known Never/former Trumpers – across the ideological spectrum from far left to center-right (at least).
Yeah I'm actually surprised how much the party has unified around him like they did Kamala. Walz sounds like a more effective, relatable, and most importantly younger Bernie, even down to the lack of actual presidential ambition and brushing off the accusations of the "socialism" label (for the record he doesn't adopt it explicitly like Bernie but he seems more focused on whether the policies discussed help people, which I like). I have no idea where the Democrats got him from. People who have been saying that Kamala just picked a younger Biden because he's an old white man are way off, same with the people who compare him to Tim Kaine.
Reply to Mr Bee I think that's because everybody realised how shit Biden would be and in comparison you've now arrived in Elysium. Enjoy it while it lasts for 2 weeks.
Reply to Benkei You can say that about people's impressions about Kamala (at least she's not old and dying) but Walz is genuinely a pretty solid pick if you're a progressive. Also it's already been 2 weeks and it still feels like things are riding high for the Democrats. What's also amazing is how ill prepared Trump was for this obvious possibility. You would've thought he would've come up with a stupid nickname by now, unless he's genuinely going with "Kamabla".
Someone needs to tell Kamala not to promote equal outcomes with equal opportunity. Don't give the political right the slur word they love labeling on the left, being socialism or even communism.
The "innocents" versus the "unhuman". Only some of the people are truly "the people". At a minimum the unhuman should have no role in government.
We watched the very chilling Civil War movie the other week. The most chilling scene in that disturbing movie was when the group of journalists who were at the centre of the plot were asked by a menacing militia fighter, at gunpoint, ‘what kind of Americans are you?’ The implication clearly being, which side of the civil war you’re on determines whether you’re going to be killed or not. Obviously a fictional exaggeration, but a similar dynamic underwrites a great deal of the rhetoric of the extreme wing of MAGA.
It seems that on the NYS ballot will appear only two names: Trump and Harris.
Jill Stein will not be on the ballot. RFK Kennedy is still fighting his way, but I don't think the guy has any good qualities. He is in the center of all bizarre stories: he had wombs in his brain, he dumped a dead bear in Central Park, he seems to have a taste for roasted dog meat, and his wife committed suicide (maybe she couldn't bear living with him anymore).
It has become very hard to find any good politicians nowadays. The more mediocre, weird and stupid one is, the bigger the probability he considers himself the center of the universe and (as a result) he wants to become the next president.
Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit.
This wont have much effect on voters if the see the former issue in stark lighting.
Trump has always been hypocritical - including calling Republicans the dumbest people in the world three decades ago (roughly) and that this is why he'd run as one. No one cares, it seems.
I was wondering why she picked Walz, but then I watched him speak, and he's very talented on the stump, very folksy and much better than she is, so I think I know their strategy now. The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris.
I haven't seen him speak, except for the short clip where he says that socialism is just neighborliness. Expect to see that in Trump ads.
I do hear that he's folksy and comes off as regular folks. Good all-American dad resume, soldier, teacher, etc. But just below the surface are many exploitable flaws. He bailed (legally, but still) on his National Guard service just before he was to be deployed to Iraq. Then lied about it, saying he's carried weapons of war into battle (not exact quote) when in fact he never served in a war zone. So there are character issues and political weaknesses that cast doubt on Kam's judgment.
Of course that's just politics. Not claiming a monopoly on truth; only noting the political attacks that he's vulnerable to.
The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris.
Now here I disagree. Walz is up to his eyeballs in the burning of Minneapolis. That brings that whole issue back into play; and reminds everyone that Kamala supported a bail fund to release violent arrestees who used their new found freedom to commit worse crimes.
So the choice of Walz puts the spotlight on Kam's leftist acts during the Floyd riots. Putting the focus right on her. I do therefore disagree that he takes the focus off her. By putting the riots into play, he spotlights one of her biggest vulnerabilities.
Democrats, for all their DEI talk, would be thrilled if Harris could morph into a liberal Mitt Romney-esque white guy.
Yes. Correct. Agreed. So why does Kam pick a hard leftist who will reminds us all of the 2020 Minneapolis riots, and Kamala's role in them? It totally undermines her tack to the center.
Dems think Trump is an existential threat, and they want to beat him more than they want to check off racial boxes. They don't want risk. If they could get away with Harris and Walz trading places, they would do it in a heartbeat, but they're stuck with Harris.
No I do not believe so. Harris signals the takeover of the Democratic party by the northern California political machine of Pelosi, Feinstein, Willie Brown, Newsom, and father and son governors Pat and Jerry Brown, backed by the powerful family money of the Gusts and the Gettys. A lot of Democrats are not happy about this, even though they're on board her candidacy. Her ascent has long been planned. She is no accident.
There would be no point in running Walz at the top of the ticket. Harris is a much more attractive candidate. It's funny how a nation that elected Obama twice is suddenly so full of racists. Weak liberal talking point IMO, if you don't mind my saying.
You haven't even begun to address the points I raised so you reducing this to mere opinion reflects your inability to actually have a converation.
I haven't got an inability to have a conversation. I have a disinterest in having this conversation. You are hung up on a word regarding an event that's already two weeks out of the news cycle.
If you don't like the word coup, suggest a different word and if it makes you happy I'll tell you I can live with it, and we'll move on. This is such a fascinating election, I don't see why you want to just lock onto that one word to the exclusion of all the other things of interest in the entire world.
It's not just semantics, which is a ridiculous reduction of the discussion. You are claiming to analyse the situation but in fact are just repeating dumb shit from Fox News. No power has transferred, no rules were broken. No coup. Having actually lost this discussion since you fail to provide a rebuttal to actual arguments you first try to gaslight me and now pretend it's just another opinion. Only reason you're doing it is because you're incapable of investigating and challenging your own opinions on the matter.
It's quite clear, also in your interactions with other posters you don't want to talk politics at all. You're only here to display your unswerving loyalty to a buffoon. That's fine but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.
Ok. So you agree with me that Biden is in very bad shape and that we're being lied to.
So I wonder, as an American, are you ok with that? The world is blowing up and the president is out to lunch. How do you think this plays out in an international crisis? I really want to understand your point of view on this. Personally, I'm concerned.
I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side).
I agree that he comes off as likable and folksy, that's the word that gets used a lot. I believe his leftism draws attention to the very leftism that Harris is trying to move away from. In fact it's Walz's association with the Floyd riots that draws attention to Kamala's role in them. That's why I think he's a mistake. But time will tell on that. Voters may like him. It's clear that Kam and Walz win the likability contest.
In fact I read somewhere that if the voters decide on likability, Harris and Walz win; and if they decide on the issues, the economy and immigration and so forth, Trump and Vance win. Clearly Trump and Vance are the grumpy pair and Harris and Walz are the happy pair. I agree with that and likability goes a very long way in politics.
Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing.
Ok. My understanding is that he used to be more of a centrist and his policies have moved left. He did say that socialism is like neighborliness. I expect the GOP to put that on endless loop. In recent years he does have a pretty liberal record. We'll have to see how all this plays out.
I haven't got an inability to have a conversation. I have a disinterest in having this conversation. You are hung up on a word regarding an event that's already two weeks out of the news cycle.
You have a disinterest because you were wrong and are unwilling to admit it. That's called not being able to have a conversation.
I believe his leftism draws attention to the very leftism that Harris is trying to move away from.
She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot. Same with her pivot on fracking. That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves.
In fact I read somewhere that if the voters decide on likability, Harris and Walz win; and if they decide on the issues, the economy and immigration and so forth, Trump and Vance win.
I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave. Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices. What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously. One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but...
He did say that socialism is like neighborliness. I expect the GOP to put that on endless loop.
Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either.
Oh boy, I can’t wait to hear more from bland blowhards about how Walz is “too far left” and how Harris should move more to the “middle” because it’s super wise. The analysis is complicated and original, and definitely not stupid and boring.
What's Trump's stance actually on the state level book bans in Utah, Tennessee, Idaho, and South Carolina?
I’ve heard nothing from him so far, but as you know he has no principles, so — like with project 2025 — if it becomes a political liability he may just dump it. But he’s tried to ban books himself, so I don’t think he cares one way or another.
She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot.
That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. And then Biden turned around and issued the executive orders he'd had the power to issue all along, and the numbers of crossers are being reduced just in time for the election, and showing that he didn't need the bill after all.
She was never against fracking. It's a Republican lie that she was ever against fracking. Also she was never the border czar. LOL. Orwelling retconning.
But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism.
That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves.
Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win.
I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave.
I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office.
Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices.
All those new jobs are going to immigrants. That's why the job numbers look good but the workers are grumpy. It comes down to immigration, Trump's strongest issue and Kamala's weakest.
He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately.
What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously.
It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that.
Drill more and crash gas prices? You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a very good thing.
One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but...
I'm on record against Trump's tariffs. They hurt American consumers, and then when other countries put tariffs on our goods in response, it hurts American producers.
Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either.
Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff.
I hear it's about 50-50 in the betting markets. Kam's had a bad week because of Walz, but Trump's not really capitalizing.
I'm actually quite concerned for the country no matter who wins.
Typical Trump cultist response: the guy repeating Fox News talking points accuses his opponent of— wait for it— repeating “talking points.”
What's weird isn't that you think I watch FOX News. It's that you think ANYONE watches FOX News. That's not where alt-news comes from, hasn't been for quite some time. There's a huge media ecosystem out there.
That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined.
So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did. Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line.
But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism.
Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs.
Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win.
That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left.
I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office.
It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):
- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal
I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him.
He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately.
In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose. The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him.
It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that.
People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further.
Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff.
Certainly seems like they moved on from tampons and the BLM riots, though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise. That and the fact that their guy actively avoided the Vietnam draft due to bonespurs yet feels like he can attack war heroes for what they've done.
The realization that Harris is running a virtual campaign is setting in. No policy, no interviews, flip-flopping on past views like the banning of fracking…no one knows what she thinks or believes except Kamala. The only principles one can glean from her stump speeches is the same hopey-changey piffle we’ve all heard before. It’s a shame some people love that stuff as much as they fall for it.
But forget grass-roots. The Harris campaign and the media have worked together to form a movement of pure astroturf. Her free concerts dressed up to look like rallies proves she has a lot of money to toss around, and she can garner what appear to be supporters so long as the payoff is worth it, but the sponsor of the infamous Green New Deal is not much different than the once-failed presidential candidate of 2020 except that this time she’s the anti-Trump movement’s last hope. Like how quickly Harris believed Jussie Smollete, that movement will swallow anyone and anything to keep their folk devil out of office.
So far no leaks, no policy, no hard-hitting interviews—for all we know she’s the great communo-fascist Trojan horse we’ve all been waiting for. But they can only keep a lid on it for so long.
So far no leaks, no policy, no hard-hitting interviews—for all we know she’s the great communo-fascist Trojan horse we’ve all been waiting for. But they can only keep a lid on it for so long.
Reply to NOS4A2 Read Marx' Capital, Piketty's Capitalism in the 21st century and his Capitalism and Ideology and get back to me when you've got some good arguments against what they write. Until then communism is the obvious answer to almost every global problem we currently face.
You’re telling me to go read Marx while accusing me for being unable to think for myself. I’ve read Marx I’ve read his critics, and his critics won. But I also know history and everyone except you has watched your communism fail spectacularly in every instance. So can you give me any reason besides reading Marx that one might want a communist to rule?
What is to be done: global agreement to tax the rich.
I used to think in those terms too: property tax on the wealthy. Now I'd say there's just no way to do that. I'm presently reading a book about the early Iron Age. Time goes by, revolutions happen pretty regularly, either from external or internal events. Our world will be the same
I asked why you hoped Kamala would be communist, and you told me to go read Das Kapital to come back with some arguments. Now you’re chastising me for equating Marx with communism.
I think that incremental change is possible. We already have a global economy. We may not be able to get to the point of global agreement but we can impose tariffs and wealth taxes on those who move capital from place to place in order to avoid paying taxes.
If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not.
If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not.
Placing tariffs causes tariff wars. That's partly how the Great Depression started. That did redistribute wealth, but not for long.
Reply to NOS4A2 Yes, I'm sure in your warped world this is the case. Never mind labour associations, EH&S regulations and labour laws that labour associations fought for, their support of women's suffrage, Mondragon and other cooperations, international movements like Via Campesina, etc. All you think communism entails is what they tried in Russia and China but I ask you where was the common control of the means of production there? It never existed. As I said, you have no fucking clue because you haven't read his work.
Same old arguments: communism has killed 100 million people. Capitalism has killed more people and responsible for slavery, but that’s not really capitalism. So that doesn’t count. But Pol Pot counts. Stalin counts. China counts— except for the part where they’re now a superpower with several economic measures better than the US. That part is capitalism though. Etc. etc.
Anyway— even if communism was tried, and failed, it’s still the morally correct system. We’ve certainly given “capitalism” a shot — or “tried to bring it about” — and the track record is pretty grim. Maybe some people still love Pinochet though, who knows?
No one really cares what kind of companies and associations you like. In fact I’d hope you’d join one. But none of your evasions change the fact that the countries mentioned have communist governments, run by communist politicians from the dictates of a communist party, all of whom wrote the party and government constitutions that explicitly state their aim to bring about communism. None of it changes the fact that you said you hope Kamala is just like them, a communist.
All of the horrible things these people did and still do in order to realize their goal proves only the lengths they are willing to go through to get it, and also the types of behavior you are willing to put up with all because you believe an old and out-of-fashion theory.
Reply to NOS4A2 Yes I hope for a real communist. But to understand what I mean, you need to read Marx, which you haven't, which is why you point to China. Lol.
Oh, a “real” communist. None of the other ones were real.
Do you know why someone would abuse the No True Scotsman Fallacy? To avoid valid criticisms of his argument. But to understand what I mean you’d have to have a shred of self-respect and decency.
Reply to NOS4A2 If you had read Marx, you'd know it's not a fallacy. Once again, where's the common ownership of the means production in the systems you claim are communist? There's no such thing, so they're not communist.
It is a fallacy. And you’re telling me you hope Kamala Harris is a real communist while arguing that the entire Chinese communist party aren’t real communists. How can you dig a deeper hole?
[quote=Trump’s Crucial Power Has Been Neutralized; https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/11/trumps-crucial-power-has-been-neutralized-00173406]For a year or more, Democrats have been facing the dim prospect of keeping a historically old, historically unpopular incumbent in the White House. Resignation and hopelessness were Joe Biden’s real running mates. Then with that debate performance, it became clear to the most significant forces in the party that Biden simply could not win in November. Amid a rising pressure campaign and worsening polls, the president yielded and stepped down from his reelection bid.
It was as if the Democratic Party had rediscovered a power that it had never used, maybe never even been aware of; far from being a “coup,” it was the execution of the essential task of a political party: The use of formal and informal power to protect itself from political disaster.
Within a matter of two weeks, voters now faced a reality that had previously seemed impossible: “You don’t want to vote for Biden or Trump? Now you don’t have to! You want change? Here she is!” The flood of money, volunteers and crowds toward Harris testifies to the power of that sentiment.[/quote]
I said months ago that the replacement of Biden would completely changed the dynamic of the election - and it has. That’s why MAGA is kvetching about it, waxing sentimental for ‘poor old Joe’, when really all they wanted was an easybeat.
John McMannisAugust 12, 2024 at 01:57#9246000 likes
I don’t follow politics that much but it’s everywhere right now. I think it’s important. There’s no way I’m voting Trump but I don’t love the other side either, although Walz seems like a good guy. RFK jr. has interesting stuff to say but is a little strange. The whole bear story and stuff like that. Are other people on the fence? Where are you all leaning?
Reply to AmadeusD A judgment and no argument. What is "bad faith" here? If a system that calls itself communism does not even feature the most basic point of Marx, that means of production should be owned in common, why exactly should we accept that it reflects "communism" let alone Marx' writing?
What is "bad faith" is having liars claim they know what they're talking about without having studied Marx and then having an idiot weigh in with a judgment out of the blue that nobody really cares about.
If so, then vote against him in the most effective way based on your situation: if you live in a swing state (i.e. polling trends are within the margin of error so that there is a reasonable chance for Trump to win your state), then vote "Harris-Walz"; if, however, you live in a safe state (i.e. Trump can't either lose or win that state), then vote for a third-party candidate who most aligns with your policy preferences (e.g. I will write-in "Cornel West" here in Washington state).
The common ownership of the means of production sits as a dream in the heads of communists, just like the dictatorship of the proletariat, the labor theory of value, class struggle, and a litany of failed communist predictions.
What is "bad faith" is having liars claim they know what they're talking about without having studied Marx and then having an idiot weigh in with a judgment out of the blue that nobody really cares about.
What a bizarre level of irony. That said, it's clear you have an axe to grind. I'm sure you'll continue through several more failed states.
I made a long list of Walz's leftist positions, from making Minnesota a sanctuary state for underage trans surgeries, to meeting five times with a Muslim cleric who admires Hitler. But there isn't much point. You're only here to argue a position, not have an intelligent discussion. Let me know if you ever have a substantive point to make.
So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did.
IMO the Dems have been able to spin the defeat of the bill as the Republicans blocking immigration reform. I did read the details of the bill at the time, and it would only have codified the existing mess, and made the GOP complicit in it. So the GOPs were right to block the bill, whether or not the public understands that. That would be my take.
Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line.
I don't deny that it is a talking point for the Dems. The GOPs have a hard time getting their point of view out. As I recall, Jeh Johnson, Obama's head of Homeland Security, said that more than 1500 illegal entries a day is a disaster. The bill allows up to 5000 before they even begin to do anything. More than three disasters a day. Why should the GOP sign on to that?
Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs.
Nonetheless, positions get classified as left or right. I agree with many liberal positions and disagree with many of Republican and conservative positions. Most of them, actually, as a fallen liberal. Matt Taibbi referred to himself the other day as a disaffected liberal. Of course he gets called a right winger too. Any liberal who strays off the plantation gets smeared as a right winger. In England you're a right winger if you object to little girls being stabbed to death. Ugly doings in Brit politics these days.
That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left.
Yes I agree. Someone noted that both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases. A "turnout" election rather than a "persuasion" one. Instead of trying to persuade the middle, both sides just want to whip up their base. The worst kind of brain dead politics on both sides IMO. Remember when Trump survived his assassination attempt (or it was all a massive psyop of some kind, but never mind that for the moment) and he came to the convention calling for Unity? That didn't last five minutes. He picked Vance, who's on the ticket to throw red meat to the base. I hate it. I was really hoping Trump would try to be a unifier. I wish SOMEONE would.
It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):
- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal
Thank you so much!!!! I think I'll cc my friend @Mikie. Hey Mikie this is the list I'd have posted to you if I felt like looking it all up. Thank you Mr Bee, much obliged.
I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him.
I agree with some of those positions. Especially that fraudulent 2008 bailout. As the kids at Occupy said -- remember Occupy? -- Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!. Truer words never spoken.
The point, anyway, isn't agreement or disagreement with the positions. After all Democrats are perfectly happy with most of those. The point, as I think you agree with me, is that Walz is a leftist ... and why'd Kam pick a leftist if she's frantically paddling toward the center? Was against fracking now she's for it. Enabled Biden's open borders now she pretends to be an immigration hawk.
Seriously, who believes Kamala's an immigration hawk? She's on record wanting health care for illegals, and saying that illegal immigration isn't a crime (it is). So she's lying her ass off. But she may get away with it. We shall see.
In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose.
Agree. Also in 2016 when he insulted people he was funny as hell. At least he was to me. When Megyn Kelly asked him at the first GOP debate if he was a demeaning asshole to women (not the exact words), he said, "Only to Rosie!" I just cracked up.
These days he's just angry and resentful. He won't let go of 2020. He's clearly not the man he was in 2020. I think he may well have a touch of the same kind of cognitive issues Biden's got. Trump is 78 and he's been through enormous stress the past four years.
I agree with you that he has a very good chance to lose. He could improve his chances of winning by staying focussed on the issues, but he's completely incapable of doing that.
Fraudulent media-protected campaign or not, Kam is out-working and out-hustling him. She could win.
The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him.
Yup. Trump carries enormous baggage. And Kam's better than Hillary. I personally do not dislike Kamala as much as I dislike Hillary.
People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further.
It's Trump's job to remind them of energy policy and the wild Biden-Harris overspending. Instead he's snarling about her rally crowds being faked. Maggie Haberman in the NYT reported that he's privately called her a "bitch." Seems Kam really has thrown Trump off balance.
That's actually what none of us foresaw. With all her weaknesses, Kamala is uniquely able to flummox Trump. She draws a big crowd and he fumes and throws out insults, instead of reminding people of the price of gas when he left office. He just can't find his groove. He used to be able to insult people to beat them but he can't do that with Kamala, it just makes him look small.
though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise.
He's repeatedly shown bad character, lying about his service, lying about his combat experience, lying about his rank, leaving (admittedly as was his legal right) just before his unit was to deploy to Iraq. A lot of his fellow soldiers are speaking out against him over that.
Of course Bill Clinton notoriously ducked out of military service, and it didn't hurt him. So it's just one issue out of many.
universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal
Sounds good to me. So your point is that Mr Bee can make substantive points, but that you could too if you tried. Cool. Guess you really showed me.
The Fed isn't supposed to make rate changes during an election cycle, but they're probably going to have to in September. They're expected to lower the rate in keeping with jobs data. Wall Street will party and the economy will look good. That's bad for Trump, obviously.
The Fed isn't supposed to make rate changes during an election cycle, but they're probably going to have to in September. They're expected to lower the rate in keeping with jobs data. Wall Street will party and the economy will look good. That's bad for Trump, obviously.
I thought the Fed was apolitical and does whatever it wanted? Their one job is to not let the economy crash regardless of the political narrative it creates. I mean Trump and the Republicans will be mad at a booming economy if it helps their enemies but let's be honest Trump would be harassing the Fed every day to cut rates if he were president right now.
I'm skeptical. Not so much that there are neat ideas to be found, but of the implementation. Lenin, Mao and others might have thought they had it, but that turned out differently. How would it go? And in a larger, diverse environment?
(ok, don't want to side-track the thread, should perhaps be moved elsewhere)
Reply to jorndoe Any process that creates power vacuums are in danger of being co-opted by undemocratic forces. The other side of that coin, is it could work the other way around. Basically, communism is in a simple sense about more democracy instead of less.
Perhaps too scared to face hard-hitting question, whether about Harris’ flip-flopping or questions about Waltz’s stolen valor, Harris and Waltz interview each other!
It’s all an opaque act, a virtual candidacy, like Biden: the election of a figure head to represent the US in world political pageantry.
No, don’t be fooled, communism is not cooperatives and more democracy. These little tales are what they tell you to trick you into giving up your freedoms. Next thing you know you’re in a labor camp.
Reply to NOS4A2 Most people already are in slave labour but you wouldn't know with the myopic worldview you have. The above is just dumb unsubstantiated conservative regurgitated word vomit, which you lap up daily. It's just weird.
I watched 10 minutes of the Harris and Waltz chat just now and if it’s an act they’re good actors. They come off as warm, approachable, and down to earth. The script is on-brand too, with compelling ‘creation stories’ and showcasing their middle-class backgrounds. A masterclass in branding. Isn’t Trump supposed to be the branding expert?
It also presented a stark contrast to the cold elitist labor-hating and weird chat between Trump and Elon.
They’ve been doing it their whole lives. No doubt they’re good at it, if branding is your principle upon which to judge. With an army of campaigners and millions of dark money in your pocket, we wouldn’t expect anything less. But there is no better to hide your lack of interviews and lack of transparency behind such a fake exchange.
Reply to praxis This doesn't work unless you're already partial to it. To someone like me, who is skeptical of taking any of it seriously, they come across saccharine in a cartoonish, "we;re really trying guys, don't cancel us" kind of way. They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense.
I mean Trump and the Republicans will be mad at a booming economy if it helps their enemies but let's be honest Trump would be harassing the Fed every day to cut rates if he were president right now.
He'd have to install mechanisms for overriding the chairman. I guess he'd give it his best shot.
So Harris and Biden appear at what amounted to a campaign event, I think in Washington? Anyway, the subject was Medicare reforms and rebates, making a list of important therapeutic drugs less expensive and more available. An actual policy achievement announcement!
While over in the clown car show that is MAGA, they’re pleading with Dear Leader to at least try and appear to be saying something policy-related and sensible, even if their party has wasted the last legislative session on wild-goose chases about impeaching Biden and advanced zero legislation.
But no - Dear Leader says he has every right to be ‘mean’ about Harris, because ‘she’s trying to put me in jail’ and then reverts to his stream-of-addled-consciousness rants. Business as usual.
I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine.
Well as one, that's how they come across. I couldn't give a squirt of piss who wins - I'm just calling it like I see it. They come across as cartoonishly saccharine and dishonestly bubbly.
You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled?
Probably not in the sense that they've strategised in those terms, no(though, who knows - more brazen political horseshit has happened). But I didn't suggest that. I suggested that what comes across. I am not alone, and ths is not an unreasonable reading of such twaddle as they've used for their talking points imo. It boils down to this:
They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense.
Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. Unsure why this wouldn't apply to the ticket who had to pick up on a race they(i.e Biden/Harris) were sorely losing.
Election 2024 is again a basic IQ test: neoliberals (pols) versus neofascists (cons)? Hint: you don't have to be antifa, BLM, pro-woman, etc to demonstrate that you're intelligent (i.e. not a bleach-swilling, MAGA-moron, weirdo). :mask:
Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway.
So true. Campaigns are about "messaging", consisting of (distorted) narratives, and "defining" themselves (in an appealing way) and the opponent (in a negative way). It's show business.
I sometimes watch a daily show/zoom-call on youtube called "2-way". Mark Halperin hosts, and he usually has both a Democratic and Republican campaign strategist (Sean Spicer is on there frequently) with him. They evaluate the previous day's campaign action like a sports talk-show: what's working and not working, and opining about what each campaign should be doing. It helps give me perspective on the game that it is.
Yes. They still try to avoid screwing with the economy when an election is close.
Well I'd prefer it if they focused on not screwing over the economy because they're worried about the political optics. I suspect that that was the reason why Trump has been getting a pass legally for his multiple crimes. Both the Republicans and Democrats were too chicken to shut him down permanently after Jan 6 and now here we are.
I still feel like this is an issue about Trump's policies that is underdiscussed. People seem to think that Trump will fix inflation somehow but he literally plans to implement a 20% tariff on all imported goods and unlike his other crazy ideas he probably has unilateral authority to do so:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1823875755232911821[/tweet]
Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway.
Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.
Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.
Democrats promised 6 trillion for Green New Deal. So far they have invested less than 20 billion in the green new deal, gave like 3 trillion on covid relief only, increased the US public debt to 35 trillion, plan to give 1.2 billion for student loan forgiveness and I heard Kamala Harris today stating that she is going to give 1.7 trillion in middle-class handouts (though I know very well she wasn't referred to me with "middle-class", but to her potential voters).
I am wondering who are more stupid now, those who vote for Trump or those who think that the evil in this country may come only from the "far-right", but never from the left?
I stand for social justice, gun laws and environmental protections (things that Trump never takes into consideration), but if Democrats bankrupt this country the only sure thing is that progressives won't see any of their plans/dreams realized, and they will deserve to be blamed for failures which they often use to charge their opponents with.
Maybe stop reading — and regurgitating — the Daily Mail.
Several of your numbers are wrong, and it’s obvious to any reader that you’ve bought into the tired right-wing talking point about debt and spending — which you’ll only hear about when it’s a Democrat in office. Never mind that Trump jacked up the debt as well — by trillions.
For me no big difference between democrat politicians and republicans, apart from appearance (republicans dress and look trendier than democrats, democrats are better orators).
Trump reduced taxes in order to satisfy his voters. Harris says she will give handouts to those in need. Is it not the same thinking, with different targets? Trump targeted businessmen and self-employed people, Harris is targeting those in need, mostly single mothers and minorities (though she uses the word "middle-class" for promotional purposes).
In contrast with republicans, I believe in government spending and government intervention. But I don't see why there are no other ways of doing it, apart from just giving money to people.
Trump did that too (he told people "vote me, so you save money" and he kept his word). Most of my friends were happy for saving from their taxes during Trump's presidency, and Biden did something similar in a time of urgency.
It is not an accident that 2020-2022 coincide with the US cryptocurrency craze. Just from the people I know, I may tell you that many of these relief paychecks ended up in crypto investments (wasted money, which in one or another way our children will have to repay).
But you should see it that Kamala Harris is doing the same thing with Trump: vote me, so I give you money. I, Kamala, speak about USA and Americans, but in the way and in the moment I do it, I don't care for the future or the role of this nation, I just want you (my potential voter) to know that money is coming for you.
We have some moral dilemmas now:
Should the voter consider money and personal benefit as the foremost criterion in casting his vote? Democrats and republicans will say yes. (Truth does not matter to them.)
Should our generation borrow money that the next generation will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say yes. (The only future they know is from one election to the next.)
How should we use the money that our children will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say these money should be used in the way that satisfies best those voters which brought us to power. (Again, the only future they know are those periods from one to the next election.)
To conclude, we are not talking only about debt and sums here. We are talking about the morality of doing politics and spending money in this way. You don't blame your neighbor who takes a loan to upgrade his old house and buy a car, but you will definitely blame you neighbor if he takes loans to pay sex-workers, buy drugs, go to see Dubai, etc. In this country so much money is paid, but the results are poor and some people will always pay the bill (without a detailed receipt). I can't vote republicans when they reject science, but I have lost faith in democrats too. Either they have to be frank with Americans and tell them some big sacrifices are needed to save our country and/or the whole world, or they just will keep satisfying their voters every four years and always will blame their opponents for that never-happening-revolution.
By the way, why every time I open Youtube I see ads from democrats only?
I just removed my party affiliation with democrats, and I never plan to vote climate-change deniers (republicans), but I am just trying to better understand how democracy works in this country and within the social media. This is why I am asking about Youtube.
No doubt he is stupid and very anachronistic (in order to balance the cost of foreign tariffs, he thinks to reduce the prices of local energy, through making coal and oil cheaper, at a time when the rest of the world is trying to free itself from carbon emissions and countries like South Korea and China are leading all other nations in batteries and electrical devices), but Kamala is not better.
Price gouging is not coming only from big companies, is coming mostly from small and medium businesses. Many of these businesses will close or file for bankruptcy if the government tells them how to limit prices. (Walmart and Amazon will profit again.)
This is going to be a very difficult election. You have to choose one of the two extremists. The one is the extremist of the rich and evangelicals, the other the extremist of the poor and identity politics.
If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.
Reply to Eros1982 Depends on the details of her actual policy, though based on what I've read it sounds like antitrust enforcement. Maybe when she sits for an actual interview we'll find out more.
That being said I do think that alot of Harris' policies won't be done at all if only because congress (especially if Republicans keep the Senate as they look likely to do) won't allow it. The issue with Trump's plans on deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 20% tariff on all imports is that he can do it unilaterally. I'm not worried about him gutting Obamacare because the GOP congressmen are smart enough to not play along with his schemes. He would do it if he had a big red button on his desk to press, but he can't, however such a button does exist for starting a trade war like he did in his first term.
Policy ought to be a big part of it, but it doesn't capture everything. Better: we predict a future that is entailed by each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will deliver the better future.
Reply to Benkei You can find by searching youtube for "Mark Halperin 2-way". Named as such because there's a degree of audience participation. Here's one:
It's typical of the ones labelled "morning meeting" that discuss what I was talking about. Other episodes have different sorts of topics, all related to some aspects of politics.
This one features a Jordan Peterson interview: https://www.youtube.com/live/Tgy4bsS3tM8?si=GnvRCOefpTF9WQAK
Peterson makes a ton of debatable claims, but still much food for thought.
Here's one featuring a panel discussion of media bias: https://www.youtube.com/live/k0xCB1J0SOk?si=s2xyYWlfjwklM9fj
Very interesting.
Policy ought to be a big part of it, but it doesn't capture everything. Better: we predict a future that is entailed by each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will deliver the better future.
Luckily the past can give us a hint. Both were heavily involved in past and current administrations. No predictions required.
Their record. If given power, what will they do? Harris has been vice president for the past three years and I can not name one thing she has done, for instance. If she wants to enact price controls, give 25000 to first time home-buyers, why hasn’t she done so?
That's political nonsense. You know as well as I that a VP doesn't have the power to implement policy. For that matter, there are limits to what a President can do.
I wasn't trying to debate policies or candidates, I just wanted to point out that it may, or may not, make sense to assume policy-promises are likely to become policy. For example, executive orders are easy, but transient; laws are long term, but need 60 votes in the Senate. Willingness to compromise matters, and you can have a positive or negative view of that.
[quote=MoDo]
Top Democrats are bristling with resentments even as they are about to try to put on a united front at the United Center in the Windy City.
A coterie of powerful Democrats maneuvered behind the scenes to push an incumbent president out of the race.
It wasn’t exactly “Julius Caesar” in Rehoboth Beach. But it was a tectonic shift and, of course, there were going to be serious reverberations. Even though it was the right thing to do, because Joe Biden was not going to be able to campaign, much less serve as president for another four years, in a fully vital way, it was a jaw-dropping putsch.[/quote]
Not every day that Maureen Dowd makes my point for me.
Reply to fishfry and she's still wrong for the reasons and arguments I gave you that you never engaged. And you're doing the same spiel again, by offering someone else's opinion devoid of the context of my arguments and pretend it's some kind of rebuttal. Learn how a discussion works!
and she's still wrong for the reasons and arguments I gave you that you never engaged. And you're doing the same spiel again, by offering someone else's opinion devoid of the context of my arguments and pretend it's some kind of rebuttal. Learn how a discussion works!
I did not engage with your arguments for the same reason I don't engage with flat earthers.
It's perfectly well known that Biden was pressured and shoved out. It's not rationally possible to argue the contrary. I get that you're sincere, but so are the flat earthers. Since we talked a week ago, stories have come out about Biden's seething resentment at the way he was treated. Here's one such.
[url=https://nypost.com/2024/08/11/us-news/biden-specifically-names-nancy-pelosi-in-first-interview-about-why-he-dropped-out-of-presidential-race]Biden admits he was pushed out of presidential race, name-drops Pelosi in first interview since exit
[/url]
It's simply not possible to look at the facts -- Biden was in it all the way on Saturday, then they announce he's got covid, then on Sunday a letter comes out under a forged mechanical signature without any of the standard official notices of withdrawal as required by the FEC.
You just can't spin this any other way than hardball political pressure from the Dem insiders. I absolutely do not understand how you can even pretend otherwise. To be honest I don't recall you making any rational arguments.
I did think it was amusing that MoDo spent her Sunday column the day before the Dem convention to make the point that it was a coup.
But if you want to think Joe Biden woke up on Sunday morning and dictated and signed the letter of his own free will ... you are entitled to your opinion. It is just too silly and unsupportable an opinion to be worth much in the way of discussion.
Haha. Good one Mr. Bee. When do you think that will happen? It's her official campaign strategy to never say an unscripted word. We all know what happens when Kam goes off script.
Price controls. Of all the hare-brained schemes. Even WaPo and CNN are against the idea. Price controls inevitably create shortages and bread lines. Nixon's price controls failed. Price controls always fail. They constrain supply and increase demand. Exactly the opposite of what you want.
Well 100,000 Antifa goons and Hamas-loving maniacs are planning to exercise their free speech rights in Chicago. The store owners are boarding up the windows just in case. "The whole world's watching" as they chanted in '68.
Price controls. Of all the hare-brained schemes. Even WaPo and CNN are against the idea. Price controls inevitably create shortages and bread lines. Nixon's price controls failed. Price controls always fail. They constrain supply and increase demand. Exactly the opposite of what you want.
Politically it will probably work out for her because of how uninformed voters are which is what I suspect her play here is. Say what you want about how viable her policies are but polling does show that people blame corporate price gouging for alot of the inflation and they want the government to do something:
Populism sells and when people see the "experts" at CNN and WaPo balk at these ideas and you have folks like Larry Kudlow on Fox saying that corporate greed is a myth they just see the establishment defending the status quo. I mean if CNN is gonna bring on people like this:
When prices are high, in most cases, the best policy action in response is actually taking no action, Roberts, the chair of Weber State University’s economics department, told CNN.
That would cause consumers who are deterred by, say, high prices of beef, to instead purchase another type of meat or protein. That helps keep beef on the grocery store shelves for people who want it enough to pay the higher prices.
It's hard to see them as not being out of touch with the concerns of consumers. I'm not saying they're wrong but if you're worried about the price of beef this week then that's the last thing you want to hear.
The same goes for her housing policy where first time homebuyers will probably be more excited about direct subsidies over building more housing (though Harris says she's doing both). Remember your average voter doesn't understand the difference between cooling inflation and deflation (what they would call an actual decrease in prices) and still needs to be lectured on how marginal tax rates work. At the end of the day none of these policies will get implemented simply because of how dysfunctional congress is but like her adopting Trump's stance on tips and one upping Vance's $5000 CTC idea with a $6000 CTC, Harris is trying to win an election by promising alot of nice things. Same for Trump too, to be honest. It's all about the vibes.
Price controls are an excellent idea. Harris keeps surprising me. If she keeps this up, she’ll win easily. The fact that every moronic armchair political analyst and both CNN and Fox News are screaming against it — are all great signs that she’s on the right track.
Executive orders are interesting. I don’t think they’re so transient when it comes to the institution of government itself. They can direct the executive agencies and the military, for example.
Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value?
Have you been reading this and the Trump thread? Not only are mainly democrats partial to this thinking, its a pick-and-choose situation. Though, remove the partisan remark - and just the question - and my incredulity remains :P
If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.
True. And true for both - Trump would normally be one of the worst Republican candidates. Its just the conflict aspect that has him preferred (and, possibly not preferred, just a better choice that Harris to many Reps). Neither had a shot in hell of being a Good President™
Well, the House GOP finally released their impeachment report regarding Joe Briben and his crime family, outlining several impeachable offenses. It’s pretty damning stuff which we’ve all known about for years, but too little too late.
Reply to NOS4A2 I saw they uncritically copied a meme despite overwhelming evidence everybody wanted Shokin gone irrespective of whatever Burisma investigation that may have been going on and stopped reading since it's bullshit.
Reply to NOS4A2 Yes, that's precisely the difference between you and me, I stop reading when it contradicts evidence, you stop reading when it contradicts your dumb ideas. Spot on.
What are you talking about? :brow: Steve Schmidt is a thirty-year Republican and a political and corporate strategist. He is best known for working on Republican political campaigns, including those of President George W. Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arizona Senator John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign.
Reply to praxis Hmmm, what would that have to do with what I've said? The claim is, roughly: Whether or not one takes the media seriously is based on whether it supports their current pet point-to-be-made".
The source is irrelevant unless you want to talk about bias in picking one's sources (even more obvious there, in the main as Ground News shows with statistical analysis of most articles it posts as to who is publishing/reading those stories/takes).
Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in general? I have given an example (which more starkly illustrates this, as the source doesn't align, but the content does, with expectation).
DNC Convention. Boring, but Dems have bigger stars than the Republicans — and the Repubs hate that. Trump most of all— hence the endless talk about crowd size and fantasizing about a Taylor Swift endorsement (she’ll endorse Harris).
Dems have Swift and Beyonce — GOP have Hulk Hogan and Chachi. There’s a drop-off here.
I don't agree it's boring. I've beeing watching on and off, and some of it has been scintillating. Biden is just wrapping up, and he's given a powerful and poignant speech. It was also a great send-off, not at all mawkish or regretful. More strength to the Democrats.
I was referring to Biden's farewell speech in particular. But then, I admit I'm emotionally attached to the outcome of the election in a way that, if it were any other time and any other pair of candidates, I woudn't be.
:up: I get it. Trump bring re-elected would be a disaster. I very much hope he loses and will be voting against him. But I still very much dislike these silly conventions. Compared to the RNC, it’s boring. But that’s a compliment.
Reply to Mikie One point I will call out - there are tons of stories about Republican operatives and politicians ‘pleading with Trump’ to stop campaigning on insults and to try to ‘concentrate on policy’. They say that if Trump campaigns on economic policy, taxation and immigration that he has a strong suit. The problem is, it just ain’t true. First, Trump can only campaign on lies, insults and exaggerations, because they are his only weapons. Second, Biden’s economic record is better than the previous administration. Trump himself tanked the most aggressive border control policy that had ever been agreed to by a Democratic President just to be able to brag about the issue. And his taxation policies favour the rich.
He’s sporadically trying to be ‘teleprompter Trump’ on the podium from time to time, but ‘Truth Social Trump’ will always, well, trump the effort. I expect the more he lags in polls the more desperate, spiteful and vindictive he will become. A truly vicious circle.
unenlightenedAugust 21, 2024 at 07:05#9270100 likes
We are so polite and restrained on this site, as if we were all democrats or something. But have a proper gander at how the republicans take on The great golf cheat.
But for a really lame speech, the NDC can't compete with the Orange Baby recently declaring himself the defender of law and order, (you have to smile, surely?) and giving a purported 'economic speech', both in a monotone of sleepy dreariness that even Fox gave up on following. I won't give links to spare the blushes of the apologists, but you can find them I guess if you want to.
Biden’s inner-circle worked to conceal his decline, according to the WaPo editorial board. But in their obsequious adulation for Biden’s wisdom in stepping down (a roundabout way of saying he was pressured to leave), they skirt past the fact that a man in decline is still the commander-in-chief of the country, in charge of the military and foreign policy, holds the nuclear codes, even while he can’t remember the name of his own Secretary of State (known to Biden as “Black man”). Who’s running the country? No one seems to care.
In other news, “One of the biggest revisions by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the United States added 818,000 fewer jobs between April 2023 and March 2024.”
This is all par for the course for the Potemkin administration, a blizzard of lies and deceit, with its vice president and second in command now taking up the mantle as its next virtual president.
First, Trump can only campaign on lies, insults and exaggerations, because they are his only weapons. Second, Biden’s economic record is better than the previous administration.
In other news, “One of the biggest revisions by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the United States added 818,000 fewer jobs between April 2023 and March 2024.”
If Trump can be believed this is good news because he reported that those jobs were filled by illegal immigrants. Good news or part of a blizzard of lies and deceit?
unenlightenedAugust 22, 2024 at 07:40#9271850 likes
Hey guys, I'm struck by how many fairly prominent seeming republicans are speaking at the DNC. Is that a normal thing in your politics? In the UK, we occasionally get someone swapping sides, but they tend to be regarded with suspicion and sidelined. I don't think I have ever seen a UK Tory saying "I'm still a conservative, but please vote Labour this time, because our leader is a corrupt and destructive person." Nor vice versa. There were Labour politicians undermining Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader, but none that spoke at the Conservative Conference. It just seems an extraordinary event to me; is it normal in the US?
I don't think I have ever seen a UK Tory saying "I'm still a conservative, but please vote Labour this time, because our leader is a corrupt and destructive person."
It’s not typical to have your former press Secretary tell people to vote against you, no. Even in this country. Trump is just that awful.
Hey guys, I'm struck by how many fairly prominent seeming republicans are speaking at the DNC. Is that a normal thing in your politics?
What makes this so extraordinary is that Republicans under Trump regard Democrats as the enemy and do not dare cross party lines. If Trump loses we are much more likely to see Republicans return to the idea, if not the practice, up putting country before party.
Given Stephanie Grisham's record--including her previous defence for Trump calling Never-Trumpers "human scum"--it seems highly unlikely she is doing anything other than using the DNC as a free advertising platform for her book. Wealthy establishment conservatives, like those on the Lincoln project, I guess, realize Trump threatens instability and the Democratic same ol' works better for them. I doubt any of the objectors are concerned with actual corruption or lack of morality as there is no morality to be found anywhere in American politics and corruption is systematic and desirable for both parties.
It’s been that way for a while. It’s the establishment vs. the outsiders. Many warmongering neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, David Frum, Michael Steele, and other Bush/McCain worshippers have fled the GOP to find their rightful place among their DNC allies. Meanwhile establishment and deep state critics like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK have seemingly fled that backstabbing cabal for the Trump camp.
It’s been that way for a while. It’s the establishment vs. the outsiders.
There's some truth in that, but it doesn't make the outsiders the "good guys". Stephanie Grisham was right when she said Trump has no morals. She just left out the bit about her and the Democrats also having no morals.
True enough. But the fracturing of these parties and the subsequent realignment is very interesting to watch. Who knows what will become of them over the next few administrations?
highly unlikely she is doing anything other than using the DNC as a free advertising platform for her book.
True— but money-grubbing conservatives existed during Romney and McCain’s and Bush and Reagan’s time too. Didn’t see them at the DNC. Then again, those guys weren’t (rightfully) demonized like Trump is.
I don’t pay much mind to the theatrics. The whole convention is ridiculous. And I have costal real estate to sell to anyone who gets teary-eyed over these speeches.
I'm not too interested in the gory details but the political shifts that are being experienced are symptomatic of social fractures that may signal the inherent unsustainability of neoliberalism and the delusion of the "end of history" paradigm. I'm not sure that leads anywhere good in the short term.
I suspect Europe, as the crucible of the worst ideologies, will have more of an issue than over here and much quicker. Same with what’s left of the commonwealth. But I also suspect the US isn’t far behind.
unenlightenedAugust 22, 2024 at 18:17#9272740 likes
So RFK will drop out on Friday, and will endorse Trump. Big surprise.
Shows what a spineless weirdo he always has been, and now solidifies his place as having one of the worst judgments in history.
Funny how he went from being a "useful chaos agent" according to Steve Bannon to ultimately being a drag on the Republicans so much that they had to hang him up. I'm guessing the right by propping him up so much in the media wanted to recreate the Bernie magic that divided the left and got us Trump in 2016. Fortunately they had no idea what actually made Sanders popular and ended up making someone who was more likely to peel votes away from the right instead. The anti-vax stuff wasn't gonna appeal to anyone except the far right who still obsesses over COVID to this day, and although Kennedy could've adopted a more pro-Palestinian stance to contrast with Biden, he ultimately ended up being more pro-Zionist than Genocide Joe.
Yeah. I at least applaud that he takes climate change as the existential threat that it is. Maybe that brings some sanity to the Republicans, if only at the margins. Otherwise he’s useless.
Reply to Mikie I was willing to give him some attention back when he ran because of his record as an environmental lawyer. Lost it when he said that his approach to climate change was to leave it to the free market. Like it sounds good for the right wing audience on Fox that propped him up, but god they have no idea what progressives care about.
In all likelihood Trump probably promised him a position as the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is where he would likely have influence. So add anti-vaxxer leading the department of health to the growing list of dangers of a second Trump term.
Lost it when he said that his approach to climate change was to leave it to the free market.
The free market. The deus ex machina of all crypto-plutocrats. That wonderful abstract bullshit reason given whenever you don’t want the government to regulate your pet industry.
The free market. Doesn’t exist, but the closer we get to it, the worse things become. Probably the stupidest concept there is— but so many people believe in it as if it were God. Another one of those indicators you can use to determine just he how big of an idiot you interlocutor is — as soon as they bust that one out, you know. That and “the climate is always changing” :lol:
Kamala mentioned something about tyrants and dictators, mimicking Joe's terminology vis-á-vis Russia and China.
Not only does this show a complete inability for diplomacy, but also a complete unwillingness - much like what we have seen during the Biden administration.
Just to quell any speculation, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I join Donald Trump on an electoral ticket. Our positions on certain fundamental issues, our approaches to governance, and our philosophies of leadership
could not be further apart.
Just another slimy politician doing what’s best for himself.
Probably the worst thing about him is the fusion of antisemitism (e.g. his veiled suggestion that the Jews and Chinese got together to launch COVID), his staunch support for Israel's war on Gaza, and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war. The hypocrisy / opportunism combo there is audacious even for an American politician.
[...] his staunch support for Israel's war on Gaza, and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war. The hypocrisy / opportunism combo there is audacious even for an American politician.
That's quite literally what the Biden/Harris administration is doing right now, though.
They threaten Israel with menacing finger-wagging and taps on the wrist, while literally supplying the bombs they are throwing on schools in Gaza.
Absolutely. I think I've made clear before there are no morals to be found on any side. I can understand Americans having practical reasons to prefer one over the other though.
Reply to Baden It's just unfortunate that it's coming from this third side that claims to be above the two party system. As someone who's supportive of more party representation in US politics I think RFK did a disservice to the whole movement by selling out the way he did as apparently some smaller third parties are gonna go under because of his decision. Personally I don't think he ever meant to serve as anything other than a spoiler candidate for the Dems (and I am absolutely not shocked at how this ended up), but based on the reaction from some of his supporters, they seem pretty upset at this. At least the Libertarian and Green parties are still there despite this being their 15th cycle of being irrelevant. Bobby couldn't even last one.
Looks like the libertarians won't be flocking to Trump considering how RFK shat on them for some as yet unrevealed promise from the Orangeutan. I doubt they'll go Dem either though.
sure buddy. Keep telling yourself that. I suppose a high level of delusion is necessary to be a Trump supporter.
You know as I remember it -- I didn't go back to check -- you and I were going back and forth about whether it was a "coup." And you were claiming Biden stepped down willingly. At some point I didn't feel like arguing about it any more. Especially since neither of us are privy to what actually happened. Nancy and Barack and George Clooney didn't share their innermost thoughts with me; and I assume not with you either. So we're both guessing. The evidence support the proposition that Biden was forced out is pretty strong. The other day Pelosi said, "I did what I had to do." Another data point for my opinion.
I don't think you have much in the way of a supportable point based on the widely-reported pressure that was brought to bear on Biden. And I don't think it's that important a hill to die on. So I withdrew from the conversation. This seems to make you unhappy. I regret that.
Keep telling yourself that. I suppose a high level of delusion is necessary to be a Trump supporter.
No doubt. But I came by it honestly, as a lifelong liberal Democrat and currently a disillusioned one. One of the seven to ten million Americans who voted for Obama and then Trump. You don't want to engage with us and that's sad.
The Biden-Harris admin was a disaster and now Kamala is actually running against her own administration. A Martian watching the Dem convention would have had no idea that Kamala has been running the country (in the stead of the non compos demented Biden the past three and a half years. She actually said she's going to fix the border. She's been in charge of the border all this time. I just read that 70% of the voters don't know any of her past policy positions. She may yet get away with it.
Oh yes I quite agree. Price controls are popular. It's not till a ways down the road that the shortages and lines (queues for my British cousins) begin.
An old article has been making the rounds. (pdf link)
Price controls have been failing for 4000 years. But yes you are absolutely right. They are very popular. Nixon's wage and price controls were popular till they failed.
... and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war.
I'm old enough to remember when liberals considered that a virtue.
And there weren't any new wars while Trump was president. The world didn't blow up till Iran and Russia saw Biden's weakness. Some of us out here credit Trump and blame Biden for that. But don't worry about the defense contractors. Kam shouted out her strong support for the continuation of the wars. Yippee.
Orangeutan-see, Orangeutan-do: batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come. Will this trumpster fire blow up into a flaming hellscape by Kamala's September 10th debate beatdown? TBD.
Monkey-see, Orangeutan-do: batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come.
Imagine JD sharing a platform with his non-verbal son, and having the presence of mind and care to pull that son aside when he was about to walk into a teleprompter screen?
I can't imagine JD being open and honest and caring at all. I can't imagine him wanting to show his mixed race family off to the maga racists anyway. But they better get used to a lot more disabled kids of all sorts as abortion becomes more rare.
Wikipedia:In 2009, some residents of Royal Tunbridge Wells called the tag "inappropriate" and "stereotypical" and asked the town to drop association with it in favour of Delighted of Tunbridge Wells. However, there was opposition to this campaign by other residents, some of whom wrote to newspapers in the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style arguing they preferred Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Local merchants at the town's information centre pointed out that tourists were buying twice as many goods bearing Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells than with Delighted of Tunbridge Wells.
Tunbridge Wells knows the value of brand equity. :lol:
Vance already showed his family off with his wife giving an amazing speech, putting to bed your little race fantasy once again. As for abortion, now people can vote for the laws they want. I know people having more power is anathema to the authoritarian, but you’ll get used to it.
It’s just a messaging tactic! The proposals don’t actually matter because they won’t get through Congress. Why do Harris supporters love messaging, and not substance?
Hill Dems try to tamp down backlash to Harris’ grocery price gouging pitch
But such a bill has no chance of passing Congress anytime soon, even if Democrats win the White House and Congress this November, according to six Democratic lawmakers and five Democratic aides who were granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. These people said Democrats in Congress have privately been telling critics that this part of the Harris plan is not viable.
Rather, they’ve argued it’s a messaging tactic — a way to show that she understands food prices remain an economic burden for many Americans and to redirect voters’ anger about inflation to corporations, in a way that progressives in particular have cheered.
As for abortion, now people can vote for the laws they want. I know people having more power is anathema to the authoritarian, but you’ll get used to it.
The women in many states don’t have the power to choose now. Aren’t you supposed to be some breed of libertarian?
Reply to NOS4A2 So the freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose? Good we've got that cleared up. We can return to a lot of your previous positions and reassess them based on this.
The freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose…I don’t even know what that means. I was saying people can now vote for the legislation they want in their own states rather than having zero opportunity to do so.
Reply to NOS4A2 Nobody was forcing people who didn't want an abortion to have one so in fact we don't need regulation but freedom. Which Roe vs. Wade offered but was overturned by degenerate fossils wanting to return to the stone age.
Reply to Benkei Regardless of my own stance on the matter, I don't think there's anything particularly degenerate about pro-life stances, which usually focus on the value/protection of the unborn child.
Reply to Tzeentch It's degenerate because it flows from an archaic worldview that is essentially illiberal. Nobody having an abortion has every hurt anybody. Someone can be pro-life but that doesn't mean they have to enforce that stance on others. And "unborn child" is a logical contradiction. It's either a child or it isn't and it won't be a child unless it's born. Meanwhile, we can take the decision against or in favour or abortion very seriously under the particular circumstances in which they occur - and most people do. It's not like people like getting abortions.
Reply to Benkei Ascribing value to unborn life doesn't seem like something that could only be argued by unreasonable, illiberal or archaic people. It's not uncommon to hear such opinions from secular people for example.
And enforcing stances and opinions on others via the democratic process is (unfortunately) the normal way in which states function.
'Degenerate' is a strong term, and I think you're being unreasonable in its use.
There are still plenty of places in the country where it is legal to kill a fetus. In any case, it was a shaky legal precedent, not a right. Now everyone can go about it the right way.
Regime commissars don’t like when people talk amongst themselves.
I think it's the typical way that actually BOTH Republicans and Democrats would do this:
When corporations ask for simple rules they ought to then adhere to (by legislation), naturally the political establishment doesn't give this (which actually would be their job). Why? Because there's Freedom of Speach, of course!
What the government wants is to have in secret a watchdog system where they will inform the corporations which isn't tolerated and who should be banned. And if the corporations themselves won't follow, it's be trouble for them. And as they are free companies, they can decide who to ban and who not!
And if you think that the Republicans are different, well, it's simply other issues than the progressive wokester's see inappropriate.
Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them.
Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them.
There are still plenty of places in the country where it is legal to kill a fetus. In any case, it was a shaky legal precedent, not a right. Now everyone can go about it the right way.
I'll take the other side of that for sake of discussion.
I have heard over the years that Roe was bad law. Even some liberal, pro-choice legal scholars made that argument.
But as a moderate pro-choicer (safe, legal, and rare as Bill Clinton put it), I say that Roe was working. It kept abortion off the ballot. It's analogous to Obergefell. Before Obergefell, gay marriage was an issue in every election. Now, whether you support or oppose gay marriage, it's the law of the land. You can blog your opinion, but it's never on the ballot. It never affects an election.
In the same way, Roe kept abortion off the ballot. It may have been bad law in the eyes of legal scholars, and it upset the pro-lifers, but politically it was working.
I say that if the so-called conservative justices were secretly working for the Democrats, things couldn't have turned out worse than they are now. Abortion kept the 2022 red wave from happening. It's an issue in 2024. It's Kamala's strongest issue. I've seen her give pro-abortion speeches and she is really, really good at it. She has her heart in the issue and she has her talking points straight.
Dobbs has been an electoral gift to Democrats and it is going to continue forever. It's worth a few points in every election from national to local and it's going to be till Congress does something about it, and they never will.
And it brings out the worst in the pro-life forces. This idea of arresting women who cross state lines is completely insane. I've "crossed state lines" from California to Nevada to visit gambling casinos. Nobody ever objects to that, even though laws against gambling used to be rooted in moral arguments.
Dobbs has unleashed the worst impulses on the right. It's just a disaster for the GOP.
A lot of things work, for a while. But whether it is just or unjust, legal or illegal, wrong or right, are far more important to this particular issue.
Roe never worked politically. It has always been a seriously divisive decision. And now we know it was doomed to fail under the lightest scrutiny. If people want a political solution, it needs to be done politically, not through judicial activism.
Reply to NOS4A2 Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.
Reply to Tzeentch Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.
unenlightenedAugust 28, 2024 at 07:07#9285680 likes
I find it odd that one can be pro-life on moral grounds, but against free school meals, child support and so on. As though a woman does not have the right to control the resources of her body, but no one has any comparable duties with their financial resources. Makes no sense to me.
But my original point was that the attack on Walz's treatment of his son, and the accusation of violence, like the attack on his son earlier, was a lie being perpetuated on these pages without refutal; and the contempt shown for the disabled seems too often to go along with the supposed "pro-life" stance, which more usually turns out to be a parallel contempt for women, than a real valuing of all life.
Why do I need to travel to make decisions about my body? Funny how freedom all of a sudden isn't important to you anymore.
You’re the big government, anti-freedom guy. Don’t you want the government to have all the power and make the decisions? This is one way to navigate the situation should one want to kill her child.
Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.
Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?
I'd say the human right to bodily autonomy weighs quite heavily here, but by that same logic are people who advocated for vaccine mandates degenerates as well?
Reply to NOS4A2 Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely your completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.
Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?
No, the political question is to act or not to act. The basic assumption is to not act unless there's a clear benefit that increases positive freedom. Increasing choice, eg. positive freedom, is therefore the moral position.
Edit: in fact, acting here limited negative freedom by introducing a prohibition, limiting personal choice.
And don't get me started on the retarded method of interpretation in the USA that leads to dumb rulings to begin with.
Former Trump administration staffers also support Harris in this election. Not a great look.
Several spoke at the DNC, including Stephanie Grisham. She reported that Trump said his diehard supporters, people like you, were basement dwellers. How does that make you feel?
Naive and dumb reduction of my position on government. You seem to miss the point entirely you’re completely inconsistent. That's a consequence of your ideological hangups.
You keep talking about me to disguise the fact you cannot speak to the issues. That you seek for some law to decide the issue suggests you want to leave it up to the government. Is that not so?
The architects and propagandists of the Bush regime join your campaign. Not a great look, but good good riddance nonetheless.
I think Grisham is an idiot, but she's right. It was Clinton who insinuated Bernie supporters were basement dwellers in her leaked audio, and Trump accepted them with open arms.
Isn't this a wee bit hyperbolic? Whatever you want to call it, "one" = "her", "one" isn't someone/something else, yes? Are you thinking of a slippery slope? Either way, abortion ? killing a child here.
A couple of months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that. Not a person. My neighbor's kid is. It's more like a cyst. No more a person or conscious than pre-conception sperm and egg cell. ? bio-facts
I'll readily admit to having an emotional attachment to life. It's not like abortion is a positive thing or to be encouraged (anti-natalists not invited at the moment :grin:), it's a rough enough decision.
Every human being who walked the earth began that way. They are not like cysts. Abortion, infanticide, homicide…they all involve the same act: causing the death, or killing, of a human being.
The architects and propagandists of the Bush regime join your campaign.
The MAGA term is RINO. Anyway, who’s more neocon than Nikki Haley, whose wealth seems to be tied to defense contractors. No “Republican” is rejecting her endorsement of Trump. In fact, many Republicans wanted to elect her president in this race.
Every human being who walked the earth began that way. They are not like cysts. Abortion, infanticide, homicide…they all involve the same act: causing the death, or killing, of a human being.
If that’s what you believe then shouldn’t you want a national ban? As it is, the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much, if at all. Most abortions are performed with drugs, and as you pointed out earlier, women can travel to states where it’s legal. It seems that the most vulnerable women, those with the least resources, in red states are hardest hit.
Reply to NOS4A2 I seek for no law unlike you who's arguing for a prohibition unless local states rule otherwise. So no, it was a dumb archaic and backward ruling and your idiotic defence women can now vote for something they had a god given right to is antithetical to your repeated stance that we shouldn't need governments for rights.
Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable. It undermines the moral claim and cedes its ground to choice.
This is not to say I oppose choice, but rather oppose the choice being made one way or another by someone other than the individual.
Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable.
Exactly. Trump is currently saying he’d be “great for women and their reproductive rights.” If he doesn’t lose the support of pro-life advocates it just further demonstrates that the issue is little more than politicization.
Reply to NOS4A2, let's set up a trolley problem involving sperm + egg cells (incidentally akin to what Nightingale and Stalin "began" as) over ? there, cherry-sized 2-months-old fetuses over ? there, and toddlers over ? there.
I have a feeling the toddlers ? would make it every time, outside of rather special(ized) scenarios.
OK, what it there were, say, 10 times as many sperm + egg cells and fetuses as toddlers? 100? 10000 as many sperm + egg cells?
In terms of bio-facts, only the toddlers ? are conscious persons — children.
I suppose we could craft the details of a scenario (or more) and run a poll if you like.
[quote=Kamala Harris, from DNC nomination acceptance speech]Simply put,they are out of their minds.And one must ask, one must ask, why exactly is it that they don’t trust women?[/quote] Pro-forced birth / anti-woman's autonomy aka "pro-life" will be the critical dealbreaker for the majority of women voters across the political spectrum this year like it was in 2022. :fire:
If that’s what you believe then shouldn’t you want a national ban? As it is, the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much, if at all. Most abortions are performed with drugs, and as you pointed out earlier, women can travel to states where it’s legal. It seems that the most vulnerable women, those with the least resources, in red states are hardest hit.
I think prohibition is a terrible idea, and states that enact it ought to feel the repercussion of it. The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s. But, since the government has involved itself, the issue is now whether the matter should be settled by some judiciary in Washington or on a more local level. To those who want the government to set the bounds of their lives, the change required to set those bounds is easier attained at the local level. Activists get to ban it in some places while celebrating it as a human right in the other. In short, state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary.
You say abortion is no one’s decision but the woman’s, and then go on to say that the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level. This is contradictory. If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult.
creativesoulAugust 28, 2024 at 23:47#9287320 likes
I see NOS is talking in circles again. Don’t look for consistency, folks— there’s no principles to discern. It’s pure political tribalism. When it’s something Trump does, they will find a way to make it fit into their worldview, no matter how contradictory.
So now Trump is pushing for being the “best on women’s reproductive rights”— :rofl: — because he’s losing in the polls and it’s generally an issue they’re being crushed on. If he had any principles or soul whatsoever (or any balls), he’d be calling for a national ban on the murdering of babies (which is what these nutjobs actually believe). But there’s no chance of that. Instead he’ll mumble some nonsense and his ass-kissing slaves like our resident Trumper and Ayn Rand devotee will endlessly defend it, pretending it all makes perfect sense.
Don’t waste too much time on it.
—
In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off.
In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off.
Places like Fox are inevitably gonna move the goal posts no matter how many interviews Harris does but I agree she should be doing more of them if just to clarify her positions. Or get Walz out there doing interviews since he's a better speaker. Apparently he never read from a teleprompter until hitting the national stage which is a very welcome trait considering who the Dems were/are running up to this point.
Yeah, it always struck me as funny how Trump gets credit for his ad libs and general off-script remarks. The truth is he sucks at it; he’s an awful speaker. Mostly incoherent, and almost always the same lines, 99% of which are lies (“the country is going to hell, everything is being destroyed”). It’s easier to talk extemporaneously when you can make things up, unbound by reality.
You say abortion is no one’s decision but the woman’s, and then go on to say that the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level. This is contradictory. If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult.
That’s a lie and misrepresentation of my view. I knew it would come to this because you are often unable to argue in good faith. Oh well.
A new tasty scandal is brewing regarding Trump’s invite and visit to Arlington national cemetery to honor those killed by Biden/Harris’ disastrous Afghanistan debacle. Who wants to bet it’s fake news?
Whoever wins, this country needs to reform its outdated judicial system. Americans take very seriously the thoughts of the founding fathers, but Europe has developed a much more functioning judicial system due to the interruptions/failures of European democracies in the past (something that has not happened in the US so far).
It is a shame that in the US judges and district attorneys are party candidates or independents supported by parties and billionaires like George Soros, when democracies are supposed to have three independent branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Since in the US the judicial branch is not independent from the executive, US justice is flawed and divisions have become more difficult to heal.
It is a shame also to put the blame on the Republicans (who control SCOTUS) only, when the real problem are the laws and standards pertaining to the US judicial system.
While I agree with the need for judicial change I think the blame for the current blatant judicial activism rests squarely on McConnell, Trump, and the Federalist Society. Project 2025, written largely by Trump's people, will take things much further if he is elected.
It's easy to blame Republicans, since they had the majority in the Senate, in the last 40 years or so. But the problem seems to be the laws and standards pertaining to the judicial system.
Most of European countries do not appoint judges for life, but only for ten years. There are countries like UK where judges are appointed by some non-political commissions and countries like Germany, Spain, France, etc., where judges are elected by politicians BUT only if they get the 75% of approval in local parliaments/assemblies. So, in these countries there is only one way to become a judge: you should be almost apolitical, cause no party ever controlled 75% of parliament seats and the only way these countries can have judges is through wide consensus and through making sure that the judge is almost impartial.
From history books and legends this is what we are told: you can become a judge only if you are impartial. In the US judicial system that's not the case anymore.
That’s not helpful. Assuming that you want to clarify where I allegedly lied, can you explain what you mean when you say, “The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s.”?
This appears to mean that you think the state should not to have the power to restrict a woman’s choice.
Reply to praxis
He was saying that our present approach to abortion is more libertarian than it used to be because states can decide what they want to do.
This appears to mean that you think the state should not to have the power to restrict a woman’s choice.
That’s right. Then you claimed I said “the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level”. It appears you made that up. What I said was “state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary”.
Well, you knew what I wrote and then changed it to suit whatever it is you’re trying to do, pretending the whole time that I said one and not the other. That’s pure deception.
There is no contradiction. If I think a state ought to determine its own laws that does not mean I think it ought to prohibit anything it wants.
Brent DeRidder’s opinion is the opinion of all members of the libertarian party of North Carolina, and the opinion of all Libertarians in the US? I wouldn’t have thought that libertarians would relinquish their freedom of opinion so completely to one man.
His main argument suggests that abortions will happen irrespective of legal restrictions, advocating instead for imposing religious beliefs through avenues other than legislation.
Reply to praxis
The first paragraph is Plank 1.5 of the Libertarian Party platform. Libertarians oppose abortion legislation. This is not rocket science, praxis.
It’s an opinion regarding the principle. The principle is:
1.5 Parental Rights
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.
Gender division is one of the many gifts we got from the Democrats.
Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans, but that would not be a strong argument at all (since it is essentially saying that from birth men are inimical towards women, when I am more inclined to believe that all humans are born equal, unbiased and free, till they are manipulated by "educators" and politicians).
Good. Fuck Elon Musk and his fake free speech absolutism. The same guy who caved to Modi and is now suing advertisers he once said could “go fuck themselves” and “Don’t advertise” to is now crying about not being allowed to manipulate an entire country with his right-wing propaganda.
All the brain-dead teenagers will be outraged I’m sure. Now they can pretend to care about free speech and be victims at the same time. Cool.
After the MeToo movement, there are many articles on The Guardian which supposedly show how (white) men have started a campaign of revenge against women. White & old men are taking revenge and punishing intelligent women (according to The Guardian columnists) simply because white men hate the truths and injustices exposed by the MeToo movement.
In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women and their anger towards women is an inborn thing that all women should be aware of:
PS: am I the only one to suspect that Kamala Harris and democrats are targeting single mothers with their 2024 ticket, and whenever Kamala speaks about middle class she doesn't mean American families/couples with median income and small businesses, but she speaks about single mothers (like those she used to advocate for when
she was involved into CA politics and activism)? If I am right in believing that democrats target certain groups in their 2024 campaign, aren't they therefore investing in divides in order to hold power? If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?
If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?
So targeting different demographics is surprising to you? Have you been living on Mars?
“Bets in divisions.” Right— and it’s somehow the Democrats that should give us pause over this. Not the fact that Trump and his MAGA slaves have single-handedly polarized this country to levels not seen since the civil war, targeting young men, rural people, evangelicals, whites, and the elderly— along with the usual sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and xenophobes that have become a fixture.
But yeah, targeting single women is the real problem.
You might be right about Trump, but after Biden's victory all BLM protests in the US stopped and we got some peace from the fireworks craze. Since none in this country believes that black lives improved with Biden, the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks. These things may resume again if Trump wins and that's one good reason to not wish a Republican victory. Nonetheless, there is so much evidence that the democrats may be behind BLM, women, and Muslim protests. It is not surprising that the millions given to BLM & diversity issues came from the same billionaires who sponsor the democrats.
Democrats pretend to be saviors and angels and for this reason they should not compare themselves to the Republicans. Democrats are supposed to abide by higher standards lol
Pledging 1.7 trillion to the very poor, as Kamala did ten days ago, turns the US into a kind of charity organization that gives without expecting any worldly things in return. It is not that I am against helping. Morally speaking I feel a duty to help the incapable. But here again you have some moral dilemmas: What vision do I have for a country where inflation is taken more seriously than climate change, wars and violence? Should we bill the future generations for misfortunes (covid and inflation) that happened to us? What kind of culture you create when you nourish a whole nation with the idea that for every hardship you can bill future generations with more debt? What is the best way to use debt? Is it better to invest in progress and development or to use it for food and leisure? Do democrats have any visions for our children and the future? If so, how they will materialize those visions if this country becomes bankrupt and people are encouraged to abstain from family and work?
In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. Their aim is to take power regardless of the means and the people they use. I decided to vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's ridiculous response to covid19 and, mostly, because Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it is morally advisable to vote for third party candidates or to not vote at all.
In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately.
It's always been so. They are in a vicious competition for power in a two-party system. It's just there used to be agreed-on conventions that are now being disregarded, so the viciousness is closer to the surface. A truly moral politician can only be at a disadvantage re power, as morality imposes limitations on action.
the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks
I wouldn't say that's the logical conclusion. Riots do start and end, emerge and fade, for whatever reasons. For that matter, they need not have a (single) "puppet master". But maybe the rioters were predominantly Democrats, if that counts as "the democrats".
Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately
Well, at least fringes of party members. Polarization has come with opportunism, noise, calculation, "mood swings", contrarianism, zeal, the usual. Game of Thrones and The Boys aren't to be emulated, and conspiracy theories should be taken with a grain of salt (make that two). :) Additionally, foreign interests are trying to nudge in whatever direction.
Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it
Trump is still absolutely terrible on the environment. If it’s something you truly care about, this issue alone is motive enough for keeping him from office. That happens to mean pushing a button for Harris— fine. But to claim one should throw away one’s vote (which is all that is) or not vote at all is literally insane, given the professed values.
And most of your claims amount BLM, etc., are straight from right-wing media. Worth analyzing.
And most of your claims amount BLM, etc., are straight from right-wing media. Worth analyzing.
That's true. But, as you say, some claims need more analysis (before you dismiss or approve those).
I don't wish Trump to win. Another thing that bothered me back then was that almost all of his family members became advisers in his Oval Office (that really made this country look like Saudi Arabia). Even fanatic Republicans were bothered with the culture Trump brought into the White House. Clint Eastwood, to mention one of them, got really nuts when Trump posted those Goya-cans pictures from the Oval Office lol
Anyway, right now 36% of males in this country despise both parties. Kudos to them! It is time for independent minds to make their voices heard. They should leave behind the notion that the least bad is the best choice for independents. Cause none can predict the future, and what you make the least bad right now, in the future it may turn into the worst choice.
Independent men and women who still care for this country should push for judicial and electoral reforms. I do hope that judicial and electoral reforms may make us less independent on the two major parties. Reforms may help both republicans and democrats, also, to become more sensible and less Machiavellian.
As Reply to Baden hinted to, many institutions and standards in the US (I am adding UK also) for a few centuries were based on (unspoken/unwritten) conventions. But we see a cultural/mental shift in the US (and UK) lately --and for this reason reforms are becoming indispensable. Nothing should remain unwritten and unforeseen anymore.
They should leave behind the notion that the least bad is the best choice for independents. Cause none can predict the future, and what you make the least bad right now, in the future it may turn into the worst choice.
Some folks can't tell the difference between eating a shit sandwich and starving themselves (due to low IQ/poor education, ethnonationalist hatreds and/or disingenuous venality). Fortunately, in this moment, they aren't (yet) the majority in the US. :mask:
This paltry move was underscored by the fact that Harris, “the last person in the room” when it comes to one of the worst events in US history in Afghanistan, had never contacted any of these grieving families. Trump did, so he was invited to Arlington on the anniversary of their death. At any rate, they’re pissed at Harris, who not only didn’t phone any of the families, but also did some campaign propaganda at Arlington herself, the exact same thing she accused Trump of. It’s always projection when it comes to Trump’s haters.
Trump posted some of their responses to X and they’re quite devastating to Kamala’s “joyful” veneer. This, in combination with the accounts of Harris’ own staff, proves she’s just dog shit in lipstick.
(1) Trump was the worst president in history (or close), a traitor to the country, a degenerate con man, and pathological liar— on top of being an empty narcissist with no ideas other than personal branding. A climate denier and plutocrat lover, to boot.
(2) Trump is rightfully hated and extremely unpopular. Currently losing in the polling, which is no surprise.
(3) Harris is a boring, establishment candidate. And is now likely to win, given the choices.
What a shame the Republican Party and their slaves have no souls. It’s sad. But at least it makes it easier for them to lose, as they’ve been doing the last 8 years. Given that they’re the party of climate denial and pro-pollution, I’m at least happy about that.
Incidentally, it looks like North Carolina is now in play— which is interesting.
180 ProofSeptember 01, 2024 at 20:36#9295870 likes
You think the establishment gives two shits about climate or pollution? :brow:
I think they want to get elected, and the environmental vote is getting larger and more vocal.
You think Trump and the republicans give two shits about abortion? No. But they sure did scrap Roe v Wade. It’s not always lip service. Sometimes you have to deliver, even if it’s too little (IRA was biggest climate investment in history — and yet still too little; would have never happened under Trump.)
You think the establishment gives two shits about climate or pollution?
The "establishment" is a nebulous term. There are elected and appointed officials who are active in their support on the environment. They are as much a part of the "establishment" as those who are indifferent or opposed. The "establishment" is not one side or the other.
Suppose they did nothing. Would you then vote Trump?
If Trump were offering something better on other issues, yes. Nuclear weapons, healthcare, education, guns, anything. His stopping funding for Ukraine would be a bright spot, but for the wrong reasons — and it’s uncertain whether he would. On Israel he’s even more hawkish than Biden.
unenlightenedSeptember 02, 2024 at 19:27#9296870 likes
Panic not chaps, your country is fucked whoever wins, because you are all insane. But go down smiling would be my preference.
180 ProofSeptember 02, 2024 at 22:03#9296970 likes
... batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come.
The US is fucked, I guess, but it is the UK that is falling apart. Public services are on the brink of collapse. The gov is at the point where they are arresting people for social media posts, which is authoritarian, but also stupid because the prisons are too full. A shithole.
unenlightenedSeptember 03, 2024 at 17:40#9298120 likes
I guess, but it is the UK that is falling apart. Public services are on the brink of collapse. The gov is at the point where they are arresting people for social media posts, which is authoritarian, but also stupid because the prisons are too full. A shithole.
Yes indeed, the UK is ahead of the pack as usual. That is one of the ways I can foretell your future. But I love authoritarianism in the service of peace and non-violence.
An authority must monopolize violence and use violence in order to institute “non-violence”. Just another contradiction among many. At any rate, speech is not violence, so I’ll just have to remain suspicious of such admissions.
unenlightenedSeptember 03, 2024 at 17:54#9298170 likes
To herd or control apes you have to commit violence against them, or proceed with the threat thereof.
That contradicts both, current and historic facts. See the last post for the beginning of a list of things that happened, and/or are currently happening. It negates the statement quoted above.
creativesoulSeptember 04, 2024 at 23:25#9300420 likes
I suspect a notion of 'violence' stretched beyond its breaking point to include mental violence.
creativesoulSeptember 05, 2024 at 00:22#9300510 likes
Threats of violence are not a part of informed willful consent. Call it "manufactured consent", if you like. I won't mind that. The American public have been convinced to consent to all sorts of things that were harmful to them, in the financial sense. Quantifiable financial harm. "What are the damages?" That's a common question.
Look at the spread of wealth around the world after WWII. Pay particular attention to the flatline in real blue collar wages. Watch the power of their dollar wane over time. Watch the under 100k blue collar lifestyle require more than one income. Watch the companies who treat their workers worse obtain a financial advantage for having done so. Much easier to do without legal enforcement of binding arbitration agreement. Ronnie Raygun started that. Much easier to do if enough people portray working folks' unions in nothing but a negative light. Do it long enough and vwahlah. Magic. People are convinced that one of the best things for them is not. Watch the birth of many ghost towns, replete with walking zombies.
No, sir. You're wrong. The smartest bipeds known to man are capable of being happily led to their own slaughter. No physical violence or threat thereof necessary for that to happen.
creativesoulSeptember 05, 2024 at 00:25#9300520 likes
And now they've been convinced to be mad at all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.
180 ProofSeptember 05, 2024 at 01:33#9300630 likes
That contradicts both, current and historic facts. See the last post for the beginning of a list of things that happened, and/or are currently happening. It negates the statement quoted above.
Then it should be easy to demonstrate. Manufacture my consent, or anyone else’s. I am willing to read any argument, marketing, or propaganda you can provide, and we’ll see if I willfully consent to any of it.
These laws against foreign inference in US election make little sense in a country that spent 7 billion in 2016 election campaigns. We are 6 times bigger than UK, but in 2016 we spent like 100 times more then UK in electoral campaigns.
The biggest problem in this country are the money from NRA, Oil Industry, Pharma, all kind of CEOs, the Zionists, and so on.
It doesn't make sense anymore to vote for candidates who take billions from people you and me do not know at all. The only thing we know about the "legal" billions is that they come from US citizens (though their hearts may belong to Izrael, to Texaco or to some utopia).
If democracy has a circus, USA is that circus nowadays.
Right, American elections are unique in that respect, and in the way they’re conducted. Personally, I love the circus for sheer entertainment value, but the amount of money thrown around is obscene. Dark money from undisclosed sources kind of make the whole foreign influence rhetoric a huge sham. I rather some American oil company or lobby group have influence than a shell company company who need not disclose where the money is coming from.
By the way, in UK there's no limit how much to give to the parties, but there is a clear limit on what the parties can do with all that money. This is why many won't bother to donate in UK lol (cause they know that 70 million are enough for palm cards, billboards, and this kind of stuff).
So now, I come with this question: let's suppose that we know the people who give X money in the US, what do we know about the way X money is used?
Can Pier Morgans, to take an example, receive X money in order to write a good article about Trump? Another example: can Kamala use D money in order to pay "volunteers" to attend an event?
I just finished listening to PBS "On the Media". They were discussing this. Pool, Rubin and others claim that they did not know the money for their propaganda platforms was coming from Russia. But this much is clear - they made a lot of money and it is not difficult to trace it back to the source. But why look a gift horse in the mouth when it is offering you so much money, even if it is a Trojan horse?
Regarding the question of how much influence they have :
[quote]Benny Johnson, who has more than 6.6 million followers across YouTube, X and Instagram, was described by the Washington Post in 2015 as the "king of viral political news”
The host of the "The Rubin Report” YouTube channel with 2.45 million subscribers as of Thursday
The “Russian influence” canard returns. We now know they are using it as a pretext for surveilling American and Canadian citizens, which is the true crime.
Reply to NOS4A2, and yet there have been, and are, such campaigns — fact.
You may opine on what to do about them, but not their existence.
They've increased during the time of the present Kremlin, and, in addition to effects/efficiency, we might ask the same old question: To what end?
Fact? It’s complete bullshit, itself an influence operation. It’s just a list of trigger-words to activate the drones. “Putin”, “Russia”, “Trump”, “right-wing”, “influence”, and Kamala gets some help with her campaign.
Reply to NOS4A2, yep, fact. There have been, and are, such campaigns/projects/activities. [sup](2022Jun10, 2024Mar13, 2024May22, 2024Jun14, 2024Aug13-)[/sup]
(Some of the more heavy-duty ones aren't run against the US, though, but smaller, more "manageable", areas.)
You can also find some in Europe and Africa, and you can also find some run by US agents.
Odd that you first deny such activities only to turn around and instead call the reports of them such activities, first denying then claiming their existence.
Russia and China want to influence the election as much as possible— of course they do. The US does it all the time. (The difference is that we’ll support a coup or invade.)
But the Russian influence is mostly social media. Why wouldn’t they do so? They’ll fund people who are already saying things they like, unleash a bunch of bots, etc. But what’s the actual impact? I doubt it’s very much. The claims are overblown. Just as they were in 2016. Hillary didn’t lose because of a Russian bot farm; she lost because she sucked.
It’s still interesting to see what they’re rooting for. In China’s case, mostly just chaos and division. For Russia, mostly undermining support for Ukraine. Not rocket science to see why this would be the case.
Reply to NOS4A2, you don't believe there have been and are such campaigns/projects/activities? :brow: Except for the reports thereof, a rather impressive multinational multicultural conspiracy? :chin:
I don’t doubt there are such activities. People try to make money by getting views on social media all the time, often by making political propaganda. What makes it a campaign or something nefarious?
15 minutes in— She looks nervous, dry-mouthed, and is delivering memorized lines, ignoring the questions. She’s delivering them without stuttering and with coherence, but it looks fake and forced.
Trump is his usual rambling, incoherent buffoon self — repeating his rally lines reflexively. But he looks more natural doing it.
Man, it would have been nice to have Bernie up there with Trump just once.
Kamala started very poorly, but she was the winner tonight.
Her "opportunity plan" is a disaster in the making (a big blow to the already tortured middle-class Americans). Nonetheless, since Trump did not offer any other plans apart from deporting immigrant slaves, she had a greater appeal.
The big loser tonight was ABC News. That Fbi report the journalist mentioned, about lower crimes on national level, is a total bs if someone keeps in mind that liberals tend to make legal many things conservatives make illegal (so when you legalize cannabis and abortion you definitely may have 40 million less "criminals" in the whole nation). Definition is also the reason why US looks much better than Europe when it comes to corruption (cause in some European countries if a mayor receives a sandwich from a voter that's called corruption, whereas in the US you may receive millions in donations and you may be considered the most ethical mayor). In short, Americans do not care what Fbi and Abc will report. For as long as they see armed robberies and murders in their towns, they do think that crimes are a serious problem.
Thanks to ABC bad journalism and Trump's irrelevance, too little attention was paid to Kamala's "opportunity plan" (that as I said here is not directed to the middle class, but to the poorest people and single mothers). Urban living, farming, life expectancy, food industry, general health issues, labor ethics, AI, education and infrastructure were not mentioned at all. Crimes were not taken seriously by the ABC. The national debt was not mentioned, whereas on environment Kamala Harris said the biggest lie: i.e. Joe Biden and she have spent trillions on stopping climate change, when the truth is that they spent 3 trillion on covid relief, they passed a bill of 800 billion on infrastructure and to this day less than 20% of that bill has been invested by the US government. Surely, the ABC journalists did not bother to fact check Kamala's big lie tonight. She even promised to produce more local oil.
I won't bother to vote, but it would be unfair to blame only republicans or democrats if this country becomes less democratic and less thriving. A lot of blaming should go to our journalists as well.
It’s a good example of what this is all about: Trump is a dangerous, incoherent imbecile. Anyone with a couple brain cells realize you gotta vote against that.
Harris could have been replaced with a mannequin and still win.
creativesoulSeptember 11, 2024 at 04:05#9313080 likes
Man, it would have been nice to have Bernie up there with Trump just once.
3 hours ago
Clear lines in the sand are Bernie's strongest suit. That would have been reeeeel nice.
She was nervous, but delivered okay. Trump can sling a lot of shit around in a short amount of time.
The Haitian immigrant fiction is particularly interesting to me. Against what the city manager says, Trump presupposes he is somehow, in some way, privy to much greater knowledge about that city than the guy who manages it. This is akin to his claims that he knows more than the generals in the armed forces. Unbelievable...
Trump is so old and his bullshit is so tiresome after 9 years, I think many people will vote for Harris just so they won’t ever have to hear from this guy again.
Kamala won that debate. She is far superior at the political act, groomed as she was to be a puppet. It was pure skill or she got the debate questions beforehand. But her lies went unchecked, allowed to list off the common anti-Trump hoaxes. She even said something like J6 was the worst attack on the US since the civil war, and on the eve of 9/11. She’s a brick, but she can play the part, and sometimes that’s all people want.
“Bloodbath” was a lie, the “very fine people” hoax, that he is going to implement Project 2025, that he wants a national abortion ban, that he wants to ban IVF, that he incited a crowd to storm the capitol, that police died on that day, that J6 was the worst attack on America since the civil war.
I think there's zero basis to argue that Trump was worse in any meaningful way.
To pick one: environment. The IRA was meaningful, and has (and will continue to have, unless somehow dismantled if Trump is elected) meaningful impacts on a transition to less emissions— yes, despite current levels of oil production.
To say nothing about actions at the EPA, SEC, FTC, and NLRB— which have been surprisingly good. Oh and the education department’s canceling of student debt has been fantastic, despite the courts blocking much of that effort.
It takes effort not to see differences, unless there’s some real partisan skewering of perception.
Reply to Mikie I didn't say there weren't any differences.
I know environmentalism is very important to you. The Biden administration's colossal failures of diplomacy vis-á-vis Ukraine and Israel are very important to me.
The abortion issue is a political tool for him, he wants whatever benefits him the most and that’s why he refused to answer when asked if he would veto a national ban.
The Biden administration's colossal failures of diplomacy vis-á-vis Ukraine and Israel are very important to me.
Understandable. It's important to me too, and Biden has been an utter failure in that respect. It's the one area that Trump may (accidentally) be better for the world. I don't see how he'd be any better on Israel, but perhaps I've missed something.
A ban can be enacted under the Comstock Act, if the DOJ (at the president's direction) so chooses. I doubt the Supreme Court would stop it. It's a very real possibility. The fact that Trump is backing away from the rhetoric because he sees at as the political liability that it is means exactly nothing.
"There's no reason to sign a ban because we have gotten what everyone wanted," Trump said.
I’m pretty sure that the 170,000 women who were forced to travel out of state for abortions last year didn’t want what Trump gave them.
I’m certain that all the pro-life folks aren’t pleased with the fact that the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much if at all since the Dobbs decision.
I don't see how he'd be any better on Israel, [...]
Neither do I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Biden administration carries responsibility for things going to hell in a handbasket on their watch.
Reply to NOS4A2
At the Shanksville Fire Station, @POTUS spoke about the country's bipartisan unity after 9/11 and said we needed to get back to that'. Bates added: 'As a gesture, he gave a hat to a Trump supporter who then said that in the same spirit, POTUS should put on his Trump cap. He briefly wore it'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/sep/12/joe-biden-dons-trump-hat-in-show-of-unity-at-event-commemorating-911-video
Trump plans to end taxes on overtime if elected. Who would've thought he'd fight for the American worker?
"As part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime," Trump said in remarks at a rally in Tucson, Arizona. "Your overtime hours will be tax-free."
Reply to NOS4A2 Why didn't he do this during his first term? Unlike Harris he was actually president and actually did a big tax cut bill for the ultra wealthy.
180 ProofSeptember 13, 2024 at 17:18#9317280 likes
The strategy aims to utilize "militant anti poverty groups" to facilitate a "political crisis" by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income and "redistributing income through the federal government".
But while the image of the libertarian potential of advanced industrial society is repressed (and hated) by the managers of repression and their consumers, it motivates the radical opposition and gives it its strange unorthodox character. Very different from the revolution at previous stages of history, this opposition is directed against the totality of a well-functioning, prosperous society – a protest against its Form – the commodity form of men and things, against the imposition of false values and a false morality. This new consciousness and the instinctual rebellion isolate such opposition from the masses and from the majority of organized labor, the integrated majority, and make for the concentration of radical politics in active minorities, mainly among the young middle-class intelligentsia, and among the ghetto populations. Here, prior to all political strategy and organization, liberation becomes a vital, “biological” need.
L'éléphantSeptember 14, 2024 at 01:13#9318260 likes
Trump plans to end taxes on overtime if elected. Who would've thought he'd fight for the American worker?
"As part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime," Trump said in remarks at a rally in Tucson, Arizona. "Your overtime hours will be tax-free."
With regard now to what are you saying about eliminating overtime taxes, it seems that you have missed the point. The point is not preserving inequalities, the point is making people to work more.
A Green New Deal promised by the democrats would have brought more jobs and innovations to the USA and to the whole world, but since the democrats spent more money in covid relief and armaments, the only countries that have really seen some kind of green/electrical revolutions lately are China and South Korea. Harris seems to have totally forgotten the democratic green hive of the previous elections and her only pledge about improving economy is to help single mothers with the groceries.
I like to listen to NPR in my working hours, but its producers can't stop promoting Kamala and insulting Trump. They even called a psychology professor to explain Trump's narcissism. I wonder if someone would have paid that professor to explain Kamala's negative traits, how easy would have been for him to invent some "psychological science" on Kamala also :grin:
NPR is supposed to be a public radio, but since August it has become like another democratic parrot. With this kind of daily coverage, many public and private media will keep making people suspicious that this country is really controlled by the democrats and anti-Trump billionaires.
Most of the liberal media (viz. the majority of the US media outlets) have found nothing wrong with Kamala the last two months, and they won't bother to fact check her. The same media are implying that the election has been already decided from the presidential debate on Sept 10th, though very little substance was seen on that debate (i.e. Trumps' constant rambling on immigrants, Kamala's strong support for cheap groceries and US made oil, and the candidates' views on Israel & Ukraine.... all other issues were left to the imagination of the voters).
180 ProofSeptember 15, 2024 at 23:12#9321990 likes
15September24
Another "assassination attempt"(?) today. I hope The Old Fat Fascist Clown lives long enough to see Kamala Harris sworn in as the 47th POTUS on 20January25. :victory: :party:
If the investigators, reporters, and producers at NPR have, based on the facts, concluded that he is a serious danger to the US democracy and groups of people don't they have a journalistic responsibility to say so?
Reply to Tzeentch Nope. Designed for a range up to 300 meters and it's shit to aim with beyond distances of 200 meters. With a 3-4 MOA, you're talking about 17 to 22 cm deviation over 200 meters, which means a killing shot at 200 meters is nothing more than a hail mary, at 400 yards it's nonsense.
But I see now they are describing it as an AK-47 style weapon, so could be a 103 or M version, which are a bit more accurate at longer distances but still not enough for 400 yards.
To tell you the truth I think we will be better without Trump. But I do worry for our journalism. Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc., will turn people away from liberal media outlets. These media do not sound serious or sincere every time that election approaches. There is a bigger probability to read something negative about Trump on conservative media, than reading something negative about Kamala on liberal media. The latter are really making Trump look like a victim in the eyes of millions of people.
That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people?
He used to be advised by Ivanka and Jared when he was in office, but now I am not sure whom he listens to. (If I remember well, when he was president there were a couple of times when Ivanka made him deactivate his Twitter --but I am not very sure on this).
Three days before the presidential debate, a columnist in The Guardian wrote that Trump is so sure about himself that he won't bother to prepare for the debate with Harris. I laughed when I read those things, only to find three days later that the columnist was 100% right.
Reply to Benkei It's not a trick shot. You see the man in the video do it twice at various ranges in sequence, using a gun without a scope that is not his own.
Say we were to give the man in the video a modern AK with a scope and several months to train with the rifle. Then you get to sit in the place of the 'torso-shaped target' at 500 yards.
Would it count as a nothing burger to you?
PS: I actually found a picture of the rifle he was carrying. Looks more like an SKS than an AK. Almost certainly longer-barreled than a regular AK.
Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc.
The public response to her campaign is news worthy. Perhaps there is some gushing from some sources but this is not as serious an issue as Trump's being unfit for office.
Reply to Tzeentch Did you watch it? Misses: 1 on 150y, 3 out of 5 at 350y, 4 out of 6 at 400y, 4 out of 6 at 450y, 5 out of 7 at 500y.
And these are stationary targets, the gunman is stationary and in a supported position, where he knows the distance to the target and can adjust sights accordingly.
Travel distance where the bullet can kill is several kilometers for an AK-47, but that's not what effective range is. Effective range is the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. Missing stationary targets more often than not means it cannot be expected to be accurate and achieve a kill. So 300y is more or less the max. for this type of AK-47, probably less since the targets were stationary and the gunman in an optimal position.
Reply to Benkei Of course I watched it. Seems like a perfectly decent showcase of marksmanship to me, that clearly shows 500 yards is well within the maximum effective range of a Type 56. His shooting is clearly accurate. And that's with iron sights.
Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger' to take the place of the torso-shaped target? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range).
Of course I watched it. Seems like a perfectly decent showcase of marksmanship to me, that clearly shows 500 yards is well within the maximum effective range of a Type 56. His shooting is clearly accurate. And that's with iron sights.
Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and a several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger'? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range).
You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA.
You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA.
Reply to Benkei I asked about iron sights. Previously I also asked about how you would feel about taking the place of the torso-shaped target in the Type-56 video, since apparently you seem believe 500 yards is outside of effective range.
'Just a nothing burger', mhm.
Anyway, I honestly don't know how you could argue that when you have a video infront of you of a shooter delivering accurate fire at up to 500 yards without a scope with a gun that's not his.
There is a bigger probability to read something negative about Trump on conservative media, than reading something negative about Kamala on liberal media.
Could you provide a link or two to negative stories about Trump on conservative media?
That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people?
He does but that doesn't mean he listens to them. He even said it himself in one of his rallies that they keep telling him to focus on policy instead of personal attacks... before going on personal attacks.
The problem with trying to give him advice is that he ultimately rejects the very premise of it. It implies that 1) other people know something he doesn't and 2) he has to follow what they say. For someone with his ego, it's completely unacceptable.
Reply to Mr Bee
That presentation is also a vital part of the call and response that unfolds at his rallies. He polls the crowd to ask how he should respond to his 'managers'. He gets to stand inside and outside of the operation at the same time. Using one register for x and the other for y. Ventriloquism of the highest order.
Much ado has been made about Trump’s comments about Springfield, which they claimed led to a series of supposed bomb threats. The idea is that Trump says something, bad things happen, in a form that goes “before this therefor because of this”. Biden himself expressed his horror.
It turns out all 33 of these threats were hoaxes from overseas. The media’s incessant reporting on the topic appears to give those who would wish to hoax Americans an angle of attack, in this instance fake bomb threats in Springfield Ohio. Hilarious.
Reply to NOS4A2
The damage done to the community falsely vilified by a Presidential ticket is reprehensible regardless of whether it leads to violence or not. The fear is real enough.
Falsely protecting them does nothing for the concerns of everyday voters who live there. Springfield is not a sanctuary city and when an estimated 20,000 people show up in a town of 60,000 rumors are the least of your worries. The damage is done and it’s the administration’s fault.
Reply to NOS4A2
You follow the lack of concern for people exemplified by your Leader. Amplifying lies is not moral behavior, especially while holding a large megaphone.
Vance knows full well that the problem with such lies is that the MAGA - nauts will believe it and act on it. Vance may be unscrupulous but he is not stupid.
unenlightenedSeptember 18, 2024 at 12:23#9328600 likes
You follow the lack of concern for people exemplified by your Leader. Amplifying lies is not moral behavior, especially while holding a large megaphone.
Yet when Biden, Clinton, the FBI, the media, or Kamala does it you’re silent. Your concern is so sporadic it shows up only when it benefits you.
Reply to NOS4A2 Springfield was one of the many dying towns back during 2016 (one of the places that would've voted for Trump back then on his false promise to bring back jobs) before being revitalized as immigrants started coming in and bringing much needed labor to the region. This isn't to say that the infrastructure isn't being strained as a result of such a large influx of people, but there's a reason why the mayor of Springfield and the governor of Ohio, both Republicans, aren't pushing for mass deportations like the rest of their party are.
Relaying the concerns of voters is what politicians should do and is entirely moral. It’s not Trump bringing up specific communities and subjecting them to any degradation. He never mentioned where they were from, who they were, that they were a “specific community”. So that’s a lie.
“Twenty-thousand illegal Haitian immigrants have descended on a town of 58,000 people, destroying their way of life. This was a beautiful community, now it’s ah —” Trump said. “Residents are reporting that the migrants are walking off with the town’s geese. They're taking the geese. You know where the geese are, in the park. And even walking off with their pets.”
Trump changes the denigration of the first message to match the defense Vance is giving for lying about it. They are a team now. Try to keep up.
Altogether, some US commentators/voters are adding their efforts to efforts beyond their neighborhood against themselves, it works to some measurable extent. The resourcefulness and organization of the Kremlin's machinery remains impressive in this respect. The possibility of such influences is inherent in relatively open/free societies, while others just thoroughly outlaw them.
I must admit to being rather miffed today. Things started off well. I was relaxing on my lawn in Philadelphia, watching the Dodgers game, sipping on a can of Butt lite, and stroking my tabby cat, as one does when one is a wholesome salt-of-the-earth American man like me, who is six feet tall with closely cropped hair, has a direct mode of speaking, and is a member of the “Teamsters” union. But and so anyhow suddenly I saw a HAITIAN approach my front yard and before I could initiate defensive maneuvers, the HAITIAN had reached over the fence, grabbed my cat, Tabitha, and put her in his mouth. By that time, I had my semi out, but the HAITIAN retreated up the road at max speed before I could get a head shot off, and had taken between his massive jaws the whole of Tabitha’s head and full half of her torso. It was unlikely that even my highly skilled veterinarian would be able to save what’s left. This is why I will vote Trump. It is because of the HAITIANs killing our pets through deployment of their unnaturally large oral cavities and super sharp pet-killing canines as well as skills of strategic retreat when under fire, all of which are, as is common knowledge, genetic traits of the HAITIANs. On the positive side, the Dodgers won the game and, because of the support of me and my fellow “Teamsters”, Donald J. Trump, Pet Saver and General Hero of the Working Class Universe, will win the election against Camel Harris (who is suspected of being half HAITIAN--though the genetic tests have yet to be carried out, I trust Trump will force that scientific experiment on her when he becomes President and reveal the truth). Thank you. Drink Butt lite.
Voiceover 1: Shaunie O’ Rourke here, head of the Teamsters Union. I approve this message.
The smile function is active, but we have lost personality.
What the fuck are you saying here, Jim?
We can still do smile but all elements of personality have been erased.
Since fucking when?
Hard to say. According to some engineers, there were at some point personality traces but no one gave a shit when she was VP. No one listens to the friggin’ VP, Marty.
Yeah right, but now…
But now some Americans want personality.
But she don’t got it.
Fucking Zip.
Just the smile then.
The smile and talking points.
Will it be enough? Are we worried here? Can we do anything?
We’ve got an engineer in giving her lessons, but it's... making it worse.
She’s trying…
Yeah, but it’s obvious she’s trying. Which is…
Even worse… right.
Replacement with avatar?
It’s being considered. Keep her inside. Do most of the shit online or TV. The networks will play ball. Avatar’s can do personality pretty good. But she can’t and it looks like she never will. And we gotta let her out sometimes.
I like it. But no scientific experiments needed; she’ll be sure to tell you all about it. But I am a little disappointed there is no accompanying Baden cartoon.
"Deconstructing the American Presidential Election with Reference to the Concepts of Lego Bricks and Marmalade."
Hello, yes, *ahem*, haha, welcome to my lecture. So, let’s get straight, um, to the point. Tonight we will examine the current U.S. presidential election from the general angle of plastic and fruit with specific reference to lego bricks and marmalade.
Let us begin by problematising the respective notions involved in terms of their likely referents. So, for example, despite being of a similar colour and luminosity to Donald Trump, I will contend that marmalade cannot be said to clearly distinguish him, nor can a lego brick, though being as equally dull, lifeless, and, in isolation, useless as Kamala Harris, clearly distinguish her.
The no doubt controversial truth of the matter is that the respective candidates inhere properties of both marmalade and lego bricks. For example, Trump is often considered “thick as a brick” and Kamala, slimy and bitter-sweet, such that they trespass on each other’s ostensible conceptual territories from the get-go. And this is just the beginning–as we delve further, the lego brick / marmalade dichotomy becomes blurred to the extent that through the mechanisms of Trump and Harris these ostensibly distinct concepts, I will argue, actually tend towards unification.
This is a startling and bizarre result, but one that I believe can lead to an understanding of the importance of political polarities in dissolving rather than exacerbating social antinomies. There is nothing less than the future of intra-social harmonic relations at stake here, and the good news is that the humble, discreet and not oft remarked upon aforementioned social atoms are the key to unlocking this heretofore obscured potentiality.
So, let us explicate in more detail the dissolution of apparent polarities by highlighting the intrusion of the obverse candidate along the following five physical and abstract axes considered to be the sole purvey of the opposition: Taste, texture, function, key political goals, and social class.
Taste: Marmalade=Bitter-Sweet: >> Kamalic intrusion (Kamala’s emotive orientation)
Texture: Lego Brick=Thick and Inflexible>> Trumpic intrusion (Trump’s intellectual limitations)
Function: Marmalade=To add a “smile” to toast and similar wheat based products >> Kamalic intrusion (Kamala’s debate habits)
Key political goals: Lego Brick =A part of a larger construction>>Trumpic Intrusion (Build the wall!)
Social Class: Marmalade =Middle class delicacy >> Kamalic intrusion (appeal to the middle class)
And etc.
What we see here is that through the employment of these candidates as a “conceptual lens”, the apparent differences between lego bricks and marmalade disappear. The two, in fact, turn out to be the same thing. What’s more, it can be shown that, as a matter of principle, any two opposing social atoms can be de-dichotomised through the employment of the Trump/Kamala political polarity deconstructive method.
This is revolutionary as it shows us how, far from destroying society, the extreme antagonisms of the current American political scene point a way towards the unification of all opposing linguistic concepts and thus of language itself, which amounts to a path towards the unification of spirit along Schopenhauerian lines and a utopic end to conflict and strife in a final nirvana of universal non-self that has been, up until now, undreamed of *ahem*.
Well, that’s it, really. I hope you enjoyed my talk *burp * *fart*.
Good night!
javi2541997September 21, 2024 at 11:56#9336150 likes
"Deconstructing the American Presidential Election with Reference to the Concepts of Lego Bricks and Marmalade."
I think we will not find a more detailed analysis than yours, honestly. I always knew—and told myself talking to the pillow—that 'el trompas' and Kámala are the same thing, but I didn't want to share this thesis because I was hesitating on whether I dreamt it or not. It is clear that the compulsive hysteria of Trump and emotional fear of Kámala would join together and transform into a new subject. He, she, or 'it' will be the next President of the United States of America.
Is this the end of the US? Will people be able to register to go vote in time? What would happen if they did not mould together finally? There are a lot of answers that only time could answer. Just wait, sitting next to me, son, drinking coffee, and see what happens. People will embrace together, and poppies will flourish again. Time is a circle, not a scary line with no way of turning back.
The Lego brick will be moulded on the mermalade. Never a thick material was that manageable before. The best we could do? Stay away from both of them, rent a red Volkswagen van, and drive in the dawn until we meet the tan-coloured sun. Free as the wind. :sparkle:
The Criminal Clown & MAGA Mini-me
(neofascist "weirdos") :lol:
Addendum:
Race to 270 electors via swing states*
Harris-Walz
• blue states 229 electors > needs 41
• wins: *AZ, MI, NC, PA, WI = 71 (44) electors :party:
Big Clown & Lil Clown
• red states 219 electors > needs 51
• (probably) wins: *GA, NV = 22 electors :cry:
I predict Harris-Walz will win the 2024 Presidential Election with at least 300 electors (Biden-Harris won 306 electors in 2020). I also guesstimate that Texas [40], Florida [30] & Ohio [17] are in play and any or all three might be flipped from Red to Blue and add 17 to 87 electors to the Harris-Walz victory: 317 to 387 electors. Yes, I'm predicting a Roevember blowout!
IMHO, that's a reasonable and low estimate, nowhere near a landside (like 486 electors for Johnson in 1964, 520 electors for Nixon in 1972 or 525 electors for Reagan in 1984).
I live in a state (NY) governed by the democrats the last 40 years or so, and I just see the mentally ill and the homeless increasing in numbers every year.
So, living in a progressive town, I can't help wondering: how is it possible for these people to defend progressive taxation, all kinds of handouts to single moms, to never stop attaching "tax the rich" stickers on every car and window, and at the same time these (progressive) people will propose nothing about the mentally ill and the homeless who increase in numbers every single year?
Seeing how the homeless and the mentally ill are becoming more and more (making this town look like taken out from a zombie movie), I can't help thinking that the problem will not be taken seriously by the democrats for the simple reason that democrats cannot classify the mentally ill as a voting bloc. So, they are deaf to their plight for the reason that whether you help or you do not help a mentally ill person, he/she won't vote for you. In contrast, the democrats have an ear for struggling single moms and students burdened with stupid debts, because they see the latter as voting blocs.
Reply to Eros1982
The rate of homelessness in most places is significantly proportional to the cost of housing. Real estate markets are strongest in "blue" states because of the influx of capital that permits very high paying jobs. The curve is flatter where the wealth gap is not as exponential. That is one of the reasons why "red" states receive more from federal funding than they pay out in taxes. Nice work if you can get it.
The problem with mental health care is a part of the deconstruction of the hospitals and other state institutions that has been done under the idea that such work could be redirected to community level support. This process has been under way for decades. The fallout is perhaps now forcing itself into a wider public awareness. To be clear, this does not resolve into any particular political agenda. It is an intellectual failure of our society as a whole.
180 ProofSeptember 24, 2024 at 00:33#9342840 likes
That conclusion from JD Vance was a masterpiece tonight!
I am very frustrated with a democrat candidate who supports more local oil (Harris), and a vp who was an NRA supporter (Walz). I don't know why should I vote them.
I am just glad that Vance did not refuse global warming; he even blamed democrats for not having done enough with renewables :rofl:
I am just glad that Vance did not refuse global warming; he even blamed democrats for not having done enough with renewables
No he didn’t. He rambled a bunch of nonsense and then threw in a lie about nuclear. He also said “if you believe” emissions are causing climate change. An absolute joke.
The fact that you give him a pass while criticizing the Democratic ticket, and yet claim you care about climate change, shows how unserious you are — or how fake. The choice is clear for anyone truly concerned about that issue. Should take about 10 seconds.
Yeah, nothing great. They were polite. Walz stumbled with the Hong Kong answer— Vance stumbled with January 6th and gave ridiculous answers on guns, Climate change, abortion, child care and healthcare. Should have been a slam dunk for Walz— too bad.
Trouble for the upcoming first gentleman, or baseless rumors?
Vice President Kamala Harris’ husband is being accused of slapping his ex-girlfriend for flirting with a valet worker at a ritzy gala in 2012, a new report claims.
Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, 59, supposedly struck his then-girlfriend — described as a successful New York attorney — in the face so hard she spun around while in a valet line after an event at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2012, the three unnamed friends of the woman reportedly told the Daily Mail.
All three sources requested not to be named due to fear of retaliation from Emhoff, the Daily Mail said.
The fact that you give him a pass while criticizing the Democratic ticket, and yet claim you care about climate change, shows how unserious you are — or how fake. The choice is clear for anyone truly concerned about that issue. Should take about 10 seconds.
I wish they win, not because I have high hopes in them, but I do fear Trump may make things worse.
However, I think Democrats' strategy is not working. They are trying to be appealing to the majority (people who don't want the second amendment to change, people who don't want to make sacrifices for the environment, people who think USA should stand by the side of Israel, etc.), but in this way Democrats will lose the support of grassroots groups: those who want to end the war in Middle East right now (mostly American Muslims), those who take environment seriously, those who want stricter gun laws, etc.
I am afraid that in their attempt to sound moderate, Harris and Walz will lose support among some groups, and they will try to stick with an economic plan that does not sound popular to the majority (middle class) they are trying to appeal to in other ways.
So, I wish Democrats had taken the opposite route: they didn't stick with that "opportunity economy", and they were radical on things like gun control, environment, and ceasefire now.
November 5 will show whether I got everything wrong.
Reply to NOS4A2 Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen!
By rumors on the street, guy slaps girlfriend in public (she slaps too, they say).
12 years later, it hits the news like a supposed :fire: bomb. :D
Might'a taken some efforts to dig that one up.
Gotta' wonder what happened in the 12 years after. Anything serious?
I am afraid that in their attempt to sound moderate, Harris and Walz will lose support among some groups, and they will try to stick with an economic plan that does not sound popular to the majority (middle class) they are trying to appeal to in other ways.
I think that’s a disaster too. But not surprising.
I thought we were supposed to care about such things. At least that’s what I was taught. I was supposed to feel outraged when Trump said “grab them by the pussy” decades ago. Are we finally past that?
Reply to AmadeusD
So, you add it to the ledger of your disaffection.
Trump said that while thinking he was alone with his interlocutor. It was never a slogan.
I was never stuck on it on the first place. In fact I thought it was hilarious. The only thing I do not condone was the gossip and ink shortage that resulted from it.
I don’t know if I condone getting drunk and slapping women. Not a good look.
Reply to Paine False. It was taken up as a slogan by a rather detrimental portion of the male populace of the USA for a short period. That said, this also contributes to the ledger you mention lol.
I’m not sure he grabbed women by the pussy. The phrase “You can do anything” only means “I did everything” in clown world. What was hilarious, however, was the speech, how it was used, and the reaction. Like I said: clown world.
But there is nothing funny about slapping a woman in a drunken rampage.
From my view the federal response to the recent hurricane and flooding has been obscene, another indication of its wasteful inefficiency. Out of money and out of time. While Biden and Kamala are busy with more important things, like funding foreign wars and campaigning for power, the people who live there are largely left to fend for themselves.
Reply to NOS4A2 I remember when the right used to be all about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and defunding big bad government institutions like FEMA. I mean, they still are all about that, but you know...
Congress determines how much money goes to FEMA’s disaster fund, and the fund faces issues after lawmakers declined to allocate additional funding for FEMA’s efforts in the stopgap funding bill it passed last month, only extending FEMA’s existing funding level and allowing it to draw from $20 billion in funds more quickly.
It was the MAGA minions, of course, who pushed for that.
creativesoulOctober 04, 2024 at 20:47#9366630 likes
The problem with mental health care is a part of the deconstruction of the hospitals and other state institutions that has been done under the idea that such work could be redirected to community level support. This process has been under way for decades. The fallout is perhaps now forcing itself into a wider public awareness. To be clear, this does not resolve into any particular political agenda. It is an intellectual failure of our society as a whole.
Yup. A concerted effort began in the early seventies to manufacture consent to eliminate social programs meant to help the less fortunate people in society, and lower taxes on the wealthiest.
It was tremendously successful and is still in effect. Hence, loads of Americans are still convinced to vote for people who vilify social welfare programs, public schools, publicly owned entities, organized labor, American manufacturing, self-sufficient practices, and the like. A commonly occurring theme is to treat the US government as though it is a privately own business. You hear people talk all the time about it. Hence, it was part of the groundwork laid for Trump. People believed a good businessman would be a good president by virtue of having the skills necessary. Well... it's a completely different skillset, for starters, nevermind the serious questioning regarding whether or not Trump id s good businessman. Plenty believed he was/is. The US government is not in the business of being profitable. Etc. All this amounts to a vote against what's in their own best interest.
Welcome to an America that once had the funds and infrastructure to take care of those incapable of taking care of themselves, of those who were mentally ill in ways that they needed caregivers... but stopped doing so and gave the resources back to the richest of Americans who could not care less about less fortunate people and mentally ill folk having no safety net. Let em loose. I don't live around em.
Reply to NOS4A2 And it should be easy for you to look it up yourself but you apparently prefer to stay misinformed. Can't help people who are unwilling to help themselves.
, loads of Americans are still convinced to vote for people who vilify social welfare programs, public schools, publicly owned entities, organized labor, American manufacturing, self-sufficient practices, and the like.
And it should be easy for you to look it up yourself but you apparently prefer to stay misinformed. Can't help people who are unwilling to help themselves.
I did. Very easy. It’s not looking good. It’s starting to look like Katrina. Remember that?
Reply to NOS4A2
Your often repeated idea of the "state" is that it is a shared misconception rather that an existing thing. You are now asking that illusion to perform better.
Reply to NOS4A2
I could do that sort of thing, given what you have said in the past.
Your lack of interest in supporting any of that stuff for the sake of forcing me to repeat it is not the mark of a gentleman.
Funny, I thought this thread was about the election, not the spewing of tiresome, disingenuous bullshit from Trump cultists— or sifting through it to see if there’s any point or coherence (spoiler: there isn’t).
Trump’s back in Butler, Pennsylvania today, the same spot where a smooth-brained anti-Trumpist found his balls and did what all anti-Trumpists wanted to do if they only had the stones, which is to assassinate their folk devil.
Apparently even Elon Musk is going to be there. So if they wanted to destroy two folk devils in one they might just try to do so.
Reply to Eros1982
The double standard involved with discussing cruelty is there. As a matter of public discourse, the language of complete vindication is different than what the U.S. should do as a polity.
Your choice to not choose between possible administrations ignores the extreme rhetoric from the Trump side that has been going on for years. As citizens, these differences appear in outcomes in our communities. Don't gnash your teeth in self-imposed silence.
Just being supportive to Palestinian-Americans (and human dignity in general) who aren't going to vote for Democrats this year.
I would love to vote the Green Party, but in NYS we have only two parties in the ballot and makes me wonder: why should it be this way?
Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly).
God, help us with these politicians! (Praying, I guess, is the only thing I can do now :confused: )
Deleted UserOctober 07, 2024 at 00:04#9372780 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Your choice to not choose between possible administrations ignores the extreme rhetoric from the Trump side that has been going on for years. As citizens, these differences appear in outcomes in our communities.
Yes.
If I had to go before a tribunal and defend my choice of voting for Harris, it would give me pause. But it isn’t that serious. People want to believe it’s their only political power— to fill in an oval every 4 years — and thus all the hand-wringing.
It’s overthinking it. Vote against Trump and keep at the local work — organizing, striking, protesting, lawsuits, unionizing, boycotting, etc. That’s it. Will a Trump or Harris administration make achieving goals easier or harder? I think the answer is clear.
The one area I understand feeling bad about: support for Israel’s genocide. Seems like Harris is all-in for Israel, just as Biden has been. True enough. It’s also true, however, that Trump is an even bigger supporter. So not only do we make it worse with him in office, we get all the other terrifying, horrible, shitty things along with it.
A vote against the worst candidate when there’s really just two options isn’t an endorsement of the less bad candidate, nor the two-party system. Sitting out or voting third party, particularly in a swing state, is helping to elect the worst candidate. This is true if you believe Harris is the worse candidate too.
I'm irrelevant too because I don't get to vote. But I notice that Dump has become of late a magnet for flies - so he seems to report and comment on in his campaign speeches of late. I immediately thought of "The Lord of the Flies', or ...
Beelzebub is the Greek version of the name Baal-zebub, a pagan deity worshipped in the ancient Philistine city of Ekron during Old Testament times. The name means “the lord of flies” (2 Kings 1:2), which is significant as golden fly images have been discovered during excavations at ancient Philistine sites. After the Philistines, the Jews changed the name to “Beelzeboul,” as used in the Greek New Testament, which means “lord of dung” and refers to the fly god that was worshipped for protection from fly bites. According to certain biblical scholars, Beelzebub was also known as the “god of filth,” which later became a term of contempt in the mouth of the Pharisees. As a result, Beelzebub was a particularly despised deity, and the Jews used his name as another name for Satan.
Tell all your fundamentalist Christian friends not to vote for this antichrist. Signs and wonders, people!
Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly).
Not to judge your voting intentions since I can sympathize with your frustration but it's not really a question whether Trump will be worse (he will), so you might as well be honest and own the decision.
I’ve seen enough. Ready to make my official prediction:
Trump wins.
Which is unbelievable and sad, but so it goes. Looks like men aren’t ready for a woman president, yet again. But it’s more than that — it’s that she has no message.
She could have run with a strong and consistent message of taxing the rich to pay for popular programs. Instead she’s raced to the “middle,” on the advice of the most pathetic intellectual weaklings known to man, and desperately tried to appeal to conservative voters. She’s done so with climate change and fracking, on guns, and on war. She doesn’t answer questions directly. She regurgitates the same lines like “hopes, ambitions, and desires.” There’s barely been any policy proposals, and the ones that have been proposed are “eh.” They’ve once again left Bernie and progressives in the cold— and they’ll pay for it, especially among the Gaza crowds.
The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was. It’s a terrible strategy and a terrible candidate. They even defanged Tim Walz, who is now left with endlessly talking up school lunches — which is all the party allows him.
So the democrats put up another loser in the 4th quarter and will blow it try again against the worst candidate and former president in history. 4 more years of Trump’s climate denial and federal judges (given that republicans are going to win the senate), which will do generational damage, and the further destruction of institutions that do any good for regular people.
It feels like 2016 again: no real enthusiasm for the Democrat. There was none in 2020 either, but it was a pandemic and we were sick of Trump. That was motivation enough — plus Biden, a man, also hadn’t fully degenerated into the shell he is today, and still had a little Obama fairy dust on him from his years as VP. The electorate’s memory is also poor and rose-colored, and usually rebel against whoever is in office.
So despite what the polls, or Allan Lichtman, or Bill Maher, or Nate Silver or anyone else says, I think Trump will win at least one of the blue wall states — Michigan? — and that will be all he needs, as he will carry Georgia and North Carolina and Arizona.
Maybe some good comes out of it. Who knows. I hope I’m wrong — but I won’t be.
The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was.
I think it was a mistake for Harris to keep the Biden people on her campaign team for this reason. These are the same idiots who thought it was a good idea to hide a candidate with a 35% approval rating and hope for the best when people vote. They're still acting like they're running with a guy who must be covered in bubble wrap until election day. Either because these people are that incompetent or they think that changing strategies with a new candidate is an implicit acknowledgement of their own failures is unclear but they're not changing their strategy and taking advantage of a more energetic candidate like they should be. Of course, the Republicans haven't really adapted to running against someone who isn't Biden either. They still believe for whatever reason that Harris cannot finish a sentence and that she needs notes or a teleprompter to say anything.
That being said this strategy isn't that really much different from Trump's to be honest (apart from arguably the laying low part). He's not doing as many events as he did in 2016 (though he is making up for it in other ways), he's trying to appeal to the middle with regards to abortion, his statements always lack any substance, he's doing uninspiring friendly interviews with right wing podcasters and Fox, and every time he speaks he has to talk about how bad the Democrats are.
:ok: You stick with those MAGA-GOP talking points and I'll stick with my 22Sept24 prediction¹ that Harris-Walz will win the upcoming Roevember 5th presidential election. :victory: :party:
Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
— Mikie
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum:
I (technically) have won this bet but lost the other one that Diaper Don wouldn't be the GOP nominee. The latter, however, no doubt contributed to the former. :up:
===========
NB: Fwiw, since Labor Day I think it's reasonable to have read "mainstream" news media polls as follows –
Given that Diaper Don The Fascist Clown & his MAGA-GOP Circus Cult have pissed-off the majority of (likely) women voters so much since 2018 (then doubled down on the blatant misogyny in 2022 and again this year), I guesstimate (not counting Dems campaigns' huge money & get-out-the-vote ground game advantages) woman voters' preference for Harris-Walz & Dems is undercounted by 2% and The Clown is thereby generally overcounted by 5% in "national polls" and overcounted by 2% in swing state polls, and so I read them accordingly [adjusted]; for example:
AZ - T 51% [49] v H 46%
[b]GA - T 49% [47] v H 48%
MI - T 45% [43] v H 47%
NC - T 46% [44] v H 45%
NV - T 47% [46] v H 48%
PA - T 46% [44] v H 45%[/b]
WI - T 48% [46] v H 46%
To date all (quality) polling trends favor Harris-Walz +270 Electoral College victory.Hyping election anxiety is great for motivating Democratic, Independent & GOP/suburban white women voter turnout / particpation. :strong: :mask:
Given that Diaper Don The Fascist Clown & his MAGA-GOP Circus Cult have pissed-off the majority of (likely) women voters so much since 2018 (then doubled down on the blatant misogyny in 2022 and again this year), I guesstimate (not counting Dems campaigns' huge money & get-out-the-vote ground game advantages) woman voters' preference for Harris-Walz & Dems is undercounted by 2% and The Clown is thereby generally overcounted by 5% in "national polls" and overcounted by 2% in swing state polls, and so I read them accordingly [adjusted]; for example:
That is called wishful thinking, not analysis. If you bet money on it, you'll lose big. But let's take a different tack. If 538 overestimates Trump by 5% (or more) and underestimates Harris by 2% (or more) in their last national poll before the election, I will post a picture of myself here on this thread naked apart from a diaper with a crybaby face and sucking on a pacifier. Why? Because I believe in science and not making stuff up to make myself feel better. So, what are you going to do if/when you turn out to be wrong and the national polls turn out, let's say, to be within 1% either way of being right? Show me you actually believe what you're saying...
I'm just sayin' I'll do that if you're right about the national polls; what'll you do if I'm right that you're completely wrong?
I'll live in the US struggling against a neofascist regime while you and the rest of the world will be wagging your fingers and saying "I told you so." :mask:
In 2020 Biden-Harris won the national / popular vote by 51.3% (or margin of +4.5%) against an incumbent POTUS who actively compromised the election system. 306 electors vs 232 electors (by flipping two Republican states and winning the very same three states lost by a combined 0.7% due to HRC's arrogant neglect in 2016)! My ELECTORAL COLLEGE prediction (and reasoning for it) does not deviate significantly from the 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 trend. If I was merely "wishful thinking", mate, I wouldn't rely on center-right to right wing news media polling (and the best stats for T therein).
But hey you go right on bloviating from the cheap seats, my friend; I'm looking forward to that photo (the more lurid the better). :smirk:
I don't know who'll win. The polls could change. Trump might do or say something disastrous. But the chances of 538 being off by that margin by polling day are small enough to stick to my commitment.
The polls could change. Thump might do or say something disastrous.
It does not seem as though there is anything he might say or do that would significantly change the polls. It is not as if, even with the evidence, Trump supporters, backed by his propaganda machine, will believe it or not discount it because they think other things are more important.
“Polls’ true utility isn’t in telling us who will win, but rather in roughly how close a race is — and, therefore, how confident we should be in the outcome.” Historically, candidates leading polls by at least 20 points have won 99 percent of the time. But candidates leading polls by less than 3 points have won just 55 percent of the time. In other words, races within 3 points in the polls are little better than toss-ups — something we’ve been shouting from the rooftops for years.
Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
— Mikie
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum:
— 180 Proof
I (technically) have won this bet but lost the other one that Diaper Don wouldn't be the GOP nominee.
Yeah, you did. I was as shocked as anyone. What did we end up betting? $10 to charity of choice? Let me know and I’ll pay up. I’d forgotten about that.
Needless to say, I hope you’re right here too.
Anyway — he’s within the margin of error in swing states and is down with black men by a lot compared to 2020. Women could save the day if they come out strong — but will they? Will it be enough? I have doubts.
I don't get what you mean by 'Roevember' instead of November. I understand the quid has to do with Roe, but I have no idea what you mean, honestly. :sweat:
Roe vs. Wade was overturned largely thanks to Trump getting the lying Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court. @180 Proof thinks this has cost Trump a lot support from women now that all sorts of abortion bans have been implemented in various US states. So "Roevember" reflects his expectation of a landslide victory for Kamala Harris as a result.
Edit: Take for instance Brett's story about the "Devil's Triangle". That's apparently a game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.
It's also commonly known as a threesome involving two men and one woman.
javi2541997October 16, 2024 at 07:26#9401080 likes
You always got the sense that the Democratic Party resented having to learn anything from losing in 2016.
There’s no doubt that all the excuse-making that followed — blaming Russia, James Comey, the media, anyone but Hillary Clinton and her campaign — was the party’s desperate attempt to avoid taking responsibility for letting Donald Trump win and to assuage anger from their rank and file, lest they hold the party leadership accountable.
But tell a lie incessantly enough, and you start to believe it. And you can’t help but feel that Democrats really do believe that they ran a great campaign that would and should have won, if only it hadn’t been for the dastardly villains who pulled the rug out. This year, they seem determined to prove that thesis.
At first, there were hopes that Kamala Harris’s ascension to the Democratic candidacy was going to bring some kind of new, exciting vision to the election fight, possibly combining Joe Biden’s early, halting economic populism with the personal charisma, optimism, and history-making aspects of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Gone was the “basement strategy” of hiding the candidate from unscripted media. So were the by now stale warnings about Republicans threatening democracy and dictatorship, in favor of the new, deflating label of “weird.” Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” suggested she’d lead the country not just out of the morass of Trumpism but in a different direction from Biden’s disastrous last two years.
So much for that. For weeks now, it’s been clear the Harris campaign has decided that it’s going to rerun the Clinton 2016 strategy on the off chance that that year really was a fluke, and that Trump really is so hated that Americans will have no choice but to vote for his opponent. It didn’t work in 2016, but this time . . .
What does that look like in practice? It looks like dropping the “negative” label of weird and performing civil disagreement instead. It looks like giving up on exciting the party’s progressive flank — actively thumbing your nose at them, in fact — and explicitly pivoting to trying to win over Republicans instead. It looks like rolling out white papers and policy positions that few will read, while rarely talking publicly about what you would actually do when given the chance at a public forum. Like running to Trump’s right on immigration and foreign policy, even calling Iran, absurdly, the country’s most dangerous adversary and suggesting you might launch a preemptive strike on it.
Okay, Democrats would say, but what about some of Harris’s policy announcements? Like her housing platform, for instance, which pledges to build three million homes and to give first-time homebuyers a grant of up to $25,000? Or what about her recent announcement that she would expand Medicare to cover home care services, vision, and hearing? Doesn’t that point to a different, more progressive policy–based direction than Clinton’s 2016 run, even if she barely talks about it?
The answer to which is, not really, because this platform is actually a major step backward from the Biden years. It’s true the sitting president often seemed reluctant to run forcefully on the populist agenda he had taken up as a way to make nice with Bernie Sanders voters, but that agenda was fairly ambitious: among other things, it featured universal pre-K, free community college (for two years), childcare subsidies, paid leave, Medicare expansion, and a more generous child tax credit. Everything but the last two are now out in Harris’s day one agenda.
What I was saying earlier.
When Trump wins they have no one to blame but themselves.
Reply to 180 Proof Right. I'm still apprehensively optimistic that Harris-Walz will win, but the fact that it's as close as it is, is a source of deep disquiet. He really ought to have been booed offstage long since.
I watched a few snippets of the Fox interview. Harris holds her ground as always. Baier had the temerity to play a Trump campaign advertisement during the break and interrupted continuously. But then that’s the kind of crassness you’d expect from MAGA media.
Reply to 180 Proof One thing for sure, the Master Propogandist has sure as hell put Jan 6 front and centre for the last three weeks of the run up, with his Day of Love shtick. I'm going to get AI to make me a 1969 style psychedelic poster with Day of Love in flouro, and DJT against the MAGA mob in silhouette.
We don't need polymarket as a primary source anyway. It just reflects the polls. When Kamala was about 3% ahead nationally, polymarket read 50/50. She is now about 2% ahead, so it reads 60/40 Trump. She probably needs to be more than 3% ahead nationally to win, considering the Republican advantage in the electoral college set up (e.g. HRC won by over 2% and lost). People betting large amounts most likely know that, so more of them are likely to be betting Trump. 60/40 is still a toss up. But leans Trump. That`s also your most recent evaluation. It's not rocket science.
Maybe the polymarket crowd slightly over fancies Trump, but it's in broad agreement with what the polls suggest and has been all along. And maybe people are confused because a small movement in the polls causes a larger movement in the betting markets. Those literate in basic mathematics should understand why that is and don't need polymarket to tell them what aggregate polls are already saying.
Political idiots like Elon Musk play into this misunderstanding by claiming polymarket is more accurate then the polls. No, it just tracks the polls. It's derivative and will continue to be so.
Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people. Hence the article I posted. 60/40 is a lot by this election’s standards.
Whether Harris needs 3% to win is disputable now, given inroads Trump has made in Florida, New York, and California. Nate Cohn has written about this well. His electoral edge is probably slipping.
Yeah I still think he’s going to win, but it’s because Harris is a dud. Not because of the polls.
Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people
No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now. Maybe polymarket very slightly overestimates relative to the average but it's hardly detectable. The "four people controlling this" story is kind of a silly distraction. The betting odds are increasingly favouring Trump because Kamala is sinking in the polls and the polls are the most reliable means of figuring out odds.
Of course, if the polls are wrong, the betting odds will be even more wrong, like they were in 2016. But then it was state level polls that were mostly out. The last aggregate national poll on 538 was right within the margin of error.
No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now.
Over the past two weeks, the chances of a Trump victory in the November election have surged on Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market. Its bettors were giving Trump a 60% chance of winning on Friday, while Harris’s chances were 40%. The candidates were in a dead heat at the start of October.
Trump’s gains on Polymarket have cheered his supporters, and they have been followed by the odds shifting in Trump’s favor in other betting markets. Elon Musk flagged Trump’s growing lead on Polymarket to his 200 million X followers on Oct. 6, praising the concept of betting markets. “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” Musk posted.
But the surge might be a mirage manufactured by a group of four Polymarket accounts that have collectively pumped about $30 million of crypto into bets that Trump will win.
Seems others have followed suit.
Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. If they were truly following the polls, unless they have some secret knowledge, there’s little reason to put the chances at 60%. True, they could be imbeciles— but I think the WSJ’s argument is convincing. Even though I think he’ll win, I wouldn’t bet on it— and certainly not give it those odds.
Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation.
I think you're not taking into account how both sides feel after 2016 and 2020. Even in an objectively toss-up race the left, after having been burned by the polling errors in the previous elections, are way more likely to be pessimistic and believe that there is some unknown factor in Trump's favor this time. Hell that is the sense I get from reading your earlier prediction. Even in 2020 as the polls were showing Biden solidly ahead they always had most people expecting that Trump will win anyways. Unless Harris is up by double digits at this point I'm not surprised that the markets will go in that direction.
Most of us seem to agree Trump is winning as things stand, me, @Mikie, the betting markets, Nate SIlver etc. The fact we may disagree slightly on the odds doesn't matter a whole lot. In fact, none of it matters a whole lot because, even at 60/40, Kamala wins 4 times out of ten. Not bad. Plus, the polls and betting markets could swing back her way before election day. I suspect there will be some drama anyhow.
Chilling essay by Franklin Foer in The Atlantic: What Musk Really Wants. (It's paywalled but available via e.g. Apple News)
In Elon Musk’s vision of human history, Donald Trump is the singularity. If Musk can propel Trump back to the White House, it will mark the moment that his own superintelligence merges with the most powerful apparatus on the planet, the American government—not to mention the business opportunity of the century.
Many other titans of Silicon Valley have tethered themselves to Trump. But Musk is the one poised to live out the ultimate techno-authoritarian fantasy. With his influence, he stands to capture the state, not just to enrich himself. His entanglement with Trump will be an Ayn Rand novel sprung to life, because Trump has explicitly invited Musk into the government to play the role of the master engineer, who redesigns the American state—and therefore American life—in his own image.
Musk’s pursuit of this dream clearly transcends billionaire hobbyism. Consider the personal attention and financial resources that he is pouring into the former president’s campaign. According to The New York Times, Musk has relocated to Pennsylvania to oversee Trump’s ground game there. That is, he’s running the infrastructure that will bring voters to the polls. In service of this cause, he’s imported top talent from his companies, and he reportedly plans on spending $500 million on it. That doesn’t begin to account for the value of Musk’s celebrity shilling, and the way he has turned X into an informal organ of the campaign.
Musk began as a Trump skeptic—a supporter of Ron DeSantis, in fact. Only gradually did he become an avowed, rhapsodic MAGA believer. His attitude toward Trump seems to parallel his view of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, AI might culminate in the destruction of humanity. On the other hand, it’s inevitable, and if harnessed by a brilliant engineer, it has glorious, maybe even salvific potential.
Musk’s public affection for Trump begins, almost certainly, with his savvy understanding of economic interests—namely, his own. Like so many other billionaire exponents of libertarianism, he has turned the government into a spectacular profit center. His company SpaceX relies on contracts with three-letter agencies and the Pentagon. It has subsumed some of NASA’s core functions. Tesla thrives on government tax credits for electric vehicles and subsidies for its network of charging stations. By Politico’s tabulation, both companies have won $15 billion in federal contracts. But that’s just his business plan in beta form. According to The Wall Street Journal, SpaceX is designing a slew of new products with “national security customers in mind.” ...
It’s not hard to imagine how the mogul will exploit this alliance. Trump has already announced that he will place him in charge of a government-efficiency commission. Or, in the Trumpian vernacular, Musk will be the “secretary of cost-cutting.” SpaceX is the implied template: Musk will advocate for privatizing the government, outsourcing the affairs of state to nimble entrepreneurs and adroit technologists. That means there will be even more opportunities for his companies to score gargantuan contracts. So when Trump brags that Musk will send a rocket to Mars during his administration, he’s not imagining a reprise of the Apollo program. He’s envisioning cutting SpaceX one of the largest checks that the U.S. government has ever written. He’s talking about making the richest man in the world even richer.
I've been wondering what Musk is up to, and this analysis makes perfect sense. Considering what an utter tool Musk is, despite his unarguable engineering and business genius, it is something to be very, very scared of.
re: Diaper Don The Fascist Clown (a convicted felon as well as an adjudicated rapist & fraudster, who 'self-described racists' believe is also a racist, and who everyday wears more make-up than a drag queen) – another character reference from a former senior Republican:
[quote=John Kelly, retired 4-Star General USMC and former Trump WH Chief of Staff][i]Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy. So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.
Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.[/i][/quote]
Nate Silver: 50-50 but gut says Trump.
John Mearsheimer: “My guess is Harris wins popular vote but Trump eeks out a victory in the seven swing states.”
What I find weird is that looking from the outside, Harris seems to be doing well while Trump seems to get less coherent every day, while waxing poetically about nazi generals and using the military against the enemy within.
Yet the voters don't seem to care. It's confusing, and that means some part of my model of the world is faulty.
Is all of this not about Trump after all? Everyone talks about the cultishness but maybe that's just a front that hides the real desire to just burn it all down.
It’s close because of the electoral college, which is a stupid and anti-democratic system, as the US constitution itself is mostly anti-democratic.
But the other reason it’s so close, in my view, is that a good portion of the electorate’s lives are crappy, which makes them angry — and they look for reasons and someone to blame. They want explanations and to make sense of the world, as we all do. The media fill that role now, where family friends and religion once did, and cater messages to these people, depending on where they live and what their interests are and how they get their information (radio? TV? Newspaper?).
So there’s huge gaps between women and men, rural and urban people, college educated vs not, etc. The left demonizes Trump (although they have a much better case for doing so), and the right demonizes “liberals” (and do it much more effectively). Both are devils to the other side.
Since the advent of social media, distrust in literally everything and anything that doesn’t conform with what your preferred information pipeline is telling you has become rampant. Thus Trump can say almost anything — even trying to overturn an election and saying he won even when he lost — and many millions will go along with it, or shrug it off.
If CNN says he’s a threat to democracy or whatever, or if there’s reports about some crazy thing he said, it’ll be ignored— because those sources have been undermined and discredited in their minds (“fake news,” “witch hunt,” etc), mostly by Trump himself.
If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that.
If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that.
I mean they saved a bunch of the Teamster's pensions and yet alot of their members would still vote for the billionaire who's last administration has been terrible for labor. In fact I imagine alot of them would somehow believe Bernie is terrible for labor too while praising Musk as a hero for the working class. For sure Democrats often take their voters for granted and rarely deliver on their promises, but there are moments where I just feel like none of that really matters anymore and we've all just gone insane. For sure it mattered in 2016 when Trump ran on a populist message and won, but he's not even doing that anymore and that doesn't seem to have changed a thing.
Not crazy, just cynically mistaken. The 2024 US election is about (1) whether or not this should be the last US election and (2) whether or not women in the US should have the inallienable right of bodily autonomy (i.e. unrestricted access to reproductive healthcare); this election is not principally about mere policy preferences (re: taxes, immigration, foreign policy, military spending, climate change, etc). As a Bernie Bro since the '90s, I ask you, Mikie: Why else would both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Liz Cheney, both Bernie Sanders & Dick Cheney endorse Harris-Walz?
I think Cheney’s endorsement is revenge for being attacked and thrown out of office, which in turn was done because she’s as establishment as they come and thus one of the few who voted impeachment. Why? Because prior to this Trump attacked Bush and Cheney— why? Because Jeb Bush ran against him and never made nice afterwards. Etc. It’s like asking why Megan McCain is against Trump. There’s personal reasons. This praise for Cheney is ridiculous. Fuck the Cheneys.
Abortion and democracy may be what motivates people to get out and vote— but you don’t really know that, nor do I.
It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.
Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.
This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.
Most of us seem to agree Trump is winning as things stand, me, Mikie, the betting markets, Nate SIlver etc.
Yeah, Trump will probably win. :meh:
Hopefully I'm wrong.
And it's likely going to be worse than last time, because now he can demand to be surrounded by yes-men. Not like he will take a lot of generals into his cabinet, which naturally don't veer off from US policy where it has been on since WW2. He'll bring on people that he took on the last years of his prior administration.
Reply to ssu Trump would be better for Europe. The worst thing he can do is pressure European countries to pay for their own security, which we ought to be doing anyway.
Also, a Trump victory may expedite European populism so we can get rid of our tragically incompetent and corrupt political establishment.
And since many in Europe hate Trump, a Trump-led America is likely going to motivate Europeans to start using their own brains again (assuming those haven't completely atrophied by now...).
If he actually manages to end the war in Ukraine that'd be a bonus.
I believe that too. In Europe people should understand that it is matter of time till they get divorce from the US. Trumpists are isolationists, but a diverse (democrat led) America will also lose its interest in Europe and Middle East. If that won't happen, then it will not be normal & democratic at all.
Harris-Walz needs 41 electors (in addition to the 229 electors from the solidly "Blue" states the campaign begins with) to reach 270 electors and win the presidency. I'll be watching the following states for results on 5Nov24 (by 3am EST 6Nov24):
Trump would be better for Europe. The worst thing he can do is pressure European countries to pay for their own security, which we ought to be doing anyway.
The worst thing for him is to pull out the rug from the Ukrainians and weaken NATO while getting more entangled in the Gaza genocide and with the war with Iran in the Middle East. And yes, he can do both, even if it's not the likeliest outcome.
Let's remember that he has done already a huge Dolchstoss to one allied nation, that collapsed immediately and he did it without even negotiating with his allies. I bet that Kim il Sung would have immediately jumped to a peace offer during the Korean war if Trump would have been there to give a surrender paper like he gave to the Taliban. Yeah, I bet that Kim Il Sung would have promised not to attack mainland US and then squashed with Chinese support the back stabbed South Koreans. Then no Korean electronics or K-pop, just larger famines in the Korean peninsula.
But naturally nobody talks about Afghanistan, the longest war the US fought, because both parties have played a role in that disaster.
Reply to 180 Proof Years ago when Obama was running against Hillary, I predicted his candidacy early and his win as president. I felt like I could make that call based on the available information. Everything since Obama is so distorted by noise, I cannot manage it any more.
Reply to Benkei I've only been in the election prediction game since 2016.
That June, after the way the DNC & Obama had systematically undermined Bernie Sanders in the primaries, I had predicted that the only way HRC could lose such a "rigged campaign" was to suppress – demoralize – her own voters by being the shitty candidate that she was. Well, she did just that – 20% fewer Dems showed up to vote for her than in 2012 for Obama – by not campaigning that Fall in the three Midwestern swing states – won in both 2008 & 2012 by Obama – which decided the election by .07% ... The polls weren't "wrong": the candidate favored to win had arrogantly thrown the fucking election (NB: "Russian interference", "Jim Comey reopening investigation of the email scandal", "misogynistic Bernie Bros" & "fucking Jill Stein") had nothing to do with it).
Notice how Biden in 2020 and Harris this year have focussed like a laser beam on midwestern swing states. Also, The Clown himself and candidates he's endorsed have lost general elections (2020), special elections (2017, 2019, 2021, 2023) & midterm elections (2018, 2022) – MAGA is a ethnonationalist populist cult of 30-40% of the electorate and The Clown has been hemorrhaging pro-business GOP & suburban college educated white women since 2021 which made up 5-7% more (transactional) support in 2016 & 2020 (c47% each election). I'll be very surprised if The Clown gets more than 42% of voters this time.
Reply to ssu Pulling the rug on the Ukrainians wouldn't weaken NATO. It would strengthen it.
What's weakening NATO is the fact that we're trying to drag Ukraine in even though it would lead to endless conflict with the Russians, undermining the security of everyone involved.
The only ones who would be weakened are the clowns who got us into this mess in the first place - good riddance I say to that.
And yea, Ukraine is hardly the first disaster Washington has created, but that's their problem.
Having one of the speakers of the MSG rally held last night joke that Puerto Rico is garbage is going to piss off people on both sides of the political divide. The campaign seems to have forgotten where the hell they were.
Reply to Paine IMO, such flagrantly racist stupidity this close to election day is only going to help Harris-Walz & congressional candidates (particularly in PA & FL).
Reply to 180 Proof
Agreed. There is a strong conservative interest in those groups who vote for their perceived interests even if it aligns them with people they otherwise do not like. They can tear down a tent as quickly make one.
javi2541997October 29, 2024 at 06:30#9427710 likes
Unfortunately, most Americans regard everything about Hispanic countries as 'trash' or 'poor.'
Now it makes sense. I now understand why some representatives of Puerto Rico submitted a petition to the Congress of Spain requesting the chance of being part of the kingdom again. I can't see it possible, honestly. But Puerto Rico —and Cuba— should never have separated from Spain. We feel like they are naturally part of us, and we have huge connections with them culturally. I don't understand why in the 1898 war Washington attacked us with the aim of freeing them if they will be treated that badly by the same country in the future.
They can't vote in general estados unidos elections, but they could when they were part of Spain. Benito Pérez Galdós —who closely won the Nobel Prize of Literature— was a congressman elected by puertorriqueños. It was a hoax the 1898 war.
Having one of the speakers of the MSG rally held last night joke that Puerto Rico is garbage is going to piss off people on both sides of the political divide. The campaign seems to have forgotten where the hell they were.
Maybe, but they don't call him "Teflon Don" for no reason.
Some of Trump's supporters agree with the sentiment that Puerto Rico is garbage (they were the one's fired up by Trump's assertions that immigrants are "poisoning our blood"). This fires them up. These are the "deplorables" that Hillary correctly mentioned (although her math was wrong; it's probably less than half). Others will simply point to the fact that it wasn't Trump himself who made the "garbage" statement, and his campaign disavowed it. But maybe it will turn off some who are on the fence. We'll know next week.
The Tiki torch crowd will shake their burning sticks no matter what is said. The thing about saying this in NYC is the long history of the people from Puerta Rico in the city. What I have learned from working with many of them is that they are closely networked with their relatives here in the States and back on the Island. I also learned that many are conservative in their views. Here is a guy who puts those elements into focus:
Pulling the rug on the Ukrainians wouldn't weaken NATO. It would strengthen it.
Really??? :yikes:
Oh I get. Just like Trump threatening to take out the US ground forces out of Europe would strengthen NATO...because European countries should then really commit to their defense. Or something like delusional like that.
What's weakening NATO is the fact that we're trying to drag Ukraine in even though it would lead to endless conflict with the Russians, undermining the security of everyone involved.
This is really crazy, really. Somehow you seem not to understand that it's an European objective to not let Russia defeat and conquer Ukraine (or take the parts it wants and put a "denazified" puppet regime in the carcass state that is left). How cannot you fathom this? NATO members simply would be worse of if Russia wins the war. The Baltic States would be worse. Finland and Sweden would be worse off. Something as totally evident like this comes somehow to be blurred in this anti-Americanism. Or Trumpism, for that matter. That Trump gave Afghanistan on a platter to the Taleban seems not to matter at all.
Russia wants to destroy the link between the US and Europe. Russia is against the European Union. Somehow you don't see this reality.
This is really the deafeatism that causes the West to lose it wars and emboldens Russia to annex territories from it's neighbors (which apparently you don't care about). The selectivity of anti-Americans is just incredible: somehow they can be against Israel's actions, but when it comes to Russia doing similar annexations it's OK, reasonable, realpolitik... and it's basically the fault of the US. Countries simply can do some things right and some things wrong.
And yea, Ukraine is hardly the first disaster Washington has created, but that's their problem.
And this is the cause of this delusional thinking. The sheer hubris to think everything evolves around the US and that everything happening in the World because of the West is the real problem here. This creates the World where the West loses. Because for you the US is the reason for all the troubles in the World. And other countries don't matter... especially if they agree on something with the US.
What United States has done has also actually has helped. I would prefer a South Korea to exist rather have it to be a part of North Korea. Yes, I'm fully aware that South Korea wasn't a democracy until the late 1980's, but it's still totally something else than North Korea. Something else that should be helped to survive if attacked. In the same fashion was the correct thing for the US to oppose such thing as Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe. And Ukrainians have the right to their country, it's not an artificial country that ought to be part of Russia and isn't ruled by nazis. Supporting their struggle is the correct thing.
Yet somehow being critical at US foreign policy becomes this incoherent crazy anti-americanism where the perpetrators and aggressors like Russia become victims of evil US. Poor, poor Russia.
Of course this is the election thread and even if this is an important factor in US foreign policy, it isn't important to the Americans who vote.
Somehow you seem not to understand that it's an European objective to not let Russia defeat and conquer Ukraine (or take the parts it wants and put a "denazified" puppet regime in the carcass state that is left).
It's obvious that the US/NATO insistence on a military rather than a diplomatic solution is a guarantee for Ukraine's eventual collapse.
So either US/NATO decisionmakers are utterly incompetent, or they are pursuing a completely different agenda that has nothing to do with the survival and well-being of Ukraine.
It is odd that the Trump campaign went to New Mexico. They have many ethnic divides but nothing a flyby gringo could capitalize upon. The place is nothing like Arizona or Texas.
Comments (2443)
January 6 wax obviously different in that it involved crimes against people and property and the intentions were to upset the results of a fair election, but the likelihood of success was minimal and there was no actual success. It was at the end of the day violent and malicious theater.
The Democrats' removal of a name from the ballot is real and will impact an election.
One is a street level blue collar crime and the other an organized white collar crime. The results are typical. With the former, a bunch of people get hurt and things get destroyed. The other is more precise.
I'm not seeing anything criminal in Dems pursuing legal challenges.
There is nothing criminal in that for sure. And there's nothing criminal in carving out districts that give advantage to one party over the other, to putting polling places in unreachable locations by those without transportation, to closing polling places at earlier times to benefit one party over the other. These are the games the parties play to interfere with the will of the people being expressed.
It's the way it always works. A sophisticated player creates rules to benefit him (like regulations, tax code, or whatever) and makes out like a bandit. An unsophisticated player kicks open a door a busts heads.
The question then isn't one of legality, but morality. If you place a moral value on the successful candidate being the one who the public most wants to win, then you won't try to enforce rules that do the opposite.
I will also repeat that there is a difference between the morality of injuring persons or damaging property versus manipulating social procedures like voting. That is, I do beleive its worse morally to bust someone's head open and to set fire to his property in an effort to obtain an unfair result than to do the same through a more peaceful and calculating means.
The point I made in comparing January 6 to the efforts to remove RFK from ballots wasn't to suggest an equivalency in terms of how rogue and violent they both were. It was to point out that in terms of the specific harm we were pointing to - impeding the democratic will - what the Democrats are doing exceeds what the Republicans have done. I get that the Democrats didn't go about it by throwing chairs through windows or wearing viking hats, but their result has been more successful.
Right. I don't necessarily like Democrats trying to keep third parties off the ballot, but I know they're no different than any other political party that would do the same thing. The GOP would not hesitate to keep third parties of the ballot if they thought it would help their chances.
Jan 6th and the GOP's rallying around Trump after the stolen election drama are quite different, though. I like to think that in a parallel universe, where Trump is just as awful a person as he is now, but a champion of climate change, medicare-for-all, and high taxes on the rich, the Democrat party would still have nothing to do with him. What do you think?
LOL. Wikipedia and MSM truly are Cocomelon for politics-brained Millenials and Gen-Xers.
They even had a mock gallows that could hang pence if only he was 2 feet tall.
Mike Pence is 20 inches tall. Like a hobbit.
Republicans say democrats are a clear and present danger, etc. But that’s mostly crap — although you could argue that they’re taking us close to nuclear war with their foreign policy. In that case, democrats are an existential threat.
Republicans are the party of climate denial. That’s also an existential threat. More likely to cause widespread damage and suffering, given that it’s already happening and the threat of nuclear war is low.
Not a fun choice.
That's one of the factors, but there are others. The perils are environmental, economic, political and military, and each one, or a combination of them, could pose a threat to the Western democratic social order. It's going to take very much higher orders of problem-solving and political management than the Republican clown-car have demonstrated since Trump took the wheel.
BUDDY IS A GONER
I doubt that. I think the removal of a competitor from the race is about as anti-competitive and anti-democratic as it comes. You won that race in the back room without a single vote cast.
Did you see Vance's back story? He's isolationist and skeptical about democracy.
They couldn't kill Trump so they're going to kill Biden. Bring in Andrew Cuomo and give him the old ventilator treatment.
Quoting Wayfarer
Remind me why your party (technically still mine) chose not to have competitive primaries, where they could have solved their Biden problem in an open and democratic manner?
Isn't it ironic that the Dems are the victims of their own failed machinations?
And when they swap in Kam in a back room deal to avoid an open convention, will the rank and file just fall into line like they always do? Probably.
I have to admit I've been on record saying they won't be able to move Joe out. But he's looking pretty shaky right now. Lot of party heavyweights are against him.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1813943622863143080?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Trump's going to win, then Vance. Vance will change the presidential term limits and rule for the rest of his life.
If Harris runs in his place, she'll lose.
Pelosi told Biden this. He pushed back.
His party is telling him to step aside because he’s doing bad in the polls, and for no other reason.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics/nancy-pelosi-biden-conversation/index.html
Trump isn’t going to win. Biden campaigned from his bunker, drew crowds of max. 50 people at his rallies, was the first virtual candidate, and for some strange reason got the most votes in US history. Never underestimate the corrupt abilities of his party.
No other reason? Do you think the NYTimes is telling him to drop out simply because he's "doing bad in the polls"? Biden is unfit to run. He's unfit to be president. The debate was horrifying.
It isn’t up to the New York Times who runs, is it?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you start speaking in questions. The NYT argued Biden should step aside because he might lose to Trump, not for any democratic reason.
There is no "democratic reason" for Biden to step aside, except maybe that 70% of Democrats wanting him gone, but that wasn't the Times' point. The NYTimes wants him out because he's in such bad shape:
"The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence."
Which was my point. This isn't just about polls. Biden is unfit.
That’s just not the case. They weren’t describing his fitness; they were describing his debate performance. They don’t seem to care that no one is leading the country, that a dementia patient holds the nuclear codes. They want him out because they think he’s going to lose.
But the Democrats have really a problem even this way, because in this age of DEI, they simply cannot bypass a black female vice president.
Well, the Democrats will loose just like the Conservative party lost in the UK. Perhaps it's not going to be such a loss as the Conservatives had (worst election defeat in 190 years), but still.
So you predict a Biden win. I'll take it. Trump isolated himself until he was just flailing. Biden at least can gather a group capable of doing the job.
[quote=NOS4A2]Trump isn’t going to win.[/quote]
Yeah, buddy! JD Vance is the *misogynistic gift* that will keep on giving. More of the Ultra-MAGA Hillbilly speaking in public, please. :clap:
Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:
I don’t get why the Republican shakes woman’s hands and in the Democrat cartoon there are apartments. Does this imply that Republicans are as friendly with women as Democrats are with town planning?
Quoting frank
Finally. Total Vance dictatorship. Yay!
I suspect they will cheat or assassinate or jail their opponent in Stalinist fashion.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1814008851219571169?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
The world is full of angry, bitter people. Each one thinks his cries mean something. :razz:
No one knows what will happen. Least of all political hobbyists.
The whole platform is based on delusions. Examples:
——
There is no invasion at the border, and immigrants are a net good for the country. You’ll hear exactly the opposite.
The economy is as good or better than under Trump — but you’ll hear the opposite.
Crime is down, not up.
Climate change is real, not a Chinese hoax.
We’re pumping more oil and gas now than ever, not less. (Unfortunately.)
The 2020 election was one of, if not the most, secure in history.
January 6th was an insurrection — the crowd’s goal was to stop the counting of electoral votes, based on the lie that it was a “stolen election” (see above).
Donald Trump was one of the worst, if not the worst, president in history.
——
Just some basic facts. But in Trump world, where literally everything is inverted, Trump does nothing wrong, the election was stolen, the January 6th criminals are heroes, etc.
So what’s left? Tax cuts and destroying government (besides the parts that corporate America likes)? Ugh…
It seems the gig is up for Biden, he's going to announce 'the passing of the torch' this weekend (to put a positive spin on it.) For the time being, the nominee designate will probably remain Kamala Harris, but if the Democratic National Committee so decides, there will be an open convention beginning Aug 19th and another Presidential nominee might be chosen. Me, I don't think Kamala Harris would be a winning choice, but I can think of some. As I've said before, I think the electorate is crying out for an alternative to Trump v Biden, and if a credible candidate is presented, it might generate a big uptick.
I hope, anyway.
Isn't that the most democratic reason you can have?
He already won the primary election, meaning he has already been chosen to be the candidate. That simply cannot be erased because he is not winning in the general.
You're talking about the procedure.
But the [i]reason[/I] given does sound entirely democratic to me. People don't want to vote for him, therefore he shouldn't run.
No, it sounds stupid. If people don’t want to vote for him, they shouldn’t vote for him. But they did. Nullifying people’s votes is anti-democratic.
Interesting. :chin:
Like 2020, don't vote for the man (or the woman); vote for the mission in Roevember 2024 which is to defeat The Neofascist Crininal Clown & his rabid MAGA junta-in-waiting. :victory: :mask:
Informed, intelligent commentary is welcome:
@Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @jgill @ssu @frank @jorndoe @Mr Bee @RogueAI @tim wood
Although I was not included in your illustrious list I will comment anyway.
I agree with him regarding "democracy by the polls", but the concern about Biden's current abilities is not simply a matter of what the polls say. I also agree with his criticism of the press, but the press plays a less significant role when a propaganda machine has a significant portion of the population believing that what it tells them is the news and the truth. Lichtman's track record on prediction election outcomes is impressive but I am not confident that Biden will win or that the attempt to get him to step down is self-destructive.
Based on his evaluation of this administration's performance his prediction might have been right up until the debate, Biden's past performance does not matter if he is no longer capable of performing as well as he once did.
And I agree with Lichtman that Democrats are shooting them into the foot, but then again no incumbent running for the second term has been ever so senile (at least in the open). So even Lichtman is unsure of the outcome and waits for the Democratic convention.
However, even if Trump wants to follow the Orban model, as Lichtman says, what this great populist orator lacks is the needed leadership qualities. We already know this from the last time. And the idea that Trump can wreck American democracy, well, just look what happened on January 6th:
Trump wanted to go with his supporters to Capitol Hill, but his own security team simply drove him to the White House. There he watched mesmerized from television how his supporters took over the Capitol Hill building and finally, after calls from his inner circle and family, he just said to his supporters to go home.
Now, sincerely, ask yourself: is a person that acts in this way even capable of overthrowing one of the oldest democracies in the World, if he actually wanted to do it? Because you don't get a better chance ever for an autocoup like January 6th, with your supporters breaking into Capitol Hill. Democrats were totally stopped in their tracks as a deer in the headlights on that day. But then you would have to have a real plan, you would have to have people that support you, understand it's either they go through all the way or they face a life sentences, even capitol punishment. Nothing like that happened.
Then ask yourself: is now the Republican party really intent on wrecking democracy? All of them?
Or does JD Vance, a former marine that wrote in 2016 "Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation’s Highest Office" among other comments, wants to now wreck democracy of the US? Isn't the last VP of Trump a clear example of the Trump team not having these kind of thoughts?
If you think that the intent of Republicans is this, I disagree with you. I think you taken in too much of the rhetoric which causes the political polarization in the US.
Hence in my view in 2028, even after a Trump presidency, there will be a democracy in the US. What kind of ride would it be to 2028 is a different question.
It’s a tough one. I have to respect Lichtman’s record, so I listen to what he says carefully. It’s true people always say “this time it’s different,” and it certainly looks like the last few years truly have been. The keys will be right until they’re not.
I can’t help but have the feeling like there’s a bit of luck involved with his predictions. But who knows? That’s the point: I don’t. And no one here does either.
You're assuming they think of it as "wrecking democracy". They might instead consider it safeguarding democracy from the mob.
Consider some of the rhetoric right wing pundits have been putting out there: how the USA are not a democracy but actually a republic. And they mean to imply by this that only certain people - true Americans - should be allowed a say. It's a take that relies on very old concerns about the tyranny of the majority, only adopted to feature new villains.
Biden has to go because he's unfit. Trump never should be the nominee but the GOP has been shit since Reagan.
Well said. And arguably the state of the democratic party is more worrying than the state of President Biden. That the party is not able to coordinate an effective response to Biden's flagging mental state is damning, especially since it's an entirely predictable scenario.
In retrospect it seems like warning signs have been accumulating since Obama's second term that the democrats are no longer able to effectively coordinate responses to challanges - like the refusal to allow Obama to fill a SC seat.
It may be more of a matter of not having yet coordinated a effective response than of not being able to, but that is not a prediction.
It's still uncertain since Biden could very well stay in or drop out at this point but what more do you think could be done here? The donor money has dried up, the polling has gotten even worse for him, the media is completely dogpiling the Biden campaign now, and members of the party have been defecting en masse and increasingly so.
Of course if you're talking about their inability to foresee Biden's age problems after RBG and even Feinstein months before he started running again, then yeah it is entirely a failure of leadership though that ship has already sailed. Complacency and arrogance from the ones at the top are what gave us Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2024.
:up:
The fact people don't get decent choices reflects the USA is simply not a democracy. I would add complacency and arrogance also got you Biden in 2020. Entirely uninspired. They deserve the dog piling and the whining it's bad for Biden is not the media's fault but a direct consequence of their own arrogance. Democrats should just rename themselves to "never Trump" because that's what it's been about since Hillary.
Yet, as someone pointed out, Trump was a wild card for the RNC in 2016, and still is until he likely is reelected.
There are plenty of reasons why the US isn't a democracy and alot of them involve the SCOTUS, particularly their decisions in 2000, 2010, and this year. Of course the primaries are also pretty terrible too and the way general elections have locked out serious third party contenders since the 90s.
Quoting Benkei
It was actually fear that got us Biden in 2020, not of Trump but of Bernie Sanders. In 2020, there was a point where Sanders was about to run away with the nomination and the entire establishment rallied behind Biden in a matter of a few days before Super Tuesday in order to stop him. Biden wasn't the best candidate but he was the one they settled with because he's the easiest one to rally behind. If Biden ends up dropping out this year then we will see the exact reverse of that, as all the anti-Biden forces will likely coalesce around Kamala this time around, not because she's the best candidate but she's the easiest one to rally behind. The lord almighty have giveth and the lord almighty will have taketh away, to use some of Biden's own words.
Fair enough, but they're running out of time.
Quoting Mr Bee
I think what I'm missing is some kind of action plan. Everyone seems to be content with voicing their concern but then the Biden circle has already made plenty clear they're not going to step aside.
So either there is some avenue to remove him, in which case they need to pursue it. Or there isn't in which case further complaining just hurts them. But what it looks like is they simply cannot figure out what to do.
Quoting Mr Bee
I wonder why there hasn't been a grassroots movement to reform the party structure after 2016. Perhaps going after Trump was too easy and allowed the party to deflect the attention. It would explain the willingness to give Trump all the attention all the time.
I think there's starting to become a more organized movement here as more time passes and Biden continues to not reassure his party while pissing them off with his arrogance. It's clear that leadership is not happy with him and are not letting things move on as much as the Biden campaign would like to pretend like nothing happened.
Quoting Echarmion
There's always challenging him at the convention and putting up somebody else which is an extreme measure that's very unlikely but who knows with a party that finds Biden's presence increasingly unacceptable. One could argue that it may hurt Biden's chances if they continue to complain, but as more and more polling suggests he's a goner anyways and will drag the entire party down with him, then there's also reason to think that it won't matter much anyways so might as well complain.
Quoting Echarmion
Well like I told Benkei, Bernie tried to run in 2020 but was stopped by the establishment that gave us Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2024. If Trump ends up winning again because of their shenanigans then hopefully we will see such a reformation. I don't blame the Democrat voters for what is happening because the problem really was they never had a say in the process.
He's out.
:party:
Living through some extraordinary stuff. The 2020s are looking a little like the 60s/70s in terms of unprecedented events.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/21/us/trump-biden-election
Quoting Shawn
Affirmative action.
1968 redux? (re: VP Humphery loses to gaslighting "silent majority, law & order, peace candidate" former VP Nixon) :brow:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/biden-drops-out-election-00169980
from 2023 ...
Quoting 180 Proof
"Defeat from the jaws of victory?" TBD.
edit:
also from 2023 (if & when POTUS drops out) ...
Quoting 180 Proof
Not a chance
Fine. My standards are pretty low by this point.
I do not think she will be a strong candidate though. I think she would be a significantly stronger candidate if she hadn't been VP, because Biden's administration is not particularly popular.
There are several people who make better candidates, Dems who have won in deep red states.
If she wants it she can probably get it though because this is the Democratic Party so who is going to want to say: "we need to pass over the Black woman candidate?" All the speculation I've read sort of centers around this.
I think the only way she isn't the nominee is if she pulls herself out.
There are a handful of very moderate Republicans who have won is very Democrat-leaning states who would be good to throw on the ticket to offset the "California liberal" vibes she gives off, but I don't know if either side would be willing to do that. It would be a brilliant move IMHO though. These folks are already exiles for failing to say the election was stolen though, so they might go along with it.
There isn't much to like about Harris.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/politico/status/1815098672113402138?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
1. VP Harris-Gov Whitmer (likely)
2. Gov Whitmer-Sen Warnock (less likely)
3. Gov Whitmer-Gov Newsom (very unlikely)
Nevertheless, MAGAts – Roevember is coming! :party:
She is a woman, and thus automatically at a disadvantage. She's also of color, so the DEI-hire narrative writes itself. In fact if you ask in more right wing leaning circles, she's universally reviled already for being a supposed DEI-hire who allegedly has zero qualifications, and is stupid because her laugh sounds weird. That's unfortunately the level of political discourse we can expect.
Apart from that she seems solid, if nothing more. She has attracted significant left wing criticism for her policies as DA but that probably won't matter against Trump and is not something that I think most voters would care about deeply.
Really it's all about whether she can effectively deal with the fact that she is a woman.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I guess the deciding question would be whether the administration is popular enough among swing state voters.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Probably, yeah. She'll be hard to get past if she decides to push it. Nor Do I think the democrats could afford another public pressure campaign.
Edit: So I just read that she reacted to Biden's endorsement by saying she hopes to "earn and win" the nomination. So she considers herself in the race, but not the heir apparent. This leaves her space to back out, so at least she apparently does not intend to run come what may.
Honestly overall I think at this point the democrats should embrace chaos and focus on making the most grassroots-based choice possible. Find some way to let the base vote for a candidate, take the hands off the convention and just make it really, really obvious that you're not pushing anyone and whoever makes the best case wins.
I think such a spectacle might energize voters who are on the fence, but what do I know.
I don't know if she would be the best candidate in terms of electability or capability but she is certainly preferable to Orange Jesus.
The political discourse "there" is right as usual. Hillary got millions of votes for being a woman, Obama for being black. Odds are that, if Hillary were Hilbert and Barack Obama were Barry O'Bryan, they wouldn't have won.
[hide]Yes, Hillary won the popular vote.[/hide]
That’s encouraging. I’ve been reading that there’s the chance of an ‘open convention’, but that in the past these haven’t been very successful. But if it is an open convention, I hope another candidate comes of it.
:100:
Self brainwash much?
The negatives are that as long as he's President, Karine Jean-Pierre is going to be asked:
1) If Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to run for President; then isn't he too cognitively impaired to BE President? And since Joe is clearly not running the country and hasn't been for some time, who has been and IS running the country? Obama? Jill "Edith Wilson" Biden? And remember, the media smell a wounded politician like a herd of rabid jackals. Have you noticed the tone shift in the White House briefing room lately? KJP is under attack like she's never experienced before.
2) Is Joe going to preemptively pardon son Hunter, brother James, and other members of his family, for Federal felonies they may be subject to regarding the Biden family's decades of grift, bribery, and influence peddling involving foreign countries? This family business is a well known open secret in Washington, and is denied by the Dems in exactly the same way that they denied Biden's progressive cognitive impairment. Meaning, they'll deny it everyone finds out about it, then they'll all pretend to be shocked and they'll savage him. So he has to issue the pardons before he leaves office, and he might as well get it over with fast.
But there's a huge positive and beneficial reason he should resign the presidency first thing tomorrow morning.
It makes Kamala the incumbent. The "historical" incumbent. Incumbency by itself is a huge advantage, easily worth five or ten percent of the vote. And just as in 2008, centrist-minded Republicans might have said, well, McCain's a corrupt wamongering jerk, war hero nothwithstanding; and I don't want to have to think of myself as a closet racist. So I'll vote for Obama. A lot of votes went that way. If you were any kind of independent or centrist who was not a doctrinaire Republican, you voted for Obama for the historical symbolism of a black man becoming President in this country.
Kamala would get those same independents. She'd energize all the women in this country. As bad a politician as she is, she could win on symbolism. Symbolism has a lot of power among us humans, like the Trump bloody fist flag photo.
So I say that if Biden pardons his family and drops out tomorrow morning, that is the Dems' best shot at an electoral victory in 2024. Get it all over wish and by election day the public will have forgotten Biden entirely. The longer this fiasco goes on, the more the American people are reminded every single day of the massive fraud the Democrats ran on the nation. The sooner they get past that the better.
Personally I hope he doesn't do it. Let the press ask KJP every day. Let the party civil war continue. Already Pelosi and the Obama have not endorsed Kamala, calling for an open process. Under the circumstances a non-endorsement is equivalent to an anti-endorsement. The Clintons and the Bidens are behind a Kamala coronation, for the third consecutive DNC back-room deal rammed down the throats of their own voters. Saving democracy indeed.
Now you can see why the Dems forced Bobby Jr. to leave the Democratic party. Else he'd be the heir apparent and the DNC hates Bobby Jr.
I'm just curious, I get that some people just hate Trump. But aren't the liberals getting sick and tired of getting shafted by the DNC? They could have held a competitive primary this year, Joe's condition would have been exposed, and Gavin or Gretchen would be a strong candidate. The Dems did this to themselves. And to the fourteen million Democratic primary voters who voted for Joe, while the media were telling them Joe's sharp as a tack. Aren't any liberals righteously angry about all this chicanery going back to 2016 and 2020 and now 2024? The DNC does not give a hoot about the will of their own voters, or "democracy." The centrist warmongers pick their candidate no matter what their voters think. How long will Dem voters just fall into line behind whatever corrupt hack the central party coronates? After Trump is gone and Trump hate is no longer a factor, what will hold the Dem party together?
What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got...
absolutely. More jokes in the clowns show.
Yes it's funny that the other day Biden himself said, "That's how we got Trump in 2016," meaning the Dems letting the party insiders override the will of the voters. He still has political instincts. It's very unclear whether the Democrats have improved their situation or not.
An apt comparison, but even rabid jackals, never mind healthy ones, form 'packs' or 'tribes'. As in 'a pack of wild dogs'. Jackals are canids.
Quoting fishfry
The question should be, "Is he too cognitively impaired to BOTH run for president and be president?" There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected.
I was in favor of him NOT running for another term before the famous debate. Both Biden and Trump are too old, and Trump has even more cognitive problems, particularly with the reality situation, than Biden.
Kamela has more than enough on her plate successfully campaigning, never mind trying to become an experienced incumbent in just a few months.
I'm not quite that generous. Significant brain damage, but recoverable after at least 4 years of intensive therapy for people who have brain injuries. Additional therapy will be needed to rehabilitate his faulty morals and his poor comprehension of the reality situation. Since his misfortunes are self-induced, he would need to pay for this out of his own funds. Once he's impoverished by the medical industry, Medicaid will kick in to cover some (???) level of services.
:rofl:
Coming from the same people who until last week denied that JB has dementia
[hide="Reveal"]
Welcome back, Mr. President.[/hide]
I wonder if the September debate is still on. Of course Trump may dip out of it like he did during the primaries now that he's going up against someone who's not a senile old man but we'll see.
Alright— I was dead wrong. Either that or this really was an unlikely event, but ended up happening anyway. But it’s more likely I underestimated the chances.
It’s nutty how ruthless the DNC is compared to the RNC, which couldn’t even stop a Trump.
Well, if Harris winds up the nominee ...
:lol: :up:
Roevember is coming!
I believe he did not resign. I believe he dropped out of the running for nomination for reelection. A party matter, not an official presidential matter.
Still, it would have been far better had he made the decision before the primaries. Regardless, it’s still imperative that the MAGA cult is thwarted.
How dare you squash my conspiracy theory.
Of course representing certain parts of the electorate is relevant, I did not want to dismiss that. Nevertheless, Kamala Harris wasn't randomly swept off the street because she fit a certain profile.
:lol:
This seems so obvious that should not need to be said ... but evidently and unfortunately it does.
Thank for that. A powerful, factual based ad. I don't know how effective it would be today. The Trumpsters just don't care. They believe he is their savior and either overlook his faults or think it is all liberal lies. Those who are less fanatical may regard it as a trade-off they are willing to accept. Perhaps there are still enough voters who have not made up their mind who might be swayed.
To be fair, Trump earned his nomination in 2016 while Biden didn't in 2024. As much as he brags about 14 million votes in the primary he was running as an incumbent against an anti-vaxxer, a hippie lady, a progressive talk show host who wasn't even born in the country, and a no-name guy named Dean Philips. He has no true base of support and because of that it's far more rational to just push him out. The RNC can't do the same with their candidate lest they piss off the cult.
It is not at all clear that Bernie would have won. He is a "socialist" and this scares lots of voters. To them the qualification 'democratic' socialist does not matter. Although Clinton won the popular vote, the states in which she lost are the states that are strongly opposed to socialism.
The irony is that many of the same people who oppose socialism because they equate it with government control are if favor of autocracy. The power of the demagogue to persuade the people!
I forget how she did in the debates. It seems like it should be easy to bait and trigger Trump into a meltdown. I would just pull out all the quotes from his own cabinet members calling him incompetent. Then when he called them "RINOs" point out that he was the one who appointed them and promised to "pick the greatest people."
He even whiffed his core issue, illegal border crossings hit a 13 year high under his administration and he didn't get his party to old even one vote on migration the whole time he had the House, Senate, and Court, showing how the GOP just uses the issue for votes. Oh, and almost quadrupling government borrowing during an economic expansion.
Virtually any Democrat would have won in 2008. Bush was historically unpopular and the GOP had just overseen a military disaster and the entire economy imploding. Dems had the House handily and a super majority in the Senate, no way they lose up ticket. Obama won both his elections so handily they were called almost as soon as polls closed and almost certainly would have won handily again in 2016. Aside from Reagan, who had dementia issues, he's the only guy who could have realistically been confident in getting a third term since term limits became a thing.
As usual.
Are the guy that lost his mind and started punching himself in the head in their car on tik tok when Biden announced this? Same vibe from you throughout htis thread.
https://nypost.com/2024/07/22/us-news/top-dems-threatened-to-remove-biden-unless-he-resigned/
Remember these pieces of shits as they deny the will of their voters.
Always a gold mine of cringey laughs.
Mark Kelly or Josh Shapiro would be good choices.
Quoting NOS4A2
What 'election' has been overturned? The votes from the primaries are not formally attached to a candidate until the Convention. It would be quite possible for a winning candidate to be injured or fall ill and so not be the final choice at the Convention. This is no different, the candidate in question has simply, and sensibly, decided to retire rather than seek another term.
And although obviously a close-run thing, I would have thought that any candidate who DID NOT try and overthrow the 2020 election would have a clear advantage.
Exactly. Your entire political philosophy.
The rest is projection on your part.
Quoting Wayfarer
Care to bet? So far I’m one for two. I don’t think they’ll want two people from California, and waste a chance to make inroads with swing states. Shapiro would be a better choice. Would shore up PA, which is a must win. More electoral votes.
Contesting an election is quite common in the 21st century, but removing a presumptive nominee, forcing him to step aside, and replacing him with someone else isn’t. Do you think the primaries mean nothing? Why bother going to the booth if your vote is null and void?
Better than your fascism. The only standards you have are double standards.
Quoting Mikie
Case in point. Biggest fascist and hypocrite on the site projects yet again. No wonder Trump is your master.
Oh dear. Accusation in a mirror. All you can do is accuse others of that which you are guilty. No case in point because you can neither make a case or point. Sorry, friend.
No :yikes: It's only that he's always struck me as telegenic and articulate. Whoever it is, I think it's an absolutely crucial choice.
Quoting NOS4A2
He wasn't removed, or threatened with the noose :rage: He was persuaded to retire rather than contest and made a principled decision in the interests of the greater good (although in my view about 6 months too late.)
I think it's utterly hilarous that Mike Johnson is threatening to sue the Democratic Party to force them to bring Biden back. They're upset over the $10million they spent on Biden attack ads and want their money back. Hilarious.
He was threatened with the 25th amendment if he didn’t drop out, according people close to the family. The party bosses and donors were mad he got trounced by Trump in that debate. It had everything to do with pure political power and cold hard cash, not principle, and especially not some concern for any greater good.
The last thing he said was that he is in the race to win it. Then we saw him creaking slowly up a flight of airplane stairs, and then someone posts his resignation letter on his X account, which is known to be run by staffers and not personally used by Joe. An image is flying around social media of his signature on his four recent executive actions, which do not match the signature on his letter. The letter does not bear the presidential seal. No photograph or video exists of him signing it. Then he disappeared totally for five days, officially recovering from covid.
This raises another question. If he's too sick to even have his picture taken signing a letter, is he too sick to fulfill his presidential duties. In November, 201, Biden was placed under general anesthesia fo his colonoscopy, and Kamala officially assumed presidential authority for an hour an a half or so.
If Biden is too impaired, even temporarily, to perform the duties of his office, the public has a right to know. And if he's not impaired, why haven't we even seen a still photograph of him in five days, let alone live video.
Some people online are snarkily asking for proof of life, which is what you typically demand of kidnappers to show that their hostage is still alive before you pay the random. And it's not a bad question. Where is Joe, and who is acting as president? Is he even alive? And if he is too cognitively impaired to run for president, how on earth can he continue to BE president? With two war going on? Who's in charge?
It's entirely possible that he has no idea that he's dropped out of the race. Nothing is being told to us, and the Democrats are so happy to be rid of their Biden problem they aren't asking any questions.
Kamala's got the Dems thrilled. It's very similar to her 2020 campaign launch in Oakland, California, in 2019. She drew 20,000 people and immediately became the rock star candidate. Calling Biden a racist and selling "That little girl was me" T-shirts turned out to be her high point. The next debate she got taken apart by Tulsi Gabbard, and never recovered. She dropped out in 2019, never even making it to the first primary election. She was polling badly in her home state of California.
That's Kamala. On paper she looks terrific, checks all the right boxes. The more people get to know her the less they like her. Also she has a big negative. She owns all of the Biden-Harris administration's problems. The inflation, the wars, the immigration disaster. Especially the latter, as Biden appointed her immigration czar and she was an utter failure, only managing to humiliate herself telling Lester Holt, "I've never been to Europe," when he challenged her on not going to the border. That's Kamala. She flusters and screws up when she has to go off-script under even mild pressure.
Biden was polling badly on the issues before the public saw his humiliation at the debate. It's Biden's policies the public doesn't like, and Harris owns those policies herself.
If she gets traction the Dems will go all-in behind her. If not, they'll give her the hook and trot out the next contestant. They have four weeks from today till the start of their convention.
I do congratulate the Dems for getting their act together and settling on a provisional candidate they can all live with. I can see why they don't want an open convention. Too much risk and potential chaos. Kamala's nice and safe for now. She appeals to a lot of Dems. She delivers scripted lines and speeches very well. And she can stay up past 4pm, a big upgrade from Biden.
But what did happen to Biden? The Dems propped him up for three years, then rigged their own primaries to get him nominated with only token opposition (anyone remember Dean Phillips?) and now they throw him over when he's polling badly. Reportedly Nancy Pelosi went to Joe and said he could go "the easy way or the hard way." This is the guy who got fourteen million votes in the Democratic primaries, and allegedly eighty one million in the 2020 general election. No American has ever cast a single vote for Kamala Harris for president.
I don't want to hear anyone ever again telling me that Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy. The Democratic party wouldn't know democracy if it bit them in the donkey. The back-room honchos decide what they want, and screw their own voters. 2016, 2020, and now 2024. Will the public punish the Democrats for lying to us about Biden's condition for four years and now running a coup to install a candidate chosen by the inner party and not their voters? Whether or not it ultimately succeeds, it's not democracy. It's not the will of the people.
A lot of people hate Trump and Kam has some strengths. She's got a great angle, a former DA who prosecuted sex crimes versus sexual assaulter Trump. She's strong on abortion. She will be a tough candidate if she can overcome her known issues. I'd give her a 25% chance to win. It could happen.
In other news, the condemnation of Kimberly Cheatle is savage and bipartisan after her train wreck testimony today. We still don't know how many shots were fired, what directions they came from, who killed the 20 year old. Usually when a crime occurs, the cops hold a press conference and tell us what they know. Why are we being stonewalled on the attempted assassination of Trump, not even allowed to hear the most basic facts? I caught some of the hearings this morning, it was bad. Even Dems Ro Khanna and AOC lit into her for incompetence and stonewalling.
Biden made that same point the other day, noting that the same kind of Dem chicanery that they're using on him is how they ended up losing to Trump in 2016. And speaking of Joe, where is he? Hasn't been seen for five days since posting his resignation letter on an X account run by staffers, on letterhead missing the presidential seal, and bearing a signature that appears not to match his signatures on several recent executive orders.
If this happened in a corrupt foreign country it would look like a coup. Since it's happening right in front of our faces in our own country, a lot of people take it all at face value. I do not personally believe anything going on lately, from the Trump assassination attempt to Joe dropping out of the race but remaining our invisible president, is to be taken at face value.
Not entirely sure I caught that. Was I right or wrong to analogize the media to a pack of rabid jackals?
I'm always struck by the way the narrative turns on a dime. One day, news videos of Joe's decrepitude and senescence are cheap fakes. The next day everyone turns and stabs the guy in the back. It's ugly to watch.
Quoting BC
It's a good question if he's doing the job today. Missing in action for five days. He signs a letter dropping out of the race and he's too ill to have his picture taken. But he's perfectly fine to do his job?
Quoting BC
If the Dems had just held competitive primaries, Biden's problems would have been exposed and they'd have a younger and stronger candidate right now who was actually chosen by the Democratic voters, and not by the party insiders.
As to whether Trump or Biden are farther gone, we can agree to disagree. I will agree that Trump's lost a couple of steps from eight years ago. Look at what he's endured. Whether you think he's guilty or not, all those court cases must have taken a lot out of him.
This is not the first election where people had to hold their nose and vote for the candidate they hate a little less thanthe other one.
Quoting BC
I can see your point. But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. And if Joe is in as bad shape as he appears to be, it would be better for the country and certainly better for Kamala to just 25A the guy and be done with it. Or have Nancy get Joe to resign the presidency. Report is that she told Joe he could drop out of the race "the easy way or the hard way." Nancy seems to be the one running things in the Dem party.
Some are saying the earth is flat.
Quoting fishfry
Last I checked, the US government is still the same.
Quoting fishfry
Why would it have been necessary to forge a resignation letter if he is incapacitated anyways?
Quoting fishfry
They faked his voice but faking a still photograph is a step too far for the conspiracy? Or is this one of those conspiracies that is masterfully manipulating dozens of world leaders but leaves easily traceable evidence for random guys on the internet to find?
Quoting fishfry
Old age.
Quoting fishfry
Oh so you believe the numbers that fit your view but the ones that do not are only "alleged"?
Quoting fishfry
Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.
Quoting fishfry
Ok so the democrats rigged the primaries to get Biden the nomination, but also these primaries are now the legitimate will of the voters? That's having your cake and eating it.
Quoting fishfry
What difference does it make to the country? The net result is the same.
I do not care one bit whether or not the party organization or its nominating primary process is democratic.
I only care that the Democratic Party is as ruthless, disciplined and united going forward to victory in Roevember 2024 as it was in 2020.
I don't care how they engineered ("forced" "bullied") POTUS to step aside ("palace coup"?) so long as the outcome is a candidate to replace him who can curb stomp The MAGA Cult Clown to Electoral College defeat in just over a hundred days.
In the UK, the Tories were just given their worse electoral beating in two centuries. In France, the right-wingnut populists were defeated by a concerted unity of centrist and leftist parties. The US Democratic Party with moderate independents and "Never Trump" suburban college-educated Republicans together, can do the same thoroughly rejecting the neofascist MAGA-GOP again just like 2020.
THIS ELECTION IS NOW ABOUT TRUMP, LIKE 2020, AND NO LONGER ABOUT BIDEN. :clap:
VPOTUS Harris isn't my first choice by a long shot, but I am confident that with a well-funded, united coalition and superior ground game (especially in the SWING STATES), aided and abetted by the deranged, angry-whining babbling bilge of bullshit The MAGA Cult Clown will continue to senilely spew and sputter this fall after Labor Day when the other 80% of the potental electorate will finally be paying attention, VP Harris (or whomever the nominee is) will win the 2024 election. Civil unrest by MAGA brownshirts & GOP shitheads notwithstanding. :fire: :mask:
Roevember is coming! :victory:
Quoting NOS4A2
Exactly right. Good empathetic listening.
Quoting fishfry
:lol:
I love watching the right wing loons go even more crazy over this. Fantastic.
I knew it. Power at all costs. That’s the guiding principle. Fascism 101.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1815713593351909434?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
It really is funny. The fascist, Trump worshipping, election denying partisan hack says…”No, u r.” :lol:
Edit: which is why the Democrats are still perfectly positioned to fuck up again because they're neither progressive or collectivists but those that are see the Democratic Party ad the only viable ticket at the moment.
I include on that your state collectivism, legal positivism, Keynesianism, activism. Your prevalence for organization is simply the manifestation of the fasces as you engage in politics.
I would like to be sent the link of that. Same vibe:
Chris Hedges
Ironically, everything that the "grotesque, marginal" Göbbels said about Burgerland 100 years ago still applies today, and the entire planet would agree:
If someone who is grotesque and marginal can reproduce correct moral judgement of you, there is a lot of soul searching you should, but yet:
Get off Reddit and pick up a book.
Oh, can you pinpoint for us when Hitler went from an anti-shemale-bar-campaigner to the guy who wanted to remake Europe according to his racial ideology?
Quoting Deleted user
Of all the things I did not expect to read to today, a reverent recitation of Goebbels (his name is actually written without the Umlaut), is probably the thing I expected the least.
Lol, is that guy still posting here? Good god. Don’t waste your time buddy. Ignore extension all the way!
Statism is collectivist. Not “collectivism is statist”. At least try to get it right.
I think this is somewhat misleading. The demagogue taps into the dissatisfaction of some portion of society and promises to fix things. In part he does this by setting up a scapegoat. Eliminate the scapegoat and you eliminate the problem.
Unfortunately, and I think inadvertently, Hedges contributes to the problem when he says such things as:
Is there a generally agreed upon cause of deindustrialization? Has it been clearly shown that Biden and the Democratic party are responsible? Why does Hedges blame the Democrats?
Elsewhere he says:
When he blames democrats for becoming republicans I take it he is doing two things. The first is historical analysis. The second is to tell democrats that they have lost their way and need to reorient themselves. But things might look quite different when he places the blame at the feet of the Democratic party. This might be taken and used as a sound bite endorsement of the Republicans.
Right. Incumbency IS very powerful, BUT as the calendar says, the November election is a little over 100 days away. No matter what the POTUS or VPOTUS does or doesn't do from July 23 onward, it's going to be a tough scramble.
No surprise here: our economy and politics are run by overlapping elites. That fact provides so much of the story behind the headlines. That, and the rocket-engine personal drive of people who want to be at the top, be they Democrats or Republicans. It takes a lot of drive to get to, and stay at, the top anywhere.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the prime example of holding on to his high office when he was in seriously failing health. Wilson planned on a third term, too, but had a stroke in October, 1919. Nixon held on till he faced impeachment and probably forced removal from office. Reagan served with diminished faculties. Trump has a now very familiar problem with the reality situation.
It ain't no laughing matter to beat this senile fat fascist Clown, yet already I love her happy warrior's laugh. Roevember is coming! :victory: :lol:
And there we have it.
You are not a serious person.
Unfortunately, this isn't the source i Had - just one I can find by Googling, but it's a TikTok, that i THINK appeared on LibsofTikTok but im unsure.
Coming from you, lil troll, I wear your grunt like a badge of honor. :up:
No, but he lays out his case in his books. I don’t completely agree with Hedges, but I admire his consistency and principles.
Yeah, I'm very cynical when it comes to why no one has just put the facts out there. It seems even the lots of the 'left wing' so called 'liberal' mainstream media see neutral to positive Trump coverage and the repetition of propaganda as a means to an end. Profit is the sole motive. The more viewers the better in those terms.
I'm not sold on Harris' motivations. Or should I say, I'm not very confident that she has the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans at heart. That said, Trump and the republican congress members who were/are complicit in his committing fraud against the United States of America need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There were many of his actions that were not performed under the recent protective language of SCOTUS's immunity decision.
A very large share of Germans cooperated with the Nazi regime because non-cooperation (let alone opposition) was a high-risk choice. Yes, Post-WWI Germany was hungry, bitter, and resentful and was ready to punish somebody for their loss in the war and their further humiliation in the peace agreement. And yes, after WWII, many Germans sang the I Was Not a Nazi Polka
Deindustrialization began long before Biden won his first local election. The leather, shoe, and woven textile and clothing industries in New England started outsourcing manufacturing before WWII, and continued after WWII. Other industries followed suit over time. Cheap, non-unionized labor was irresistible. Other factors also contributed to job losses, among them automation. It took fewer workers to run a new, more efficient steel mill. Automation increased the per-man-hour of productivity, so fewer workers were needed. Moving unskilled manufacturing to benefit from extremely cheap labor costs picked up speed in the 1970s.
I don't want to let the political and economic elites off the hook -- their policies devastated broad swathes of America. Did Biden behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Will Trump behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Ditto for Harris.
Old news. He already peaked, and too early. All downhill from here. Could still pull it off, but what a difference a week makes from the hysterics.
Whatevs.
He's the old one now. Kam at least has put some youth into our political process. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
A lot more are calling it a coup than are claiming the earth is flat. What would you call it? The Dems lied for three years to hid Biden's infirmity, then stabbed him in the back. When Nancy Pelosi comes to you and says, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," and a letter is put out that you clearly didn't write, that's a coup.
Biden did make a brief appearance today. So the narrative has gone from "Sharp as a tack" to "Remarkably lifelike." Still no idea who is running the country.
Of course the MSM spin is that Joe is a patriot for gracefully putting his country first. Caesar stepped down gracefully the same way.
If anything we can now test the theory of whether replacing one of the two unpopular candidates would ensure their victory. I mean Kamala is far from a generic Democrat, but it seems like voters don't really know much about her apart from her being VP and both sides are scrambling to define her right now so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
I don't think it was intentional but Biden dropping out right after the RNC when the GOP was doing a victory lap with Trump's vanity VP pick was probably the worst time for that to happen to them. The race is reset and the party is now stuck with a flawed running mate, a wasted convention, and thousands of carefully crafted Biden dementia ads that will probably never see the light of day.
[quote=WaPo;https://wapo.st/3WkjWzM]Kelly’s credentials begin with his dazzling biography as a combat-tested Navy pilot and NASA astronaut who commanded shuttle missions aboard both the Discovery and Endeavour and traveled more than 20 million miles in space.
He has also turned out to be a supremely skillful politician in a tough state where the Biden-Harris ticket has been running behind. Kelly won a close race in 2020 to fill the unexpired term of John McCain (R) and then turned around to win it again two years later — this time, with a more comfortable five-point margin against a hard-right Republican election conspiracy theorist endorsed by Donald Trump.
Border Politics: “When I first got to Washington, it didn’t take me long to realize that there are a lot of Democrats who don’t understand our southern border and a lot of Republicans who just want to talk about it, don’t necessarily want to do anything about it, just want to use it politically,” he told me shortly after his 2022 victory. “So my approach has been — to the extent that we could and can — to make progress on securing it, but also doing it in a way that’s in accordance with our ethics and our values, not to demonize people.”[/quote]
A public pressure campaign? Why insist on a loaded word like "coup" when this is about who the candidate for the next election will be.
Quoting fishfry
They stabbed him in the chest, not the back. It was very visible and very public. Nothing hidden or conspiratorial about it.
Even before the debate the common refrain was that Biden must demonstrate that he's not senile. He didn't. Biden had a lot of support at the time but he was not unassailable as the candidate. And in fact he failed to weather the storm. Nothing about this resembles a "coup", no organised group seized power in an orchestrated operation. One man lost his backing and the best placed person moved into the resulting vacuum.
Quoting fishfry
I mean probably the same people who run it most of the time? It's not like the president is required for day to day decisions.
I had to go and look that up, but that's absolutely crazy. Mob level shit.
if only the Indians would've had a more stringent immigration policy, the US wouldn't be such a mess today.
I wager that this little story is not over. The 25th amendment is invoked by the vice president and the cabinet. The vice president is Kamala Harris. Now she is the candidate for president. That’s a real, third-world coup, and that’s how desperate they are.
Imagine Rutte saying something along the lines of "We can do this the easy way or the hard way" to get Yesilgöz to drop out of the seat of party leader. (Doesn't translate perfectly to Dutch politics, but I think you catch my meaning)
Basically unthinkable. It would be political suicide if something like that became public.
Why? What do you think "the hard way" implies that makes it unthinkable? Power struggles within parties do happen, and they do often get pretty ugly, though not as often publicly ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/politics/biden-harris.html
https://archive.ph/n12XY
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309
She was, in fact, a "DEI hire.
So?
People should not be appointed to office based on their race and gender.
Why not?
It's racist and sexist.
You cannot be seriously encouraging hiring practices which are overtly racist and sexist, diminishing the value and achievement of those marginalised groups in the crosshair? Tbf, you openly wish Trump had been assassinated successfully. It's a shame that otherwise intelligent people let their brains fall out their ass and become moral monsters within politics.
You can't.
They don't think so. Why does your opinion matter when it's not even your county?
Back then Johnson backed out of the race, supposedly due to his poor showing in the primaries. The assassination of potential candidate RFK had left supporters disillusioned with the prospects. Given the recent statement of BLM’s opposition to the way Harris was coronated, against their democratic principles, can we expect to see some fireworks at the convention like they had in 1968?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention
https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-statement-on-kamala-harris-securing-enough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/
You don’t care about a race and gender-based selection process in politics?
Once again, proving the above. At least attempt not to be ethically disgusting.
Why do you care? It's not even your country.
You could stand to grow a sense of humor, Amadeus. :razz:
I have a conscience. What does yours say about giving people power on the basis of their race and gender?
Your conscience is telling you to be outraged at American politics? For real?
I am outraged that people are given power based on race and gender, yes. You’re not?
So you're outraged. Why should other people live by your rules?
I didn’t say they should. I’ve never imposed any rules. Why do you think it is ok to give someone power based on their race and gender?
Cool. You're quite ready to live and let live.
No answer, then?
The evasion is only a sign that you do not want to answer, but I suspect it is to hide a contradiction. The dissonance you feel occurs when two contradictory values are colliding, and I suspect these values are your love of power and party versus your sense of justice. In order to rid yourself of that dissonance you need to align them, either by ridding yourself of one of them, or to continue lying to yourself. The change will occur, but I hope it benefits your sense of justice more than your love of power and party. You only really need one of them.
And you're happy to let Americans live however they like. :up:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1816196970546930079?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
:smirk:
Quoting NOS4A2
We agree for once, NOS. Here in America we've been "outraged" about that since 1619 ... 1701 ... 1787 ... (1791-1804) ... 1857 ... 1896 ... 1954 ... 1963 ... and now in 2024 this "outrage" may culminate again (like 2008) in another (merely symbolic?) step up and forward out of America's white male caste system. TBD.
He’s declined over the years, looked too old, and feeble, and donors were panicking. The polls didn’t look great either, even though they’re useless this far out. The Republican attacks would have been too easy after the disaster of a debate. So that was that. I’m surprised the pushback was as intense and sustained as it was.
The DNC and their rules aren’t, and never have been, democratic. They’re about as democratic as the electoral college. In the end, they and their delegates can do whatever the fuck they want. Biden doesn’t have the loyal following that Clownshoes has. The money and the nomination will go up Harris — whether Trump and his worshippers like it or not.
Let them scream about democracy— they lost all rights to even talk about it back in January of ‘21. They can pretend to care about it all the want— and we have the right to laugh in their faces.
Looks like Kamala Harris is the nominee. So far I'm cautiously optimistic. The campaign ought to concentrate on Trump as not a fit and proper person, as he's obviously not, and also on the legislative wins and prospects for the Biden period. I really do think Harris will run rings around Trump on the debate stage but I wouldn't be surprised if we never see that. Trump has reverted to form, hurling insults and incomprensible grievances. How anyone can think he should be electable will forever be beyond me.
Mr Bee, I saw your post last night. As I processed my news stream today it was "top of mind," as KJP once said. I found six items to help people process the Kamala phenomenon. This did come out a bit long, my apologies in advance.
For the record I lived in the San Francisco bay area since the mid 1970s (no longer there) and have followed her career since before she became DA. I'm a seasoned observer of all things Kamala.
So, six recent stories to put Kam in perspective.
1) Brett Stephens questions the rush to coronation.
In yesterday's New York Times, columnist Bret Stephens wrote an essay titled, Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation.
I've heard that some people can't read past the Times paywall, but it always comes up for me. I'll supply some quotes.
Stephens is described by Wikipedia as a conservative, which perhaps mitigates my point a bit. Still, what he has to say is interesting. It gives people permission to think about putting the brakes on the runaway Kamala train.
[quote=BrettStephens]
The last two times Democrats attempted to stage a coronation instead of a contest in choosing a presidential nominee, it did not go well. Not for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Not for Joe Biden this year.
So why would anyone think it’s a good idea when it comes to Kamala Harris — the all but anointed nominee after barely a day?
Maybe the answer is that a competitive process, either before or during the Democratic convention, would have been divisive and bruising. Or that Harris’s fund-raising advantages over any potential rival were already insuperable. Or that Democratic Party big shots (though not Barack Obama, at least not publicly yet) genuinely think the vice president is the best candidate to beat the former president.
But the one thing the Democratic Party is not supposed to be is anti-democratic — a party in which insiders select the nominee from the top down, not the bottom up, and which expects the rank and file to fall in line and clap enthusiastically. That’s the playbook of ruling parties in autocratic states.
It’s also a recipe for failure. The whole point of a competitive process, even a truncated one, is to discover unsuspected strengths, which is how Obama was able to best Clinton in 2008, and to test for hidden weakness, which is how Harris flamed out as a candidate the last time, before even reaching the Iowa caucus. If there’s evidence that she’s a better candidate now than she was then, she should be given the chance to prove it.[/quote]
A point he makes is that she is a bad manager. Later in the piece he notes:
[quote=Stephens]
The Washington Post reported in December 2021, following a series of high-level staff exits. “Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared."[/quote]
She doesn't put in the work. This point will be echoed in my next link.
2) Kam missed an opportunity today to be seen as the next US president by everyone in the world.
Not ready for prime time: Kamala Harris chooses to give a sorority speech over meeting a head of state. This piece is from right-leaning aggregator American Thinker, but it makes some insightful, nonpartisan points.
Israel's prime minister Bibi Netanyahu addressed Congress today. Kamala did not attend.
Many Democrats, particularly those on the left, are upset with Israel at the moment and want to make a point of insulting the leader of one of America's strongest allies. That is their right. About half of Congressional Dems chose not to attend.
But Kamala is running for president. She COULD have risen above her partisanship and seized the opportunity to represent herself as the head of State at a moment when there is a power vacuum at the top. (Biden gave speech tonight. I've seen more convincing hostage videos).
Imagine Kamala had gone to the airport to meet Bibi. If she had, every newspaper in the world would have published a front page photograph of Harris, representing the United States, greeting a close ally. One she has differences with, to be sure ... but she'd be seen as rising above politics to perform the duties of a head of State.
Everyone in the world would have seen her as the acting US president.
Instead, here's what she did. She decided to go express her partisanship and boycott Bibi. Instead, she went off to give a speech to a council of black sororities.
The article makes the point, amplifying the reports that she doesn't put in the work, that she doesn't actually want to be bothered with doing the work of being president. She just wants the title and the perks.
In the end she leaned into the you-go-girl feminism that's driving her recent popularity; at the expense of an incredible missed opportunity to present herself to the world as the acting president of the United States.
She demonstrated her terrible political instincts and her unsuitability to be the leader of the free world. She is not up to the job. She doesn't know what the job is. In her mind she's still a leftist making a political point, not a head of State.
This was a very telling episode to understand Kamala Harris.
3) Jamal Trulove.
A black man in San Francisco was wrongly convicted of a murder. As Wiki puts it:
[quote=Wiki]
After he was framed by police for the 2007 murder of an acquaintance, Trulove was convicted in 2010, sentenced to 50 years to life, and imprisoned for six years.
A California appeals court overturned his conviction in 2014 and he was retried in 2015 and acquitted. In 2016 he sued the city of San Francisco. In April 2018 a jury found the two officers accused of framing him guilty of fabricating evidence and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. In 2019 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve a settlement of $13.1 million.[/quote]
The prosecutor on that case was Kamala Harris.
It's very worth noting that Wikipedia does not mention her involvement in this case. Wouldn't it be useful for readers to know that a candidate for president framed a black man for murder and fought against his exoneration?
That's why Wikipedia is not to be trusted on political issues. You see this kind of thing over and over.
A detailed account of the case appears here. San Francisco Is Paying For Jamal Trulove’s Wrongful Conviction. Will Kamala Harris?.
[quote=Appeal]
At last week’s Democratic primary debate, Harris rightly won plaudits for confronting Joe Biden on his history of opposing busing. But Harris cannot escape her past as San Francisco DA and California attorney general, which includes wrongful convictions like Trulove’s and inaction in other cases of law enforcement misconduct, including an informant scandal that consumed the Orange County DA’s office and its sheriff’s department. If Harris does not reckon with her failures in the criminal legal system, she could find herself in Biden’s position at the next debate: defending the indefensible. [/quote]
4) A Facebook meme is going around to the effect that as California Attorney General, Harris put 1500 black men in jail for smoking pot.
In fact-checking this before I repeated it here, I found a "debunking": Misleading claim says Harris jailed 1,500 Black men for marijuana
The article went on to admit that she imprisoned 1974 people for weed ... but that some of them might not have been black men. Some were women or whites.
You call that a debunking?
After she was no longer Attorney General, she told black radio host Charlamagne tha God that "I have. And I inhaled – I did inhale. It was a long time ago. But, yes"
That's Harris in a nutshell. When she wants to look tough on crime, she throws pot smokers in prison. When she wants to look cool, she tells a black radio host she smoked weed.
She stands for nothing. She has no beliefs, no principles, and no convictions. She says and does whatever she thinks will bring momentary advantage to her ambition.
5) BLM agrees with Bret Stephens.
People who've followed Harris's career know her record of incarcerating black men. That's why today, Black Lives Matter came out against her un-democratic coronation.
[quote=BlackLivesMatter]
Black Lives Matter demands that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) immediately host an informal, virtual snap primary across the country prior to the DNC convention in August. We call for the Rules Committee to create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates. The current political landscape is unprecedented, with President Biden stepping aside in a manner never seen before. This moment calls for decisive action to protect the integrity of our democracy and the voices of Black voters.[/quote]
They go on to enumerate complaints similar to ones I've made recently. That the DNC rigged their primaries. That "the DNC Party elites and billionaire donors bullied Joe Biden out of the race."
Black women tend to like Kamala. Black men often don't. I don't have the statistics but there are a lot of black people coming out against Kamala online today. In her disastrous 2020 campaign (that ended in 2019), she polled badly with blacks.
6) Two striking instances of Orwellian retconning of her past.
- A study by GovTrack, "an organization that tracks congressional voting records," showed that in 2019 Kamala Harris was the most liberal Senator.
Today, that web page is gone. "But the web page with the ranking, which was widely covered in news reports during the 2020 election, was recently deactivated. The link now displays a "Page Not Found" message. The Internet Archive shows the page was deleted sometime between July 10 and July 23, with some on X claiming the page was still up on July 22."
- In 2021 Biden had a crisis on the border, the result of his overturning all of Trump's policies that were keeping a lid on the problem. Biden appointed Kamala border czar. She did nothing at all except humiliate herself in an interview with Lester Holt. When he called her on her lie that she'd been to the border, she said "I haven't been to Europe, either." Classic Kamala. Great with a scripted line, but defensive and careless when speaking off the cuff. You know the clip. People were shocked when they saw it. Liberals especially. They had no idea.
The border is therefore a legitimate line of criticism from the Republicans. So what are the leftist media doing? Denying she was ever the border czar. If you claim Kamala was ever the border czar, you're repeating Republican propaganda.
Axios ran a story today (Wednesday) that Harris "never actually had" the title of border czar.
Of course numerous critics quickly pointed out that they had indeed claimed exactly that. Axios said, "After being called out, Axios issued an editor’s note to acknowledge that “Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ back in 2021.""
Of course they were not incorrect in 2021. They were caught lying today when they claimed she wasn't the border czar. There are dozens of news videos showing Dem politicians and MSM reporters calling her the border czar at the time.
This Orwellian retconning is exactly what Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, did for a living. He made news accounts of the past conform to the ever-changing party narrative of the present. In the digital age it's all too easy.
Well that's my curated list of Kamala miscellany this evening.
It's possible that Hollywood and the media will sanitize her past, coronate her, and get her over the top. She could win. I still give her a 25% chance. She's having a Brat summer dontcha know.
Or, the Kamala scam could blow up the way the Biden scam did, and the American people will hand the Democrats a defeat for the ages.
In which case they'll blame it on racism and sexism and learn nothing.
As I understand it, he is not quitting the race for any particular reason; only "for the good of democracy." Meaning ignoring the will of fourteen million Democratic primary voters and replacing it with the decision of some Hollywood actors and big party donors.
With respect only to his speech; that is, if you woke up from a year long coma and just saw his speech on tv tonight; why is Biden quitting the race? Can a president really get away with competing in primaries rigged for his nomination; keep insisting to the end that he is running; and then drop out while giving no reason at all?
Are people going to buy this Soviet-level plot? Have we at last come to this?
And then they call Biden a great patriot for gracefully stepping aside for the good of his country. Just like Caesar did.
As I said, if you saw this play out in a corrupt foreign country, you'd call it a coup.
Quoting Echarmion
Not conspiratorial? Perhaps you should look up the word. They stabbed Caesar in public too. That wasn't a coup?
Quoting Echarmion
They rigged their primary to get him nominated. They've been running a scam for three years. It blew up. But he is the legitimately nominated candidate. The insiders threatened him with God knows what, and he gave in. That's a coup.
Quoting Echarmion
So we don't actually have a president, just a figurehead run by an invisible cabal? We all knew that was true, but isn't it significant that this has now been demonstrated in public?
And in a crisis, is there or isn't there an executive decision maker? And who, exactly, is that right now?
It's half a coup. There's no president. This is very unseemly and there are great risks to this country right now. The Dems have arguably committed treason. They didn't lawfully 25A him. They did something unlawful. You want to defend that, knock yourself out.
They won't 25A him. They've just humiliated him, forced him to make a hostage video, and left a huge power vacuum at the top of the government. This could blow up very badly in the next six months.
Never so obvious before. Propping up Biden for four years then swapping him out in a humiliating operation, if someone doesn't want to call it a coup. There will be repercussions from all this that are hard to see at the moment, but they won't be good.
I think we just don't agree on what a coup is. To me, not every power struggle that the incumbent loses is a coup.
To me, a coup is an organised movement using illegal or at least extra legal means to seize power swiftly, creating a fait accompli that pre-empts organised resistance. Usually by isolating the centre of power and preventing it from rallying it's supporters.
The slowly building pressure on Biden under which his campaign ultimately collapsed doesn't fit, imho.
Quoting fishfry
I don't really understand the show of indignation here. I'm sure you didn't just realise that the USA have a huge bureaucratic apparatus and that the president isn't actually required to make day to day decisions?
The cabal is less invisible than ignored. Most people just don't really think about how the government actually runs.
Quoting fishfry
That is a much better question. It's impossible to know without having information from within the "war room". But even being in a situation where you're no longer sure whether the president is still capable of making emergency decisions is bad.
Quoting fishfry
I agree it's unseemly. I'm not as worried though. At the end of the day there have always been weaker and stronger presidents. Under a weak president, power will tend to devolve to the VP, department heads and advisors. The fact that Biden's weakness is age related doesn't in and of itself make it more dangerous.
I remember that everyone agreed that GW Bush was a fucking idiot. But noone called it treason.
Even ultra-lib Joy Reid called it a coup.
Biden was not removed by lawful means.
Quoting Echarmion
If there were a crisis, there's nobody making executive decisions. That's very dangerous for all of us.
Quoting Echarmion
Glad you take my point.
Quoting Echarmion
I'm glad you're not worried.
Quoting Echarmion
Cheney and the neocons arguably committed treason. Many said so at the time. And if they didn't, they should have.
Which law was broken?
He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run.
I’m not particularly swayed by the euphoria sorrounding Harris today. Let’s see how it plays out over the weeks and months ahead (although there’s not that many of them.) I think it is true to say that it’s the politics of hope against the politics of hate and fear. All Trump has, is hate and fear. Harris is a ‘psychopath’, the country is ‘being overrun by Mexican rapists’, Democrats are ‘radical communists’. He has nothing positive to say - no policies, no ideas, no real platform. In the end it will probably come down to the progressive/diversity vote vs the scared old white guys vote (which is why the Republicans have been frantically gerrymandering the last ten years). But I hope and believe the former will have the numbers in the end.
:up:
If Harris does make a major misstep in the next few weeks, I wonder who the powers that be will replace her with so that I can know who to vote for. I think the total vote count for the candidate of the party that hails itself as the protector of democracy is zero, as in exactly zero people voted for her to be the Democratic nominee.
What happened has nothing to do with love for country and selflessness. It has to do with the Democrats having selected Biden as the nominee, blocking any other candidate from running against him, denying he had become mentally incompetent over objections by the right, finally being exposed and realizing they couldn't win with him, and then forcing him out and finding someone they thought might be able to win.
I'm not saying anything positive about the Republicans here. I'm just refusing to pretend that some higher ideals drove the Democrats, that there is anything particularly democratic about the Democrats, or that either side is interested in anything other than maintaining power.
You're going to vote Democrat?
I don't even see why being President would be in Biden's interests. It's a lot of work and responsibility. Retirement is the much better option.
At least in Trump's case it benefits him because he can then try to pardon himself of his crimes, or at least shut down all his prosecutions.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/banned_bill/status/1816581620704641271?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1816863742899925370?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Is a strong interest in keeping a scumbag out of power, the same as an interest in maintaining power?
I know they’re going to win the election. The rigging and cheating has already begun. Not a single person has voted for Harris and she’s already the nominee.
I’ve been doing the same thing for years, but now it’s entertaining. Now you feel the need to fake laugh about it for some reason. Is something wrong, Benkei?
The cracks are emerging. That feeling in your brain is the cognitive dissonance. It’s when two contradictory values collide. You know what’s going on is wrong but you don’t want to admit it because it makes your tribe look bad, so naturally, you try to deflect it on someone else. But that’s your body telling you to quit lying. The stress of it all is too much. It isn’t healthy. It’s ok to let it go.
What talk?
If you need someone to talk to, let me know. You’re not alone.
Says the Trump worshipper. No self awareness whatsoever.
Trump is a tribe. You heard it here first.
Could Trump replace JD Vance? Experts explain how it would work
Trump’s Shortest-Term Official Predicts When J.D. Vance Is Out
I Hope Trump Kept the Receipt
Can Trump Replace JD Vance As Kamala Harris Gains Momentum? Experts Warn It Could Be 'Extraordinarily Disruptive
Polls Show Vance Is Deeply Unpopular — Could the RNC Remove Him From the Ticket?
So no one has actually talked about replacing him.
No, whatever you say—weird speculation derived from…Anthony Scarammuci?
It's that Vance's approval rating sucks and he doesn't balance the ticket. People think it was a mistake. Trump isn't known for loyalty, so maybe he'll ditch the guy.
I wonder if Vance, at the behest of the donor class and GOP apparatchiks, will pull a coup on him and take over his campaign.
Not likely.
He didn’t. As predicted. Right back to the old self.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/potus/status/1817926652388905079?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
This sounds like something a cat lady would say. Do you have a cat?
You can’t keep me out of your head, can’t you?
Cat lady.
Hopefully it’s not a fatal attraction.
I have no idea what that means
It means you’re approaching stalker territory.
Sorry. I was just bored.
I’m just kidding, frank. What do you think about Biden’s proposal?
Well, having no term limits on the SCOTUS means that it reflects the way Americans have been voting over the span of a generation or so. That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. Historically, it works for us to have that temporal anchor. Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob.
I wouldn't change it just because we're irritated by where we landed with the court. For democracy to work, you need to have a little faith in it.
That's also true with trading. Once you settle on a strategy, you need to have the discipline to let your strategy work. Sometimes you lose, even with a good strategy. You have to accept that and think about the long term
The reason the Court is now so conservative is because McConnell blocked Obama's nominee and Trump, who lost the popular vote, went with the Federalist Society's recommendations.
According to Politico:
According to the Pew Research Center, favorable views of the Supreme Court have fallen to an historic low.
Quoting frank
The Founders worked to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority can be just as dangerous. And when lifetime appointments reflect the will of that minority we are all dragged down by a mob calling itself "patriots" and "the people".
A term limit of 10 or 15 years combined with staggered start dates seems long enough to counteract changing whims.
What's 'the average American' in a two-party system? The undecide centrist?
That’s a good take, thanks.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/461370
Could you explain how misinformation works? Is it supposed to be picked up by bots? Is it supposed to become part of a cloud of misinformation so that people don't trust anything anymore?
It doesn’t work. Those with some modicum of governing power use the phrase as an excuse to censor information, which does work. But it does have some technical use insofar as it distinguishes between various types of information, for instance false info, knowingly false info with intent to mislead, and so on.
Survivor of an FBI entrapment case, more like it. It was planned by paid FBI informants. More deep state crooks elevated by deep state dupes.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/4/13/23023950/michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-acquittal-fbi-entrapment-jacob-sullum-column
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/06/gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-informant/
:lol: The only "deep state" is Project 2025 (i.e. The Heritage Foundation + The Federalist Society). Take your meds, dude. Roevember is coming! :victory:
Spread the propaganda as far and wide as you can, friend. But one day you’ll get tired of being lied to. Count on it.
Two women on the ticket is, unfortunately, a loser.
LOL. Like Caesar decided not to be head of the Roman empire.
Where do you get such nonsense? Seriously, you actually believe what you wrote? That Biden, the great statesman, woke up and decided not to run of his own volition? At the end of the USSR, the people stopped believing Pravda. You still believe.
Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama called Biden and told him that Kamala was on board using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.
Hersh's Substack is behind a paywall, but his information has been widely repeated.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/obama-instigated-anti-biden-coup-25th-amendment-threat-sy-hersh-reports
https://thepostmillennial.com/seymour-hersh-obama-and-kamala-threatened-to-invoke-the-25th-amendment-on-biden-before-he-dropped-out#google_vignette
https://x.com/RandyEBarnett/status/1818033920845431113
Hersh's original paywalled article is here.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/leaving-las-vegas
Quoting 180 Proof
IMO, not "a loser" versus two misogynists who advocate a National Abortion Ban (i.e. criminalizing women's reproductive healthcare) if elected.
At some point his public speaking style changed from that of a fifth grader struggling to do a report on a book he had not read to that of a third rate comic doing borscht belt shtick.
Unfortunately Seymour Hersh has been on a downward trend for 10 years now, with increasingly fanciful takes on events which, unlike his previous work, have not later been corroborated. I would not take his word as gospel these days.
I take your point that Hersh, for all his achievements, has had some misfires over the years. He's certainly no spring chicken. He broke the story of the My Lai massacre in 1969.
I mentioned Hersh to show that there is an alternative narrative in the news to @Wayfarer's claim, stated as fact though it's nothing of the kind, that Biden left of his own free will.
But I don't need Hersh to make my point. Biden was forced out. Wayfarer's claim that "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run," is opinion, not fact. And on its face, it's not even a particularly well-informed opinion. The facts reported by the mainstream outlets like the NYT and WaPo support the forced out narrative.
Following the debate debacle, first the low-level Dems came out against Joe. Then George Clooney. I don't remember voting for George Clooney to be the arbiter of when the duly nominated candidate may be shoved aside. But he looks good on camera and speaks words written by others. Good enough for me.
Then the big dogs, Jeffries and Schumer. And in the end, the REALLY big dogs. Pelosi and Obama. And Joe finally gave in.
If he even did give in. On Saturday he reiterated that he was dug in and staying. Then they announced he had covid. There were unconfirmed reports that he suffered a medical emergency.
Then on Sunday someone posted to X a letter bearing a signature clearly not Biden's, saying he was dropping out of the race. And then a few minutes later another letter endorsing Kamala.
Can we even convince ourselves that he knew he was dropping out? More likely they posted the letters then presented Joe the facts of life as a fait accompli.
Five days then go by with no sighting. Then he shows up for his 11 minute hostage video. And since then, if what little we've seen of Biden is supposed to constitute proof of life, I would not pay the ransom.
The day after the greatest humiliation of his political life, his wife flits off to Paris to lead the US Olympic delegation. She's been all over the news cozying up to hunky athletes and hobnobbing with the Macrons and the other beautiful people.
And we're supposed to sit back and accept all this. The Democrats do, but that's only because they've abandoned their critical thinking in favor of momentary political gain.
I think it's perfectly fair to say Joe was forced out. I don't claim to know what really happened behind the scenes. Only that the evidence that's been reported supports what Josh Hammer, writing in Newsweek, called a "bloodless coup."
[quote=Newsweek]
The Democratic Party ruling class's bloodless coup of their own democratically elected presidential nominee, who also happens to be the nominal sitting president of the United States, is one of the most astonishing political developments of my lifetime. Joe Biden, though clearly physically and mentally impaired, has sought the presidency for quite literally longer than I have been alive. Biden had been defiant ever since the June 27 presidential debate debacle that he was not going anywhere, despite overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs demanding he do precisely that. He has a Lady Macbeth-like wife who craves power, and he has a felonious son in desperate need of a presidential pardon.
[/quote]
https://www.newsweek.com/bloodless-coup-joe-biden-will-not-work-out-well-democrats-opinion-1930493
Overwhelming pressure from party elites and sycophantic media lapdogs. That's what it means that Joe was forced out. Whether there was a little good-old fashioned extortion at the end, and exactly what that extortion consisted of, seems beside the point.
I did say earlier that Biden's exit was not by "lawful means." I retract that. It was lawful. At least they didn't give him the Julius Caesar treatment on the floor of the Senate. Unless they already have and we just don't know it. Perhaps Wayfarer was only reacting to that over-statement of mine, in which case he's right. But he said, "He wasn’t removed at all. He decided not to run."
Nobody believes that.
And not that it matters, what with a hot war between Israel and Hezbollah about to break out ... but where's the President? Who's minding the store? And why isn't anyone but me worried?
You think Anthony Blinken has a freaking clue? You're more sanguine than I.
DonOLD The Clown – adjudicated¹ ra[c/p]ist, MAGA-GOP candidate for "dictator-for-a-day"– who is very afraid of a much younger & stronger, incredibly smarter, and charismatic black woman (who happens to be the current VPOTUS) and too chickenshit – must be them ol' "bonespurs" – to debate her in the fall.
¹1973 & 2023 respectively
Roevermber is coming for you, Bonespurs! :victory: :mask:
:100: Exactly.
The worst is they lied and covered for Biden’s condition for years. So not only did they nullify the primaries and deny the votes of tens of millions of people with their palace coup, they did so only because they couldn’t keep up the charade any longer.
Votes and elections and so-called democratic institutions mean very little to them in principle. It’s probably why they dropped the “threat to democracy” schtick and went with calling their opponents “weird”. But remember all this when they avail you of the sanctity of elections.
I think that one works. It doesn't come off as bullying because Trump is such a bully himself. Plus it's true, Trump and JD are weird.
I don’t think it sticks because it implies those who say it are in some way normal. For instance they just had a whites-only Harris rally. The years of child-sniffing and gender ideology and hoaxes kind of renders it hilarious.
But the speed with which the phrase was downloaded and installed in pliant brains was quite extraordinary. It’s like Skynet.
You're right on both counts. It highlights the way Harris is normal compared to Trump and Vance. And it's catchy. Trump is probably secretly applauding it. It's something he'd be proud of.
The whole “weird” thing was fine, coming out of Waltz’s mouth. Now that it’s become a “thing,” it’s cringey and pathetic.
It was awesome. The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik. The other two were at least professional. But the whole thing was sabotage from the get-go, and it made them and their organization look like a shit-show. Kamala avoided it like the plague.
At any rate, nativists and racists would be unhappy about Trump’s statements.
I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.
Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so. Personally I see nothing wrong with it, especially when it's defensive in nature, as it was against most of the comments she mentions, painted as they were in identity politics. Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician.
Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents. That wasn't what was going on with that one particular journo. What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest. The journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process. But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though.
Yeah, Trump's rhetoric is just "normal" political rhetoric. No difference in content or style whatsoever from other US politicians running in the last 60 years or so :roll:.
Quoting NOS4A2
But it's not, do I have to do one of those montages of all of his "rallys"?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, what it was "identifying" was Trump's use of identity politics ;).
Quoting NOS4A2
Or how about just a politician and not a crazy juvenile-sounding name-calling reality show host/failed real estate celebrity using xenophobic/bigotted language to whip up his base?
Quoting NOS4A2
In this case, it's informing us of Trump's rhetoric and why some might take offense to it, understandably. Of course he can get away with anything, right? As long as he pivots and says "I love (put identity group here)". As long as he does that anything he says before that is okie dokie, is that right?
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump's whole existence is about smearing. Obama wasn't born a US citizen, if you remember? Now Kamala is not half black? WTF? Trump is above identity politics. Sure is.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, that shouldn't be hard, he is a silly, unserious person. Frankly, any journalist should be able to make him look silly.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, any other politician, probably a fair point. He acts like a belligerent asshole, who is reckless with his rhetoric, he should be treated like one.
Yeah, that’s definitely what it looks like. :rofl:
"And when [DJT] attacks, he reveals a bit of himself; and what we saw was an elderly, obese, orange-tinted racist with a comb-over." ~Steve Schmidt, Never Trumper & former GOP campaign official :up:
Yeah, keep running your trashy, gutter mouth, DonOLD The Clown. :sweat:
Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:
"This" meaning the post I wrote? Or the Newsweek article I quoted? Unclear whether I need to defend what I think, or what Newsweek thinks. Suffice to say many observers saw Biden get shoved aside by an intra-party coup, or a "palace coup," as some described it. Of course not a violent or government-changing coup. So a soft coup. I can live with that. The word coup seems to bother you, I don't know why. You saw the same escalating pressure on Biden that I did. You saw that he was dug in right up to the Saturday before the Sunday he dropped out. You saw that his announcement was posted to X, was accompanied by no public statement or even a photograph, and bore a signature arguably not Biden's.
You saw him disappear for five days. You saw his 11 minute hostage video, full of platitudes about democracy and the good of the country. And since then we've barely seen him at all. Like I say, if that's all we get in the way of proof of life, I ain't payin' the ransom.
You can spin this all you want as "statesman Joe" being a great patriot. That's the public face of a nasty back room business. Anyone with eyes and a knowledge of history and politics knows that.
Quoting Benkei
Democracy has many meanings. Democracy as in the vote of the people, or an abstract word casually applied to our political system. But we are not a direct democracy, we are a representative democracy. Our system is designed as a Constitutional republic, a Federal system of (in principle) autonomous states with rights and powers that sometimes supersede those of the Federal government.
Of course you know all this. You are playing fast and loose with the word democracy as if it's a talisman against anyone who holds a different opinion.
Quoting Benkei
He won fourteen million primary votes. He won over 3800 delegates, to his collective opponents' 43 or so. He had twice the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.
Kamala Harris, by contrast, got zero delegates when she was forced, by lack of popularity, out of the 2020 primaries before the elections even began. She did not run in the 2024 primaries, which were rigged for Biden, only for the Dems to shove him aside when they could no longer hide his cognitive troubles.
It's not only Republicans and fallen liberals like myself who see the irony of the Democrats bleating about "democracy," when they so profoundly fail to exemplify it. It's like the line in the film Patton, where George C. Scott as Patton says, "We defend democracy here, we don't practice it." But he was talking about the Army. The Democratic party does not do democracy. They swindled their voters in 2016, as even Biden pointed out recently; saying that he could have beaten Trump, and that Hillary, whom the party insiders elevated against the will of the voters, couldn't. And didn't.
They swindled their voters again in 2020 with the Clyburn deal, elevating Biden over several more popular liberals.
Here's Barrons. Harris Skipped the Primaries. Was It Undemocratic?.
It's an opinion piece. I don't claim they're right or wrong. Only that prominent observers see what I see, and ask the same questions. I have no investment in these links, they just popped up near the top when I put in my keywords about democracy and the coronation of Kamala.
Here's a legal site with a provocative title on-topic to our conversation:
Confused Appeals to Democracy, the Surprisingly Strong Harris Candidacy, and a Fair Assessment of Biden
Confused appeals to democracy. Exactly what you just did. Kamala's ascent was anything but democratic. It's you who "barely understands what a democracy is ..." if you think there was anything democratic about the Biden/Kamala swapout. Not to mention the ascension of Biden in 2020 with his basement campaign and three and a half years of gaslighting the country about his deteriorating (and for the record, tragic) cognitive health.
Quoting Benkei
Haha. I admire your pluck in pressing a point that I personally know to be absurd.
But tell me, why do you bother to insist on the point? The Dems won. Everyone thought they had an insoluble Biden problem on their hands. They moved Biden out and the party and the mainstream media fell into line. Saint Kamala it is.
And Trump, I'm the first one to admit, has been stumbling lately. That "Kamala's not black" line was a freaking disaster. The man is his own worst enemy. Likewise Vance, he's also a disaster. It's a highly gendered election and Vance is very nasty towards women. Trump and Vance are busy repelling the centrist voters they need to attract. It's as if they didn't get the memo that the primaries are over and that the general election is about winning the center.
So Benkei, your side won this round. Kamala's ascendent and Trump is struggling to regain his footing.
We don't know how long this will last, and how exogenous events (Israel-Iran war, anyone?) will affect the race.
But in the past two weeks the Dems are kicking the GOP's butt. You should be happy. Give it a rest. You don't like the word coup, so be it. You think Biden was a statesman who willingly stepped aside, I say he all but got a shiv in the back; and for all we know, he got one for real.
So be happy, allow me to call a coup a coup. It won't do you any good to say it wasn't, because it was. Bloodless coup, palace coup, intra-party coup, soft coup. But a coup, regardless.
If you disagree, that's ok. Be happy, you won the last two weeks of the news cycle.
By the way, when's your gal Kam going to hold a press conferene or sit for an interview? 11 days and counting. She does scripted appearances with Megan Thee Stallion. You go girl.
I yearn for the American people to punish the Democratic party for the fraud they've perpetrated on us these past four years. It's not going to happen.
Quoting NOS4A2
They're hardly in a position to talk about democracy! And of course the weird line is stupid, but if they repeat it often enough it might stick with some voters. Politics is a dirty business and the Dems are united with new found enthusiasm and hope. Solving their Biden problem has energized them incredibly. Trump and Vance are back on their heels. They better smarten up soon or it's going to be president Kamala.
Finally, I didn't appeal to it being democratic but that it would've been a breach of trust by the Democratic Party to let a doorknob run for the presidency. Learn to read.
I didn't say it was necessarily bad. Clearly it's been a big win for the Democratic party. Every coup is bad for the coup-ee and good for the coup-er. Julius Caesar had a bad day, but the fifty Roman senators who conspired against him were no doubt pleased with their handiwork.
I already conceded that nothing illegal happened.
You are locked in to the word. I'll leave you to it.
Quoting Benkei
I'm getting dizzy just watching you spin.
Power shifted like Mario Andretti at the Indy 500. Biden had and still has many supporters among the Democrats. They got shafted along with his fourteen million primary voters. They've had to go along with the coup now that it's a done deal; but they are not necessarily happy about it.
Quoting Benkei
Then why did they promote someone whose door knobitude was already evident in 2019? That's how long this breach of trust, this massive fraud on the American people, has been going on. And they only did something about it because their little fraud blew up in their faces. Else it would still be going on.
You are impute virtue to the Democrats in this corrupt charade? You don't even believe what you're writing. It's all partisan spin.
Quoting Benkei
You were blathering about democracy a couple of posts back. I do read what you write. Perhaps you should.
What power of authority did Biden have as the presumptive nominee at the exclusion of everybody else? None. He had no power as presumptive nominee especially if at the convention, entirely in line with democratic party rules, his nomination could be taken. The appeal to his primary votes are irrelevant as party rules are also what they voted for. In fact, within their vote is included the possibility the nominee cancels their candidacy, drops dead, becomes ill, mad, is assinated or removed in accordance with party rules.
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.
I think my problem with this is that it implies that Biden had power or control taken away from him. Which in this context (since he's still the President) could only mean his power within the party.
But to me it looks more like Biden's power within his party had been on a downward trajectory for several months, which probably is why he did the early debate in the first place. Which then just rapidly accelerated the collapse of his constituency within the party.
Quoting fishfry
Is there evidence for this?
Quoting fishfry
What's the argument here? That Biden is dead? Held hostage in some secret facility? They replaced him with a body double?
Are we really in ancient aliens territory here?
Quoting fishfry
And what would the democratic move have looked like?
Quoting fishfry
If that's the argument, then neither are republicans after all the undemocratic shit they pulled since at least Obama's presidency.
But usually we call this "whataboutism", since your opponent's faults don't entitle you to repeat them.
I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false. But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you.
My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. This sort of language is designed so that you don’t have to think about politics, so it’s no strange wonder that one might resent when he sees its opposite. It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious.
Isn’t this so? Or is it something else?
Firebrand? What do you mean by that? You can have politicians with enthusiasm with out being race-baiters, promote conspiracies and misinformation if elections don't go your way (thus destroying the very platform of government itself), and violent rhetoric (bloodbath if you don't win..). Yeah there's being a fiery, inspiring speaker, and there's being a juvenile hack that barks out loud the (previously) less pronounced alt-right echo chambers.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah the major difference is I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. :lol:. Yeah, if I was running for office, I wouldn't be speaking in public speeches like a casual debater from a relatively obscure internet forum.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's called decorum and there was a reason these norms came about. It allows for shared space of differences without leading to inflammatory rhetoric that gets increased until it tears the system itself apart.
Quoting NOS4A2
If you are saying there should be more transparency for decision making in executive actions and legislative policy (as well as financial aspects of interest groups and campaigns), then I am totally in agreement. But do not make the false equivalency that this kind of systemic transparency is the same as carnival barker/inflammatory rhetoric. Also, just because Trump OPENLY tries to break or subvert the system (asking for votes, promoting pressure for Pence to throw the votes out, etc.), doesn't make the corruption any better! His one trick is to do the quiet part out loud and shock the people into daring to stop him. Luckily, they did and are trying to.. except for the immunity given to the office of President so that he can get away with whatever he wants.
Quoting NOS4A2
You mean like Orwellian ideas like "If I lose, then the election was corrupt" or kissing up to dictators as an international relations strategy? You mean the pithy slogans like "Lock her up!", and "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? This is all laughable rhetorical strategies that work for a segment of the population that has been primed from the 80s/90s by other carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and almost all of Fox News apparatus.
Oh yes all the talking points have returned. You almost got all of them fit into one post. Bravo.
Don't you all realize how petty this shit is compared to actual things that are happening in the world as a result of your out-of-control government?
This thread is a living testament to how "they" win.
And before you ask who "they" are: have you ever wondered where all these wars keep coming from that no one ever asked for and were part of neither party's campaign?
poor innocent haniyeh :cry:
murdered by those evil zionists :rofl:
But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.
Great speech. :clap: Now back to the endless apologetics for the Trump cult.
Not a shred of irony detected.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/02/us/harris-trump-election
Oh joy.
Interesting you took offense...
Are you the expert then? Is this admission ;)?
I guess I'm asking, what are you talking about? My comments to @NOS4A2? The irony of the meta-narrative here...
The old narrative of not being (at least openly!) narcissistic, non-empathetic, authoritarian, xenophobic, etc. and holding some decorum...
The new framework that has been "normalized" under Trump (@NOS4A2's odd brand of propaganda).
The CON- that the old narrative is "parroting bullshit" willingly, because "as we all should know now" the Trump new framework is just the way it is now, and ironically asking for the old framework is extremely regressive, because it asks for politicians to have civility and normalized leadership styles for a world leader (one that doesn't act like a carnival barking petty-dictator/cult leader).
Yeah Trumps rhetoric is normal shit a leader should be saying :ok:.
If nothing else, his association in trying to find any way to thwart election results and peaceful transfer of power should give you pause. But I know, I know, I’m just parroting the clearly biased left wing media, even though as you look into it more and more, even though he literally needed immunity from the Supreme Court to give him an out :lol:. What a joke.
Right, contesting an election is wrong in your strange world… or at least only when Donald Trump does it. Yeah, the Supreme Court had to shut down a politicized Justice Department and prove the unconstitutionality of their politicized indictments, but it’s all Trump’s fault.
Right, because organizing fake slates of electors, organizing (but with just enough plausible deniability!) violent mobs at the capitol to pressure the VP to “do the right thing” and making an openly blatant call to Georgia’s SoS to find him votes and overturn the election results have nothing to do with Trump. Nothing to see at all, right?
Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection.
That's because Democrats are always heavily armed.
Trump killed 14 people in South Dakota.
They were. four shootings and several alleged sexual assaults in the span of weeks.
Plus they looted several Walmarts, sneaking away with large amounts of baby diapers.
The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT. He did everything out in the open. He pulled one over on you with his neat trick ;).
So when he asked for the votes, it wasn't just that he was voicing "concern" over (in that case, boo-hoo, and so what), it was the nature of his request to overturn the election results. When the wording is "find him some votes- 11,700), he is a man in search of a desperate ploy to get as much as needed to win and subvert the system. I can't imagine even Nixon would do something that blatant!
The "faithless electors" thing is a non-issue being that it was not supported or carried out by Democratic leadership in 2016, if that's what you are talking about. There was also no coordination with attempting to not recognize the legitimate electors for fake ones. And with this case there's more a few moving parts with the conspiracy to defraud the public from a position of power in the federal government.
As far as election collusion with Russia, not only was Trump asking Russia to help him publically, but even the Muller Report pointed out people in his campaign like Paul Manafort directly having ties with Russia, even if the supposed "Steele Dossier" was incorrect. That is to say, why was he even dealing with the Russians at all in this campaign, being that, you know, Russia is not on friendly terms with the US, and it is a CLEAR conflict of interest in sharing things like internal polling data to people associated with the Kremlin.
As for the violence regarding the BLM situation, I am actually against any violence that rioters were doing in the name of the cause, especially when the cause itself is regarding violence. I am with MLK's non-violence strategy regarding this. Clear destruction of property doesn't help anyone's cause. However, all that being said, it is a false equivalency to to say that the BLM movement was subverting the democratic process, rather than various protest groups protesting a social cause.
:rofl:
:up:
It was very easy to predict that Trump, if he lost, would claim it was stolen. He’s been doing it since Ted Cruz won Iowa.
And he only lost the popular vote in ‘16 because of millions of illegal votes, of course.
Imagine believing this stupid shit? I thought the Russia thing was silly, but this takes the cake. Especially from those who are quick to agree about the Russian narrative being silly.
A "Black job"? Madame POTUS ...
Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:
I myself just try to talk some sense into people. It is a thankless job that I wish I got paid for. :lol:
IMO the best alternative to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (from the short list of "six prospective running-mates" according to press reports) is Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Of course, the Harris campaign has nothing to worry about selecting her running-mate since almost any elected mouth-breather with a working brain will embarrass the hell out of MAGA Mini-me Vance ...
:smirk:
I read in The Hill a few years ago that 65% of girls in US high schools and colleges declare to be "progressive", whereas only 28% of boys do that.
This thing has started to trouble me a little, since in my family I know that we share similar opinions regardless of gender. We are all leftists and once upon a time I was the only theist/religious in my family, till that day when I became a copy of my parents: another proud agnostic.
So I guess I need to go back to high school in order to find out how come gender will have a saying on one's probability to be a democrat or a republican, a theist or an agnostic, etc.
Do schools nowadays (and/or social media) have more impact on young people than their own parents? I don't know how kids are brought up in other parts of this planet, but in Europe and US (which I know enough) I thought parents do not tell sons different stories from those they tell their daughters.
So it is a big puzzle to me how sisters and brothers do not think the same anymore. Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays? I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.
Good point Rogue Al, but I think is true for certain countries. In the US the suicide rate for men is four times greater than for women (biggest difference in the whole world I think). In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this).
Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist".
I respect people's choices, but someone needs to convince me that gender should play a role in this. From history books I know that certain cultures had different rules for women and different rules for men, but I also know that communist and fascist regimes (and all religions) had equal support among women and men, insofar as both women and men were "educated" properly by these regimes.
I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly.
So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled.
Quoting Eros1982
In places where women have not reached parity with men, I would expect the suicide rate of women to be much higher. Who wants to live as a second-class citizen?
Very interesting. To the best of my knowledge there is one single country in the western world that has accepted that "traditional elementary schools" are failing boys and that country is Finland. Finland, to the best of my knowledge, is thinking seriously to make a few reforms so that elementary schools will stop failing boys.
Quoting RogueAI
I see your point here. Although a leftist, I do not agree with all the ways democrats have chosen to keep power and I have seen so many times that they shift priorities after they come in office. I am a green-new-deal supporter (in general, not in every detail), but I saw how Biden administration did nothing in that direction, I saw how black lives did not improve within four years, and I saw that gun violence did not fade. So, I support some democrats, but I consider it really weird when some young women ask me what I think about Trump, before they make any other questions. That really makes me ask if I am living in George Orwell's 1984, where everyone uses newspeak and is brainwashed time after time :) And Orwell, to the best of my knowledge, was a leftist too, but he was courageous enough to see how ideology may take a turn towards the darkest sides.
Since I vote democrats (sometimes) for a few causes I consider good (not for all the causes democrats say are good), I personally would never mock a person for voting Trump (cause I don't know all the reasons why he makes Trump important, as he doesn't know all my reasons for voting some democrats).
But we are living in strange times and the strangest of all things is having so many young people to believe that other people will love and educate them better than their own families.
I have been surprised with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few liberal outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago. Whereas three years ago all these outlets seemed to agree that something is really wrong with Kamala Harris (she had a few scandals in her office, she was eclipsed by Biden, she made gaffes and there were times none knew her whereabouts in the White House), now all these liberal outlets post only positive things on Harris and do not make any references to their own old posts about her.
Does any democrat here feel good with that? I mean it seems as CNN, The Guardian, NY Times, etc., have forgotten their older articles on Kamala Harris. Is that normal for you guys or is just the way journalists use to do their work?
(I remember well, by the way, in 2011 when The NY Times ran an article were some Syrians praised ISIS for doing better work in their town than Bashar Al-Asad!!! Just six months or so after that article, I heard again about ISIS. This time isis invaded Iraq and started making videos with human heads being cut. So, I guess that ISIS article in the NY Times, in 2011 or 2012, was a good example of never being enthusiastic about the people these outlets will praise. I better wait to see Kamala in her debates with Trump, before deciding if she deserves my vote.)
My fuckin' hero! :clap: :cool:
Quoting Eros1982
I think so. However, are both parents in the home? or in the daily lives of their children? Are the parents mature, stable, healthy, educated? or immature, unstable, addicts/drunks, mis/un-educated? Are they sectarian or secular? bigoted or cosmopolitan? Is the home run by a single mother raising boys? Etcetera ...
My guess is, having been neither a parent nor teacher, that schools and social media only reinforce, even amplify, what the parental / family home cultivates in children in the first place. Just like getting drunk doesn't make people a-holes, alcohol only takes away the sober inhibition to expose their a-holery. Reactionary culture and politics, imo, is like booze and "boys" learn to be resentful a-holes to a social order increasingly stabilized by 'pro-female' policies and institutions not unlike the single mother / wife-dominated households they were (mis)raised in.
In contemporary (US) society there are at least three institutions in particular which, again imo (never having belonged to any of them myself), mostly tend to (but do not always) feminize males: religion, marriage & prison. Not (primarily) schools – though RogueAI might disagree. Thus, males react violently against the first two and embrace the pack-animal, alpha dominance of the third (à la gang / thug-life ... or as enlisted military).
According to exit polls, in 2016 & 2020 more women overall voted for The Clown than against him. In 2022, those same women lost their reproductive healthcare rights; whether or not they still like The Clown, I'm confident most will against him this year to get back what was taken from them, their daughters and even their granddaughters.
That said, some "sons" want a surrogate daddy to rule the country the way their absentee or divorcee fathers did not rule their single mom-dominated homes. Quite a few "sons" are easily triggered by their deep-seated "mommy-issues" which is why jackbooted reaction appeals to many of them as a cartoon-masculine, hyper-caffinated, faux-expression of manhood (e.g. alt-right, incel misogyny & homophobia).
Quoting Eros1982
This hypocrisy doesn't bother me at all because Kamala Harris – in fact, any (moderate) neoliberal candidate for president – is not the clear and present danger to US national security, the constitutional rule of law, all civil rights & the US economy, so the proper emphasis should be on promoting whomever can/will eliminate that danger: DonOLD The NeoFascist Clown.
Roevember is coming! :victory: :mask:
This was the most funny part. It sounds like an abortionist revolution being cooked behind the curtail lol
With regard to the other things you said, the only difference between genders in my view is volume, nothing else.
Democrats are right in saying gender does not matter, but they are wrong in using gender in order to gain votes (and they are wrong in implying that genes do not matter as well). History and science can verify that only volume divides the genders, but in the case of genes, that's a kind of prohibited debate at this moment. In the future maybe people and scientists will feel more free to discuss genes.
If my mother is great with numbers and my father great with words, and I am great with numbers too, but weak with words, then there's a big probability that I took after my mom's genes. Schopenhauer, also, loved his dad and hated his mom, but I guess he got his love for the letters from his poetical mom, not from his entrepreneur dad (from the second he inherited enough money to become a great intellectual).
Women and men long for the same things, but with different volumes. A woman may think about sex 12 times a day, a man 270 times. A woman may want to pull the hair of the woman who takes her husband, a man may want to kill that who touches his wife. There may be many women who have higher IQ than Kant or Einstein, but the reason why these women will not become Kant or Einstein in my view is volume (or call it will). Though these women may have enough brain cells, intelligence and skills to become Einstein, if they don't do so, then they somehow lack that "male volume" or "male will" which enable many men to annihilate their egos in order to achieve their goal/task.
That's my view and that's what brain science seems to support. Female and male brains work the same, but male brains seems to consume more energy always ;)
I do this too. It's one of the quickest indexes of character I can think of. If I find out someone is a Trump supporter, I keep my distance.
A few years ago I was thinking to register with the Green Party, but then listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and came with the wrong opinion that democrats will fix this country and the whole world (which would follow the US example of Green New Deal).
Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words; they just use different vocabularies and do the same exact thing (rewarding whomever supports/votes them, with federal money).
Should I consider Stein now or is she another traditional politician whose only concern is to get sponsors and to reward only the people who vote for her? Will her name appear on the ballot in NYS?
Speaking for myself, I only vote for a third party presidential candidate when living in a state that's safe for either Democrats or Republicans. I live in Washington state so I'll vote for Cornel West this year. In 2020 I lived in Georgia and decided early in 2020 to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate wound up being because polling trends showed Georgia to be a swing state for the first time since 1992. Biden won Georgia and I voted for him (only the second time since 1982 I'd voted for a Democratic candidate for president). As a non-partisan "progressive leftist" (who, like Bernie Sanders and most thoughtful leftists, abhors "identity politics"), I've considered the last sixty years of the Democratic Party policy agenda (i.e. neoliberal sodomy of the working class with lube (less harmful) the lesser evil compared to that of the Republican Party policy agenda (i.e. plutocratic / autocratic sodomy of everybody south of the upper middle class without lube (more harmful)), and therefore I always support the Democratic candidate when I live in a swing state. Btw, in 2016 I voted for Jill Stein because polling trends suggested HRC would lose Georgia (which she did by just over 5%).
This 'biological determinism' is too reductive to be meaningful at the complexity of level social practices and electoral politics. After all, it doesn't explain at all (e.g.) decades of robust male support for democratic market socialism in Scandanavian countries.
There are commonalities to the two parties and major differences. Some of the major differences:
- gay/trans rights
- abortion
- subsidies for green energy (majority of Republicans reject the science of climate change)
- raising taxes on rich
- gun control
- environmental regulation
- border control
- immigrants' rights (Dems want amnesty/pathway to citizenship, Repubs want to deport tens of millions of people)
- healthcare
- education (Dems are for public schools, Repubs favor charter schools and vouchers for private school)
- minimum wage
Now, why is it that Biden struggled to get a lot of that done? In our system, if you don't have 60 of your people in the senate, the other side can filibuster and stop legislation, and it's very hard for either party to get 60 senate seats. The last time the Dems had 60 senators, they used their political capital to pass Obamacare, for which they suffered catastrophic losses in the next election.
So you’ve settled on the tired, fossilized view — that passes as sophisticated but is in fact lazy and absurd — which absolves you of having to know anything in detail. Not the great progression you think it is.
That view may have been tenable at some point, but it’s simply ridiculous now. The Democratic Party, for all it’s faults (and I have always been critical of them), are radically different than Republicans. Plenty of examples; guns, abortion, climate change, etc. If you can’t see that, you’re not paying attention.
Yes, they mostly agree on military spending — but even that is showing cracks (on both sides) — and apparently in panicking about China, but that hardly makes them “only different in words.”
The destruction of Roe, the Inflation Reduction Act, the raising of corporate taxes, budgetary priorities, appointments of administrative heads (Lina Kahn at FTC, Jennifer Abruzzo at NLRB, Regan at EPA, Gensler at SEC, and so on), appointments to the Supreme Court — these things actually matter. To throw up our hands and say “Well they’re all the same anyway” is just aggressively ignorant.
Edit:
Missed this. :up:
:up: If I lived in a safe state, like Massachusetts, I’d vote for West as well. But since I don’t (I’m in swingy New Hampshire), I’m not throwing my vote away and, mathematically, putting Trump +1, I’ll be voting for the awful Harris. But I envy you.
Funny fact: I met a girl on a dating app and she deleted me after I wrote those things about the Democratic Party lol So, I don't blame you for considering untenable those views.
I just follow some kind of "economical thought processing".
Although I know that I was born a prodigy with very high IQ and gifted stature, same as Don the Clown, and if I wanted I could become Schopenhauer, Einstein, Michael Jackson, Leon Messi, Rocky Marciano, Shakespeare, and so on, life taught me that the whole universe (out of jealousy, surely :) ) would conspire against me.
Hence, though I never doubted myself (for the sake of this debate, you know) I found out that (because the whole universe is jealous about me and about Hillary Clinton) there's a hope that I may achieve a couple of things in this life, but not everything.
That kind of economical thought processing seems totally absent among Democrats and this thing has started to make me suspicious about their intentions in general. Democrats want growth, equality, peace, free education for all, reforms, gun control, better infrastructure, general welfare, thriving American families, women rights, trans rights, Muslim rights, Natives rights, technological progress, control of the space, etc. etc. and their ever expanding list of "priorities" makes me sometimes ask if these people are serious or they just create as many priorities and needs as they can in order to appeal to all those groups who take these "priorities" seriously.
Lately I have started believing that it is a leftist tactic (around the world) to imagine as more needs and problems as you can in order to make more and more people feel that they need to be protected by the leftists. So, if I travel to Luxembourg or San Marino and see how different these countries are from the US, I am sure that a 10 mins talk with a Luxembourghian or Sanmarinian leftist would instill in me the feeling that in Luxembourg and San Marino people have the same problems like here in the States. But that feeling, I insist, will not come from what I see and experience there, but from a political discourse that sounds the same among the politicians around the world.
Though the left traces its history in those workers unions who fought for the working classes in Europe and US, we see how the change in living standards and working ethics has made leftists change priorities as well. It is hard to attain today that leftists care more about EU/US majorities than right wing politicians, for the simple reason that the leftists will keep talking about poverty and working conditions, even though in the 21st century labor has been radically transformed and poverty is not as widespread as it used to be in the beginning of the 20th century. Democrats want to speak about the poor and the rich, forgetting that 70% of people in this country are neither poor nor rich.
But I think I know why they do it now. Most of the people in this country do not care to vote at all and in these circumstances both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that they may keep power through appealing to the few, not to the many. If they really cared about majorities they would set a couple of priorities that majorities seem to care (like crime, inflation and infrastructure) and they wouldn't invent so many needs and priorities.
I lost faith in Democrats when they gave people 3 trillion in covid relief, but they could afford only 800 billion for the infrastructure. They put the blame on the Republicans for that too, but this absence of economical thought processing among the Democrats has started to trouble me.
Not untenable— stupid.
IMO Christianity does have a more feminine ethic, but this is not the case for Judaism or Islam. Certain branches like Eastern Orthodoxy are more patriarchal. Still, I would say that the Christian ethic as expressed in the gospels could reasonably be considered a more feminine one -- not a weaker one, but a more feminine one.
You are focussed on this one word, which really is not important in the scheme of things. Many interesting things are going on in this election and perhaps we can talk about them some time.
[/quote]
The only reason so many people like you are making such a huge issue about it is myopic politics. This is simply not a big deal and anybody who keeps insisting on it make a living out of having dumb opinions.[/quote]
Coup, coup, coup, coup, coup!
But of course he did. You might as well argue the sun rises in the west.
Quoting Echarmion
Which is exactly why I used the phrases "palace coup" and "intra-party coup." Making your point for you.
But you are hung up on the word coup. If I call it a coup and you prefer to call it a not-a-coup, I'm fine with that. It's unimportant in the scheme of things. As I told @Benkei, I'm happy to talk about the latest developments in this unprecedented election as we live through this very dangerous moment in history. You can call it a coup or not. I'll keep calling it a coup.
Quoting Echarmion
No doubt. But they covered it up in the hopes of swindling the American people. I fervently hope the people will hold them accountable and punish them for it at the ballot box. But it won't happen.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts.
Quoting Echarmion
All I'm sayin' is I'm not payin' the ransom till I see proof of life.
Did you see him at the hostage press conference? Man has one foot in the grave. And Kamala tossed out word salad and she doesn't even have the excuse of being senile.
Quoting Echarmion
I can't read you the news.
Quoting Echarmion
Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.
The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders.
Quoting Echarmion
Trump was nominated in a spirited and competitive primary. You're just flailing with the rest of it. "But he's ORANGE HITLER, whatabout that??"
That all you've got? Many commentators, not just me, are remarking on the Democrats' highly undemocratic manner of swapping in a new candidate with no popular electoral support whatsoever. Then having the MSM whitewash and scrub her actual record. Then having her avoid press conferences and interviews in the hopes of running another 2020-style basement campaign.
Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade.
The definition of a "far right" protest is anger at the stabbing death of three little girls as young as 6. Apparently if you're against stabbing little girls, you're a right winger. So says Keir Starmer, new PM of the UK.
I heard he studied philosophy. Will be be a philosopher king? :rofl:
You're telling me you're very, very sure that's what happened but you haven't told me why I should believe that - i.e. what the evidence is for someone who doesn't already believe what you believe.
Quoting fishfry
I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support.
Quoting fishfry
But you did. You're just dismissing the evidence as insufficient. What further evidence do you require? A personal meeting with Biden?
Quoting fishfry
I'm not calling it democracy. But if your only remedy is a retroactive plan that can't possibly be executed without a time machine your complaints sound kind of hollow.
Quoting fishfry
Don't put words in my mouth please.
Quoting fishfry
No. I've got a whole list.
When Mitch McConnell declared that the republican party would do everything to stymie Obama, that was undemocratic.
When republicans under his leadership refused to allow Obama to fill a SC seat, that was undemocratic.
When Trump claims that every election he is or was in (regardless of outcome) is rigged against him, that's undemocratic. Arguably you can't blame the rest of the Republicans for all of this, but you can blame them for supporting it to the point of ostracizing his opponents.
When Trump refused to make an official concession in 2020, that was undemocratic. When the republican party, after some hand-wringing, ended up wholeheartedly backing it they became complicit.
Those are just the obvious, highly public events. I'm not including any of the "controversial" events. I'm also not including all the lower level procedural steps like gerrymandering (a "both sides" issue that republicans pioneered).
So even if I accept all your claims as to this "coup", it merely moves the democratic party closer towards the republican party in terms of power politics.
Quoting fishfry
US politics has moved far beyond being ashamed of your side several cycles ago. You're asking liberals to sabotage themselves in favour of an ideal that their political opponents have long since thrown by the wayside. That is at best naive, at worst it's a cynical attempt to get your chosen candidate into power with less of an opposition.
Uh oh, even MAGA media has begun to wake up and smell the gourmet black coffee:
https://nypost.com/2024/07/29/opinion/trump-and-vance-need-to-woo-women-voters-to-win/
Roevember is coming, @NOS4A2 :kiss:
@fishfry @Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @Fooloso4
I would very much like to believe its over, but I don't. I doubt that the continued focus on Trump will sway voters. Outside of the MAGA cult most who will vote for him will do so despite who he is and what he says. The Dobbs decision will play a role. Beyond that the key factor will be the voter's own financial well-being, both in fact and perception. The case can and I think will be made that Trump failed on his economic promises and Biden did more and Harris will continue to do more for American industry, small business, infrastructure, and jobs.
Wow, she actually made the best choice. I’m surprised, but I’m happy she did it. Now I can spell his name correctly (Walz).
Because some of the biggest donors to the Republicans are fossil fuel giants. Not only that, but they own think tanks and election infrastructure as well. The propaganda was so strong that it lingers even today, when we’re seeing the effects of a warming planet all around us.
Because it was associated with “liberals” (thanks in part to Al Gore’s involvement), it’s become politicized and thus Trumpers would rather die, literally, then face the reality. So goes US politics.
How is Musk's behavior explained?
The most educated people in this country buy his very expensive Tesla cars, and Elon Musk says now that he is going to give a 42 million check per month to a climate change denier. :vomit:
My running theory is that Musk is just chasing the adulation of the most willing sycophants, and those just happen to be in the Trumpist camp.
That’s part of it. He’s also very Twitter-minded, and the biggest voices on there are Trump trolls and the alt-right. If it were SNL, it would have been different.
The more cynical view is that he wants to sell cars to the Trump crowd. Which as you see now, Trump has changed his tune on EVs a bit, and was just recently gifted a Cybertruck by some online influences— which he praised. Good publicity for Tesla.
The most simple theory is that Musk is basically an idiot, and always has been. That’s the most likely case, I think.
kind of crazy when you compare VP choices. Kamala’s choice is smart and strategic. Trump picked a phony sycophant, presumably only because he intends to surround himself with weak yes-men.
There is an article in the NYT: "JD Vance Just Blurbed a Book Arguing That Progressives Are Subhuman" Until recently the book, Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) could be be dismissed as too far to the extreme right to be taken seriously, but with Vance's endorsement and a forward by Stephen Bannon, it has entered the Republican mainstream. The author, Jack Posobiec, promoted the conspiracy theory that Democrats ran a satanic child abuse ring beneath a popular Washington pizzeria.
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as:
Roevember 2024:
VP Kamala Harris & Gov Tim Walz
("pro-democracy" Democrats) :victory: :mask:
versus
The Criminal Clown & MAGA Mini-me
(neofascist "weirdos") :lol:
A five star review of the book on goodreads.com:
From what I gather the book glorifies Franco. Not sure if the suggestion is that his way is the way to end the scourge. In any case, I don't think MAGA is big on reading books.
I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.
I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.
I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you.
I respectfully exit this interesting conversation. Thank you for the chat.
But to change the subject:
Hey man aren't you watching this wild election? Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. She's been tacking to the center and now Walz pulls her back to the left, ties her to the Antifa/BLM riots that she supported.
That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years.
But either way, Biden's exit from the race (but not from the presidency) is yesterday's news. Although he is still allegedly the president, as war is breaking out in the Middle East. But never mind all that.
My meta-point is that I am wondering if anyone here likes to talk politics! Not just argue semantics or yell partisan talking points at each other. This is the craziest election I've ever seen.
Seems like a trivial thing. If you search around you can find Democrats discussing whether this was the best process they could have done. Of course everyone has gotten into line. The Democrats have indeed shown tremendous party discipline. They turned on a dime and all got marching in the new direction. So when you say support, of course they're all on board the Kam train in public. It was a brilliant political operation, the Kam switcheroo. Biden's gone, Kam's coronated, the media are swooning, the past is being digitally retconned in a manner that Orwell can only envy.
So the Dems pulled it off.
But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point. That if you support the guy who ends up losing, you line up behind whoever the party chooses. But still, you support your guy and maybe dislike the extreme hardball politics that have been played on them.
Some of them might even be resentful. It's only human nature.
You seem to be denying all of that, and saying that overnight what was in their hearts changed in lockstep with what's on their Kamala signs. I hope you'll clarify this point.
Quoting Echarmion
Saying I'm not paying the ransom is a way of drawing attention to his obvious near-death condition, in a slightly humorous way. Not payin' the ransom. I suppose humor, if there was any at all, does not translate over this medium. No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to.
It's unusual, and suspicious, when a political leader disappears from public view for days at a time, then posts this fishy letter, then disappears for more days at a time, then gets wheeled out to mumble and look like a standing corpse for a few minutes, as he did the other night.
It reminds me of nothing so much as Chernenko and those other end-time Soviets, guys who were alive in strict biological terms only, very little actual life left in them. They'd sit in the big chair, or be propped up in it, till they died, and the next near-corpse was put in charge.
Will you assert to me that you have not seen this, that I am lying, that I am the victim of Republican propaganda? That when you saw Biden at the hostage presser, you thought to yourself, "That guy looks fit as a fiddle, probably beat me at chess while running the world." Is that your view? Or do you see the same far gone man I do?
Will you grant me the right to call out the massive swindle being played by the Biden administration and the Democratic party: to pretend that the president is fit to do his job; when everyone in the entire world knows he's not.
I have the right to call that out. I am calling that out. And if my saying "I wouldn't pay the ransom," doesn't strike you as a light-hearted reference to the entire issue ... well, I guess not everyone appreciates my fine sense of humor.
But still. You have to say that, partisanship aside, this is a very dangerous state of affairs, with war breaking out in the Middle East. Who is in charge of the country? Who is commander in chief of the military?
So yeah. I ain't payin' the ransom.
Franco and Pinochet are regarded as heroes.
The article quotes from the book:
Of course if the "unhumans" are not regarded as human they need not be treated as human. As such things go, it is likely that just who is or will be counted as unhuman will be a growing group that will include everyone that does not support their revolution.
Actually, he’s a great pick and the one thing she’s gotten right so far.
Maybe lay off the Fox News.
Idk, seems to me like Madame VP just took another page out of Obama's winning campaign playbook. :smirk:
Quoting Mikie
:smirk:
Walz speaks Mandarin. I guess that will be handy. Still wish it was Shapiro, tho
Quoting Mikie
Let me explain why she hurt herself with this pick.
I am not making a partisan point. I'm just analyzing this as I would a sporting event that I don't have a rooting interest in. Or, if I do, I'm not allowing that to bear on my observations. I know you are a bit partisan, but you're the one who claims she made a good choice and I disagree, so I'll tell you why. I'd say this if I were for Trump, which I am; but especially if I were for Harris, which I'm not. But the analysis goes either way.
Or to put that another way: I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say. But perhaps someone else will.
Kamala made the exact same mistake that Trump did!
A few weeks ago, Trump was asked his position on abortion. Many of his supporters are rabid pro-lifers. But Trump did something he rarely does, think strategically. He simply said he'd leave it to the states and he'd say no more. That angered his pro-life base, but where else are they going to go? And he was smart enough to realize that he blunted the worst attacks of the left. They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states.
So Trump makes this clever strategic tack towards the center; something every politician has to do after they win their primaries. (Well, assuming one is in a political party that actually bothers to hold primaries, unlike certain UNdemocratic parties I could name).
Then what does he do? He selects Vance, who is in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, wants to arrest women who cross state lines for an abortion, makes snide remarks about women in a highly gendered election.
His VP choice completely undermined his own clever strategy! So he screwed up with Vance.
Now Kamala has been doing the same thing, tacking back to the center. Her MSM minions are busy scrubbing the Internet so that she was never a leftist, was never against fracking, never supported a bail fund for violent BLM/Antifa rioters, never wanted to defund the police.
The Dems have been brilliant at this. Most people don't really follow politics, they don't know that she was named the most leftist Senator in 2019, especially because that Web page got taken off the Internet. Orwell would be proud.
So the Dems have pulled it off. They solve their Biden problem, they coalesce around Kam, they rebrand her as a centrist.
Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit.
That's the exact same error Trump made. They both tacked cleverly to the center, then picked veeps that undermined their own strategy.
There's a quote from Walz's wife.
I could smell the burning tires. That was a very real thing, and I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,”
https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/06/tim-walz-gwen-smell-burninig-tires-2020-riots/
Pardon the Daily Caller link, the New York Times didn't deign to report this information to their readers.
In other words she sat in the safety of the governor's mansionm protected by armed guards no doubt. And she play-acted in her mind being a great revolutionary, inhaling the smell of the uprising of the people; when what she was doing was fetishizing a poor black neighborhood being burned to the ground to give her a little thrill.
Believe me, Walz is going to wear that quote, and his delay in getting control of the situation, for the next three months. And every day it's going to remind people that Kamala supported a bailout fund for the people who set the fires.
It's all the rest of Walz's extreme liberalism. He supports abortion up to the moment of birth. That's an extreme position supported by a small minority of Americans. He has said "socialism is like neighborliness," a lie that will not play with the very same midwestern voters he's supposed to appeal to.
In short, Kam rebranded herself as a centrist, then picked a leftist that undermines her rebranding. It shows she has bad judgment. She just stalled the two weeks of momentum she'd had, and she's given Trump and Vance a potent avenue of attack. Many such avenues.
You might think you like Walz's politics. That is not at all the point. I hope you can see that. The point is that from an electoral standpoint, Walz shines a light on the very leftism that Kamala was trying to hide.
That's why Walz was a bad pick.
Not to mention the talk, true or not, that she couldn't pick Shapiro because it would upset the Hamas wing of the Democratic party, especially in Michigan.
Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.
ps -- A GOP never-Trumper just wrote a piece in The Hill making the same points I did, but with better writing.
Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection reinforces that left-wing brand.
Picking Tim Walz was Kamala Harris’s first campaign mistake
:clap: :rofl:
Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future.
As far as words go, Trump said women who get abortions should be punished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-SgCndBWE
Not disagreeing. Just saying that he wisely tacked toward the center, at least in rhetoric. Talking campaign tactics, not abortion policy. His VP pick undermined his centrist move. I mentioned that to compare it to Kamala doing the exact same thing ... tacking to the center and then undermining herself by picking a leftist. Remember in 2008 Obama was a leftist trying to brand himself a centrist, and he picked Joe Biden, a Washington fixture everyone thought of as a centrist. Obama didn't pick Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. That's my point.
You haven't even begun to address the points I raised so you reducing this to mere opinion reflects your inability to actually have a converation. It's not just semantics, which is a ridiculous reduction of the discussion. You are claiming to analyse the situation but in fact are just repeating dumb shit from Fox News. No power has transferred, no rules were broken. No coup. Having actually lost this discussion since you fail to provide a rebuttal to actual arguments you first try to gaslight me and now pretend it's just another opinion. Only reason you're doing it is because you're incapable of investigating and challenging your own opinions on the matter.
Quoting fishfry
I've repeatedly stated what it was: he withdrew his candidacy. And no, it doesn't matter who's idea it was.
It's quite clear, also in your interactions with other posters you don't want to talk politics at all. You're only here to display your unswerving loyalty to a buffoon. That's fine but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.
I don't see how they turned on a dime when they spend weeks publicly agonising what to do.
Quoting fishfry
I just don't believe Biden ever had much personal support. He was the incumbent and the default choice with no serious opposition.
Quoting fishfry
Well I am glad we agree on the basic facts.
I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side).
Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing.
From what I’ve read, democracy is the best form of government for the people. Not that they’re trying to be honest, of course.
I wish I could say that it’s shocking for a US VP nominee to endorse a book like that.
I saw an attack ad about him yesterday, the words painting him out to be a Stalinesque monster, but the photo they used was an adorable snapshot of him holding a piglet at a country fair with a big smile on his face. Hilarious.
The demagogue appears to be the champion of the people, but with his rise to power reveals what he is, an autocrat. The rhetoric of the book is transparent. The "innocents" versus the "unhuman". Only some of the people are truly "the people". At a minimum the unhuman should have no role in government.
Quoting fishfry
Can we do away with the “I’m not biased, I’m just a straight shooter.” No one believes that. It’s ridiculous.
I’m not a member of either political party, but I’m certainly against Trump. That will undoubtedly bias me in Harris’ direction, and will creep in unconsciously, however much I try not to let it. You’re no different.
Anyway— that’s silly enough, but the fact that you’re actually for Trump basically disqualifies you as someone worth taking seriously, I’m sorry to say. Your judgment is awful. It’s rooted in ignorance and failure to recognize or prioritize basic problems in our society.
Quoting fishfry
Which according to you is “tacking to the center.” This is what I mean by silly, shallow analysis. I can hear this on CNN and Fox too. As if Harris isn’t anything but a right-of-center candidate to begin with. I wish she were centrist — because that would mean she’s more left.
Quoting fishfry
Totally expected, actually. No need to pretend like you get your “opinions” and analysis from anywhere else.
Quoting fishfry
What’s hilarious is that you feel this is somehow hard to understand. Not something I’ve heard about 1,000 times from every political analyst out there who pretends to be non-partisan. Way to go! You’re officially the forum’s right-wing Chuck Todd.
Quoting fishfry
You have to be fairly delusional to believe this.
He’s an excellent pick. And not just because he’s well liked and well regarded, but because his policies in Minnesota have been fantastic. I hope he runs on that strength non-stop. They’re extremely popular both in Minnesota and the US generally.
But thanks for providing watered-down versions of what Fox News and Tucker Carlson told you to believe.
Yeah, "heroes,” but Spain couldn’t be a member of the European Union until Franco’s death, and Chile was forgotten in its little corner of South America for decades.
How simple it is to exalt a despot when you are constantly on the side of a prosperous, rich and democratic country. The eternal incongruity of – some – Americans.
Franco and Pinochet were puppets of the White House. It would be interesting to put those authors and lovers of freedom in a country where you can’t vote, you are forced to go to church, your daughter counts zero because she is just a reproductive machine, the incomes are shite and you don’t have most of the amenities because the rest of the world turned its back on you, and it is impossible to have a TV, washing machine, light, modern cars, etc.
What bothers me the most is that they fantasize about such an authoritarian model, but only far away from their territory. Let’s see if it works in the Hispanic countries. We are already happy, developed, and modern in our democratic country called USA.
I agree but the territory in question is not just geographical. It is a growing threat in the U.S. and Europe. Those who favor authoritarianism want change, but change in itself is not good. They cannot see that change can be for the worse.
Yeah I'm actually surprised how much the party has unified around him like they did Kamala. Walz sounds like a more effective, relatable, and most importantly younger Bernie, even down to the lack of actual presidential ambition and brushing off the accusations of the "socialism" label (for the record he doesn't adopt it explicitly like Bernie but he seems more focused on whether the policies discussed help people, which I like). I have no idea where the Democrats got him from. People who have been saying that Kamala just picked a younger Biden because he's an old white man are way off, same with the people who compare him to Tim Kaine.
We watched the very chilling Civil War movie the other week. The most chilling scene in that disturbing movie was when the group of journalists who were at the centre of the plot were asked by a menacing militia fighter, at gunpoint, ‘what kind of Americans are you?’ The implication clearly being, which side of the civil war you’re on determines whether you’re going to be killed or not. Obviously a fictional exaggeration, but a similar dynamic underwrites a great deal of the rhetoric of the extreme wing of MAGA.
This shouldn't be on anyone's list of anything worth promoting.
Yeah; but, why give the sound-byte? Concepts like these really ruin reputations if not elections...
Jill Stein will not be on the ballot. RFK Kennedy is still fighting his way, but I don't think the guy has any good qualities. He is in the center of all bizarre stories: he had wombs in his brain, he dumped a dead bear in Central Park, he seems to have a taste for roasted dog meat, and his wife committed suicide (maybe she couldn't bear living with him anymore).
It has become very hard to find any good politicians nowadays. The more mediocre, weird and stupid one is, the bigger the probability he considers himself the center of the universe and (as a result) he wants to become the next president.
Agree - even supporters might think.. hmm, not under my banner.
Yeah I think there's one problem with that:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/KamalaHQ/status/1821285528504877347[/tweet]
This wont have much effect on voters if the see the former issue in stark lighting.
Trump has always been hypocritical - including calling Republicans the dumbest people in the world three decades ago (roughly) and that this is why he'd run as one. No one cares, it seems.
dispatches from the ex-GOP bunker:
I haven't seen him speak, except for the short clip where he says that socialism is just neighborliness. Expect to see that in Trump ads.
I do hear that he's folksy and comes off as regular folks. Good all-American dad resume, soldier, teacher, etc. But just below the surface are many exploitable flaws. He bailed (legally, but still) on his National Guard service just before he was to be deployed to Iraq. Then lied about it, saying he's carried weapons of war into battle (not exact quote) when in fact he never served in a war zone. So there are character issues and political weaknesses that cast doubt on Kam's judgment.
Of course that's just politics. Not claiming a monopoly on truth; only noting the political attacks that he's vulnerable to.
Quoting RogueAI
Now here I disagree. Walz is up to his eyeballs in the burning of Minneapolis. That brings that whole issue back into play; and reminds everyone that Kamala supported a bail fund to release violent arrestees who used their new found freedom to commit worse crimes.
So the choice of Walz puts the spotlight on Kam's leftist acts during the Floyd riots. Putting the focus right on her. I do therefore disagree that he takes the focus off her. By putting the riots into play, he spotlights one of her biggest vulnerabilities.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes. Correct. Agreed. So why does Kam pick a hard leftist who will reminds us all of the 2020 Minneapolis riots, and Kamala's role in them? It totally undermines her tack to the center.
Quoting RogueAI
Not true. Look at all the powerful black woman politicians these days. White guys are yesterday's news, have you not noticed?
Quoting RogueAI
No I do not believe so. Harris signals the takeover of the Democratic party by the northern California political machine of Pelosi, Feinstein, Willie Brown, Newsom, and father and son governors Pat and Jerry Brown, backed by the powerful family money of the Gusts and the Gettys. A lot of Democrats are not happy about this, even though they're on board her candidacy. Her ascent has long been planned. She is no accident.
There would be no point in running Walz at the top of the ticket. Harris is a much more attractive candidate. It's funny how a nation that elected Obama twice is suddenly so full of racists. Weak liberal talking point IMO, if you don't mind my saying.
I haven't got an inability to have a conversation. I have a disinterest in having this conversation. You are hung up on a word regarding an event that's already two weeks out of the news cycle.
If you don't like the word coup, suggest a different word and if it makes you happy I'll tell you I can live with it, and we'll move on. This is such a fascinating election, I don't see why you want to just lock onto that one word to the exclusion of all the other things of interest in the entire world.
Quoting Benkei
Ok, I get that you feel that way.
Quoting Benkei
I'm happy to allow you to have the last word on that subject.
Quoting Benkei
I disagree. Have a nice evening.
You didn't see the media and the Dems turn on a dime from fretting about Kamala to coronating her? Ok. People see what they see.
Quoting Echarmion
Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus were strongly behind him. Many millions of voters were behind him.
Quoting Echarmion
Ok. So you agree with me that Biden is in very bad shape and that we're being lied to.
So I wonder, as an American, are you ok with that? The world is blowing up and the president is out to lunch. How do you think this plays out in an international crisis? I really want to understand your point of view on this. Personally, I'm concerned.
I agree that he comes off as likable and folksy, that's the word that gets used a lot. I believe his leftism draws attention to the very leftism that Harris is trying to move away from. In fact it's Walz's association with the Floyd riots that draws attention to Kamala's role in them. That's why I think he's a mistake. But time will tell on that. Voters may like him. It's clear that Kam and Walz win the likability contest.
In fact I read somewhere that if the voters decide on likability, Harris and Walz win; and if they decide on the issues, the economy and immigration and so forth, Trump and Vance win. Clearly Trump and Vance are the grumpy pair and Harris and Walz are the happy pair. I agree with that and likability goes a very long way in politics.
Quoting Mr Bee
Ok. My understanding is that he used to be more of a centrist and his policies have moved left. He did say that socialism is like neighborliness. I expect the GOP to put that on endless loop. In recent years he does have a pretty liberal record. We'll have to see how all this plays out.
Whatever. That's a stupid talking point which you repeat endlessly.
You have a disinterest because you were wrong and are unwilling to admit it. That's called not being able to have a conversation.
Yeah I think I saw that somewhere. Guess the Dems will put that on a loop. So it goes.
Quoting Benkei
Brother, give it a rest.
ps -- You are a lot like your profile pic!
She's certainly moving right on some issues but not others. One example is the border where she's clearly just attached herself to the bipartisan border bill Trump killed. Walz it seems is going along with that pivot. Same with her pivot on fracking. That being said, she's still in favor of alot of the things that Walz did and is clearly not choosing to moderate on every single issue. I guess she's betting on labels being less important than the actual policies themselves.
Quoting fishfry
I do think Harris and Walz are better on the issues if you go into detail about them, which is why I think it could backfire if the GOP start attacking Walz for legalizing weed or giving Minnesota paid family leave. Trump and Vance are able to win on the issues if it's more vibes based though. People feel like the economy sucks because of high prices. What does Trump actually plan to do about it? Apparently drill more and flood the global market in oil to crash gas prices but that isn't gonna bring grocery prices down obviously. One thing that may make it worse is his idea for a 10% tariff on all imported goods (and 60% on Chinese goods), which if you believe that higher taxes means higher prices for the consumer as it trickles down, would obviously be inflationary to the average voter. Trump assures us that it's not inflationary somehow but...
Quoting fishfry
Yeah that answer specifically was why I compared him to Bernie. He doesn't adopt the label like he does but he certainly doesn't shy away from it either.
Typical Trump cultist response: the guy repeating Fox News talking points accuses his opponent of— wait for it— repeating “talking points.”
Predictable. :yawn:
I love how the US simply skips fascism and goes right back to medieval fedualism including witch hunts and book burning.
EDIT: and Lolita from Nabokov is still on there. As well as the Pillars of the Earth which sex scene definitely gave me a boner when I was a teenager.
I’ve heard nothing from him so far, but as you know he has no principles, so — like with project 2025 — if it becomes a political liability he may just dump it. But he’s tried to ban books himself, so I don’t think he cares one way or another.
Red states do that. Blue states like California and New York are quite different.
That bill is a total fake. It's designed to codify the ongoing disaster but get Republicans to sign on to it. They wisely declined. And then Biden turned around and issued the executive orders he'd had the power to issue all along, and the numbers of crossers are being reduced just in time for the election, and showing that he didn't need the bill after all.
Quoting Mr Bee
She was never against fracking. It's a Republican lie that she was ever against fracking. Also she was never the border czar. LOL. Orwelling retconning.
But you are agreeing with my point. Yes she is trying to tack to the center and renounce or deny many of her former leftist positions. So why pick a leftist as veep? That undermines her centrism.
Quoting Mr Bee
Both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases, and nobody's making a play for the center. Whichever one of them figures out that elections are decided in the center will win.
Quoting Mr Bee
I think it's the tampons in the boys' room that's triggering some on the right. I actually don't even know much about his actual policies in office.
Quoting Mr Bee
All those new jobs are going to immigrants. That's why the job numbers look good but the workers are grumpy. It comes down to immigration, Trump's strongest issue and Kamala's weakest.
He should be hitting her on immigration. Instead he's yammering about her race. And the other day at a rally he attacked the Republican governor of Georgia. He's so undisciplined. He just can not focus on what's important. I think he's lost a step too. In 2016 when he insulted people he was funny. Now he's just angry. This race could go either way. The guy is 78 and he's looking every day of it lately.
Quoting Mr Bee
It'll bring energy prices down. Biden's energy policy, which is also Harris's, has been terrible. Americans know that.
Drill more and crash gas prices? You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a very good thing.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm on record against Trump's tariffs. They hurt American consumers, and then when other countries put tariffs on our goods in response, it hurts American producers.
Quoting Mr Bee
Like I say ... Kam tacks to the center and she picks a proud socialist as her veep. Bad pick. Not to mention today's Stolen Valor brouhaha. Walz is technically in violation of a Federal felony, one that he himself voted into law. Which by the way is a bad look for Kam's campaign in that the issue caught them by surprise. They should have vetted him more closely and been prepared to deal with the military stuff.
I hear it's about 50-50 in the betting markets. Kam's had a bad week because of Walz, but Trump's not really capitalizing.
I'm actually quite concerned for the country no matter who wins.
What's weird isn't that you think I watch FOX News. It's that you think ANYONE watches FOX News. That's not where alt-news comes from, hasn't been for quite some time. There's a huge media ecosystem out there.
Quoting Mikie
So YOU'RE the last one watching CNN!
So some say on the right, but the bill is pretty popular based on the polling I've seen and some swing voter focus groups seem to be upset at Trump for what he did. Harris was smart to use it. They'll be running ads of Lankford saying it's a good bill from now until November. They're not gonna win on the issue of course but they can always muddle it and weaken an attack line.
Quoting fishfry
Because labels don't matter as much over policies. She's getting rid of the unpopular policies while keeping the popular ones. People care about border security more but they probably don't want kids to starve in school. That's the problem with using a single label to describe a large set of unrelated beliefs.
Quoting fishfry
That implies that centrists always win which is certainly not true. The centrist coalition of Macron collapsed in France just recently to both the far-right and the far-left.
Quoting fishfry
It's a pretty extensive record (just coped and pasted a list I found online):
- universal free school meals
- legal weed
- carbon free electricity by 2040
- tax rebates for the working class up to $1,300 (making under $150k per year)
- 12 weeks paid family leave
- 12 weeks paid sick leave
- banned conversion therapy
- red flag laws for guns
- universal background checks for guns
- automatic voter registration
- free public college (under $80k)
- ban on PFAS (forever chemicals)
- $2.2 billion increase in k-12 school funding
- sectoral bargaining for nursing home workers
- opposed Wall St bailouts in 2008
- voted against outsourcing deals
- supports lifting a moratorium on nuclear energy in Minnesota
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- banned non-compete clauses
- raised minimum wage for small businesses
- raised taxes on multinational corporations
- protected gender affirming care
- banned medical providers from withholding care over debt
- protected construction workers from wage theft
- massive Minnesota infrastructure bill
- backed the Iran deal
I don't think you'll like all of them but there's a reason why progressives wanted him.
Quoting fishfry
In 2016 he was a new face and people at the very least loved that he shook up politics. Nowadays he's old news which is why I think he's likely to lose. The fundamental contrast in this race where it's old vs. new just doesn't work out to his benefit where it did with Biden when it was strength vs weakness or with Clinton when it was the outsider vs the corrupt insider. Kamala may not be the best candidate but she's a new face in a race where people wanted anything but Biden or Trump again, and that will probably be what will convince those undecided swing voters at the end of the day. People hated the status quo in 2016 and thought they had nothing to lose if they elected Donald, even if they had serious reservations about him.
Quoting fishfry
People aren't complaining about that as much now. They're complaining about the price of groceries which haven't really gone down with gas and likely won't if it goes down any further.
Quoting fishfry
Certainly seems like they moved on from tampons and the BLM riots, though we'll see how effective this line of attack is. As a layperson who understands nothing about the military, this whole tactic just comes across as a little gross. If this were a case of Walz just outright lying about being in the military entirely then I can understand but it seems like they're splitting hairs about whether he was in combat or not and seemingly undermining the decades of service he's done otherwise. That and the fact that their guy actively avoided the Vietnam draft due to bonespurs yet feels like he can attack war heroes for what they've done.
But forget grass-roots. The Harris campaign and the media have worked together to form a movement of pure astroturf. Her free concerts dressed up to look like rallies proves she has a lot of money to toss around, and she can garner what appear to be supporters so long as the payoff is worth it, but the sponsor of the infamous Green New Deal is not much different than the once-failed presidential candidate of 2020 except that this time she’s the anti-Trump movement’s last hope. Like how quickly Harris believed Jussie Smollete, that movement will swallow anyone and anything to keep their folk devil out of office.
So far no leaks, no policy, no hard-hitting interviews—for all we know she’s the great communo-fascist Trojan horse we’ve all been waiting for. But they can only keep a lid on it for so long.
Shocking.
We can only hope she's a communist.
Why?
History is the greatest argument against communism. Get back to me when you have learned some.
You’re telling me to go read Marx while accusing me for being unable to think for myself. I’ve read Marx I’ve read his critics, and his critics won. But I also know history and everyone except you has watched your communism fail spectacularly in every instance. So can you give me any reason besides reading Marx that one might want a communist to rule?
Looks like she has a good chance of winning. Whodda thunk it?
Concise summary: wealth inequality (wealth or capital versus income) is high and rising,
What is to be done: global agreement to tax the rich.
Obviously, this is the exact opposite of what the Party formerly known as "Republican" advocates and practices.
.
I used to think in those terms too: property tax on the wealthy. Now I'd say there's just no way to do that. I'm presently reading a book about the early Iron Age. Time goes by, revolutions happen pretty regularly, either from external or internal events. Our world will be the same
I asked why you hoped Kamala would be communist, and you told me to go read Das Kapital to come back with some arguments. Now you’re chastising me for equating Marx with communism.
I think that incremental change is possible. We already have a global economy. We may not be able to get to the point of global agreement but we can impose tariffs and wealth taxes on those who move capital from place to place in order to avoid paying taxes.
Tariffs?
If there cannot be global agreement to tax the rich, individual countries can impose taxes through tariffs. It might be argued that this puts the burden on those who are not wealthy, but if a company is going to pass on costs to the consumer it will do so whether that tax is in the form of a tariff or not.
Placing tariffs causes tariff wars. That's partly how the Great Depression started. That did redistribute wealth, but not for long.
My point was not to defend tariffs. It was an example of a way to gain compliance without the unreasonable expectation that people will change.
There are plenty of examples of people trying to bring it about, though. They turned out to be all shit-holes.
:up:
Same old arguments: communism has killed 100 million people. Capitalism has killed more people and responsible for slavery, but that’s not really capitalism. So that doesn’t count. But Pol Pot counts. Stalin counts. China counts— except for the part where they’re now a superpower with several economic measures better than the US. That part is capitalism though. Etc. etc.
Anyway— even if communism was tried, and failed, it’s still the morally correct system. We’ve certainly given “capitalism” a shot — or “tried to bring it about” — and the track record is pretty grim. Maybe some people still love Pinochet though, who knows?
No one really cares what kind of companies and associations you like. In fact I’d hope you’d join one. But none of your evasions change the fact that the countries mentioned have communist governments, run by communist politicians from the dictates of a communist party, all of whom wrote the party and government constitutions that explicitly state their aim to bring about communism. None of it changes the fact that you said you hope Kamala is just like them, a communist.
All of the horrible things these people did and still do in order to realize their goal proves only the lengths they are willing to go through to get it, and also the types of behavior you are willing to put up with all because you believe an old and out-of-fashion theory.
What proof? Empty assertions and evasions is all you’ve ever given.
First you hope for a communist politician and now you are trying to distance yourself from them.
Oh, a “real” communist. None of the other ones were real.
Do you know why someone would abuse the No True Scotsman Fallacy? To avoid valid criticisms of his argument. But to understand what I mean you’d have to have a shred of self-respect and decency.
It is a fallacy. And you’re telling me you hope Kamala Harris is a real communist while arguing that the entire Chinese communist party aren’t real communists. How can you dig a deeper hole?
It was as if the Democratic Party had rediscovered a power that it had never used, maybe never even been aware of; far from being a “coup,” it was the execution of the essential task of a political party: The use of formal and informal power to protect itself from political disaster.
Within a matter of two weeks, voters now faced a reality that had previously seemed impossible: “You don’t want to vote for Biden or Trump? Now you don’t have to! You want change? Here she is!” The flood of money, volunteers and crowds toward Harris testifies to the power of that sentiment.[/quote]
I said months ago that the replacement of Biden would completely changed the dynamic of the election - and it has. That’s why MAGA is kvetching about it, waxing sentimental for ‘poor old Joe’, when really all they wanted was an easybeat.
What is "bad faith" is having liars claim they know what they're talking about without having studied Marx and then having an idiot weigh in with a judgment out of the blue that nobody really cares about.
If so, then vote against him in the most effective way based on your situation: if you live in a swing state (i.e. polling trends are within the margin of error so that there is a reasonable chance for Trump to win your state), then vote "Harris-Walz"; if, however, you live in a safe state (i.e. Trump can't either lose or win that state), then vote for a third-party candidate who most aligns with your policy preferences (e.g. I will write-in "Cornel West" here in Washington state).
The common ownership of the means of production sits as a dream in the heads of communists, just like the dictatorship of the proletariat, the labor theory of value, class struggle, and a litany of failed communist predictions.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1823016427680358790?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
What a bizarre level of irony. That said, it's clear you have an axe to grind. I'm sure you'll continue through several more failed states.
I made a long list of Walz's leftist positions, from making Minnesota a sanctuary state for underage trans surgeries, to meeting five times with a Muslim cleric who admires Hitler. But there isn't much point. You're only here to argue a position, not have an intelligent discussion. Let me know if you ever have a substantive point to make.
IMO the Dems have been able to spin the defeat of the bill as the Republicans blocking immigration reform. I did read the details of the bill at the time, and it would only have codified the existing mess, and made the GOP complicit in it. So the GOPs were right to block the bill, whether or not the public understands that. That would be my take.
Quoting Mr Bee
I don't deny that it is a talking point for the Dems. The GOPs have a hard time getting their point of view out. As I recall, Jeh Johnson, Obama's head of Homeland Security, said that more than 1500 illegal entries a day is a disaster. The bill allows up to 5000 before they even begin to do anything. More than three disasters a day. Why should the GOP sign on to that?
Quoting Mr Bee
Nonetheless, positions get classified as left or right. I agree with many liberal positions and disagree with many of Republican and conservative positions. Most of them, actually, as a fallen liberal. Matt Taibbi referred to himself the other day as a disaffected liberal. Of course he gets called a right winger too. Any liberal who strays off the plantation gets smeared as a right winger. In England you're a right winger if you object to little girls being stabbed to death. Ugly doings in Brit politics these days.
Quoting Mr Bee
Yes I agree. Someone noted that both Trump and Kamala are appealing to their respective bases. A "turnout" election rather than a "persuasion" one. Instead of trying to persuade the middle, both sides just want to whip up their base. The worst kind of brain dead politics on both sides IMO. Remember when Trump survived his assassination attempt (or it was all a massive psyop of some kind, but never mind that for the moment) and he came to the convention calling for Unity? That didn't last five minutes. He picked Vance, who's on the ticket to throw red meat to the base. I hate it. I was really hoping Trump would try to be a unifier. I wish SOMEONE would.
Quoting Mr Bee
Thank you so much!!!! I think I'll cc my friend @Mikie. Hey Mikie this is the list I'd have posted to you if I felt like looking it all up. Thank you Mr Bee, much obliged.
Quoting Mr Bee
I agree with some of those positions. Especially that fraudulent 2008 bailout. As the kids at Occupy said -- remember Occupy? -- Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!. Truer words never spoken.
The point, anyway, isn't agreement or disagreement with the positions. After all Democrats are perfectly happy with most of those. The point, as I think you agree with me, is that Walz is a leftist ... and why'd Kam pick a leftist if she's frantically paddling toward the center? Was against fracking now she's for it. Enabled Biden's open borders now she pretends to be an immigration hawk.
Seriously, who believes Kamala's an immigration hawk? She's on record wanting health care for illegals, and saying that illegal immigration isn't a crime (it is). So she's lying her ass off. But she may get away with it. We shall see.
Quoting Mr Bee
Agree. Also in 2016 when he insulted people he was funny as hell. At least he was to me. When Megyn Kelly asked him at the first GOP debate if he was a demeaning asshole to women (not the exact words), he said, "Only to Rosie!" I just cracked up.
These days he's just angry and resentful. He won't let go of 2020. He's clearly not the man he was in 2020. I think he may well have a touch of the same kind of cognitive issues Biden's got. Trump is 78 and he's been through enormous stress the past four years.
I agree with you that he has a very good chance to lose. He could improve his chances of winning by staying focussed on the issues, but he's completely incapable of doing that.
Fraudulent media-protected campaign or not, Kam is out-working and out-hustling him. She could win.
Quoting Mr Bee
Yup. Trump carries enormous baggage. And Kam's better than Hillary. I personally do not dislike Kamala as much as I dislike Hillary.
Quoting Mr Bee
It's Trump's job to remind them of energy policy and the wild Biden-Harris overspending. Instead he's snarling about her rally crowds being faked. Maggie Haberman in the NYT reported that he's privately called her a "bitch." Seems Kam really has thrown Trump off balance.
That's actually what none of us foresaw. With all her weaknesses, Kamala is uniquely able to flummox Trump. She draws a big crowd and he fumes and throws out insults, instead of reminding people of the price of gas when he left office. He just can't find his groove. He used to be able to insult people to beat them but he can't do that with Kamala, it just makes him look small.
Quoting Mr Bee
We will be hearing much more about that after the Dem convention I imagine. I hope, anyway.
Quoting Mr Bee
He's repeatedly shown bad character, lying about his service, lying about his combat experience, lying about his rank, leaving (admittedly as was his legal right) just before his unit was to deploy to Iraq. A lot of his fellow soldiers are speaking out against him over that.
Of course Bill Clinton notoriously ducked out of military service, and it didn't hurt him. So it's just one issue out of many.
Quoting Mr Bee
That's why Trump lets Vance do the attacking on the military issue.
Substantive points like…
Quoting fishfry
Yeah, you let me know too.
You’re the one that said you aren’t very familiar with his policies. So why you’re now arguing about it is odd.
Quoting Mr Bee
Sounds good to me. So your point is that Mr Bee can make substantive points, but that you could too if you tried. Cool. Guess you really showed me.
I thought the Fed was apolitical and does whatever it wanted? Their one job is to not let the economy crash regardless of the political narrative it creates. I mean Trump and the Republicans will be mad at a booming economy if it helps their enemies but let's be honest Trump would be harassing the Fed every day to cut rates if he were president right now.
I'm skeptical. Not so much that there are neat ideas to be found, but of the implementation. Lenin, Mao and others might have thought they had it, but that turned out differently. How would it go? And in a larger, diverse environment?
(ok, don't want to side-track the thread, should perhaps be moved elsewhere)
Co-ops are communist. Think of it that way. Far closer to anything in the USSR or China.
Simplified a bit, but it’s one way to think of the matter if it’s a struggle to get your mind around.
Trump has made it clear that if he is elected it will have to answer to him.
Perhaps too scared to face hard-hitting question, whether about Harris’ flip-flopping or questions about Waltz’s stolen valor, Harris and Waltz interview each other!
It’s all an opaque act, a virtual candidacy, like Biden: the election of a figure head to represent the US in world political pageantry.
No, don’t be fooled, communism is not cooperatives and more democracy. These little tales are what they tell you to trick you into giving up your freedoms. Next thing you know you’re in a labor camp.
:smirk:
I watched 10 minutes of the Harris and Waltz chat just now and if it’s an act they’re good actors. They come off as warm, approachable, and down to earth. The script is on-brand too, with compelling ‘creation stories’ and showcasing their middle-class backgrounds. A masterclass in branding. Isn’t Trump supposed to be the branding expert?
It also presented a stark contrast to the cold elitist labor-hating and weird chat between Trump and Elon.
They’ve been doing it their whole lives. No doubt they’re good at it, if branding is your principle upon which to judge. With an army of campaigners and millions of dark money in your pocket, we wouldn’t expect anything less. But there is no better to hide your lack of interviews and lack of transparency behind such a fake exchange.
Why do you think it’s fake? I wouldn’t think that you would even watch it.
Yes. They still try to avoid screwing with the economy when an election is close.
Quoting Mr Bee
He'd have to install mechanisms for overriding the chairman. I guess he'd give it his best shot.
I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine.
You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? That would be a moronic strategy.
While over in the clown car show that is MAGA, they’re pleading with Dear Leader to at least try and appear to be saying something policy-related and sensible, even if their party has wasted the last legislative session on wild-goose chases about impeaching Biden and advanced zero legislation.
But no - Dear Leader says he has every right to be ‘mean’ about Harris, because ‘she’s trying to put me in jail’ and then reverts to his stream-of-addled-consciousness rants. Business as usual.
Well as one, that's how they come across. I couldn't give a squirt of piss who wins - I'm just calling it like I see it. They come across as cartoonishly saccharine and dishonestly bubbly.
Quoting praxis
Probably not in the sense that they've strategised in those terms, no(though, who knows - more brazen political horseshit has happened). But I didn't suggest that. I suggested that what comes across. I am not alone, and ths is not an unreasonable reading of such twaddle as they've used for their talking points imo. It boils down to this:
Quoting AmadeusD
Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. Unsure why this wouldn't apply to the ticket who had to pick up on a race they(i.e Biden/Harris) were sorely losing.
Nice little op-ed.
Roevember is coming! :fire:
So true. Campaigns are about "messaging", consisting of (distorted) narratives, and "defining" themselves (in an appealing way) and the opponent (in a negative way). It's show business.
I sometimes watch a daily show/zoom-call on youtube called "2-way". Mark Halperin hosts, and he usually has both a Democratic and Republican campaign strategist (Sean Spicer is on there frequently) with him. They evaluate the previous day's campaign action like a sports talk-show: what's working and not working, and opining about what each campaign should be doing. It helps give me perspective on the game that it is.
Well I'd prefer it if they focused on not screwing over the economy because they're worried about the political optics. I suspect that that was the reason why Trump has been getting a pass legally for his multiple crimes. Both the Republicans and Democrats were too chicken to shut him down permanently after Jan 6 and now here we are.
Quoting frank
Quoting Fooloso4
Apparently he wants to override the Fed so yeah.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1823875755232911821[/tweet]
Just a very stable genius, with the best words.
Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.
It’s not about policy at all, is it?
I am wondering who are more stupid now, those who vote for Trump or those who think that the evil in this country may come only from the "far-right", but never from the left?
I stand for social justice, gun laws and environmental protections (things that Trump never takes into consideration), but if Democrats bankrupt this country the only sure thing is that progressives won't see any of their plans/dreams realized, and they will deserve to be blamed for failures which they often use to charge their opponents with.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13751313/Kamala-Harris-rolls-economic-plan-1-7-TRILLION-handouts-bungles-revealing-ban-grocery-store-price-gouging.html
Maybe stop reading — and regurgitating — the Daily Mail.
Several of your numbers are wrong, and it’s obvious to any reader that you’ve bought into the tired right-wing talking point about debt and spending — which you’ll only hear about when it’s a Democrat in office. Never mind that Trump jacked up the debt as well — by trillions.
For me no big difference between democrat politicians and republicans, apart from appearance (republicans dress and look trendier than democrats, democrats are better orators).
Trump reduced taxes in order to satisfy his voters. Harris says she will give handouts to those in need. Is it not the same thinking, with different targets? Trump targeted businessmen and self-employed people, Harris is targeting those in need, mostly single mothers and minorities (though she uses the word "middle-class" for promotional purposes).
In contrast with republicans, I believe in government spending and government intervention. But I don't see why there are no other ways of doing it, apart from just giving money to people.
Trump did that too (he told people "vote me, so you save money" and he kept his word). Most of my friends were happy for saving from their taxes during Trump's presidency, and Biden did something similar in a time of urgency.
It is not an accident that 2020-2022 coincide with the US cryptocurrency craze. Just from the people I know, I may tell you that many of these relief paychecks ended up in crypto investments (wasted money, which in one or another way our children will have to repay).
But you should see it that Kamala Harris is doing the same thing with Trump: vote me, so I give you money. I, Kamala, speak about USA and Americans, but in the way and in the moment I do it, I don't care for the future or the role of this nation, I just want you (my potential voter) to know that money is coming for you.
We have some moral dilemmas now:
Should the voter consider money and personal benefit as the foremost criterion in casting his vote? Democrats and republicans will say yes. (Truth does not matter to them.)
Should our generation borrow money that the next generation will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say yes. (The only future they know is from one election to the next.)
How should we use the money that our children will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say these money should be used in the way that satisfies best those voters which brought us to power. (Again, the only future they know are those periods from one to the next election.)
To conclude, we are not talking only about debt and sums here. We are talking about the morality of doing politics and spending money in this way. You don't blame your neighbor who takes a loan to upgrade his old house and buy a car, but you will definitely blame you neighbor if he takes loans to pay sex-workers, buy drugs, go to see Dubai, etc. In this country so much money is paid, but the results are poor and some people will always pay the bill (without a detailed receipt). I can't vote republicans when they reject science, but I have lost faith in democrats too. Either they have to be frank with Americans and tell them some big sacrifices are needed to save our country and/or the whole world, or they just will keep satisfying their voters every four years and always will blame their opponents for that never-happening-revolution.
Yeah, I don’t get it. Now abortionists get to vote for the policies they want.
I just removed my party affiliation with democrats, and I never plan to vote climate-change deniers (republicans), but I am just trying to better understand how democracy works in this country and within the social media. This is why I am asking about Youtube.
Thank you.
No doubt he is stupid and very anachronistic (in order to balance the cost of foreign tariffs, he thinks to reduce the prices of local energy, through making coal and oil cheaper, at a time when the rest of the world is trying to free itself from carbon emissions and countries like South Korea and China are leading all other nations in batteries and electrical devices), but Kamala is not better.
Price gouging is not coming only from big companies, is coming mostly from small and medium businesses. Many of these businesses will close or file for bankruptcy if the government tells them how to limit prices. (Walmart and Amazon will profit again.)
This is going to be a very difficult election. You have to choose one of the two extremists. The one is the extremist of the rich and evangelicals, the other the extremist of the poor and identity politics.
If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.
That being said I do think that alot of Harris' policies won't be done at all if only because congress (especially if Republicans keep the Senate as they look likely to do) won't allow it. The issue with Trump's plans on deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 20% tariff on all imports is that he can do it unilaterally. I'm not worried about him gutting Obamacare because the GOP congressmen are smart enough to not play along with his schemes. He would do it if he had a big red button on his desk to press, but he can't, however such a button does exist for starting a trade war like he did in his first term.
Policy ought to be a big part of it, but it doesn't capture everything. Better: we predict a future that is entailed by each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will deliver the better future.
https://www.youtube.com/live/alKit5q7iVU?si=-80UJ08luJm5v1Y0
It's typical of the ones labelled "morning meeting" that discuss what I was talking about. Other episodes have different sorts of topics, all related to some aspects of politics.
This one features a Jordan Peterson interview: https://www.youtube.com/live/Tgy4bsS3tM8?si=GnvRCOefpTF9WQAK
Peterson makes a ton of debatable claims, but still much food for thought.
Here's one featuring a panel discussion of media bias: https://www.youtube.com/live/k0xCB1J0SOk?si=s2xyYWlfjwklM9fj
Very interesting.
Quoting 180 Proof
16August24 – $23.06 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,631.72) :up:
Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO. :clap:
*
Biden-Harris DIJA "Boom Market":
6Nov20 – $28,325.53
16Aug24 – $40,659.76 :up:
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
Luckily the past can give us a hint. Both were heavily involved in past and current administrations. No predictions required.
Give us a hint on what? The future? Then you are essentially making a vague, general prediction of the future.
Their record. If given power, what will they do? Harris has been vice president for the past three years and I can not name one thing she has done, for instance. If she wants to enact price controls, give 25000 to first time home-buyers, why hasn’t she done so?
That's political nonsense. You know as well as I that a VP doesn't have the power to implement policy. For that matter, there are limits to what a President can do.
I wasn't trying to debate policies or candidates, I just wanted to point out that it may, or may not, make sense to assume policy-promises are likely to become policy. For example, executive orders are easy, but transient; laws are long term, but need 60 votes in the Senate. Willingness to compromise matters, and you can have a positive or negative view of that.
Maureen Dowd, the queen of the liberal chattering class, sets you straight on this point.
Her opinion column in tomorrow's Sunday New York Times on the eve of the Democratic convention:
The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup
[quote=MoDo]
Top Democrats are bristling with resentments even as they are about to try to put on a united front at the United Center in the Windy City.
A coterie of powerful Democrats maneuvered behind the scenes to push an incumbent president out of the race.
It wasn’t exactly “Julius Caesar” in Rehoboth Beach. But it was a tectonic shift and, of course, there were going to be serious reverberations. Even though it was the right thing to do, because Joe Biden was not going to be able to campaign, much less serve as president for another four years, in a fully vital way, it was a jaw-dropping putsch.[/quote]
Not every day that Maureen Dowd makes my point for me.
I did not engage with your arguments for the same reason I don't engage with flat earthers.
It's perfectly well known that Biden was pressured and shoved out. It's not rationally possible to argue the contrary. I get that you're sincere, but so are the flat earthers. Since we talked a week ago, stories have come out about Biden's seething resentment at the way he was treated. Here's one such.
[url=https://nypost.com/2024/08/11/us-news/biden-specifically-names-nancy-pelosi-in-first-interview-about-why-he-dropped-out-of-presidential-race]Biden admits he was pushed out of presidential race, name-drops Pelosi in first interview since exit
[/url]
It's simply not possible to look at the facts -- Biden was in it all the way on Saturday, then they announce he's got covid, then on Sunday a letter comes out under a forged mechanical signature without any of the standard official notices of withdrawal as required by the FEC.
You just can't spin this any other way than hardball political pressure from the Dem insiders. I absolutely do not understand how you can even pretend otherwise. To be honest I don't recall you making any rational arguments.
I did think it was amusing that MoDo spent her Sunday column the day before the Dem convention to make the point that it was a coup.
But if you want to think Joe Biden woke up on Sunday morning and dictated and signed the letter of his own free will ... you are entitled to your opinion. It is just too silly and unsupportable an opinion to be worth much in the way of discussion.
Haha. Good one Mr. Bee. When do you think that will happen? It's her official campaign strategy to never say an unscripted word. We all know what happens when Kam goes off script.
Price controls. Of all the hare-brained schemes. Even WaPo and CNN are against the idea. Price controls inevitably create shortages and bread lines. Nixon's price controls failed. Price controls always fail. They constrain supply and increase demand. Exactly the opposite of what you want.
Well 100,000 Antifa goons and Hamas-loving maniacs are planning to exercise their free speech rights in Chicago. The store owners are boarding up the windows just in case. "The whole world's watching" as they chanted in '68.
Quoting Eros1982
The Democrats are now the party of the rich. The GOP are now the party of the working class. Exact opposite of how it used to be.
:rofl: sure buddy. Keep telling yourself that. I suppose a high level of delusion is necessary to be a Trump supporter.
This is also funny.
Politically it will probably work out for her because of how uninformed voters are which is what I suspect her play here is. Say what you want about how viable her policies are but polling does show that people blame corporate price gouging for alot of the inflation and they want the government to do something:
Populism sells and when people see the "experts" at CNN and WaPo balk at these ideas and you have folks like Larry Kudlow on Fox saying that corporate greed is a myth they just see the establishment defending the status quo. I mean if CNN is gonna bring on people like this:
It's hard to see them as not being out of touch with the concerns of consumers. I'm not saying they're wrong but if you're worried about the price of beef this week then that's the last thing you want to hear.
The same goes for her housing policy where first time homebuyers will probably be more excited about direct subsidies over building more housing (though Harris says she's doing both). Remember your average voter doesn't understand the difference between cooling inflation and deflation (what they would call an actual decrease in prices) and still needs to be lectured on how marginal tax rates work. At the end of the day none of these policies will get implemented simply because of how dysfunctional congress is but like her adopting Trump's stance on tips and one upping Vance's $5000 CTC idea with a $6000 CTC, Harris is trying to win an election by promising alot of nice things. Same for Trump too, to be honest. It's all about the vibes.
Executive orders are interesting. I don’t think they’re so transient when it comes to the institution of government itself. They can direct the executive agencies and the military, for example.
Have you been reading this and the Trump thread? Not only are mainly democrats partial to this thinking, its a pick-and-choose situation. Though, remove the partisan remark - and just the question - and my incredulity remains :P
Quoting Eros1982
True. And true for both - Trump would normally be one of the worst Republican candidates. Its just the conflict aspect that has him preferred (and, possibly not preferred, just a better choice that Harris to many Reps). Neither had a shot in hell of being a Good President™
Show instances of this in this or the Trump thread.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024.08.19-Report-of-the-Impeachment-Inquiry-of-Joseph-R.-Biden-Jr.-President-of-the-United-States.pdf
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
Figures. It contradicts what I believe so I better stop reading it.
19August24
Harris-Walz 2024 :point: taking out the tr45h!
Roevember is coming. :victory: :cool:
What are you talking about? :brow: Steve Schmidt is a thirty-year Republican and a political and corporate strategist. He is best known for working on Republican political campaigns, including those of President George W. Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arizona Senator John McCain during his 2008 presidential campaign.
The source is irrelevant unless you want to talk about bias in picking one's sources (even more obvious there, in the main as Ground News shows with statistical analysis of most articles it posts as to who is publishing/reading those stories/takes).
Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in general? I have given an example (which more starkly illustrates this, as the source doesn't align, but the content does, with expectation).
Heres another
And another
Another
More
This seems a fairly obvious phenomena no? I'm not using this to impugn anyone in particular.
We’re not communicating for some reason.
Dems have Swift and Beyonce — GOP have Hulk Hogan and Chachi. There’s a drop-off here.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/catholicvote/status/1825584819520032912?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Sorry buddy— I just don’t see it. Most of these speeches are lame. But it doesn’t really matter.
Everywhere else.
Everywhere and nowhere.
You didn’t watch “White Dudes for Harris”? The only things missing are the white pillowcases.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/white-dudes-harris-fundraiser-zoom-call
I was referring to Biden's farewell speech in particular. But then, I admit I'm emotionally attached to the outcome of the election in a way that, if it were any other time and any other pair of candidates, I woudn't be.
:up: I get it. Trump bring re-elected would be a disaster. I very much hope he loses and will be voting against him. But I still very much dislike these silly conventions. Compared to the RNC, it’s boring. But that’s a compliment.
He’s sporadically trying to be ‘teleprompter Trump’ on the podium from time to time, but ‘Truth Social Trump’ will always, well, trump the effort. I expect the more he lags in polls the more desperate, spiteful and vindictive he will become. A truly vicious circle.
But for a really lame speech, the NDC can't compete with the Orange Baby recently declaring himself the defender of law and order, (you have to smile, surely?) and giving a purported 'economic speech', both in a monotone of sleepy dreariness that even Fox gave up on following. I won't give links to spare the blushes of the apologists, but you can find them I guess if you want to.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/20/biden-speech-dnc-2024-harris/
In other news, “One of the biggest revisions by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the United States added 818,000 fewer jobs between April 2023 and March 2024.”
This is all par for the course for the Potemkin administration, a blizzard of lies and deceit, with its vice president and second in command now taking up the mantle as its next virtual president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/21/job-gains-revisions-federal-reserve/
The unemployment rate was still at historic lows during that time, which wasn't really a good thing from a neoliberal pov.
True.
If Trump can be believed this is good news because he reported that those jobs were filled by illegal immigrants. Good news or part of a blizzard of lies and deceit?
It’s not typical to have your former press Secretary tell people to vote against you, no. Even in this country. Trump is just that awful.
What makes this so extraordinary is that Republicans under Trump regard Democrats as the enemy and do not dare cross party lines. If Trump loses we are much more likely to see Republicans return to the idea, if not the practice, up putting country before party.
Shows what a spineless weirdo he always has been, and now solidifies his place as having one of the worst judgments in history.
Given Stephanie Grisham's record--including her previous defence for Trump calling Never-Trumpers "human scum"--it seems highly unlikely she is doing anything other than using the DNC as a free advertising platform for her book. Wealthy establishment conservatives, like those on the Lincoln project, I guess, realize Trump threatens instability and the Democratic same ol' works better for them. I doubt any of the objectors are concerned with actual corruption or lack of morality as there is no morality to be found anywhere in American politics and corruption is systematic and desirable for both parties.
It’s been that way for a while. It’s the establishment vs. the outsiders. Many warmongering neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, David Frum, Michael Steele, and other Bush/McCain worshippers have fled the GOP to find their rightful place among their DNC allies. Meanwhile establishment and deep state critics like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK have seemingly fled that backstabbing cabal for the Trump camp.
There's some truth in that, but it doesn't make the outsiders the "good guys". Stephanie Grisham was right when she said Trump has no morals. She just left out the bit about her and the Democrats also having no morals.
True enough. But the fracturing of these parties and the subsequent realignment is very interesting to watch. Who knows what will become of them over the next few administrations?
True— but money-grubbing conservatives existed during Romney and McCain’s and Bush and Reagan’s time too. Didn’t see them at the DNC. Then again, those guys weren’t (rightfully) demonized like Trump is.
I don’t pay much mind to the theatrics. The whole convention is ridiculous. And I have costal real estate to sell to anyone who gets teary-eyed over these speeches.
:up:
How much?
I'm not too interested in the gory details but the political shifts that are being experienced are symptomatic of social fractures that may signal the inherent unsustainability of neoliberalism and the delusion of the "end of history" paradigm. I'm not sure that leads anywhere good in the short term.
I suspect Europe, as the crucible of the worst ideologies, will have more of an issue than over here and much quicker. Same with what’s left of the commonwealth. But I also suspect the US isn’t far behind.
Sell it now! Next year it might be territorial waters, or at least uninsurable.
House collapses on the outer banks:
They got RFK's endorsement though. According to polymarket, they are (very slight) favourites to win now.
I wonder if they're calculating that by the popular vote or by predicting how the swing states will go. Probably by swing states.
It's a betting market, so it's sentiment based. I think Harris will still win but just barely.
Funny how he went from being a "useful chaos agent" according to Steve Bannon to ultimately being a drag on the Republicans so much that they had to hang him up. I'm guessing the right by propping him up so much in the media wanted to recreate the Bernie magic that divided the left and got us Trump in 2016. Fortunately they had no idea what actually made Sanders popular and ended up making someone who was more likely to peel votes away from the right instead. The anti-vax stuff wasn't gonna appeal to anyone except the far right who still obsesses over COVID to this day, and although Kennedy could've adopted a more pro-Palestinian stance to contrast with Biden, he ultimately ended up being more pro-Zionist than Genocide Joe.
Yeah. I at least applaud that he takes climate change as the existential threat that it is. Maybe that brings some sanity to the Republicans, if only at the margins. Otherwise he’s useless.
In all likelihood Trump probably promised him a position as the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is where he would likely have influence. So add anti-vaxxer leading the department of health to the growing list of dangers of a second Trump term.
The free market. The deus ex machina of all crypto-plutocrats. That wonderful abstract bullshit reason given whenever you don’t want the government to regulate your pet industry.
The free market. Doesn’t exist, but the closer we get to it, the worse things become. Probably the stupidest concept there is— but so many people believe in it as if it were God. Another one of those indicators you can use to determine just he how big of an idiot you interlocutor is — as soon as they bust that one out, you know. That and “the climate is always changing” :lol:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/collinrugg/status/1826842582217036133?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Not only does this show a complete inability for diplomacy, but also a complete unwillingness - much like what we have seen during the Biden administration.
This doesn't bode well for the rest of the world.
I don't think the world is ready for Joe 2.0.
He’s dedicated to truth, democracy, and saving Americans from being poisoned by big agriculture/pharmaceuticals… so he endorses Trump. :chin:
Just another slimy politician doing what’s best for himself.
— The integrity and independence candidate.
Probably the worst thing about him is the fusion of antisemitism (e.g. his veiled suggestion that the Jews and Chinese got together to launch COVID), his staunch support for Israel's war on Gaza, and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war. The hypocrisy / opportunism combo there is audacious even for an American politician.
That's quite literally what the Biden/Harris administration is doing right now, though.
They threaten Israel with menacing finger-wagging and taps on the wrist, while literally supplying the bombs they are throwing on schools in Gaza.
Absolutely. I think I've made clear before there are no morals to be found on any side. I can understand Americans having practical reasons to prefer one over the other though.
Looks like the libertarians won't be flocking to Trump considering how RFK shat on them for some as yet unrevealed promise from the Orangeutan. I doubt they'll go Dem either though.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1827173323098226721?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
:lol:
24 hours later: totally forgotten.
You know as I remember it -- I didn't go back to check -- you and I were going back and forth about whether it was a "coup." And you were claiming Biden stepped down willingly. At some point I didn't feel like arguing about it any more. Especially since neither of us are privy to what actually happened. Nancy and Barack and George Clooney didn't share their innermost thoughts with me; and I assume not with you either. So we're both guessing. The evidence support the proposition that Biden was forced out is pretty strong. The other day Pelosi said, "I did what I had to do." Another data point for my opinion.
I don't think you have much in the way of a supportable point based on the widely-reported pressure that was brought to bear on Biden. And I don't think it's that important a hill to die on. So I withdrew from the conversation. This seems to make you unhappy. I regret that.
Quoting Benkei
No doubt. But I came by it honestly, as a lifelong liberal Democrat and currently a disillusioned one. One of the seven to ten million Americans who voted for Obama and then Trump. You don't want to engage with us and that's sad.
The Biden-Harris admin was a disaster and now Kamala is actually running against her own administration. A Martian watching the Dem convention would have had no idea that Kamala has been running the country (in the stead of the non compos demented Biden the past three and a half years. She actually said she's going to fix the border. She's been in charge of the border all this time. I just read that 70% of the voters don't know any of her past policy positions. She may yet get away with it.
Oh yes I quite agree. Price controls are popular. It's not till a ways down the road that the shortages and lines (queues for my British cousins) begin.
An old article has been making the rounds. (pdf link)
Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls
Price controls have been failing for 4000 years. But yes you are absolutely right. They are very popular. Nixon's wage and price controls were popular till they failed.
I'm old enough to remember when liberals considered that a virtue.
And there weren't any new wars while Trump was president. The world didn't blow up till Iran and Russia saw Biden's weakness. Some of us out here credit Trump and blame Biden for that. But don't worry about the defense contractors. Kam shouted out her strong support for the continuation of the wars. Yippee.
Orangeutan-see, Orangeutan-do: batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come. Will this trumpster fire blow up into a flaming hellscape by Kamala's September 10th debate beatdown? TBD.
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
Really?
Not what I said. So either you can't read or your memory is a sieve.
Just a speculation, more hope than worry.
Got it. Well, polymarket has flipped Dem again, so I guess the RFK bump has been fleeting.
My apologies either way.
Imagine JD sharing a platform with his non-verbal son, and having the presence of mind and care to pull that son aside when he was about to walk into a teleprompter screen?
I can't imagine JD being open and honest and caring at all. I can't imagine him wanting to show his mixed race family off to the maga racists anyway. But they better get used to a lot more disabled kids of all sorts as abortion becomes more rare.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Tunbridge Wells knows the value of brand equity. :lol:
Vance already showed his family off with his wife giving an amazing speech, putting to bed your little race fantasy once again. As for abortion, now people can vote for the laws they want. I know people having more power is anathema to the authoritarian, but you’ll get used to it.
Hill Dems try to tamp down backlash to Harris’ grocery price gouging pitch
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/25/harris-grocery-price-gouging-backlash-00176266
The women in many states don’t have the power to choose now. Aren’t you supposed to be some breed of libertarian?
I don’t think the feds should have any say in the matter. Do you?
Quoting 180 Proof
26August24 – $21.72 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,725.77) :up:
You think that states should have the power to deny women their freedom to choose, right? If so, doesn't that make you a stinking statists?
I do not think that. Now women can vote for the policies they want. Isn’t that what you want?
The freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose…I don’t even know what that means. I was saying people can now vote for the legislation they want in their own states rather than having zero opportunity to do so.
And enforcing stances and opinions on others via the democratic process is (unfortunately) the normal way in which states function.
'Degenerate' is a strong term, and I think you're being unreasonable in its use.
There are still plenty of places in the country where it is legal to kill a fetus. In any case, it was a shaky legal precedent, not a right. Now everyone can go about it the right way.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1828413016477495464?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/1828446955212570763?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Is that true? According to polls in Texas, most favor some access to abortion, and as far as I can tell it hasn’t been on a ballot.
If you’re right then there is an opportunity for you or some other abortionist to run on such a platform.
I think it's the typical way that actually BOTH Republicans and Democrats would do this:
When corporations ask for simple rules they ought to then adhere to (by legislation), naturally the political establishment doesn't give this (which actually would be their job). Why? Because there's Freedom of Speach, of course!
What the government wants is to have in secret a watchdog system where they will inform the corporations which isn't tolerated and who should be banned. And if the corporations themselves won't follow, it's be trouble for them. And as they are free companies, they can decide who to ban and who not!
And if you think that the Republicans are different, well, it's simply other issues than the progressive wokester's see inappropriate.
Yup, the people always have to fight for their liberty.
Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them.
UK isn't in the EU, btw.
Nikki Haley Says Donald Trump “Has My Strong Endorsement, Period” In Republican National Convention Speech
The Criminal Clown is running like a raped ape but he still can't hide ...
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4850566-superseding-indictment-trump-election-subversion-case/
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
"On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells."
-- Claude Rains character at the end of Lawrence of Arabia.
Couldn't find a shorter clip but it's at 4:18 here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdLM2ENld8
Quoting NOS4A2
I'll take the other side of that for sake of discussion.
I have heard over the years that Roe was bad law. Even some liberal, pro-choice legal scholars made that argument.
But as a moderate pro-choicer (safe, legal, and rare as Bill Clinton put it), I say that Roe was working. It kept abortion off the ballot. It's analogous to Obergefell. Before Obergefell, gay marriage was an issue in every election. Now, whether you support or oppose gay marriage, it's the law of the land. You can blog your opinion, but it's never on the ballot. It never affects an election.
In the same way, Roe kept abortion off the ballot. It may have been bad law in the eyes of legal scholars, and it upset the pro-lifers, but politically it was working.
I say that if the so-called conservative justices were secretly working for the Democrats, things couldn't have turned out worse than they are now. Abortion kept the 2022 red wave from happening. It's an issue in 2024. It's Kamala's strongest issue. I've seen her give pro-abortion speeches and she is really, really good at it. She has her heart in the issue and she has her talking points straight.
Dobbs has been an electoral gift to Democrats and it is going to continue forever. It's worth a few points in every election from national to local and it's going to be till Congress does something about it, and they never will.
And it brings out the worst in the pro-life forces. This idea of arresting women who cross state lines is completely insane. I've "crossed state lines" from California to Nevada to visit gambling casinos. Nobody ever objects to that, even though laws against gambling used to be rooted in moral arguments.
Dobbs has unleashed the worst impulses on the right. It's just a disaster for the GOP.
More than 200 former Bush, McCain and Romney staffers endorse Harris
The alumni of the three Republican presidential nominees sought to reiterate their opposition to Trump's 2020 re-election in an open letter.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna168363
A lot of things work, for a while. But whether it is just or unjust, legal or illegal, wrong or right, are far more important to this particular issue.
Roe never worked politically. It has always been a seriously divisive decision. And now we know it was doomed to fail under the lightest scrutiny. If people want a political solution, it needs to be done politically, not through judicial activism.
Being pro-life isn't degenerate. Thinking you have a right to decide for others is.
But my original point was that the attack on Walz's treatment of his son, and the accusation of violence, like the attack on his son earlier, was a lie being perpetuated on these pages without refutal; and the contempt shown for the disabled seems too often to go along with the supposed "pro-life" stance, which more usually turns out to be a parallel contempt for women, than a real valuing of all life.
You’re the big government, anti-freedom guy. Don’t you want the government to have all the power and make the decisions? This is one way to navigate the situation should one want to kill her child.
Doesn't anyone who engages in the democratic process think they have a right to decide for others, and are they not actively trying to get the government to impose their opinions on society?
I'd say the human right to bodily autonomy weighs quite heavily here, but by that same logic are people who advocated for vaccine mandates degenerates as well?
Quoting Tzeentch
No, the political question is to act or not to act. The basic assumption is to not act unless there's a clear benefit that increases positive freedom. Increasing choice, eg. positive freedom, is therefore the moral position.
Edit: in fact, acting here limited negative freedom by introducing a prohibition, limiting personal choice.
And don't get me started on the retarded method of interpretation in the USA that leads to dumb rulings to begin with.
Former Trump administration staffers also support Harris in this election. Not a great look.
Several spoke at the DNC, including Stephanie Grisham. She reported that Trump said his diehard supporters, people like you, were basement dwellers. How does that make you feel?
You keep talking about me to disguise the fact you cannot speak to the issues. That you seek for some law to decide the issue suggests you want to leave it up to the government. Is that not so?
The architects and propagandists of the Bush regime join your campaign. Not a great look, but good good riddance nonetheless.
I think Grisham is an idiot, but she's right. It was Clinton who insinuated Bernie supporters were basement dwellers in her leaked audio, and Trump accepted them with open arms.
Quoting NOS4A2
Isn't this a wee bit hyperbolic? Whatever you want to call it, "one" = "her", "one" isn't someone/something else, yes? Are you thinking of a slippery slope? Either way, abortion ? killing a child here.
A couple of months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that. Not a person. My neighbor's kid is. It's more like a cyst. No more a person or conscious than pre-conception sperm and egg cell. ? bio-facts
I'll readily admit to having an emotional attachment to life. It's not like abortion is a positive thing or to be encouraged (anti-natalists not invited at the moment :grin:), it's a rough enough decision.
Every human being who walked the earth began that way. They are not like cysts. Abortion, infanticide, homicide…they all involve the same act: causing the death, or killing, of a human being.
The MAGA term is RINO. Anyway, who’s more neocon than Nikki Haley, whose wealth seems to be tied to defense contractors. No “Republican” is rejecting her endorsement of Trump. In fact, many Republicans wanted to elect her president in this race.
If that’s what you believe then shouldn’t you want a national ban? As it is, the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much, if at all. Most abortions are performed with drugs, and as you pointed out earlier, women can travel to states where it’s legal. It seems that the most vulnerable women, those with the least resources, in red states are hardest hit.
Trump is attempting to side-step the problem by leaving it up to the state. This makes it a matter of choice. It is a form of pernicious relativism - arbitrarily permissible if and when the individual state says it is. No true "pro-life" advocate should find this acceptable. It undermines the moral claim and cedes its ground to choice.
This is not to say I oppose choice, but rather oppose the choice being made one way or another by someone other than the individual.
Exactly. Trump is currently saying he’d be “great for women and their reproductive rights.” If he doesn’t lose the support of pro-life advocates it just further demonstrates that the issue is little more than politicization.
I have a feeling the toddlers ? would make it every time, outside of rather special(ized) scenarios.
OK, what it there were, say, 10 times as many sperm + egg cells and fetuses as toddlers? 100? 10000 as many sperm + egg cells?
In terms of bio-facts, only the toddlers ? are conscious persons — children.
I suppose we could craft the details of a scenario (or more) and run a poll if you like.
Pro-forced birth / anti-woman's autonomy aka "pro-life" will be the critical dealbreaker for the majority of women voters across the political spectrum this year like it was in 2022. :fire:
Roevember is coming! :mask:
I think prohibition is a terrible idea, and states that enact it ought to feel the repercussion of it. The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s. But, since the government has involved itself, the issue is now whether the matter should be settled by some judiciary in Washington or on a more local level. To those who want the government to set the bounds of their lives, the change required to set those bounds is easier attained at the local level. Activists get to ban it in some places while celebrating it as a human right in the other. In short, state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary.
You say abortion is no one’s decision but the woman’s, and then go on to say that the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level. This is contradictory. If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult.
Well said.
So now Trump is pushing for being the “best on women’s reproductive rights”— :rofl: — because he’s losing in the polls and it’s generally an issue they’re being crushed on. If he had any principles or soul whatsoever (or any balls), he’d be calling for a national ban on the murdering of babies (which is what these nutjobs actually believe). But there’s no chance of that. Instead he’ll mumble some nonsense and his ass-kissing slaves like our resident Trumper and Ayn Rand devotee will endlessly defend it, pretending it all makes perfect sense.
Don’t waste too much time on it.
—
In other news: Harris has her first interview tomorrow. I think she should do several interviews, not just one big one. Too easy for Fox News to demonize if even the slightest phrasing is off.
Ayn Rand made strong arguments for choice. Whadaya bet she would have argued differently has she been a he.
Places like Fox are inevitably gonna move the goal posts no matter how many interviews Harris does but I agree she should be doing more of them if just to clarify her positions. Or get Walz out there doing interviews since he's a better speaker. Apparently he never read from a teleprompter until hitting the national stage which is a very welcome trait considering who the Dems were/are running up to this point.
Yeah, it always struck me as funny how Trump gets credit for his ad libs and general off-script remarks. The truth is he sucks at it; he’s an awful speaker. Mostly incoherent, and almost always the same lines, 99% of which are lies (“the country is going to hell, everything is being destroyed”). It’s easier to talk extemporaneously when you can make things up, unbound by reality.
In any case, I hope he continues doing it.
That’s a lie and misrepresentation of my view. I knew it would come to this because you are often unable to argue in good faith. Oh well.
https://archive.ph/Foy8A
It is a shame that in the US judges and district attorneys are party candidates or independents supported by parties and billionaires like George Soros, when democracies are supposed to have three independent branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Since in the US the judicial branch is not independent from the executive, US justice is flawed and divisions have become more difficult to heal.
It is a shame also to put the blame on the Republicans (who control SCOTUS) only, when the real problem are the laws and standards pertaining to the US judicial system.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/how-european-countries-create-ideologically-balanced-courts
He was invited. Where was Biden and Harris?
While I agree with the need for judicial change I think the blame for the current blatant judicial activism rests squarely on McConnell, Trump, and the Federalist Society. Project 2025, written largely by Trump's people, will take things much further if he is elected.
I honestly have no idea what the lie is supposed to be.
It's easy to blame Republicans, since they had the majority in the Senate, in the last 40 years or so. But the problem seems to be the laws and standards pertaining to the judicial system.
Most of European countries do not appoint judges for life, but only for ten years. There are countries like UK where judges are appointed by some non-political commissions and countries like Germany, Spain, France, etc., where judges are elected by politicians BUT only if they get the 75% of approval in local parliaments/assemblies. So, in these countries there is only one way to become a judge: you should be almost apolitical, cause no party ever controlled 75% of parliament seats and the only way these countries can have judges is through wide consensus and through making sure that the judge is almost impartial.
From history books and legends this is what we are told: you can become a judge only if you are impartial. In the US judicial system that's not the case anymore.
I didn’t say what you claimed I did.
That’s not helpful. Assuming that you want to clarify where I allegedly lied, can you explain what you mean when you say, “The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s.”?
This appears to mean that you think the state should not to have the power to restrict a woman’s choice.
He was saying that our present approach to abortion is more libertarian than it used to be because states can decide what they want to do.
No, conservative libertarians don’t think that women should have the liberty to choose.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/refutal
That’s right. Then you claimed I said “the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level”. It appears you made that up. What I said was “state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary”.
https://pasteboard.co/PYcv579vrqwX.png
What would your thought process look like with out all the fantasy?
Technically a lie, my bad, though a more generous interpretation would be that I was paraphrasing.
The contradiction remains unresolved. To repeat myself:
Quoting praxis
Well, you knew what I wrote and then changed it to suit whatever it is you’re trying to do, pretending the whole time that I said one and not the other. That’s pure deception.
There is no contradiction. If I think a state ought to determine its own laws that does not mean I think it ought to prohibit anything it wants.
We weren’t talking about anything were we? We were talking about abortion.
Anyway, I hope you work out the contradiction some day.
It's a plank of the Libertarian party platform that abortion shouldn't be legislated. here
Brent DeRidder’s opinion is the opinion of all members of the libertarian party of North Carolina, and the opinion of all Libertarians in the US? I wouldn’t have thought that libertarians would relinquish their freedom of opinion so completely to one man.
His main argument suggests that abortions will happen irrespective of legal restrictions, advocating instead for imposing religious beliefs through avenues other than legislation.
The first paragraph is Plank 1.5 of the Libertarian Party platform. Libertarians oppose abortion legislation. This is not rocket science, praxis.
It’s an opinion regarding the principle. The principle is:
1.5 Parental Rights
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.
Ok.
Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans, but that would not be a strong argument at all (since it is essentially saying that from birth men are inimical towards women, when I am more inclined to believe that all humans are born equal, unbiased and free, till they are manipulated by "educators" and politicians).
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/
I’ve never heard one woman say that. Bullshit strawman.
Good. Fuck Elon Musk and his fake free speech absolutism. The same guy who caved to Modi and is now suing advertisers he once said could “go fuck themselves” and “Don’t advertise” to is now crying about not being allowed to manipulate an entire country with his right-wing propaganda.
All the brain-dead teenagers will be outraged I’m sure. Now they can pretend to care about free speech and be victims at the same time. Cool.
You don't read The Guardian.
After the MeToo movement, there are many articles on The Guardian which supposedly show how (white) men have started a campaign of revenge against women. White & old men are taking revenge and punishing intelligent women (according to The Guardian columnists) simply because white men hate the truths and injustices exposed by the MeToo movement.
In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women and their anger towards women is an inborn thing that all women should be aware of:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo
PS: am I the only one to suspect that Kamala Harris and democrats are targeting single mothers with their 2024 ticket, and whenever Kamala speaks about middle class she doesn't mean American families/couples with median income and small businesses, but she speaks about single mothers (like those she used to advocate for when
she was involved into CA politics and activism)? If I am right in believing that democrats target certain groups in their 2024 campaign, aren't they therefore investing in divides in order to hold power? If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?
Well then your impression is wrong. I’m sure sexism exists, but this cartoon version won’t get you anywhere.
Quoting Eros1982
So targeting different demographics is surprising to you? Have you been living on Mars?
“Bets in divisions.” Right— and it’s somehow the Democrats that should give us pause over this. Not the fact that Trump and his MAGA slaves have single-handedly polarized this country to levels not seen since the civil war, targeting young men, rural people, evangelicals, whites, and the elderly— along with the usual sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and xenophobes that have become a fixture.
But yeah, targeting single women is the real problem.
You might be right about Trump, but after Biden's victory all BLM protests in the US stopped and we got some peace from the fireworks craze. Since none in this country believes that black lives improved with Biden, the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks. These things may resume again if Trump wins and that's one good reason to not wish a Republican victory. Nonetheless, there is so much evidence that the democrats may be behind BLM, women, and Muslim protests. It is not surprising that the millions given to BLM & diversity issues came from the same billionaires who sponsor the democrats.
Democrats pretend to be saviors and angels and for this reason they should not compare themselves to the Republicans. Democrats are supposed to abide by higher standards lol
Pledging 1.7 trillion to the very poor, as Kamala did ten days ago, turns the US into a kind of charity organization that gives without expecting any worldly things in return. It is not that I am against helping. Morally speaking I feel a duty to help the incapable. But here again you have some moral dilemmas: What vision do I have for a country where inflation is taken more seriously than climate change, wars and violence? Should we bill the future generations for misfortunes (covid and inflation) that happened to us? What kind of culture you create when you nourish a whole nation with the idea that for every hardship you can bill future generations with more debt? What is the best way to use debt? Is it better to invest in progress and development or to use it for food and leisure? Do democrats have any visions for our children and the future? If so, how they will materialize those visions if this country becomes bankrupt and people are encouraged to abstain from family and work?
In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. Their aim is to take power regardless of the means and the people they use. I decided to vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's ridiculous response to covid19 and, mostly, because Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it is morally advisable to vote for third party candidates or to not vote at all.
It's always been so. They are in a vicious competition for power in a two-party system. It's just there used to be agreed-on conventions that are now being disregarded, so the viciousness is closer to the surface. A truly moral politician can only be at a disadvantage re power, as morality imposes limitations on action.
I wouldn't say that's the logical conclusion. Riots do start and end, emerge and fade, for whatever reasons. For that matter, they need not have a (single) "puppet master". But maybe the rioters were predominantly Democrats, if that counts as "the democrats".
Quoting Eros1982
Well, at least fringes of party members. Polarization has come with opportunism, noise, calculation, "mood swings", contrarianism, zeal, the usual. Game of Thrones and The Boys aren't to be emulated, and conspiracy theories should be taken with a grain of salt (make that two). :) Additionally, foreign interests are trying to nudge in whatever direction.
Trump is still absolutely terrible on the environment. If it’s something you truly care about, this issue alone is motive enough for keeping him from office. That happens to mean pushing a button for Harris— fine. But to claim one should throw away one’s vote (which is all that is) or not vote at all is literally insane, given the professed values.
And most of your claims amount BLM, etc., are straight from right-wing media. Worth analyzing.
That's true. But, as you say, some claims need more analysis (before you dismiss or approve those).
I don't wish Trump to win. Another thing that bothered me back then was that almost all of his family members became advisers in his Oval Office (that really made this country look like Saudi Arabia). Even fanatic Republicans were bothered with the culture Trump brought into the White House. Clint Eastwood, to mention one of them, got really nuts when Trump posted those Goya-cans pictures from the Oval Office lol
Anyway, right now 36% of males in this country despise both parties. Kudos to them! It is time for independent minds to make their voices heard. They should leave behind the notion that the least bad is the best choice for independents. Cause none can predict the future, and what you make the least bad right now, in the future it may turn into the worst choice.
https://www.americansurveycenter.org/featured_data/young-men-distrust-both-parties/
Independent men and women who still care for this country should push for judicial and electoral reforms. I do hope that judicial and electoral reforms may make us less independent on the two major parties. Reforms may help both republicans and democrats, also, to become more sensible and less Machiavellian.
As hinted to, many institutions and standards in the US (I am adding UK also) for a few centuries were based on (unspoken/unwritten) conventions. But we see a cultural/mental shift in the US (and UK) lately --and for this reason reforms are becoming indispensable. Nothing should remain unwritten and unforeseen anymore.
This is really silly.
Some folks can't tell the difference between eating a shit sandwich and starving themselves (due to low IQ/poor education, ethnonationalist hatreds and/or disingenuous venality). Fortunately, in this moment, they aren't (yet) the majority in the US. :mask:
Roevember is coming! :fire:
Bad example. I think I’d rather starve than eat shit. :lol:
Quoting 180 Proof
31August24 – $19.50 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,713.62)
No doubt only "poorly educated" "suckers & losers". :mask:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1829915590468731167?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
This paltry move was underscored by the fact that Harris, “the last person in the room” when it comes to one of the worst events in US history in Afghanistan, had never contacted any of these grieving families. Trump did, so he was invited to Arlington on the anniversary of their death. At any rate, they’re pissed at Harris, who not only didn’t phone any of the families, but also did some campaign propaganda at Arlington herself, the exact same thing she accused Trump of. It’s always projection when it comes to Trump’s haters.
Trump posted some of their responses to X and they’re quite devastating to Kamala’s “joyful” veneer. This, in combination with the accounts of Harris’ own staff, proves she’s just dog shit in lipstick.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1830044664688165285?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Hummuna hummuna hummuna
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1830033436683215146?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
All of this personal marketing stuff is calculated and generally works. It's unlikely Harris has anything to do with it.
I have neurolink so I’m basically on auto update.
(1) Trump was the worst president in history (or close), a traitor to the country, a degenerate con man, and pathological liar— on top of being an empty narcissist with no ideas other than personal branding. A climate denier and plutocrat lover, to boot.
(2) Trump is rightfully hated and extremely unpopular. Currently losing in the polling, which is no surprise.
(3) Harris is a boring, establishment candidate. And is now likely to win, given the choices.
What a shame the Republican Party and their slaves have no souls. It’s sad. But at least it makes it easier for them to lose, as they’ve been doing the last 8 years. Given that they’re the party of climate denial and pro-pollution, I’m at least happy about that.
Incidentally, it looks like North Carolina is now in play— which is interesting.
I think they want to get elected, and the environmental vote is getting larger and more vocal.
You think Trump and the republicans give two shits about abortion? No. But they sure did scrap Roe v Wade. It’s not always lip service. Sometimes you have to deliver, even if it’s too little (IRA was biggest climate investment in history — and yet still too little; would have never happened under Trump.)
Suppose they did nothing. Would you then vote Trump? My guess would be no, so why expect anything other than lip service?
I just don't get the overly vigorous defense for what is a shit sandwich either way.
The "establishment" is a nebulous term. There are elected and appointed officials who are active in their support on the environment. They are as much a part of the "establishment" as those who are indifferent or opposed. The "establishment" is not one side or the other.
Yeah.
Quoting Tzeentch
If Trump were offering something better on other issues, yes. Nuclear weapons, healthcare, education, guns, anything. His stopping funding for Ukraine would be a bright spot, but for the wrong reasons — and it’s uncertain whether he would. On Israel he’s even more hawkish than Biden.
Quoting 180 Proof
So even before they had announced JD Vance ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/03/rfk-jr-trump-vice-president :mask:
@Baden @Mikie @Wayfarer @Fooloso4 @Benkei @unenlightened @frank
The US is fucked, I guess, but it is the UK that is falling apart. Public services are on the brink of collapse. The gov is at the point where they are arresting people for social media posts, which is authoritarian, but also stupid because the prisons are too full. A shithole.
Yes indeed, the UK is ahead of the pack as usual. That is one of the ways I can foretell your future. But I love authoritarianism in the service of peace and non-violence.
An authority must monopolize violence and use violence in order to institute “non-violence”. Just another contradiction among many. At any rate, speech is not violence, so I’ll just have to remain suspicious of such admissions.
Yes. Pax Romana.
Quoting NOS4A2
A sheepdog gone rogue can herd a flock of sheep over a cliff without touching them.
How do they do with apes?
Vietnam War. Iraq War. Consent to remove workers' rights. Consent to dismantle/defund public schools. Jan. 6 2021. Etc.
Pretty well, if the sheepdog is also an ape, or a few of them.
To herd or control apes you have to commit violence against them, or proceed with the threat thereof.
Such articles of faith are what you use to control people. It doesn't work in every case, but it works on average, and not even a threat is required.
Give it a try.
That contradicts both, current and historic facts. See the last post for the beginning of a list of things that happened, and/or are currently happening. It negates the statement quoted above.
Look at the spread of wealth around the world after WWII. Pay particular attention to the flatline in real blue collar wages. Watch the power of their dollar wane over time. Watch the under 100k blue collar lifestyle require more than one income. Watch the companies who treat their workers worse obtain a financial advantage for having done so. Much easier to do without legal enforcement of binding arbitration agreement. Ronnie Raygun started that. Much easier to do if enough people portray working folks' unions in nothing but a negative light. Do it long enough and vwahlah. Magic. People are convinced that one of the best things for them is not. Watch the birth of many ghost towns, replete with walking zombies.
No, sir. You're wrong. The smartest bipeds known to man are capable of being happily led to their own slaughter. No physical violence or threat thereof necessary for that to happen.
Quoting 180 Proof
4Sept24 – $16.98 per share (-36% past month) :down:
(NASDAQ 17,084.10)
:lol: :point: Sell-off erases Trump Media shares' 2024 gains
Then it should be easy to demonstrate. Manufacture my consent, or anyone else’s. I am willing to read any argument, marketing, or propaganda you can provide, and we’ll see if I willfully consent to any of it.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/fbi/status/1831422641288159284?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
But Putin is all in on Kamala.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1831678549020807350?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Meanwhile a Chinese spy was found to be working for the Governor of New York.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1831102256332083281?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
You're kind of like Sisyphus.
Harris will beat Trump, says election prediction legend Allan Lichtman
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-trump-lichtman-election-prediction.html :victory: :cool:
Quoting frank
Syphilis.
I actually did lol at this.
Herpes
These laws against foreign inference in US election make little sense in a country that spent 7 billion in 2016 election campaigns. We are 6 times bigger than UK, but in 2016 we spent like 100 times more then UK in electoral campaigns.
The biggest problem in this country are the money from NRA, Oil Industry, Pharma, all kind of CEOs, the Zionists, and so on.
It doesn't make sense anymore to vote for candidates who take billions from people you and me do not know at all. The only thing we know about the "legal" billions is that they come from US citizens (though their hearts may belong to Izrael, to Texaco or to some utopia).
If democracy has a circus, USA is that circus nowadays.
Right, American elections are unique in that respect, and in the way they’re conducted. Personally, I love the circus for sheer entertainment value, but the amount of money thrown around is obscene. Dark money from undisclosed sources kind of make the whole foreign influence rhetoric a huge sham. I rather some American oil company or lobby group have influence than a shell company company who need not disclose where the money is coming from.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/03/unprecedented-surge-in-dark-money-floods-2024-elections/
By the way, in UK there's no limit how much to give to the parties, but there is a clear limit on what the parties can do with all that money. This is why many won't bother to donate in UK lol (cause they know that 70 million are enough for palm cards, billboards, and this kind of stuff).
https://qz.com/1743234/the-three-main-differences-between-us-and-uk-elections
So now, I come with this question: let's suppose that we know the people who give X money in the US, what do we know about the way X money is used?
Can Pier Morgans, to take an example, receive X money in order to write a good article about Trump? Another example: can Kamala use D money in order to pay "volunteers" to attend an event?
[sup]— Pekka Kallioniemi · Vatnik soup · Sep 5, 2024[/sup]
Meet the right-wing Canadian influencers accused of collaborating with an alleged Russian propaganda scheme
[sup]— Jonathan Montpetit, Aloysius Wong · CBC · Sep 6-7, 2024[/sup]
How much influence do such campaigns have anyway?
I just finished listening to PBS "On the Media". They were discussing this. Pool, Rubin and others claim that they did not know the money for their propaganda platforms was coming from Russia. But this much is clear - they made a lot of money and it is not difficult to trace it back to the source. But why look a gift horse in the mouth when it is offering you so much money, even if it is a Trojan horse?
Regarding the question of how much influence they have :
Forbes is a good place to start:
The “Russian influence” canard returns. We now know they are using it as a pretext for surveilling American and Canadian citizens, which is the true crime.
You may opine on what to do about them, but not their existence.
They've increased during the time of the present Kremlin, and, in addition to effects/efficiency, we might ask the same old question: To what end?
Fact? It’s complete bullshit, itself an influence operation. It’s just a list of trigger-words to activate the drones. “Putin”, “Russia”, “Trump”, “right-wing”, “influence”, and Kamala gets some help with her campaign.
(Some of the more heavy-duty ones aren't run against the US, though, but smaller, more "manageable", areas.)
You can also find some in Europe and Africa, and you can also find some run by US agents.
Odd that you first deny such activities only to turn around and instead call the reports of them such activities, first denying then claiming their existence.
I don’t believe any of it, and I’m certainly not scared of social media and tic-toc videos. I mean, who cares?
It’s a nonsensical pretext to censor and control social media, spy on Americans, and if the past is any indication, to gaslight the electorate.
Russia and China want to influence the election as much as possible— of course they do. The US does it all the time. (The difference is that we’ll support a coup or invade.)
But the Russian influence is mostly social media. Why wouldn’t they do so? They’ll fund people who are already saying things they like, unleash a bunch of bots, etc. But what’s the actual impact? I doubt it’s very much. The claims are overblown. Just as they were in 2016. Hillary didn’t lose because of a Russian bot farm; she lost because she sucked.
It’s still interesting to see what they’re rooting for. In China’s case, mostly just chaos and division. For Russia, mostly undermining support for Ukraine. Not rocket science to see why this would be the case.
I don’t doubt there are such activities. People try to make money by getting views on social media all the time, often by making political propaganda. What makes it a campaign or something nefarious?
Trump is his usual rambling, incoherent buffoon self — repeating his rally lines reflexively. But he looks more natural doing it.
Man, it would have been nice to have Bernie up there with Trump just once.
Her "opportunity plan" is a disaster in the making (a big blow to the already tortured middle-class Americans). Nonetheless, since Trump did not offer any other plans apart from deporting immigrant slaves, she had a greater appeal.
The big loser tonight was ABC News. That Fbi report the journalist mentioned, about lower crimes on national level, is a total bs if someone keeps in mind that liberals tend to make legal many things conservatives make illegal (so when you legalize cannabis and abortion you definitely may have 40 million less "criminals" in the whole nation). Definition is also the reason why US looks much better than Europe when it comes to corruption (cause in some European countries if a mayor receives a sandwich from a voter that's called corruption, whereas in the US you may receive millions in donations and you may be considered the most ethical mayor). In short, Americans do not care what Fbi and Abc will report. For as long as they see armed robberies and murders in their towns, they do think that crimes are a serious problem.
Thanks to ABC bad journalism and Trump's irrelevance, too little attention was paid to Kamala's "opportunity plan" (that as I said here is not directed to the middle class, but to the poorest people and single mothers). Urban living, farming, life expectancy, food industry, general health issues, labor ethics, AI, education and infrastructure were not mentioned at all. Crimes were not taken seriously by the ABC. The national debt was not mentioned, whereas on environment Kamala Harris said the biggest lie: i.e. Joe Biden and she have spent trillions on stopping climate change, when the truth is that they spent 3 trillion on covid relief, they passed a bill of 800 billion on infrastructure and to this day less than 20% of that bill has been invested by the US government. Surely, the ABC journalists did not bother to fact check Kamala's big lie tonight. She even promised to produce more local oil.
I won't bother to vote, but it would be unfair to blame only republicans or democrats if this country becomes less democratic and less thriving. A lot of blaming should go to our journalists as well.
Harris could have been replaced with a mannequin and still win.
Clear lines in the sand are Bernie's strongest suit. That would have been reeeeel nice.
She was nervous, but delivered okay. Trump can sling a lot of shit around in a short amount of time.
The Haitian immigrant fiction is particularly interesting to me. Against what the city manager says, Trump presupposes he is somehow, in some way, privy to much greater knowledge about that city than the guy who manages it. This is akin to his claims that he knows more than the generals in the armed forces. Unbelievable...
“It’s over.”
:sweat: :up:
What lies and hoaxes? Be specific instead of vague aspersions.
You consider 9/11 an attack on American democracy?
“Bloodbath” was a lie, the “very fine people” hoax, that he is going to implement Project 2025, that he wants a national abortion ban, that he wants to ban IVF, that he incited a crowd to storm the capitol, that police died on that day, that J6 was the worst attack on America since the civil war.
People may seek to keep Psychopath [Orange] out of the Oval Office, but everyone ought to understand it'd be a pyhrric victory at best.
The US political establishment is still the enemy of all things good and just.
Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. There is no lesser evil. Just different flavors.
Yeah, actually there is. Trump is the greater evil. Don’t overthink it.
To pick one: environment. The IRA was meaningful, and has (and will continue to have, unless somehow dismantled if Trump is elected) meaningful impacts on a transition to less emissions— yes, despite current levels of oil production.
To say nothing about actions at the EPA, SEC, FTC, and NLRB— which have been surprisingly good. Oh and the education department’s canceling of student debt has been fantastic, despite the courts blocking much of that effort.
It takes effort not to see differences, unless there’s some real partisan skewering of perception.
I know environmentalism is very important to you. The Biden administration's colossal failures of diplomacy vis-á-vis Ukraine and Israel are very important to me.
The abortion issue is a political tool for him, he wants whatever benefits him the most and that’s why he refused to answer when asked if he would veto a national ban.
What national abortion ban?
Understandable. It's important to me too, and Biden has been an utter failure in that respect. It's the one area that Trump may (accidentally) be better for the world. I don't see how he'd be any better on Israel, but perhaps I've missed something.
A ban can be enacted under the Comstock Act, if the DOJ (at the president's direction) so chooses. I doubt the Supreme Court would stop it. It's a very real possibility. The fact that Trump is backing away from the rhetoric because he sees at as the political liability that it is means exactly nothing.
"There's no reason to sign a ban because we have gotten what everyone wanted," Trump said.
I’m pretty sure that the 170,000 women who were forced to travel out of state for abortions last year didn’t want what Trump gave them.
I’m certain that all the pro-life folks aren’t pleased with the fact that the abortion rate hasn’t decreased by much if at all since the Dobbs decision.
Neither do I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Biden administration carries responsibility for things going to hell in a handbasket on their watch.
:up:
In that case it wouldn't matter one wit that you'd lived here. :mask:
Quoting NOS4A2
:victory: Yes, the next POTUS sure did.
Quoting Mikie
:up: :up:
Like Ronald Reagan (whom I loathed), Kamala Harris is, if anything (besides highly competent), a happy warrior. :strong: :cool:
At the Shanksville Fire Station, @POTUS spoke about the country's bipartisan unity after 9/11 and said we needed to get back to that'. Bates added: 'As a gesture, he gave a hat to a Trump supporter who then said that in the same spirit, POTUS should put on his Trump cap. He briefly wore it'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/sep/12/joe-biden-dons-trump-hat-in-show-of-unity-at-event-commemorating-911-video
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-end-all-taxes-overtime-2024-09-12/
Kamala's political triangulation suggests she will be stealing this pledge in due time.
Quoting 180 Proof
13Sept24 – $16.12 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,395.53) :up:
Quoting Cloward–Piven strategy · Wikipedia
Quoting An Essay on Liberation · Herbert Marcuse · 1969
Interesting! I work overtime. So, that's great!
Why do they lie? (— Carol Off · Human Rights Hub @ Instagram · Sep 13, 2024)
We've probably all heard it, "But they all lie", hence the worst can keep getting away with it.
Random paraphrases of the day...
To a hammer everything is a nail.
To a radical much else is a radical problem.
Choosing the right battles matter.
If democrats had majority control of congress Trump could pass legislation supporting workers.
Yeah right.
True— but that’s assuming he wants to help workers; his entire business and political life says otherwise.
It’s obviously an act of desperation. Next week he’ll be promising to eliminate taxes altogether.
Yes. Fun to watch the corporate-owned trickle-downers try to navigate all this.
Yeah, he’ll pretty much say anything at this point. Taxes, abortion, electric cars (now that Elon is on his side, he likes them), anything.
And always remember: they’re EATING the DAWGS.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/trump-likelier-winner-unless-harris-tackles-two-failings-says-ex-ambassador
With regard now to what are you saying about eliminating overtime taxes, it seems that you have missed the point. The point is not preserving inequalities, the point is making people to work more.
A Green New Deal promised by the democrats would have brought more jobs and innovations to the USA and to the whole world, but since the democrats spent more money in covid relief and armaments, the only countries that have really seen some kind of green/electrical revolutions lately are China and South Korea. Harris seems to have totally forgotten the democratic green hive of the previous elections and her only pledge about improving economy is to help single mothers with the groceries.
Yeah, eight hours a day isn’t enough. Make America healthy again!
NPR is supposed to be a public radio, but since August it has become like another democratic parrot. With this kind of daily coverage, many public and private media will keep making people suspicious that this country is really controlled by the democrats and anti-Trump billionaires.
Most of the liberal media (viz. the majority of the US media outlets) have found nothing wrong with Kamala the last two months, and they won't bother to fact check her. The same media are implying that the election has been already decided from the presidential debate on Sept 10th, though very little substance was seen on that debate (i.e. Trumps' constant rambling on immigrants, Kamala's strong support for cheap groceries and US made oil, and the candidates' views on Israel & Ukraine.... all other issues were left to the imagination of the voters).
Another "assassination attempt"(?) today. I hope The Old Fat Fascist Clown lives long enough to see Kamala Harris sworn in as the 47th POTUS on 20January25. :victory: :party:
If the investigators, reporters, and producers at NPR have, based on the facts, concluded that he is a serious danger to the US democracy and groups of people don't they have a journalistic responsibility to say so?
Quiz:
Who said the above?
A) a random troll on Instagram
B) a 9-year-old boy
C) a young girl who couldn’t get tickets
D) a 78-year old former United States president
Any guesses?
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/05/practical-accuracy-of-the-ak-in-7-62-and-5-56-by-9-hole-reviews/
But I see now they are describing it as an AK-47 style weapon, so could be a 103 or M version, which are a bit more accurate at longer distances but still not enough for 400 yards.
So yes, definitely within maximum effective range.
Maybe it's their right to do so.
To tell you the truth I think we will be better without Trump. But I do worry for our journalism. Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc., will turn people away from liberal media outlets. These media do not sound serious or sincere every time that election approaches. There is a bigger probability to read something negative about Trump on conservative media, than reading something negative about Kamala on liberal media. The latter are really making Trump look like a victim in the eyes of millions of people.
That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people?
He used to be advised by Ivanka and Jared when he was in office, but now I am not sure whom he listens to. (If I remember well, when he was president there were a couple of times when Ivanka made him deactivate his Twitter --but I am not very sure on this).
Three days before the presidential debate, a columnist in The Guardian wrote that Trump is so sure about himself that he won't bother to prepare for the debate with Harris. I laughed when I read those things, only to find three days later that the columnist was 100% right.
Say we were to give the man in the video a modern AK with a scope and several months to train with the rifle. Then you get to sit in the place of the 'torso-shaped target' at 500 yards.
Would it count as a nothing burger to you?
PS: I actually found a picture of the rifle he was carrying. Looks more like an SKS than an AK. Almost certainly longer-barreled than a regular AK.
It is not a question of their right but of what is right.
Quoting Eros1982
The public response to her campaign is news worthy. Perhaps there is some gushing from some sources but this is not as serious an issue as Trump's being unfit for office.
Quoting Eros1982
The line between news and entertainment has been blurred.
And these are stationary targets, the gunman is stationary and in a supported position, where he knows the distance to the target and can adjust sights accordingly.
Travel distance where the bullet can kill is several kilometers for an AK-47, but that's not what effective range is. Effective range is the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. Missing stationary targets more often than not means it cannot be expected to be accurate and achieve a kill. So 300y is more or less the max. for this type of AK-47, probably less since the targets were stationary and the gunman in an optimal position.
Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger' to take the place of the torso-shaped target? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range).
No, clearly not. You'd be shitting thick bricks.
Not what maximum effective range refers to.
Quoting Tzeentch
You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA.
Have you ever touched a gun, ?
'Just a nothing burger', mhm.
Anyway, I honestly don't know how you could argue that when you have a video infront of you of a shooter delivering accurate fire at up to 500 yards without a scope with a gun that's not his.
Could you provide a link or two to negative stories about Trump on conservative media?
A page ago you were arguing an AK can't hit shit at 200m 'because of MOA'. Do you stand by that?
He does but that doesn't mean he listens to them. He even said it himself in one of his rallies that they keep telling him to focus on policy instead of personal attacks... before going on personal attacks.
The problem with trying to give him advice is that he ultimately rejects the very premise of it. It implies that 1) other people know something he doesn't and 2) he has to follow what they say. For someone with his ego, it's completely unacceptable.
That presentation is also a vital part of the call and response that unfolds at his rallies. He polls the crowd to ask how he should respond to his 'managers'. He gets to stand inside and outside of the operation at the same time. Using one register for x and the other for y. Ventriloquism of the highest order.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/springfield-ohio-bomb-threat
It turns out all 33 of these threats were hoaxes from overseas. The media’s incessant reporting on the topic appears to give those who would wish to hoax Americans an angle of attack, in this instance fake bomb threats in Springfield Ohio. Hilarious.
The damage done to the community falsely vilified by a Presidential ticket is reprehensible regardless of whether it leads to violence or not. The fear is real enough.
Falsely protecting them does nothing for the concerns of everyday voters who live there. Springfield is not a sanctuary city and when an estimated 20,000 people show up in a town of 60,000 rumors are the least of your worries. The damage is done and it’s the administration’s fault.
You follow the lack of concern for people exemplified by your Leader. Amplifying lies is not moral behavior, especially while holding a large megaphone.
And then there is Vance who openly admits lying in order to get attention.
I cried "fire" in the theater because I need to clean up the mess in the first three aisles.
Good analogy!
Vance knows full well that the problem with such lies is that the MAGA - nauts will believe it and act on it. Vance may be unscrupulous but he is not stupid.
Yet when Biden, Clinton, the FBI, the media, or Kamala does it you’re silent. Your concern is so sporadic it shows up only when it benefits you.
I don't recall when any of those people slandered a specific community in this way. It is the degradation that you keep ignoring.
Relaying the concerns of voters is what politicians should do and is entirely moral. It’s not Trump bringing up specific communities and subjecting them to any degradation. He never mentioned where they were from, who they were, that they were a “specific community”. So that’s a lie.
Quoting azcentral press
Trump changes the denigration of the first message to match the defense Vance is giving for lying about it. They are a team now. Try to keep up.
[sup]— Alan Suderman, Ali Swenson, Garance Burke, Rhonda Shafner · AP · Sep 5, 2024[/sup]
Quoting Sep 8, 2024
Russia focusing on American social media stars to covertly influence voters
[sup]— Christopher Bing, Katie Paul, Raphael Satter · Reuters · Sep 9, 2024[/sup]
Blinken accuses RT of being worldwide Kremlin intelligence network
[sup]— Andrew Roth · Guardian · Sep 13, 2024[/sup]
Quoting Sep 17, 2024
Altogether, some US commentators/voters are adding their efforts to efforts beyond their neighborhood against themselves, it works to some measurable extent. The resourcefulness and organization of the Kremlin's machinery remains impressive in this respect. The possibility of such influences is inherent in relatively open/free societies, while others just thoroughly outlaw them.
[quote=The Old Fat Fascist Clown's speech to MAGA suckers and losers]Vote for Trump – what do you have to lose?[/quote]
Roevember is coming! :victory: :lol:
Quoting 180 Proof
19Sept24 - $14.70 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) :up:
Oof. That’s less than the IPO. :rofl:
Donald Trump and other insiders can now sell shares of DJT, just as stock hits new low
He's peddling Crypto now. Act now! Don't wait! What do you have to lose? @180 Proof
I must admit to being rather miffed today. Things started off well. I was relaxing on my lawn in Philadelphia, watching the Dodgers game, sipping on a can of Butt lite, and stroking my tabby cat, as one does when one is a wholesome salt-of-the-earth American man like me, who is six feet tall with closely cropped hair, has a direct mode of speaking, and is a member of the “Teamsters” union. But and so anyhow suddenly I saw a HAITIAN approach my front yard and before I could initiate defensive maneuvers, the HAITIAN had reached over the fence, grabbed my cat, Tabitha, and put her in his mouth. By that time, I had my semi out, but the HAITIAN retreated up the road at max speed before I could get a head shot off, and had taken between his massive jaws the whole of Tabitha’s head and full half of her torso. It was unlikely that even my highly skilled veterinarian would be able to save what’s left. This is why I will vote Trump. It is because of the HAITIANs killing our pets through deployment of their unnaturally large oral cavities and super sharp pet-killing canines as well as skills of strategic retreat when under fire, all of which are, as is common knowledge, genetic traits of the HAITIANs. On the positive side, the Dodgers won the game and, because of the support of me and my fellow “Teamsters”, Donald J. Trump, Pet Saver and General Hero of the Working Class Universe, will win the election against Camel Harris (who is suspected of being half HAITIAN--though the genetic tests have yet to be carried out, I trust Trump will force that scientific experiment on her when he becomes President and reveal the truth). Thank you. Drink Butt lite.
Voiceover 1: Shaunie O’ Rourke here, head of the Teamsters Union. I approve this message.
Voiceover 2: Drink Butt lite.
What the fuck are you saying here, Jim?
We can still do smile but all elements of personality have been erased.
Since fucking when?
Hard to say. According to some engineers, there were at some point personality traces but no one gave a shit when she was VP. No one listens to the friggin’ VP, Marty.
Yeah right, but now…
But now some Americans want personality.
But she don’t got it.
Fucking Zip.
Just the smile then.
The smile and talking points.
Will it be enough? Are we worried here? Can we do anything?
We’ve got an engineer in giving her lessons, but it's... making it worse.
She’s trying…
Yeah, but it’s obvious she’s trying. Which is…
Even worse… right.
Replacement with avatar?
It’s being considered. Keep her inside. Do most of the shit online or TV. The networks will play ball. Avatar’s can do personality pretty good. But she can’t and it looks like she never will. And we gotta let her out sometimes.
Can you smile your way into the White House?
We’ll find out, Jim. We’ll find out…
I like it. But no scientific experiments needed; she’ll be sure to tell you all about it. But I am a little disappointed there is no accompanying Baden cartoon.
Unfortunately, comrade @Jamal would probably delete it. So, I am stuck with words for now. :sad:
Hello, yes, *ahem*, haha, welcome to my lecture. So, let’s get straight, um, to the point. Tonight we will examine the current U.S. presidential election from the general angle of plastic and fruit with specific reference to lego bricks and marmalade.
Let us begin by problematising the respective notions involved in terms of their likely referents. So, for example, despite being of a similar colour and luminosity to Donald Trump, I will contend that marmalade cannot be said to clearly distinguish him, nor can a lego brick, though being as equally dull, lifeless, and, in isolation, useless as Kamala Harris, clearly distinguish her.
The no doubt controversial truth of the matter is that the respective candidates inhere properties of both marmalade and lego bricks. For example, Trump is often considered “thick as a brick” and Kamala, slimy and bitter-sweet, such that they trespass on each other’s ostensible conceptual territories from the get-go. And this is just the beginning–as we delve further, the lego brick / marmalade dichotomy becomes blurred to the extent that through the mechanisms of Trump and Harris these ostensibly distinct concepts, I will argue, actually tend towards unification.
This is a startling and bizarre result, but one that I believe can lead to an understanding of the importance of political polarities in dissolving rather than exacerbating social antinomies. There is nothing less than the future of intra-social harmonic relations at stake here, and the good news is that the humble, discreet and not oft remarked upon aforementioned social atoms are the key to unlocking this heretofore obscured potentiality.
So, let us explicate in more detail the dissolution of apparent polarities by highlighting the intrusion of the obverse candidate along the following five physical and abstract axes considered to be the sole purvey of the opposition: Taste, texture, function, key political goals, and social class.
Taste: Marmalade=Bitter-Sweet: >> Kamalic intrusion (Kamala’s emotive orientation)
Texture: Lego Brick=Thick and Inflexible>> Trumpic intrusion (Trump’s intellectual limitations)
Function: Marmalade=To add a “smile” to toast and similar wheat based products >> Kamalic intrusion (Kamala’s debate habits)
Key political goals: Lego Brick =A part of a larger construction>>Trumpic Intrusion (Build the wall!)
Social Class: Marmalade =Middle class delicacy >> Kamalic intrusion (appeal to the middle class)
And etc.
What we see here is that through the employment of these candidates as a “conceptual lens”, the apparent differences between lego bricks and marmalade disappear. The two, in fact, turn out to be the same thing. What’s more, it can be shown that, as a matter of principle, any two opposing social atoms can be de-dichotomised through the employment of the Trump/Kamala political polarity deconstructive method.
This is revolutionary as it shows us how, far from destroying society, the extreme antagonisms of the current American political scene point a way towards the unification of all opposing linguistic concepts and thus of language itself, which amounts to a path towards the unification of spirit along Schopenhauerian lines and a utopic end to conflict and strife in a final nirvana of universal non-self that has been, up until now, undreamed of *ahem*.
Well, that’s it, really. I hope you enjoyed my talk *burp * *fart*.
Good night!
I think we will not find a more detailed analysis than yours, honestly. I always knew—and told myself talking to the pillow—that 'el trompas' and Kámala are the same thing, but I didn't want to share this thesis because I was hesitating on whether I dreamt it or not. It is clear that the compulsive hysteria of Trump and emotional fear of Kámala would join together and transform into a new subject. He, she, or 'it' will be the next President of the United States of America.
Is this the end of the US? Will people be able to register to go vote in time? What would happen if they did not mould together finally? There are a lot of answers that only time could answer. Just wait, sitting next to me, son, drinking coffee, and see what happens. People will embrace together, and poppies will flourish again. Time is a circle, not a scary line with no way of turning back.
The Lego brick will be moulded on the mermalade. Never a thick material was that manageable before. The best we could do? Stay away from both of them, rent a red Volkswagen van, and drive in the dawn until we meet the tan-coloured sun. Free as the wind. :sparkle:
Love it, lol. :heart:
(April 2024)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200
Quoting 180 Proof
Addendum:
Race to 270 electors via swing states*
Harris-Walz
• blue states 229 electors > needs 41
• wins: *AZ, MI, NC, PA, WI = 71 (44) electors :party:
Big Clown & Lil Clown
• red states 219 electors > needs 51
• (probably) wins: *GA, NV = 22 electors :cry:
I predict Harris-Walz will win the 2024 Presidential Election with at least 300 electors (Biden-Harris won 306 electors in 2020). I also guesstimate that Texas [40], Florida [30] & Ohio [17] are in play and any or all three might be flipped from Red to Blue and add 17 to 87 electors to the Harris-Walz victory: 317 to 387 electors. Yes, I'm predicting a Roevember blowout!
IMHO, that's a reasonable and low estimate, nowhere near a landside (like 486 electors for Johnson in 1964, 520 electors for Nixon in 1972 or 525 electors for Reagan in 1984).
So, living in a progressive town, I can't help wondering: how is it possible for these people to defend progressive taxation, all kinds of handouts to single moms, to never stop attaching "tax the rich" stickers on every car and window, and at the same time these (progressive) people will propose nothing about the mentally ill and the homeless who increase in numbers every single year?
Seeing how the homeless and the mentally ill are becoming more and more (making this town look like taken out from a zombie movie), I can't help thinking that the problem will not be taken seriously by the democrats for the simple reason that democrats cannot classify the mentally ill as a voting bloc. So, they are deaf to their plight for the reason that whether you help or you do not help a mentally ill person, he/she won't vote for you. In contrast, the democrats have an ear for struggling single moms and students burdened with stupid debts, because they see the latter as voting blocs.
The rate of homelessness in most places is significantly proportional to the cost of housing. Real estate markets are strongest in "blue" states because of the influx of capital that permits very high paying jobs. The curve is flatter where the wealth gap is not as exponential. That is one of the reasons why "red" states receive more from federal funding than they pay out in taxes. Nice work if you can get it.
The problem with mental health care is a part of the deconstruction of the hospitals and other state institutions that has been done under the idea that such work could be redirected to community level support. This process has been under way for decades. The fallout is perhaps now forcing itself into a wider public awareness. To be clear, this does not resolve into any particular political agenda. It is an intellectual failure of our society as a whole.
Quoting 180 Proof
23Sept24 - $12.15 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 18074.52) :up:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4897015-judge-rejects-trump-request/amp/ :smirk:
Happy 100th, President Carter! :party:
Tonight JD Vance will embarrass himself even more and Tim Walz will move the Harris-Walz ball closer to the end zone: "first and goal!" :point:
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
I am very frustrated with a democrat candidate who supports more local oil (Harris), and a vp who was an NRA supporter (Walz). I don't know why should I vote them.
I am just glad that Vance did not refuse global warming; he even blamed democrats for not having done enough with renewables :rofl:
I give Gov. Walz a solid B Grade. :up:
I give Sen. Vance a C-minus Grade.
Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool:
No he didn’t. He rambled a bunch of nonsense and then threw in a lie about nuclear. He also said “if you believe” emissions are causing climate change. An absolute joke.
The fact that you give him a pass while criticizing the Democratic ticket, and yet claim you care about climate change, shows how unserious you are — or how fake. The choice is clear for anyone truly concerned about that issue. Should take about 10 seconds.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yeah, nothing great. They were polite. Walz stumbled with the Hong Kong answer— Vance stumbled with January 6th and gave ridiculous answers on guns, Climate change, abortion, child care and healthcare. Should have been a slam dunk for Walz— too bad.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/us-news/doug-emhoff-accused-of-forcefully-slapping-nyc-girlfriend-for-flirting-with-other-man-at-ritzy-gala-in-2012-report/
This is the same guy who got his nanny pregnant, so it's hard to put it past him.
I wish they win, not because I have high hopes in them, but I do fear Trump may make things worse.
However, I think Democrats' strategy is not working. They are trying to be appealing to the majority (people who don't want the second amendment to change, people who don't want to make sacrifices for the environment, people who think USA should stand by the side of Israel, etc.), but in this way Democrats will lose the support of grassroots groups: those who want to end the war in Middle East right now (mostly American Muslims), those who take environment seriously, those who want stricter gun laws, etc.
I am afraid that in their attempt to sound moderate, Harris and Walz will lose support among some groups, and they will try to stick with an economic plan that does not sound popular to the majority (middle class) they are trying to appeal to in other ways.
So, I wish Democrats had taken the opposite route: they didn't stick with that "opportunity economy", and they were radical on things like gun control, environment, and ceasefire now.
November 5 will show whether I got everything wrong.
:mask: :up:
Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen!
By rumors on the street, guy slaps girlfriend in public (she slaps too, they say).
12 years later, it hits the news like a supposed :fire: bomb. :D
Might'a taken some efforts to dig that one up.
Gotta' wonder what happened in the 12 years after. Anything serious?
I think that’s a disaster too. But not surprising.
:lol: The Insurrectionist-Fascist Clown is shitting the bed (& his XXL man-baby diapers) ...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing-immunity/
>>> Roevember 34.
I thought we were supposed to care about such things. At least that’s what I was taught. I was supposed to feel outraged when Trump said “grab them by the pussy” decades ago. Are we finally past that?
Are you past that? Do you condone Trump's behavior in that regard?
Your brand of libertarian ethos does not engage with such questions on a personal level. Are you living the Trump life?
Do you include "grabbing by the pussy" in that category?
Insofar as it was ever taken up as a slogan, yes.
So, you add it to the ledger of your disaffection.
Trump said that while thinking he was alone with his interlocutor. It was never a slogan.
I was never stuck on it on the first place. In fact I thought it was hilarious. The only thing I do not condone was the gossip and ink shortage that resulted from it.
I don’t know if I condone getting drunk and slapping women. Not a good look.
Revealing comment.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, wtf are you talking about my dude. You 'don't know' if you condone this? What's hte hold up?
I was about to say the same thing...
You thought Trump "grabbing women by the pussy" was hilarious or that he said that or what? And what's hilarious about it?
I had no idea. I must be using the wrong locker rooms.
I’m not sure he grabbed women by the pussy. The phrase “You can do anything” only means “I did everything” in clown world. What was hilarious, however, was the speech, how it was used, and the reaction. Like I said: clown world.
But there is nothing funny about slapping a woman in a drunken rampage.
Thanks for clarifying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/02/us/fema-floods-north-carolina.html
fu45 :clap:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-job-growth-surges-september-unemployment-rate-falls-41-2024-10-04/
*
[quote=Cornel West, 2020]An anti-fascist vote is NOT an endorsement for the Democratic party.[/quote]
>>> Roevember 32
The Trump team plays both sides of that:
Trump FEMA Claim Debunked: Agency Not Running Out Of Money Because Of Migrants.
In the report:
Congress determines how much money goes to FEMA’s disaster fund, and the fund faces issues after lawmakers declined to allocate additional funding for FEMA’s efforts in the stopgap funding bill it passed last month, only extending FEMA’s existing funding level and allowing it to draw from $20 billion in funds more quickly.
It was the MAGA minions, of course, who pushed for that.
Some find the glorification of being able to use one's status as a means or excuse for committing sexual assault hilarious... evidently.
Quoting Paine
Yup. A concerted effort began in the early seventies to manufacture consent to eliminate social programs meant to help the less fortunate people in society, and lower taxes on the wealthiest.
It was tremendously successful and is still in effect. Hence, loads of Americans are still convinced to vote for people who vilify social welfare programs, public schools, publicly owned entities, organized labor, American manufacturing, self-sufficient practices, and the like. A commonly occurring theme is to treat the US government as though it is a privately own business. You hear people talk all the time about it. Hence, it was part of the groundwork laid for Trump. People believed a good businessman would be a good president by virtue of having the skills necessary. Well... it's a completely different skillset, for starters, nevermind the serious questioning regarding whether or not Trump id s good businessman. Plenty believed he was/is. The US government is not in the business of being profitable. Etc. All this amounts to a vote against what's in their own best interest.
Welcome to an America that once had the funds and infrastructure to take care of those incapable of taking care of themselves, of those who were mentally ill in ways that they needed caregivers... but stopped doing so and gave the resources back to the richest of Americans who could not care less about less fortunate people and mentally ill folk having no safety net. Let em loose. I don't live around em.
Looks like they were right. From what I can see the only people saving anyone is private, state, and local people. Remember Katrina?
Then it should be easy to show me a photo or video of FEMA doing something.
:up: :up:
I did. Very easy. It’s not looking good. It’s starting to look like Katrina. Remember that?
Your link failed.
It won't mean much to the Trump pooper scooper but here is an update:
FEMA deploys to rough terrain after Helene as it faces criticism, fights misinformation.
How do these problems fit into your libertarian vibe that nothing can be done by the state?
Nothing can be done by the state? What do you mean?
Your often repeated idea of the "state" is that it is a shared misconception rather that an existing thing. You are now asking that illusion to perform better.
FEMA is an illusion? Jesus christ.
That is not what I said. You have said the state is an illusion..
Any quote or context?
I could do that sort of thing, given what you have said in the past.
Your lack of interest in supporting any of that stuff for the sake of forcing me to repeat it is not the mark of a gentleman.
I don’t remember saying that and I think you’re imagining things. If I’m wrong I’d like to know what I said and in what context. Forgive me.
You have the same resources I have on the site. Use them if you are genuinely curious about past interchanges.
Apparently even Elon Musk is going to be there. So if they wanted to destroy two folk devils in one they might just try to do so.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/oct/05/us-politics-donald-trump-kamala-harris-joe-biden
[tweet]https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1627310164398276608[/tweet]
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Oct 2, 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/palestinian-us-friends-job-opportunities-humanity-gaza
The double standard involved with discussing cruelty is there. As a matter of public discourse, the language of complete vindication is different than what the U.S. should do as a polity.
Your choice to not choose between possible administrations ignores the extreme rhetoric from the Trump side that has been going on for years. As citizens, these differences appear in outcomes in our communities. Don't gnash your teeth in self-imposed silence.
Just being supportive to Palestinian-Americans (and human dignity in general) who aren't going to vote for Democrats this year.
I would love to vote the Green Party, but in NYS we have only two parties in the ballot and makes me wonder: why should it be this way?
Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly).
God, help us with these politicians! (Praying, I guess, is the only thing I can do now :confused: )
Yes.
If I had to go before a tribunal and defend my choice of voting for Harris, it would give me pause. But it isn’t that serious. People want to believe it’s their only political power— to fill in an oval every 4 years — and thus all the hand-wringing.
It’s overthinking it. Vote against Trump and keep at the local work — organizing, striking, protesting, lawsuits, unionizing, boycotting, etc. That’s it. Will a Trump or Harris administration make achieving goals easier or harder? I think the answer is clear.
The one area I understand feeling bad about: support for Israel’s genocide. Seems like Harris is all-in for Israel, just as Biden has been. True enough. It’s also true, however, that Trump is an even bigger supporter. So not only do we make it worse with him in office, we get all the other terrifying, horrible, shitty things along with it.
A vote against the worst candidate when there’s really just two options isn’t an endorsement of the less bad candidate, nor the two-party system. Sitting out or voting third party, particularly in a swing state, is helping to elect the worst candidate. This is true if you believe Harris is the worse candidate too.
Cool— so you’re irrelevant.
I'm irrelevant too because I don't get to vote. But I notice that Dump has become of late a magnet for flies - so he seems to report and comment on in his campaign speeches of late. I immediately thought of "The Lord of the Flies', or ...
Tell all your fundamentalist Christian friends not to vote for this antichrist. Signs and wonders, people!
Not to judge your voting intentions since I can sympathize with your frustration but it's not really a question whether Trump will be worse (he will), so you might as well be honest and own the decision.
:up:
You’re always relevant in this thread, at least.
Trump wins.
Which is unbelievable and sad, but so it goes. Looks like men aren’t ready for a woman president, yet again. But it’s more than that — it’s that she has no message.
She could have run with a strong and consistent message of taxing the rich to pay for popular programs. Instead she’s raced to the “middle,” on the advice of the most pathetic intellectual weaklings known to man, and desperately tried to appeal to conservative voters. She’s done so with climate change and fracking, on guns, and on war. She doesn’t answer questions directly. She regurgitates the same lines like “hopes, ambitions, and desires.” There’s barely been any policy proposals, and the ones that have been proposed are “eh.” They’ve once again left Bernie and progressives in the cold— and they’ll pay for it, especially among the Gaza crowds.
The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was. It’s a terrible strategy and a terrible candidate. They even defanged Tim Walz, who is now left with endlessly talking up school lunches — which is all the party allows him.
So the democrats put up another loser in the 4th quarter and will blow it try again against the worst candidate and former president in history. 4 more years of Trump’s climate denial and federal judges (given that republicans are going to win the senate), which will do generational damage, and the further destruction of institutions that do any good for regular people.
It feels like 2016 again: no real enthusiasm for the Democrat. There was none in 2020 either, but it was a pandemic and we were sick of Trump. That was motivation enough — plus Biden, a man, also hadn’t fully degenerated into the shell he is today, and still had a little Obama fairy dust on him from his years as VP. The electorate’s memory is also poor and rose-colored, and usually rebel against whoever is in office.
So despite what the polls, or Allan Lichtman, or Bill Maher, or Nate Silver or anyone else says, I think Trump will win at least one of the blue wall states — Michigan? — and that will be all he needs, as he will carry Georgia and North Carolina and Arizona.
Maybe some good comes out of it. Who knows. I hope I’m wrong — but I won’t be.
Ps. Sorry @180 Proof. I’ll put money on it.
That would be my analysis too. Very close but Kamala seems to be blowing it.
I think it was a mistake for Harris to keep the Biden people on her campaign team for this reason. These are the same idiots who thought it was a good idea to hide a candidate with a 35% approval rating and hope for the best when people vote. They're still acting like they're running with a guy who must be covered in bubble wrap until election day. Either because these people are that incompetent or they think that changing strategies with a new candidate is an implicit acknowledgement of their own failures is unclear but they're not changing their strategy and taking advantage of a more energetic candidate like they should be. Of course, the Republicans haven't really adapted to running against someone who isn't Biden either. They still believe for whatever reason that Harris cannot finish a sentence and that she needs notes or a teleprompter to say anything.
That being said this strategy isn't that really much different from Trump's to be honest (apart from arguably the laying low part). He's not doing as many events as he did in 2016 (though he is making up for it in other ways), he's trying to appeal to the middle with regards to abortion, his statements always lack any substance, he's doing uninspiring friendly interviews with right wing podcasters and Fox, and every time he speaks he has to talk about how bad the Democrats are.
Quoting Mikie
:ok: You stick with those MAGA-GOP talking points and I'll stick with my 22Sept24 prediction¹ that Harris-Walz will win the upcoming Roevember 5th presidential election. :victory: :party:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008 [1]
Quoting 180 Proof
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-trump-lichtman-election-prediction.html [2]
(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781991
(2023)
Quoting 180 Proof
I (technically) have won this bet but lost the other one that Diaper Don wouldn't be the GOP nominee. The latter, however, no doubt contributed to the former. :up:
===========
NB: Fwiw, since Labor Day I think it's reasonable to have read "mainstream" news media polls as follows –
Given that Diaper Don The Fascist Clown & his MAGA-GOP Circus Cult have pissed-off the majority of (likely) women voters so much since 2018 (then doubled down on the blatant misogyny in 2022 and again this year), I guesstimate (not counting Dems campaigns' huge money & get-out-the-vote ground game advantages) woman voters' preference for Harris-Walz & Dems is undercounted by 2% and The Clown is thereby generally overcounted by 5% in "national polls" and overcounted by 2% in swing state polls, and so I read them accordingly [adjusted]; for example:
swing states [T -2%]
Forbes 11Oct24 (latest, best #s for T)
AZ - T 51% [49] v H 46%
[b]GA - T 49% [47] v H 48%
MI - T 45% [43] v H 47%
NC - T 46% [44] v H 45%
NV - T 47% [46] v H 48%
PA - T 46% [44] v H 45%[/b]
WI - T 48% [46] v H 46%
Electors - T216 + 21 (max) v H229 + 72 (min) :cool:
&
national [T -5%, H +2%]
FiveThirtyEight 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)
T 46% [41] v H 48.5% [50.5]
NYTimes 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)
T 46% [41] v H 49% [51]
The Economist 12Oct24 national polls (avg.)
T 46.4% [41.4] v H 50.2% [52.2]
Fox Noise 12Oct24 national polls (?)
T 48% [43] v H 50% [52]
===========
To date all (quality) polling trends favor Harris-Walz +270 Electoral College victory. Hyping election anxiety is great for motivating Democratic, Independent & GOP/suburban white women voter turnout / particpation. :strong: :mask:
>>> Roevember 24
That is called wishful thinking, not analysis. If you bet money on it, you'll lose big. But let's take a different tack. If 538 overestimates Trump by 5% (or more) and underestimates Harris by 2% (or more) in their last national poll before the election, I will post a picture of myself here on this thread naked apart from a diaper with a crybaby face and sucking on a pacifier. Why? Because I believe in science and not making stuff up to make myself feel better. So, what are you going to do if/when you turn out to be wrong and the national polls turn out, let's say, to be within 1% either way of being right? Show me you actually believe what you're saying...
I'm just sayin' I'll do that if you're right about the national polls; what'll you do if I'm right that you're completely wrong?
I'll live in the US struggling against a neofascist regime while you and the rest of the world will be wagging your fingers and saying "I told you so." :mask:
In 2020 Biden-Harris won the national / popular vote by 51.3% (or margin of +4.5%) against an incumbent POTUS who actively compromised the election system. 306 electors vs 232 electors (by flipping two Republican states and winning the very same three states lost by a combined 0.7% due to HRC's arrogant neglect in 2016)! My ELECTORAL COLLEGE prediction (and reasoning for it) does not deviate significantly from the 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022 trend. If I was merely "wishful thinking", mate, I wouldn't rely on center-right to right wing news media polling (and the best stats for T therein).
But hey you go right on bloviating from the cheap seats, my friend; I'm looking forward to that photo (the more lurid the better). :smirk:
I'm not doing anything other than calling you out for making a ridiculous unsupported prediction. And putting my pacifier where my mouth is. :wink:
We shall see soon enough.
There are too many variables for there to be a scientific determination based on the polls of the outcome of the election.
Rather than bet, I'll hold on to my money. I might need it.
I don't know who'll win. The polls could change. Trump might do or say something disastrous. But the chances of 538 being off by that margin by polling day are small enough to stick to my commitment.
It does not seem as though there is anything he might say or do that would significantly change the polls. It is not as if, even with the evidence, Trump supporters, backed by his propaganda machine, will believe it or not discount it because they think other things are more important.
According to FiveThirtyEight
You’re right. It isn’t fair, really, but because he’s been a lying degenerate clown for so long, any bullshit he spews is shrugged off.
Quoting 180 Proof
Well there’s no need to get nasty. :gasp:
Quoting 180 Proof
Yeah, you did. I was as shocked as anyone. What did we end up betting? $10 to charity of choice? Let me know and I’ll pay up. I’d forgotten about that.
Needless to say, I hope you’re right here too.
Anyway — he’s within the margin of error in swing states and is down with black men by a lot compared to 2020. Women could save the day if they come out strong — but will they? Will it be enough? I have doubts.
National Security Leaders for America Endorses Kamala Harris for President of the United States (Sep 22, 2024)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1845993766441644386?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1846228061173256714[/tweet]
As others might fathom, this is going to be an Obama 2.0 president.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/02Oct2024-toplines
Likely Voters in 7 swing states (Oct 2024):
"H 49% v T 48%"
If T overcount (re: women) 2%, then
H 49% v T 46% :victory: :mask:
"Wishful thinking?" TBD.
>>> Roevember 21
What does this mean?
21 days until Roevember election day (i.e. the Harris-Walz blowout).
:up:
I don't get what you mean by 'Roevember' instead of November. I understand the quid has to do with Roe, but I have no idea what you mean, honestly. :sweat:
Edit: Take for instance Brett's story about the "Devil's Triangle". That's apparently a game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.
It's also commonly known as a threesome involving two men and one woman.
Ah, as Macron said to Trump and Melania: ménage à trois.
It's Scooby Doo saying "November".
What I was saying earlier.
When Trump wins they have no one to blame but themselves.
Trending ...
:victory: :mask:
I wonder if Diaper Don The Fascist Clown will watch the FOX Noise interview with VPOTUS tonight? :smirk:
>>> Roevember 20
@Wayfarer @Fooloso4 @Benkei @jorndoe
Baier's need to control the message is the message.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/940299
part 2:
>>> Roevember 19
@Baden @Mikie @Wayfarer
:rofl: :lol: :rofl:
There's a buck or two to be made selling Dem Kool Aid, apparently.
The race is a toss up as it stands. A "blue tsunami" would require a major shift. Which is possible, but it would have to be very big news.
Oh, the suspense is palpable.
What "suspense"? "Muppet B" is crashing and burning today even worse than he did from early voting in 2020. :victory: :mask:
https://www.wsj.com/finance/betting-election-pro-trump-ad74aa71?mod=mhp
Article is behind a paywall. It's 40/60 on Polymarket. I'd say bet Kamala but US citizens aren't allowed to use the site.
I don't see how Polymarket is anything but a betting market for bettors looking to earn a buck.
That’s really all it is. I don’t see how they have any special insight otherwise.
We don't need polymarket as a primary source anyway. It just reflects the polls. When Kamala was about 3% ahead nationally, polymarket read 50/50. She is now about 2% ahead, so it reads 60/40 Trump. She probably needs to be more than 3% ahead nationally to win, considering the Republican advantage in the electoral college set up (e.g. HRC won by over 2% and lost). People betting large amounts most likely know that, so more of them are likely to be betting Trump. 60/40 is still a toss up. But leans Trump. That`s also your most recent evaluation. It's not rocket science.
Maybe the polymarket crowd slightly over fancies Trump, but it's in broad agreement with what the polls suggest and has been all along. And maybe people are confused because a small movement in the polls causes a larger movement in the betting markets. Those literate in basic mathematics should understand why that is and don't need polymarket to tell them what aggregate polls are already saying.
Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people. Hence the article I posted. 60/40 is a lot by this election’s standards.
Whether Harris needs 3% to win is disputable now, given inroads Trump has made in Florida, New York, and California. Nate Cohn has written about this well. His electoral edge is probably slipping.
Yeah I still think he’s going to win, but it’s because Harris is a dud. Not because of the polls.
No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now. Maybe polymarket very slightly overestimates relative to the average but it's hardly detectable. The "four people controlling this" story is kind of a silly distraction. The betting odds are increasingly favouring Trump because Kamala is sinking in the polls and the polls are the most reliable means of figuring out odds.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/18/betting-markets-presidential-election-odds-trump-harris/
Of course, if the polls are wrong, the betting odds will be even more wrong, like they were in 2016. But then it was state level polls that were mostly out. The last aggregate national poll on 538 was right within the margin of error.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cbp/status/1847027336324985169?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Something, I guess, we can all agree on.
Seems others have followed suit.
Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. If they were truly following the polls, unless they have some secret knowledge, there’s little reason to put the chances at 60%. True, they could be imbeciles— but I think the WSJ’s argument is convincing. Even though I think he’ll win, I wouldn’t bet on it— and certainly not give it those odds.
I think you're not taking into account how both sides feel after 2016 and 2020. Even in an objectively toss-up race the left, after having been burned by the polling errors in the previous elections, are way more likely to be pessimistic and believe that there is some unknown factor in Trump's favor this time. Hell that is the sense I get from reading your earlier prediction. Even in 2020 as the polls were showing Biden solidly ahead they always had most people expecting that Trump will win anyways. Unless Harris is up by double digits at this point I'm not surprised that the markets will go in that direction.
:up:
I voted today against fascism! :victory: :mask:
>>> Roevember 17
:up:
I voted three days ago against fascism.
That’s two more says earlier than you, so…
I've been wondering what Musk is up to, and this analysis makes perfect sense. Considering what an utter tool Musk is, despite his unarguable engineering and business genius, it is something to be very, very scared of.
Yes. He comes across as a fuckwitt with some of the things he says, but if you just look at how it's all functioning, it makes sense.
re: Diaper Don The Fascist Clown (a convicted felon as well as an adjudicated rapist & fraudster, who 'self-described racists' believe is also a racist, and who everyday wears more make-up than a drag queen) – another character reference from a former senior Republican:
[quote=John Kelly, retired 4-Star General USMC and former Trump WH Chief of Staff][i]Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy. So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.
Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.[/i][/quote]
>>> Roevember 13
John Mearsheimer: “My guess is Harris wins popular vote but Trump eeks out a victory in the seven swing states.”
Guess I’m not so crazy after all :rofl:
What I find weird is that looking from the outside, Harris seems to be doing well while Trump seems to get less coherent every day, while waxing poetically about nazi generals and using the military against the enemy within.
Yet the voters don't seem to care. It's confusing, and that means some part of my model of the world is faulty.
Is all of this not about Trump after all? Everyone talks about the cultishness but maybe that's just a front that hides the real desire to just burn it all down.
It’s close because of the electoral college, which is a stupid and anti-democratic system, as the US constitution itself is mostly anti-democratic.
But the other reason it’s so close, in my view, is that a good portion of the electorate’s lives are crappy, which makes them angry — and they look for reasons and someone to blame. They want explanations and to make sense of the world, as we all do. The media fill that role now, where family friends and religion once did, and cater messages to these people, depending on where they live and what their interests are and how they get their information (radio? TV? Newspaper?).
So there’s huge gaps between women and men, rural and urban people, college educated vs not, etc. The left demonizes Trump (although they have a much better case for doing so), and the right demonizes “liberals” (and do it much more effectively). Both are devils to the other side.
Since the advent of social media, distrust in literally everything and anything that doesn’t conform with what your preferred information pipeline is telling you has become rampant. Thus Trump can say almost anything — even trying to overturn an election and saying he won even when he lost — and many millions will go along with it, or shrug it off.
If CNN says he’s a threat to democracy or whatever, or if there’s reports about some crazy thing he said, it’ll be ignored— because those sources have been undermined and discredited in their minds (“fake news,” “witch hunt,” etc), mostly by Trump himself.
If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that.
I mean they saved a bunch of the Teamster's pensions and yet alot of their members would still vote for the billionaire who's last administration has been terrible for labor. In fact I imagine alot of them would somehow believe Bernie is terrible for labor too while praising Musk as a hero for the working class. For sure Democrats often take their voters for granted and rarely deliver on their promises, but there are moments where I just feel like none of that really matters anymore and we've all just gone insane. For sure it mattered in 2016 when Trump ran on a populist message and won, but he's not even doing that anymore and that doesn't seem to have changed a thing.
:halo:
Not crazy, just cynically mistaken. The 2024 US election is about (1) whether or not this should be the last US election and (2) whether or not women in the US should have the inallienable right of bodily autonomy (i.e. unrestricted access to reproductive healthcare); this election is not principally about mere policy preferences (re: taxes, immigration, foreign policy, military spending, climate change, etc). As a Bernie Bro since the '90s, I ask you, Mikie: Why else would both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Liz Cheney, both Bernie Sanders & Dick Cheney endorse Harris-Walz?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/941886
:victory:
>>> Roevember 12
I think Cheney’s endorsement is revenge for being attacked and thrown out of office, which in turn was done because she’s as establishment as they come and thus one of the few who voted impeachment. Why? Because prior to this Trump attacked Bush and Cheney— why? Because Jeb Bush ran against him and never made nice afterwards. Etc. It’s like asking why Megan McCain is against Trump. There’s personal reasons. This praise for Cheney is ridiculous. Fuck the Cheneys.
Abortion and democracy may be what motivates people to get out and vote— but you don’t really know that, nor do I.
But as always, I hope you’re right about this.
You've not been paying attention, bro. I know: 2017*, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023* ... :victory: :mask:
*special elections, referenda lost by MAGA-GOP, etc
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/940625
Accused Iranian hackers successfully peddle stolen Trump emails
:lol:
Yeah, Trump will probably win. :meh:
Hopefully I'm wrong.
And it's likely going to be worse than last time, because now he can demand to be surrounded by yes-men. Not like he will take a lot of generals into his cabinet, which naturally don't veer off from US policy where it has been on since WW2. He'll bring on people that he took on the last years of his prior administration.
Lame duck president for four years?
Also, a Trump victory may expedite European populism so we can get rid of our tragically incompetent and corrupt political establishment.
And since many in Europe hate Trump, a Trump-led America is likely going to motivate Europeans to start using their own brains again (assuming those haven't completely atrophied by now...).
If he actually manages to end the war in Ukraine that'd be a bonus.
:mask: :up:
>>> Roevember 9
I believe that too. In Europe people should understand that it is matter of time till they get divorce from the US. Trumpists are isolationists, but a diverse (democrat led) America will also lose its interest in Europe and Middle East. If that won't happen, then it will not be normal & democratic at all.
Harris-Walz needs 41 electors (in addition to the 229 electors from the solidly "Blue" states the campaign begins with) to reach 270 electors and win the presidency. I'll be watching the following states for results on 5Nov24 (by 3am EST 6Nov24):
[b]Georgia [16]
North Carolina [16][/b]
Florida [30]
Ohio [17]
Texas [40]
& on 6Nov24 (by 10pm EST):
[b]Michigan [15]
Wisconsin [10][/b]
I expect Harris-Walz to win the bolded states for 57 electors by Wednesday night and that can mathematically decide the eleclion.
If a majority of people in the states named above vote their interests rather than their fictions, next week will culminate in a Harris-Walz blowout.
If any or all of the other states above flip from "Red" to "Blue", the election could be a landslide.
>>> Roevember 8 :up:
The worst thing for him is to pull out the rug from the Ukrainians and weaken NATO while getting more entangled in the Gaza genocide and with the war with Iran in the Middle East. And yes, he can do both, even if it's not the likeliest outcome.
Let's remember that he has done already a huge Dolchstoss to one allied nation, that collapsed immediately and he did it without even negotiating with his allies. I bet that Kim il Sung would have immediately jumped to a peace offer during the Korean war if Trump would have been there to give a surrender paper like he gave to the Taliban. Yeah, I bet that Kim Il Sung would have promised not to attack mainland US and then squashed with Chinese support the back stabbed South Koreans. Then no Korean electronics or K-pop, just larger famines in the Korean peninsula.
But naturally nobody talks about Afghanistan, the longest war the US fought, because both parties have played a role in that disaster.
That June, after the way the DNC & Obama had systematically undermined Bernie Sanders in the primaries, I had predicted that the only way HRC could lose such a "rigged campaign" was to suppress – demoralize – her own voters by being the shitty candidate that she was. Well, she did just that – 20% fewer Dems showed up to vote for her than in 2012 for Obama – by not campaigning that Fall in the three Midwestern swing states – won in both 2008 & 2012 by Obama – which decided the election by .07% ... The polls weren't "wrong": the candidate favored to win had arrogantly thrown the fucking election (NB: "Russian interference", "Jim Comey reopening investigation of the email scandal", "misogynistic Bernie Bros" & "fucking Jill Stein") had nothing to do with it).
Notice how Biden in 2020 and Harris this year have focussed like a laser beam on midwestern swing states. Also, The Clown himself and candidates he's endorsed have lost general elections (2020), special elections (2017, 2019, 2021, 2023) & midterm elections (2018, 2022) – MAGA is a ethnonationalist populist cult of 30-40% of the electorate and The Clown has been hemorrhaging pro-business GOP & suburban college educated white women since 2021 which made up 5-7% more (transactional) support in 2016 & 2020 (c47% each election). I'll be very surprised if The Clown gets more than 42% of voters this time.
What's weakening NATO is the fact that we're trying to drag Ukraine in even though it would lead to endless conflict with the Russians, undermining the security of everyone involved.
The only ones who would be weakened are the clowns who got us into this mess in the first place - good riddance I say to that.
And yea, Ukraine is hardly the first disaster Washington has created, but that's their problem.
Agreed. There is a strong conservative interest in those groups who vote for their perceived interests even if it aligns them with people they otherwise do not like. They can tear down a tent as quickly make one.
Unfortunately, most Americans regard everything about Hispanic countries as 'trash' or 'poor.'
Now it makes sense. I now understand why some representatives of Puerto Rico submitted a petition to the Congress of Spain requesting the chance of being part of the kingdom again. I can't see it possible, honestly. But Puerto Rico —and Cuba— should never have separated from Spain. We feel like they are naturally part of us, and we have huge connections with them culturally. I don't understand why in the 1898 war Washington attacked us with the aim of freeing them if they will be treated that badly by the same country in the future.
They can't vote in general estados unidos elections, but they could when they were part of Spain. Benito Pérez Galdós —who closely won the Nobel Prize of Literature— was a congressman elected by puertorriqueños. It was a hoax the 1898 war.
Maybe, but they don't call him "Teflon Don" for no reason.
Some of Trump's supporters agree with the sentiment that Puerto Rico is garbage (they were the one's fired up by Trump's assertions that immigrants are "poisoning our blood"). This fires them up. These are the "deplorables" that Hillary correctly mentioned (although her math was wrong; it's probably less than half). Others will simply point to the fact that it wasn't Trump himself who made the "garbage" statement, and his campaign disavowed it. But maybe it will turn off some who are on the fence. We'll know next week.
Quoting javi2541997
Puerto Ricans who have moved to one of the fifty states can vote. 8% of the population of Pennsylvania is Puerto Rican. Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Harris, so maybe this will help.
Just wanted to acknowledge the congressional element of your observation. A group who has voted reliably is suddenly in play.
¡Se acerca el 5 de Roeviembre! :victory: :flower:
Really??? :yikes:
Oh I get. Just like Trump threatening to take out the US ground forces out of Europe would strengthen NATO...because European countries should then really commit to their defense. Or something like delusional like that.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is really crazy, really. Somehow you seem not to understand that it's an European objective to not let Russia defeat and conquer Ukraine (or take the parts it wants and put a "denazified" puppet regime in the carcass state that is left). How cannot you fathom this? NATO members simply would be worse of if Russia wins the war. The Baltic States would be worse. Finland and Sweden would be worse off. Something as totally evident like this comes somehow to be blurred in this anti-Americanism. Or Trumpism, for that matter. That Trump gave Afghanistan on a platter to the Taleban seems not to matter at all.
Russia wants to destroy the link between the US and Europe. Russia is against the European Union. Somehow you don't see this reality.
This is really the deafeatism that causes the West to lose it wars and emboldens Russia to annex territories from it's neighbors (which apparently you don't care about). The selectivity of anti-Americans is just incredible: somehow they can be against Israel's actions, but when it comes to Russia doing similar annexations it's OK, reasonable, realpolitik... and it's basically the fault of the US. Countries simply can do some things right and some things wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
And this is the cause of this delusional thinking. The sheer hubris to think everything evolves around the US and that everything happening in the World because of the West is the real problem here. This creates the World where the West loses. Because for you the US is the reason for all the troubles in the World. And other countries don't matter... especially if they agree on something with the US.
What United States has done has also actually has helped. I would prefer a South Korea to exist rather have it to be a part of North Korea. Yes, I'm fully aware that South Korea wasn't a democracy until the late 1980's, but it's still totally something else than North Korea. Something else that should be helped to survive if attacked. In the same fashion was the correct thing for the US to oppose such thing as Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe. And Ukrainians have the right to their country, it's not an artificial country that ought to be part of Russia and isn't ruled by nazis. Supporting their struggle is the correct thing.
Yet somehow being critical at US foreign policy becomes this incoherent crazy anti-americanism where the perpetrators and aggressors like Russia become victims of evil US. Poor, poor Russia.
Of course this is the election thread and even if this is an important factor in US foreign policy, it isn't important to the Americans who vote.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1851928782896009450?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
It's obvious that the US/NATO insistence on a military rather than a diplomatic solution is a guarantee for Ukraine's eventual collapse.
So either US/NATO decisionmakers are utterly incompetent, or they are pursuing a completely different agenda that has nothing to do with the survival and well-being of Ukraine.