Count Timothy von IcarusNovember 01, 2024 at 01:52#9434770 likes
Trump is up 65% to 35% in the betting markets (which have a solid track record) and ahead in swing state polling. If he outperforms his polling like he did in the last elections he will win all the swing states and it's even conceivable he could win the popular vote (hell, it's within the margin of error for some polls).
Of course, the absolute funniest situation is one where Trump wins the popular vote and loses the Electoral College, since the cognitive dissonance will be overwhelming.
But maybe he won't outperform his polls the same way. I sometimes wonder if there is a "punishment effect" in polls where supporters of a candidate they are unhappy with lie about who they support as consequence free way to voice dissent. This seems at least plausible to me because primary voters are vocal about doing this, and they sometimes do it in large numbers (e.g. over the Gaza War this cycle). So perhaps Harris can make it a short night. I sort of doubt it though.
Trump is up 65% to 35% in the betting markets (which have a solid track record) and ahead in swing state polling. If he outperforms his polling like he did in the last elections he will win all the swing states and it's even conceivable he could win the popular vote (hell, it's within the margin of error for some polls).
:rofl:
Consider this recent article on how easily "betting markets" are manipulated ...
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/dont-trust-the-political-prediction-markets
It's obvious that the US/NATO insistence on a military rather than a diplomatic solution is a guarantee for Ukraine's eventual collapse.
Lol.
As if there would be a "diplomatic solution" for the artificial state that ought to be part of Russia (or at least parts that are Novorossiya) and is ruled by nazis.
But coming back to the thread.
European green parties are demanding that Jill Stein would not run, because it favors Trump.
First, it's none of their business and second, this is the utter stupidity that continues the stranglehold of the two dominant parties in US politics (which is one cause of the stagnation and corruption).
Also shows just how much "comradeship" there's in the green ideology.
Trump capitalizes on Biden calling his supporters garbage.
Lol, Biden just showed again why the Democrats sidelined him (or the people who sponsor the party). Yet how could he remember the classic gaffe made by Hillary Clinton?
As if there would be a "diplomatic solution" for the artificial state that ought to be part of Russia (or at least parts that are Novorossiya) and is ruled by nazis.
In March/April 2022 there was a basis for peace, agreed upon and signed by the Ukrainian delegation. The West blocked it.
In other words, the West is the pink elephant in the room that does not want peace. It's obvious once you simply look at their actions rather than their words.
In March/April 2022 there was a basis for peace, agreed upon and signed by the Ukrainian delegation. The West blocked it.
Where are you getting this? I've read this and it says:
At the time, little about these peace negotiations was known, and what has leaked out in the two years since has been shoehorned into wartime talking points by each side. Mr. Putin contends the West pressured Ukraine to reject a peace deal; Ukraine's Foreign Ministry says that “if Russia wanted peace in 2022, why had it attacked Ukraine in the first place?”
...
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
...
Mr. Putin in recent months stepped up efforts to stoke Western divisions by portraying peace as having been within reach in 2022 — and saying he was prepared to restart those talks. Ukraine’s leaders have dismissed Mr. Putin’s statements on the subject as deception.
“Putin is a habitual liar, and his recent rants are no exception,” Ukraine’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
This suggests that "the West blocked it" is just Putin's propaganda.
It looks like the Whitehouse may have violated the law in order to save face.
White House altered record of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns
WASHINGTON (AP) — White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two U.S. government officials and an internal email obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
Trying to rewrite history and dupe posterity is the end result of their brand of political correctness, so it is no surprise.
The cognitive dissonance is going to be so extreme when [s]Trump wins[/s]. Even for the government itself.
Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night). :wink:
Reply to Michael You can find first-hand accounts by a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Istanbul negotiations online. They gave an interview and confirmed that it was the West who blocked the deal.
This was already reported on earlier by Israeli mediator Naftali Bennett, but the Ukrainian diplomat confirmed it.
Former Israeli prime minister rebuts claim, boosted by Russia, that the US blocked a Ukraine peace agreement: 'It's unsure there was any deal to be made'
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett discussed his efforts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.
Pro-Russia commentators have focused on his saying that a peace deal was "blocked" by the West.
But Bennett has clarified that no such deal existed — and said talks broke down because of apparent Russian war crimes.
...
The next exchange is what went viral. The interview, conducted in Hebrew, includes English subtitles on YouTube. According to that translation, the interviewer asked Bennett: "So they blocked it?"
"Basically, yes, they blocked [it] and I thought they were wrong," Bennett responded.
The English subtitles are flawed, however. In the exchange, Bennett and the interviewer do not use the word "blocked" but rather "stopped," referring to ongoing peace talks, not an agreement.
"I can't say if they were wrong," Bennett added.
...
In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.
Count Timothy von IcarusNovember 01, 2024 at 22:10#9436940 likes
I wish I had your confidence. I've been stuck waiting with time to kill all day and been feeling an increasing sense of doom looking at the analysis. Nate Silver's op-ed in particular.
Bizarrely, polling suggests Democrats will do better where they need to do good to win if turnout is low.
Some love being lied to, for whatever reason. Those who tasked themselves with informing Americans are pretending Trump said Cheney should be in front of a firing squad.
Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents
Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night).
Why would there be a freakout? Almost everyone here and elsewhere has said the race is at best about 60/40 in favour of Trump. A 40% probability coming true isn't going to cause anyone to freak out or even bat an eyelid.
There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote by nine points or so and a blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide victory is correct. That's not going to happen though.
My analysis FWIW is that Harris (now) will probably carry Pennsylvania and the election will come down to Michigan and Wisconsin which are toss ups (I expect Trump to take Arizona, Georgia and NC). If Harris loses either MI or WI, I think Trump wins. But Trump can afford to lose one of either and still win, giving him some advantage (as things stand).
It will be close with Harris carrying the popular vote by between 1 and 2.5 %. Trump will get at least 46%. @180 Proof's prediction of Trump at about 42% is way off in my view. Not long to go and things could still change, but it will take something dramatic to reset the race now.
Reply to ssu :up: An odd kind of blindness or tunnel vision or something
The Ukrainian situation might have started in some (out of sight) way between 1991 and 2009.
Certain people wouldn't accept a wholly independent Ukraine. That independence itself meant that Crimea wasn't for the Kremlin to control, and their empowering influence over Ukraine would diminish. Loss. "Must regain."
The sentiment might be older, but sometime after the cold war it apparently came into focus, became important to a number of (let's say) "concerned citizens", important enough to solidify the collision course of which we're seeing the results.
Operatives deployed, people friendly/susceptible to "the cause" rallied + more hired, "little green men" sent, Ukrainian "red lines" crossed, takeover, invasion, bombing, grab, all the while utilizing that suppress-rinse-revise machine (including domestically). Hostilities (+ elsewhere).
As far as I can tell anyway, the "root cause" was that seemingly inevitable collision set in motion by a number of "entitled", influential people asserting ownership, and rejecting a friendlier course, or democratic course for that matter. The Ukrainians (and most of the world) said "No".
Might be worth noting that the Kremlin's course of action hasn't resolved (maybe can't resolve) their supposed fear of NATO. To keep NATO at bay, are they going to make Donbas a minefield with anti-missile installations or something?
[sup]? there's plenty more evidence to this story (which is what it is) — coherent, plausible, straightforward enough[/sup]
Bennett's comments were obviously highly controversial, which is probably why he was pressured to backtrack on them.
However, Ukrainian diplomat Alexander Chaly who was part of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul gave a first-hand account that confirmed Bennett's initial statements.
However, Ukrainian diplomat Alexander Chaly who was part of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul gave a first-hand account that confirmed Bennett's initial statements.
All I can find about him is this:
ALEXANDER CHALY: We negotiate with Russian delegation practically two months, in March and April the possible peaceful settlement agreement ... between Ukraine and Russia. And we, as you remember, concluded so called Istanbul communique. And we were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement. For some reasons it was postponed.
He doesn't seem to know what happened. But the above is consistent with what I posted earlier:
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
Reply to Michael The point of contention was whether a diplomatic solution was possible with the Russians.
Answer: yes, it was possible, and this is confirmed to us first-hand by a Ukrainian account no less.
It is clear as day.
If you want to believe my views, based on neutral, Western and Ukrainian sources are a product of propaganda, I think that says more about your own biases than mine.
That “diplomatic solution” was giving in to absurd Russian demands.
All you really seem to be saying is that surrender is possible. And yes, it is, but Ukraine shouldn’t surrender. They’ve been unjustly invaded by a foreign nation. The best “diplomatic solution” is Russia fucking off and paying reparations.
Reply to Michael Nonsense. If that had been the case, I'm sure the initial accounts would have mentioned it. None of them do.
Instead, they mention a certain British clown traveling to Kiev, after which the negotiations are mysteriously aborted even though all signs were that an agreement was close.
There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote [s]by nine points or so[/s] and a [s]blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide[/s] [blowout] victory is correct. That's not going to happen though.
Either Trump or Harris could easily win 300 plus electors. Every single swing state is within the margin of error. I will only strongly disagree that Texas, Florida and Ohio are in play.
And I'l stick to my prediction that Harris will lose unless she wins MI and WI, though I think she'll win Pennsylvania.
Anyhow, we are---thankfully---running out of time to argue about it.
Consider this recent article on how easily "betting markets" are manipulated ...
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/dont-trust-the-political-prediction-markets
It reminds me of that time in High School when I was an unwarned participant of a game of chicken on a street out West as a passenger in a rusty Impala...
Reply to 180 Proof
What I liked about Selzer is that she refused to speculate how her method would work in other States. Her groove was "try it and see what you find."
The signs look good, and I think Trump will lose, but he should be losing women by 90 points. I don't understand women who would vote for him. Is it brainwashing?
Well. I am cautiously optimistic. But you can never tell. Hopefully we will be able to see what the heck most pollsters got wrong in assumptions, IF they were wrong, which seems likely given so many .2, .4 and 1% margins.
We will see on Tuesday. But, you made it alive out of that chicken game :)
I love that Trump is having conniptions because A POLL puts him behind in Iowa. One poll. Sure, an influential and well-regarded poll, but all his staffers are running around trying to appease the Emperor and putting out press releases that that pollster is wrong. Imagine the scene if he ACTUALLY loses (as I hope and believe.) There’ll be more than ketchup on the walls. Imagine the staff. (“I wouldn’t change places with Ed Exley now for all the whisky in Ireland” ~ LA Confidential.)
This suggests that "the West blocked it" is just Putin's propaganda.
Yet many here enthusiastically and repeatedly promote these falsehoods. And notably simply disregard every other aspect, like the russification and things like Putin declaring more Oblasts to be part of Russia, not just the now occupied territories. Yet but selectively picking your narrative one can say nearly anything.
The Ukrainian situation might have started in some (out of sight) way between 1991 and 2009.
It surely started then. We just didn't notice as first the restoration/reconquest of the Empire wasn't so evident, even if many especially in the Baltics and in Eastern Europe warned about this. Perhaps we thought that Russia could move on like Great Britain or Austria once the empire collapsed.
Certain people wouldn't accept a wholly independent Ukraine. That independence itself meant that Crimea wasn't for the Kremlin to control, and their empowering influence over Ukraine would diminish. Loss. "Must regain."
At first, this was rather delusional and talk that fringe politicians could say. Until it wasn't anymore.
But of course, this is for another thread.
Yet the obvious issue here is to understand that the objective of Russia is the reconquest of lost territories and to break the link of Atlanticism between the US and Europe. Russia's hostility towards the EU is logical consequence of this. The more broken and disunified Europe is, the more influence Russia has here. This is a far more hostile attack towards the US and the EU than China has ever done (at least after the involvement in the Korean War). How this isn't seen as overtly hostile and people have these delusional hallucinations of Russia and the US getting together against China is incredible. Russia's hostile policies are clear and have been long term. And similarly Trump's idea that he can end this war immediately is silly campaign talk just for on niche of voters.
That North Korean troops are now at the Ukrainian front is extremely telling just where things are going.
I don't understand women who would vote for him. Is it brainwashing?
Echo chambers, conspiracy narratives, christian evangelism, low education and so on.
The general human condition is that we are always prone to bias and avoid complex thought. It takes effort to stay educated and informed, to think and be vigilant.
Everyone is like this, which means that the general public are inclined to follow the herd, follow what emotionally feels right, and with the right narrative, truth and reality does not matter. It is relative.
To generalize... everyone is basically stupid and populists and demagogues take advantage of this by both constructing false narratives, appeal to emotion and flood elections with so much conflicting information that truth doesn't matter anymore.
It's why it's impossible to use rational arguments with these people. Within these groups, truth has eroded so much and been replaced by emotional chanting that it basically is a fundamentalist religion. If you listen to his crowds, they're chanting as a cult. Meaning, they don't even seem to understand what they're chanting, what the implications are of the words they say. They blindly follow him.
It's the same mechanics that transformed morally good people in Germany to follow Hitler into death.
And with online social media, the speed at which this stupidity spreads, there's no wonder we've seen an uprising of this type of mindless cult behavior in many countries around the world.
If you are a person with power and you reach out your hand to stupid people and tell them that they are the best people in the world, you're giving them dreams and hopes they have never felt. They don't understand world politics, they don't understand economics or the justice system, they are fundamentally lost in their existential struggles and then this powerful figure, who's name is on many things in society, who's up there at the top, but behaves just like them, reaches out a hand... it's like a divine experience to them.
It's the SAME mechanisms as cults. Someone with power who "sees you" and tells you that you are chosen to be the new elite and that everyone who called you stupid in your past will be punished. Every family member who cut ties with you will return back and tell you they're sorry for not believing you. You're part of the promised people, the kings and queens in the new world order.
I have no problem understanding why people follow Trump, regardless of his behavior. People are more stupid than they think and it demands effort to always be vigil of your own biases. These people have no such abilities and thus are open to a total annihilation of their inner agency, making them into zealots and drones.
If 2016 was any indication, people know what will happen should Kamala lose. I wager she will win, but better safe than sorry when the participants of a moral panic still have a chance to receive that last, crushing blow to their psyche.
The bipartisan Trump team is a big FU to the establishment uniparty, but also the inevitable result of the political triangulation made popular by bill Clinton and its most recent representative, Kamala Harris. The two parties were nearly indistinguishable since then until now. Whatever the results, new parties are emerging from the old ones.
[ ... ] I have no problem understanding why people follow Trump, regardless of his behavior. People are more stupid than they think and it demands effort to always be vigil of your own biases. These people have no such abilities and thus are open to a total annihilation of their inner agency, making them into zealots and drones.
So it’s obvious to anyone paying attention, but just so it’s explicit and can easily be referenced:
If Trump loses (and I think he wins), he will claim victory before all votes are counted, scream about fraud and cheating without evidence, claim early votes or delayed counts (which are totally predictable) are illegitimate, and that the election was stolen from him again. Why? Because Trump is not psychologically capable of losing; that would make him a loser.
Given how obvious this is, and the fact that I’m calling it right now, you would think everyone would take these claims with a huge grain of salt— if not ignore them completely (the rational choice). The 2020 behavior is also quite enough to warrant waving it off as nonsense. But just watch — IF he loses, this is what will happen, and his gullible, irrational followers will go along with it.
Let it be noted. Quite pathetic, but clear as day. I’d bet anything on it.
Reply to Mikie Women got pro-choice amendments passed in Kansas and Ohio, of all places. I think they're going to turn out in droves to put one of their own in and send a message to the pussygrabber and his mouthbreathing supporters.
[quote=Benjamin Franklin, 17 September 1787]A republic, if you can keep it.[/quote]
In America on the ballot today there is a simple, yet fateful question: FOR TYRANNY (Trump-Vance) OR AGAINST TYRANNY (Harris-Walz)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Tyranny
Roevember is here! :fire: :party: :hearts:
javi2541997November 05, 2024 at 08:41#9448610 likes
Oh buddy, I hope women just help this one out, as you hope they do.
ChristofferNovember 05, 2024 at 14:22#9448800 likes
I have a bad feeling people are just redoing the same mistake as 2016. I'm seeing a lot of "Trump is screwed" kind of material that just comes off as denial. As far as I can see, I'm seeing a lot of this day leaning in favor of Trump. So I'm already setting my expectations for a Trump victory. I'm not even sure I can end it with "if I'm wrong that's a nice surprise", which feels like a cop out. I can only hope that this time around, the Trump voters will suffer enough to understand that Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. The christian evangelists won't care, they're zealots, but he's not winning because of them, he's winning because of people who fall for propaganda narratives.
Actually, why does anyone ever think that their elected president is going to fix their life? So far, elections over decades just show how society swings back and forth. It's usually just about people having hope of change and getting disappointed. So they swing back and forth, without a thought in their head that their lives are unimportant to any president. That they're just meat to be herded.
The problem is direction, vision. There are no visions. True visions. There are just scam narratives. A true visionary president who has a real plan for making society better and people agreeing to that vision not out of propaganda, but out of a will to work for a change that is properly thought through. That will change things to the better.
But the system is set up to rewards scammers and narcissists, because those people knows how to play around with people's emotions rather than being forced to confront their intellect through systemic guardrails.
How I'd wish democracy was in actual serious trouble. To the point of people seeing that danger head on, not in some abstract analysis by experts, but in society. That way people would want to change the system because they would realize what the current system can lead to.
People are too comfortable at the moment.
javi2541997November 05, 2024 at 14:44#9448830 likes
Actually, why does anyone ever think that their elected president is going to fix their life?
They do not vote wishing their lives would be fixed but saved. The political slogans have mottos such as 'democracy is in danger' 'save America', 'Israel or Palestine existence', and the delicate topic of abortion and pro-life. One side of the voters thinks that if their opponents win, their lives are at risk. So do the others otherwise.
ChristofferNovember 05, 2024 at 14:52#9448850 likes
They do not vote wishing their lives would be fixed but saved. The political slogans have mottos such as 'democracy is in danger' 'save America', 'Israel or Palestine existence' and the delicate topic of abortion and pro-life. One side of the voters thinks that if their opponents win, their lives are at risk. So do the others otherwise.
Doesn't matter. The principle I described is the same. Swing voters goes back and forth expecting change, but their lives do not change. All they're doing is lowering the propaganda narratives down to even further polarized language.
People don't know what they want in life, or what they need, people just dream nightmares or utopias and fall into the narratives of those who can scare or give them hope.
My point is that democracy isn't in danger... it's in some ways already dead. And people need to realize this in order to rebuild it.
Today’s the day we get 4 more years of the old degenerate climate-denying corporatist con man. It’ll do irreversible damage and lock in 50 years of a reactionary Supreme Court and judiciary generally— and put the brakes on the little climate policy we managed to pass— but hey, Americans are fairly stupid and easily brainwashed, and the Democrats should have known better. The lesson they’ll take away from this is that they should move farther to the right, which is insane.
Of course, we may not know the results tonight.
ChristofferNovember 05, 2024 at 15:27#9448890 likes
People do not learn lessons on a sociological scale. Individuals learn lessons, if the population is inclined and willing to listen to those who learned lessons about past events, they can change. If they reject these lessons, they will repeat history.
Society didn't learn any lessons from WWII, individuals did and their lessons were taught to the rest. Fortunately those lessons shook enough to form a consensus on where history should go.
Today, however, people do not seem to listen to individuals who want to teach. People are so called, "fed up with experts". They will only listen when they, themselves, face the consequences that would gives the lessons the experts already learned.
For something like climate change, this is what will happen. People won't want any change until storms and catastrophes absolutely destroy their lives. When the heatwaves, hurricanes, floods and stuff keeps coming and don't stop. When relatives and friends die because of this, then they will start to learn the lessons. And when the rest of us have said "we told you so" and they finally agree, only then will change come into play... far too late to make a difference.
And seen as more and more individuals who learned lessons from WWII disappear, there's no wonder that the mechanics of what enabled WWII to happen will start to appear again.
The fundamental stupidity of humanity as a whole and over history is staring back at you.
My point is that democracy isn't in danger... it's in some ways already dead. And people need to realize this in order to rebuild it.
I agree. But a large number of Americans think otherwise. I was watching the news, and experts on this matter said Trump supporters really believe that if Kamala wins, American democracy and security are in danger, when they are already flawed, as are most of the Western countries. Maybe spreading fear in the eventual lack of national security and individual freedom is a successful political strategy. I can't imagine the individual rights and freedom of people like Elon Musk and WASP families at risk, but surprisingly, millions of voters do.
Yes. Very poor sentence, I meant to say, I don't think there are many similarities between Clinton and Harris' situation. The only surprise was turnout for Trump in states assumed to be blue, that went for him.
This time, there is no such complacency in the "blue wall" states. Furthermore, I think that pollsters may for once be over-estimating Trump.
Finally - Selzer's poll aside - it's been a brutal week for Trump.
RelativistNovember 05, 2024 at 22:31#9449990 likes
I saw this cartoon this morning:
Just before 5PM, Trump wrote on Truth Social:
"A lot of talk about massive CHEATING in Philadelphia. Law Enforcement coming!!!"
Voters in this election were overwhelmingly concerned about the condition of democracy and the economy as they cast ballots. Americans put democracy first, with 35% stating it was the most important factor in selecting how to vote for president, followed by the economy at 31%, an NBC News exit poll revealed. Abortion (14%) and immigration (11%) were the second most important issues for voters, with only 4% naming foreign policy.
This sounds hopeful for Harris supporters.
ChristofferNovember 05, 2024 at 23:10#9450160 likes
It’s amazing that when listening to Trump voters who are actually trying to make a rational case for their vote, most of them vote because of the economy. They blame Biden and Kamala for the increased prices. No one seems to understand why inflation spiked, why gas prices spiked and prices went up and no one seems to understand that Biden helped mitigate the effects of inflation and that the central bank is acting independently from the government to adjust the economy.
:shade:
RelativistNovember 05, 2024 at 23:26#9450240 likes
I really wonder on what people base their predictions, including myself actually. To me there is no shadow of a doubt that Trump will win. There are authoritarian tendencies rising in the world and the economy is hurting many people. Those two tendencies lead me to think Trump will win and there is a high turn out among republicans... Of course, the polls are even and I am not even American so what do I know. Still, not a shadow of a doubt... My feeling must be based on instinct, a hunch, some sort of worldview perhaps, but cannot be fully rational. So, my question to you, on what information / knowledge / feelings do you base your confidence that either Trump or Harris will win?
ChristofferNovember 06, 2024 at 00:07#9450550 likes
I agree, I don't understand how so many people are calling Harris a winner at this stage. There's nothing that really points towards it. Remember that there's a lot of Trump voters who don't want to be open about it.
And usually, authoritarian people gain power when the world is in turmoil. People are gullible and believe that someone will come in and just "fix things" without any negative consequences.
So at the moment I think people need to come back down to earth and don't get the hopes up too much.
creativesoulNovember 06, 2024 at 00:08#9450560 likes
Very interesting early exit polls showing what's most important to voters...
I am the first to admit that the feeling is not entirely rational, also not philosophical... So I wonder, I have that feeling based on gut instinct, but have we all? Or is there something I have maybe missed that others do see? The meta question here might be philosophical or psychological, on what do we base our predictions of future events?
I am derailing actually, just wanting to say that, no, my feeling is not rational. It is very firm though :smile:
This is the NYT election predictor based on the current info. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president-forecast-needle.html#
The only question is control of the house. But that’s not looking great either. So looks like complete control of the federal government for two years — and the judiciary for 40 or 50 years.
More extreme climate disasters are also now locked in. Enjoy.
The average American doesn't want to be ruled by a woman. I never expected their sexism to be that severe.
You can't say it's because she's black because Obama was in office two terms, so if you can't call the average American racist, you've still got misogyny to argue.
javi2541997November 06, 2024 at 05:08#9451590 likes
Reply to Hanover I would not call it misogyny. It is just that most of your fellow compatriots might not feel good—or comfortable—about having a woman in the White House, as well as that we don't feel comfortable if we turn into a republic. These factors tend to be intrinsic in the soul and mindset of every nation more than we thought.
He'll burn down the system. That's what people want. They're tired of politics, tired of being responsible for the world's ills, tired of worrying about climate change or foreign policy, tired of the current state of capitalism (though the latter they don't identify as the problem).
The solution is to burn it all down. Elect someone obviously hated by politicians and the media. Someone who is "unfit for office", which to their ears means he's a danger to the status quo. He's a danger to "democracy"? Great that means he'll change the system which doesn't work for ordinary Americans.
This is not meant as an indictment. There's stupidity and cultish behaviour around Trump, but their feeling that something is deeply wrong is understandable. It's not limited to the US either. I see a lot of the same sentiment in Europe now.
He'll burn down the system. That's what people want. They're tired of politics, tired of being responsible for the world's ills, tired of worrying about climate change or foreign policy, tired of the current state of capitalism (though the latter they don't identify as the problem).
The solution is to burn it all down. Elect someone obviously hated by politicians and the media. Someone who is "unfit for office", which to their ears means he's a danger to the status quo. He's a danger to "democracy"? Great that means he'll change the system which doesn't work for ordinary Americans.
This is not meant as an indictment.
I totally agree with this. This is the real reason why Trump is elected (or if he get's through to get the second term). And thus it really doesn't matter what a debacle the whole Trump II administration turns out to be, as long as the media is offended and the elites are angry, Trump voters are happy. Because he is tearing down the rotten system. The smug media/Hollywood apparatus doesn't simply understand this and because it fully has gone with the Democratic narrative, it helps Trump to be the contender (and possible winner) he is.
Anyway, these so-called liberals don't understand how hypocrite bigots they are when they talk about white-trash, hillbillies and flyover country and then uphold the woke narrative. Somehow, when it's your own race, whites talking about whites, in the US you can be publicly as offensive as ever. All what this does is that it shows the actual bigotry in the American system.
First thing in a democracy is to respect your fellow citizens who disagree with you and vote differently. And never, ever, ridicule them.
RFK Secretary for Health. Elon Musk, Secretary for Government Expenditure. Steve Bannon, chief press officer. Like when your jetliner starts to fall from the sky - buckle your seatbelts, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye.
Some relevant iconography:
This icon is ubiquitous in Buddhist cultures. They are called 'the three poisons', responsible for all human misery. Snake represents hatred. Pig represents greed. Rooster is ignorance. They're running the show now.
Kind of accepted the possibility of Trump winning since Israel started their war in Lebanon in late September so the result tonight isn't surprising to me. Well we get what we voted for. We'll see if prices now magically go down to 2019 levels now that Trump is in office again.
And Harris could still carry the popular vote. But she's a weak uninspiring candidate is the problem.
I still blame Biden ultimately for tying his party's hands like this. Even Harris herself is incapable of distancing herself from him because she's a part of his administration. His decision to run again and his (even now) stubborn belief that he's capable of winning is the biggest reason why the Democrats lost.
I always feared the worst, but I think this is going to be a lot worse than I feared. I think I'm going to get my head out of news broadcasts and go back to just studying philosophy and Buddhism.
And now he's protected by the Supreme Court decision that he's granted immunity for 'any official acts'. The Project 2025 ideologues are lined up to purge the bureaucracy and, quote, 'take down the deep state leadership.' He's promised 11 million deportations and massive tarrifs. He has a hit list of his 'enemies within'.
Isn't Trump just another celebrity, virtue signalling, identity policies wanker (albeit of the right)? Do you think that he and Vance and Musk and RFK and Bannon will be able to agree on anything and not end up derailing themselves in acrimony in a few months? Seems to me that Musk, Bannon and RFK will need to take out Trump in '25 so they can get to the real work.
javi2541997November 06, 2024 at 07:24#9451970 likes
Do you think that he and Vance and Musk and RFK and Bannon will be able to agree on anything and not end up derailing themselves in acrimony in a few months?
Musk says he wants to slash government spending and bust unions, while RFK undermines vaccines. Both of these people could've pushed for climate action on the right given their backgrounds, but why make things better when you can make everything a hell of a lot worse?
Isn't Trump just another celebrity, virtue signalling, identity policies wanker (albeit of the right)?
who happens to now be the most powerful man in the world. The Republicans now control the White House, Senate and House. Forget about environmental policies and climate targets. Forget about all the lawsuits and indictments he was facing, he'll walk away scot free. It's a disastrous outcome.
Today’s the day we get 4 more years of the old degenerate climate-denying corporatist con man. It’ll do irreversible damage and lock in 50 years of a reactionary Supreme Court and judiciary generally— and put the brakes on the little climate policy we managed to pass— but hey, Americans are fairly stupid and easily brainwashed, and the Democrats should have known better. The lesson they’ll take away from this is that they should move farther to the right, which is insane.
So a reminder of those confidently predicting a Harris win/landslide:
Allan Litchman (“never wrong in 40 years” 13 keys guy)
Michael Moore
Bill Maher
Nate Silver (barely)
James Carville
…anyone else care to add to this?
The polls turned out fairly accurate— still underestimating Trump but not by as much.
Now it’ll be fun watching the Republicans try to govern and yet still blame democrats when everything goes to shit, as it always does under their leadership.
Today’s the day we get 4 more years of the old degenerate climate-denying corporatist con man. It’ll do irreversible damage and lock in 50 years of a reactionary Supreme Court and judiciary generally— and put the brakes on the little climate policy we managed to pass— but hey, Americans are fairly stupid and easily brainwashed, and the Democrats should have known better. The lesson they’ll take away from this is that they should move farther to the right, which is insane.
— Mikie
Some of my friends keep telling me that Trump is what happens when the liberals have lost their way. What do you think are the lessons for Democrats here?
Reply to frank I saw Max Richter in concert last night. He played the album, Blue notebooks, which he wrote 20yrs ago in protest against the Iraq war.
Sublime experience.
What do you think are the lessons for Democrats here?
Not to run an empty, establishment candidate who runs away from every popular progressive policy there is, and who has no principles. They played this one by the book— and failed yet again. Didn’t help that she, like Clinton (and, to a degree, Biden), was essentially anointed by the DNC.
It gets tiresome having to exclusively vote AGAINST something— that’s extremely uninspiring. Despite all the gaslighting, I never felt the so-called “energy,” and I imagine millions of others didn’t either. It all felt rather bland and formal and forced and coached. Like Hillary all over again: machine-like; robotic. I still voted against the worst, as we all should, but eventually you have to offer something as well. Biden, pressured by Bernie (as he needed that large cohort to get elected), ran on several of his policies. Kamala immediately ran to the “middle,” which every bozo pundit in their infinite wisdom said to do. You see the obvious result.
What will they actually learn? Nothing, probably. Maybe blame Russia again, or run even MORE to the right next time.
Musk indeed had been a democrat. Why the Biden administration snubbed Musk, like for example praising electric car makers other than Musk, who has been the leader and the newcomer, is basically typical Democratic fumbling. Yes, Musk may not have been a supporter of trade unions, but still. And likely the real cause is him buying Twitter and not being the DEI supporting political line tower as the other internet corporations.
Hence the outcome was logical and Trump got a great backer for his new administration.
It gets tiresome having to exclusively vote AGAINST something— that’s extremely uninspiring. Despite all the gaslighting, I never felt the so-called “energy,” and I imagine millions of others didn’t either. It all felt rather bland and formal and forced and coached. Like Hillary all over again: machine-like; robotic. I still voted against the worst, as we all should, but eventually you have to offer something as well.
That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks. Yes, I said to a friend yesterday that there wasn't a genuine bone in her body and, perversely, by contrast, Trump appeared spontaneous and real, even if he is a carny barker and quite obviously a cunt. What do they say? Shit has its own integrity...
Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, Green New Deal, free public college, student debt cancellation, the PRO Act (unions), free child care and child tax credit, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, gun control, police reform, etc etc. She ran from all of it. Not only does it energize the base, but most of it has broad appeal. Not to mention she’s a war hawk and genocide supporter like Biden.
If George Washington was the father of America’s democracy, Donald Trump is its undertaker
[quote=Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald] George Washington notably declared American democracy to be “an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people”.
The American people are now abandoning it as a failed experiment.
In word and in deed, Donald Trump for years has made plain that he does not respect the results of elections, unless he is winning.
Yet most American voters, in full knowledge, cast their ballots for him in this election.
In case anyone had forgotten his autocratic instinct, Trump issued a reminder just two days before election day.
He has never accepted the outcome of the 2020 election, fomented a riot to try to stay in the White House, and on Sunday said that “I shouldn’t have left” it.
Seven in 10 Americans understood the risk, telling CNN pollsters last week that they didn’t expect Trump would concede defeat if he lost. Yet most voters willingly handed him power.
If Washington was the father of America’s democracy, Trump has auditioned to be its undertaker and is now positioned to duly deliver.
He didn’t have to seize power. America, the modern world’s greatest champion of democracy for the past eight decades, has lost faith in its calling.
That is the true uniqueness of this election – not the candidates, not the policies, not the pageantry. They matter. And, in a democratic system, the power holders and their policies can be replaced, renewed, reviewed.
But in an autocracy, an absolute leader is not interested in being replaced nor his policies reviewed. The great advantage of democracy is not that it produces the best possible government but the bloodless removal of a bad one, as Karl Popper said.
Trump has made clear, over and again, that, if given power, he will not surrender it. As he said to an audience this year, vote for him “just this time, you won’t have to do it any more. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more”.
When Joe Biden took power, he said he would try to save American democracy.
“From the very beginning, nothing has been guaranteed about democracy in America,” he said in 2022. “Every generation has had to defend it, protect it, preserve it, choose it.”
Until now. Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, failed.
Democracy has been in retreat on planet Earth since the “democratic recession” took hold at the time of the global financial crisis 16 years ago. Only 24 full democracies survive among the world’s 200 nations, according to The Economist’s Democracy Index.
And now the centrepiece of the system, the hub of a network of democratic allies embracing more than 40 nations, has collapsed in on itself.
American democracy was hollowed out by a failure of its promise to its people. Most Americans believe that their country is riddled with corruption, most believe that government serves the elites and not the people, and “nearly half of all voters are sceptical that the American experiment in self-governance is working”, to summarise a New York Times poll published last month.
And now they have delivered the death sentence to the system they feel betrayed them.
Not because they expect Trump to actually fix a broken system. In her landmark work, The Politics of Resentment, political scientist Katherine Cramer described how she took regular part in a wide range of community groups in her home state of Wisconsin, one of the swing states in deciding elections and part of the great swath of left-behind, fly-over America.
When Kramer asks groups of Trump supporters how they expect he will improve their lives, they are surprised at the question, she reports. They don’t expect Trump to be the vehicle for their improvement but for their disenchantment and anger.
When Trump said last year “for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution”, he spoke for those voters. They have given up on their system, feeling abandoned by smug big-city elites, but have confidence in Trump to offend the elites and damage their system.
The US, the nation that kept liberty alive in the face of a fearsome axis of autocracies eight decades ago, seems to be losing confidence that it’s worth the effort.
Will Trump’s America be prepared to confront the rising partnership of autocracies in their fast-forming new front – Xi Jinping’s China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the ayatollahs’ Iran and
Kim Jong-un’s North Korea?
It must be in question. A former Trump national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, explained why Trump prefers the world’s worst dictators to America’s traditional allies. It’s part of “his struggle for self-worth”. If he’s accepted by so-called strongmen, “he might convince others, and especially himself, that he was strong”.
Benjamin Franklin said that America was “a republic, if you can keep it”. He might be surprised to know that, in the end, it just gave democracy away.[/quote]
ChristofferNovember 06, 2024 at 10:33#9452330 likes
Let's see how long it will take for the gullible voters to realize that Trump doesn't give a shit about them.
Because now they own everything and will have no problems installing whatever policy they like.
The rational concept is to never treat his voters as stupid. To listen and understand why they vote for him. But listening to voters outside the voting halls, in interviews that weren't pre-planned democratic hit pieces trying to find the bottom of the barrel... they're still not convincing me that they aren't stupid. It's just not as blunt as the Maga trumpsters being portrayed so far; it's more that they simply either do not understand the basics of economy or have any actual insight into the actual policies and politics that's been done.
So many people just don't understand why there's inflation. Some people think the Trump tariffs will grant them more income because they believe it's the other nations who pay them. Or that Biden's strategies to fight inflation was the cause of the inflation, not the Ukraine war and it's energy politics, and the pandemic screwing around with the global market.
I know children in school who learn this shit when they're around 12, who understand the basics of it.
If anything, this just confirms the notion that people are gullible and stupid. What's the point in listening to these people complaining in ways that have no relation to the real world? It's just emotional garbage reasoning, it's just biases and fallacies and a basic inability to have integrity towards manipulators. It's impossible to meet their wants and needs since they live on another planet.
We've had 80 years of processing "why the German people where so stupid in following Hitler", there's been literature, shows, theatre, movies and even video games handling the concepts and intellectual discussion with the public about why people follow charismatic leaders who doesn't give a shit about them.
Hell, THIS YEAR we had one of the biggest stories about this turn into a massive cinematic hit in Dune part 2, that is primarily about this concept. But in hindsight... there are so many people who just shouted "Lisan al Gaib" when watching the movie, believing in Paul in the same way as the fremen people. How the point of the story went right over the heads of the gullible... again.
No, these people deserve the sledge hammer of reality to the face. Maybe this time, when Trump policies aren't blocked by democrats in other sectors of the government; the people will actually, finally, open their fucking eyes.
Reply to 180 Proof Too much noise to do any predicting. I was hoping along with you.
As Mao said: "All is chaos under the heavens, the times are excellent." The EU is too inflexible to take advantage of this but we know Russia, India and China will. And of those I'd rather have India do well than the other two.
Too much noise to do any predicting. I was hoping along with you.
But the world is globally moving in the direction of post-truth behaviors. And in such a climate, you can't have an election if there are no laws preventing lies. Lies and opinions aren't the same thing. A post-truth world thrives in lies because voters doesn't care what is true, reasonable or good even for them, they go with the narrative that is emotionally good for them. This is what fuels people like Trump.
So there's no surprise that we see more of this. Economic turmoil and world uncertainty almost always generates a populist response.
The problem people have when trying to analyze the world is that their political bias also produces a cognitive bias. People leaning towards the left have been living in a delusional idea that things can't get worse. They believe that the good will prevail.
If there's one position where I've been trying to be for a long time, it's on the side of truth, to the best of my ability. That doesn't make me an unmoving static centrist, no, I think that this political categorization and labeling of everyone around us needs to fucking stop.
There's only two sides right now. The side of the lies, filled with populists, criminals, corruption, war and hate. And the side of truth, filled with rational reasoning, scientific methods and thinking, problem solving, humanism and collaboration.
What the post-truth world needs is better ways of streamlining how we reach truth. Better ways of how to cut through the noise of lies and bullshit in order to collaborate for a better future for all.
Right now, there are no tools of a democratic society to handle post-truth representatives and their followers, because the very thing that a democratic society was founded on were that people followed actual truth. When truth disappears because the tools of rationality and reasoning gets demolished, we also lose the foundation for a democratic nation to function properly.
In essence, democracies of the world today aren't equipped to handle a post-truth movement. It doesn't win on arguments for truth, it doesn't win on policy that are meant to improve society, it wins on noise, lies and a people who don't care about truth anymore.
What good is a democracy when no one votes based on truth and politicians don't have to fear any truths? In which you only have to be charismatic and make noise to win. Then the actual politics doesn't matter anymore. It's not an election about what matters for people, it's a popularity contest that risk people's lives.
I think the democratic world needs to wake up and look at the system itself. To stop thinking that just having a democratic system, regardless of its quality, is as good as it gets.
The world needs to politically evolve into caring more for truth. Otherwise we will all live in the utter chaos of a fully post-truth society where nothing matters to people and no one knows where to even begin to find answers to what's actually going on.
ChristofferNovember 06, 2024 at 12:36#9452490 likes
Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha.
I saw that June debate between Biden and Trump and to tell you the truth I saw Joe being too old, but I sympathized with him for the reason that Joe Biden was putting effort to answer the questions of the journalists, whereas Donald Trump was not answering any questions.
Kamalahaha believed that "kindhearted democrats" need good vibes, not answers. That was a big mistake and I hope Pelosi, Clooney and Kamalahaha fire themselves from the Democratic Party, cause they will be complicit in this crazy comeback of climate-change deniers, gun-loving, god-fearing, republicans.
Stop blaming middle-class Americans for this ugly outcome! Democrats should blame themselves and their corporate media only. One of the very few things I came to agree with JD Vance is that corporate media are the biggest threat to American democracy on this day.
I saw Max Richter in concert last night. He played the album, Blue notebooks, which he wrote 20yrs ago in protest against the Iraq war.
Sublime experience.
I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.
Trump's vice president leans toward project 2025, which is about removing opposition to Trump from the federal government. Plus he favors dictatorship, so the coming years might be pretty interesting. More isolationism, maybe a transition to dictatorship by the end of the century?
ChristofferNovember 06, 2024 at 13:33#9452600 likes
Trump's vice president leans toward project 2025, which is about removing opposition to Trump from the federal government. Plus he favors dictatorship, so the coming years might be pretty interesting. More isolationism, maybe a transition to dictatorship by the end of the century?
I don't think so. Post-truth can only survive as a society so far as to give people nothing for their devotion to bullshit. And any attempts to install authoritarian leaders by ripping the constitution and dismantling guardrails of democracy will lead to civil war before any such authoritarian regime takes place.
Another scenario is that the nation gets divided so much it actually breaks apart. With a Christian fundamentalist society spread across the deep red states making up a new nation, while the rest and blue states form their own. It's usually what happens if a divide gets too polarized and doesn't lead to civil war. So, in your scenario of dictatorship, it would be a nation with an authoritarian leader built upon Christian fundamentalism akin to Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east.
It could very well end up in a similar image of Margaret Atwood's Gilead.
While something like this shouldn't be brushed off as pessimistic fear mongering, I do think that such a future is unlikely. Primarily because there are enough people who don't want it and they are only passive about it until it seriously threatens them. If Trump tries anything drastic these four years, I believe there will be enough republicans who are rational enough to block it, since not all are Trump fundamentalists. And the blowback from these coming four years will likely spark a major return for the democrats in which they might realize how in danger the nation is, installing enough protections from leaders like Trump and maybe even reforming the democratic process nationwide to fit more up to date democratic systems in the world.
If there is a crisis, or civil war happening in the next 50 years, I think that the US will transform into a proper parliament and abandon the old system. The bipartisan system is so broken that it's not a democracy anymore and people are fed up with this "voting for the least bad" type of election.
People will get fed up with idiots running things, especially when the real consequences kick in.
Deleted UserNovember 06, 2024 at 13:40#9452610 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
A historic campaign and the greatest political comeback in history. Not even bullets could stop the Trump train!
Sadly, the live-action-roleplay of his opponents continue. Fighting an imaginary fascism involves erecting an actual one, so I suspect political violence, institutional subordination, and a captured press will be working diligently to disrupt the Trump regime. Luckily the people aren’t buying it anymore.
To me there is no shadow of a doubt that Trump will win. There are authoritarian tendencies rising in the world and the economy is hurting many people. Those two tendencies lead me to think Trump will win and there is a high turn out among republicans..
A fair point, but I actually thought this pointed in the other direction. Trump won after Brexit, with the Fac Five all winning or most winning right around that time.
Theresa Mayhem and Mo Mojo Bojo
2Dirty Dueterte
Majorly Magnificent Modi
Make Europe Great Again Le Pen (didn't quite win, but making it to the final was an unexpected win)
Outlandish Orban
:cool:
And we might also include Big Boy Bolsonaro and the apparent strength of Rootin Tootin Putin.
But since then the right wing waves have largely broken. Most of those people are out. The UK just had a hard shift the other way, and Modi lost a ton of seats, while Bibi is also looking in very rough shape. Xi is facing a Chinese economy facing a major, potentially sea change slow down. Meanwhile, Putin, the sort of arch mascot led his country into a disastrous war that destroyed and badly embarrassed his military, and had to flee his capital due to a mercenary coup.
To be sure, the anemic Western response in Ukraine (sending a handful of tanks years after it has become clear that sending actually meaningful numbers won't cause a catastrophic escalation, being unable to match Russian and North Korean shell production, etc.) is also embarrassing.
Yet in general, Trump's win seems more against the (short term) currents than with it. TBH, the exit polls make it seem like this is more of the Democrats than anything else. Biden had no business running for a second term and Harris was a bad candidate. That exit polls suggest that Trump lost significant support from white voters and yet seems likely to win the popular vote (the first GOP non-incumbent to do so in almost 40 years) should be a wake up call on Democrats. It seems to me that immigration is the number one issue carrying the far-right across the West and so far the liberal establishment in North America and Europe has largely refused to budge on it.
Of course, when far/further right parties win elections in Western countries they also don't really change immigration either. Trump seems to have the House and Senate, so we'll see. I think they will be far more interested in cementing systems or minority rule, cutting taxes, and removing various regulations than actually cutting off the supply of cheap labor or fixing the debt.
RelativistNovember 06, 2024 at 18:59#9452970 likes
Trump won because he got more votes. That sounds simplistic, but my point is that people did not vote for the principles Trump represents. They didn't vote for fascism, and most don't understand what rule-of-law means. Trump was good at telling them what they wanted to hear: simple explanations and solutions for the perceived negatives in their lives. Trump amplified and leveraged pessimism. Few voters make an effort to understand the impact of policy proposals.
Deporting millions of immigrants sounds appealing to those who buy into scapegoating them for some problems in society, but it ignores the negative consequences. I don't think anything good can possibly come of it, if it actually comes to pass. It will fix no problems, it will just make some people happy that these "others" are out of our midst. It can't solve the real problems - that would require changing the laws, and Trump has told that's not necessary - his "extreme power" is all that's needed.
Deficit spending is a big concern for many, so slashing $2T from the budget sounds like the right thing to do. That exceeds the total amount spent on discretionary spending, so it would have to entail cuts to "mandatory" spending, including Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits, and the military. Wherever the cuts are made, that will negatively impact the recipients. On a macro level, decreased government spending will be contractionary to the economy - there will be less money in circulation, decreasing GDP - thus negatively impacting the economy as a whole.
Huge tarriffs will increase the prices of imported goods - so it will be directly inflationary. It is likely to result in retaliatory tarriffs that will decrease demand for US goods, so that will negatively impact manufacturing jobs - this will be balanced against the increased demand for domestic manufacturing, so there will be this win - but it's an macro balancing, not a micro one: some individual producers will do better (adding jobs) while others will do worse (losing jobs).
Removing taxes on Social Security income will benefit only higher income recipients (this includes me, BTW), and it will deplete the SS Trust fund 2 years earlier (from 10 to 8 years). Deporting undocumented immigrants, who pay into SS but will never receive benefits) will hurt it even more.
I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle.
All i can really say is, hehehe. This was the obvious outcome. It seemed clear to me at least a year out. I very much hope Mikie is getting the help he needs right now. Hands across America.
javi2541997November 06, 2024 at 19:49#9453100 likes
I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle.
He doesn't need to do them and would be better off not doing them. Things won't change but he can bullshit his way into telling people they have gotten better and alot of people may buy it. Of course I think he probably will do alot of them unfortunately. He sounds very passionate about tariffs as the solution to everything and he did do a trade war with China the last time around (though this time will be way more widespread and intense). Will people be swayed by his statements that he solved inflation despite prices likely increasing from the tariffs and them criticizing the Dems for being out of touch in the past 4 years? Maybe, I really cannot say, but it doesn't really matter at this point since they'll be dealing with it all the same.
Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha.
I can point to alot of things that Dems did wrong (like running with the Cheneys while snubbing the Palestinians in their base) but replacing Joe was one of the only reasonable things they did this election cycle. Joe Biden was ultimately the biggest drag on the party even after dropping out and his connection to Kamala was what doomed her more than anything.
The problem with the Dems was what we saw these past few election cycles: the Dems never listen to their base. They could've let the voters decide who should best represent them but why do that and risk someone who the party establishment can't control when they can have one of their goons be nominated instead? The last time they didn't do that was in 2008 with a dark horse named Obama and look how that turned out for them. Clinton, Biden, and Harris were all terrible candidates. Clinton was massively unpopular when she ran in 2016, Biden couldn't even win the first few primaries despite being the frontrunner, and Harris didn't even get any votes in any of her primaries. But they were all nominated anyways and often through some shady tactics that undermined any opposition. Maybe next time they will let the party decide, but who knows if there will be a next time.
Yesterday more Americans chose rather than rejected tyranny. To wit:
make Apartheid great again make Antisemitism great again make Anti-women great again make Anti-immigrants great again make Anti-labor great again make Anti-intellect great again make Anti-democracy great again make Above-the-Law great again make Assholery great again ...
prevails – 'DJT is vox populi!' – the culmination of the last half-century of bipartian Neoliberal de-industrialization – 'It's the structurally exploitative-systematically discriminatory Plutonomy, stupid!' – aided and abetted by corporatist Reality TV, WWE & Social Media which has groomed (radicalized) the precariat for reactionary populism???
Fuck me.
creativesoulNovember 06, 2024 at 21:52#9453620 likes
The problem with the Dems was what we saw these past few election cycles: the Dems never listen to their base. They could've let the voters decide who should best represent them
Bernie. From the establishment's silencing of the right candidate for working class Americans came Trump's possibility to do what he's done.
It's a non-trivial matter to distribute culpability here. Clearly, lots of people are gullible and vote against their interests. Yet there is also manifest stupidity and ignorance.
How to make sense of this? For now, answers are pending.
creativesoulNovember 06, 2024 at 22:05#9453820 likes
the culmination of the last half-century of bipartisn Neoliberal de-industrialization – 'It's the structurally exploitative-systematically discriminatory Plutonomy, stupid!' – aided and abetted by corporatist Reality TV, WWE & Social Media which has groomed (radicalized) the precariat for reactionary populism???
I'm going to try to become more indifferent to US politics as it tends to dominate the news, and I have become too concerned with it. My family gets annoyed with me 'shouting at the television'.
But I will note that the Trump phenomenon has normalised mendacity. It is indisputable that Trump lies continuously, about matters large and small, some of which concern issues of extreme national and global importance.
But with this victory, these lies have now become normalised - for example, the lie that Trump's many indictments were based on 'weaponising' politics and politicisation of the Department of Justice. The lie that the January 6th insurrection was anything other than a vile assault on democracy and law and order. All of this is now going to become normalised in public discourse.
There's a term, I think it's associated with Marxist philosophy, although I'm not highly familiar with it - 'false consciousness'. This is what I think the whole Trump phenomenon crystallises in the electorate. An entire national identity that has lies as part of its identity. It can't be good.
Bernie. From the establishment's silencing of the right candidate for working class Americans came Trump's possibility to do what he's done.
Yep. Bernie would have won, in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. But the DNC made sure that didn’t happen. So this outcome isn’t surprising— which is why I called it weeks ago.
Trump is still the stupidest choice, but this will come with a lot of good things— like giving yet another “wakeup call” to the Democratic Party and the inevitable infighting and finger pointing. It’ll be fun watching what nonsense excuses they come up with. :lol:
A simple question I ask is: how many times did Harris rally with Bernie?
My family gets annoyed with me 'shouting at the television'.
My family was annoyed that I was calling it for Trump :lol:
But yeah, it’s good to take some time away. Most people I talk to really don’t follow any of this that closely. What they end up with is whatever simple soundbite or slogan happens to make its way into their brains.
Political hobbyism, that’s all this is really. Don’t lose any sleep over it. Use whatever you feel to get involved locally. It’ll reset your perspective a bit.
ChristofferNovember 06, 2024 at 23:02#9454030 likes
I will note that the Trump phenomenon has normalised mendacity.
In a post-truth society, the public have stopped pursuing truth, stopped listening to experts and scientists. Rather they let themselves follow whatever is emotionally satisfying, be it their own opinion or someone else's opinion.
Liars, scammers and manipulators have always existed, but the public have generally been able to arrive at the truth together, fighting back at the ones trying to scam their ways into power.
But in a post-truth society the public is in an intellectual disarray. They aren't able to organize around a truth or around some facts and thus will fail to keep demagogues and authoritarian grifters away.
This is why Trump is elected. The noise of post-truth society let's people like Trump do whatever they want and people will never be able to align around what they think about him. Only the ones who sees him for what he is are able to, but as we're seeing globally, more and more people are unable to do this.
It's one of the reasons why I am so focused on research, scientific methods and such in other arguments on this forum. Because people have lost touch with what rational reasoning really is. Whenever I see someone, in their argument, target scientists and their research with a vague concept of science changing all the time, and therefor "scientific research and findings can't be trusted", I know that I'm dealing with someone who has succumbed to the post-truth world.
It blocks any ability to progress ideas, to have proper discussions. Facts and truth are called into question so often that any attempt to form actual knowledge is futile.
The challenge, globally, is how we get rid of this post-truth bullshit. How research, experts, proper discussions, scientific methods and facts return back to normalcy and popularity again.
Instead of teaching people that all their opinions matters, teach them that facts and truth matters and their opinions are worthless without them. Make it embarrassing again to utter stupidity. Something that people look down on enough so that it hurts sociologically.
This inclusion bullshit of everyone's opinion mattering has shaped everyone into their own little expert who knows everything about everything.
It needs to stop, because this is what fuels the post-truth world that grifters like Trump feeds on. They won't disappear as symptoms until the root cause is treated.
How? I have no clue, but it's up to society to solve this. It's this that needs to happen. Everything else is just barking up the wrong tree.
Reply to Christoffer Yes, I do wonder how much of factor fantasy is in all of this. I think Trump lives in a fantasy world of his own making. He plainly believes whatever he likes, and has all the apparent trappings. I've stood under Trump Tower in Chicago, and it really does convey astounding wealth and power. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, of course, because in reality Trump has many business failures, and started out, not with the million that his Dad bequeathed him, but 400 million. But any kind of scrutiny applied to Trump, he simply denies and lies, and the projects all his weaknesses onto those who accuse him. And now the electorate has validated all of that.
[quote=Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post]when a country deliberately rejects decency, truth, democratic values and good governance, the problem is not a candidate, a party, the media or a feckless attorney general. Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires a virtuous people devoted to democratic ideals. Whether we can recover the habits of mind — what we used to call civic virtue — will be the challenge of the next four years and beyond.[/quote]
Personally, I doubt it. I feel a grave crisis is imminent, but we'll see.
Count Timothy von IcarusNovember 06, 2024 at 23:42#9454150 likes
I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed.
Trump ran on immigration last time and he had the House, Senate, and Court for 24 months and they didn't even a single vote on migration, not even token changes, not even during the lame duck session. And he oversaw a 13 year high in illegal crossings. His base didn't get upset with him then. They would get upset if there were major disruptions in the economy, so he might not do much of anything.
Same for repealing Obamacare.
Maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised, but I am thinking it's more of the same.
Maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised, but I am thinking it's more of the same.
Yep. Extending tax cuts, no national abortion ban, some dressed up nonsense on the border (packaged as something new, but basically continuing what’s been done with some murmurs about a wall), maybe some tariffs on Chinese goods (as Biden has done), and otherwise a bunch of hot air. He’ll be even worse on the Middle East, but will possibly stop funding the proxy war in Ukraine (perhaps the one bright spot).
The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly).
Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map.
But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd.
The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly).
The IRA was the only reason why I wanted Harris to win since she literally has nothing on climate for me to care about. She would've continued the funding at least. It's fate is largely on the House now though as you say a slim GOP majority will likely not repeal the IRA given it's benefits to red districts. The great thing is that the Republicans don't really care about the debt so whatever tax cuts they have planned will likely just be subsidized through more borrowing.
Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map.
There's always the possibility of the Dems getting rid of the filibuster and passing all the court proof laws they want. I don't care about the argument that this gives Republicans the same power. If they want to use it to enact some of their preferred legislation like a federal abortion ban then they're more than welcome to try. Maybe we'll see politics actually be about a clash of ideas again.
But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd.
What names do you have in mind to pin our hopes behind? Bernie is too old now (older than Biden) and alot of the names floated before Harris became the nominee like Shapiro and Whitmer aren't really appealing. AOC also lost alot of her luster too since her initial victory in 2018.
I'm hoping for Jon Stewart personally. He's antiwar so he'll be way better on issues like Gaza and he's Jewish so the Israelis can't call him an anti-Semite. He's an outsider but a big enough celebrity that he can't be dismissed out of hand by the MSM. Plus he's funny and as Trump has shown being funny overrides literally everything in politics.
RelativistNovember 07, 2024 at 00:31#9454270 likes
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus In his first term, Trump circumvented the law by issuing executive orders. This included leveraging Title 42 (restricting entry into the US during an epidemic), and his "Remain in Mexico Policy", which denied entry to the US to prevent triggering asylum law (the law requires keeping asylum seekers in the US until there is a court hearing to either grant or deny asylum. This is the true enabler of immigrants staying here). He also engaged in family separations to discourage people from attempting to immigrate.
Title 42 is no longer available, per court ruling, but I expect he'll come up with some quasi-legal basis to duplicate what he did before. He explicitly said no changes to law were needed; all he needed to do was to exercise his "extreme power to shut down the border" (i.e. skirt the law).
Reply to javi2541997 This doesn't make much sense, and I have no idea what you're getting at.
Anyone paying any attention to the temperature of the USA over the last 12 months would have seen this coming a mile off. As i did. Perhaps be less pedantic.
Yes, but his party had full control of government and didn't even hold a vote on migration. To vastly oversimplify, Big Business wants migrant labor. They want wages down, rents up, and unions out, all of which are supported by more or less staying the course on current policy. Some headline grabbing moves that "trigger the libs," (e.g. family separation) is all the base seems to need.
Trump's senior citizen base wants their home values to keep always trending upwards and price stability for goods and services. Major shifts in migration levels, let alone removing large numbers of people, would cause huge problems for both. So I doubt they change much for the same reason that they ran on repealing Obamacare for 10+ years and didn't touch it—because as much as the base likes the idea of doing it they would hate the consequences.
Total immigration was higher under Trump than under Obama for most years and deportations were lower than under Obama as well, it's just that Trump adopted high profile, needlessly cruel family separation policies. But his general lack of competence and inability to pick competent leaders meant the CBP was in some ways less effective even as it widened its scope for who it would deport.
Anyone paying any attention to the temperature of the USA over the last 12 months would have seen this coming a mile off. As i did. Perhaps be less pedantic.
I don't think there was any temperature. Male Latinos didn't back Harris the way they had Biden. One swing state elected a Democratic Jew for governor, but Trump for president. Latino sexism maybe.
Count Timothy von IcarusNovember 07, 2024 at 03:40#9454700 likes
Mike Duncan, who did the History of Rome and Revolutions podcast and put out a few popular histories, had a very good analogy back when he was covering Rome during the Obama-era.
When Rome still had rivals, it needed civic virtue to keep the fragile Republic going. It needed to levy large conscript armies from a willing and patriotic populace, particularly after the disaster at Cannae where Rome lost 65-80,000 men in a single day to Hannibal. It needed competent leaders, as well as at least some level of meritocracy to be able to overcome its many rivals.
After Rome finally defeated Carthage, they were left without any unifying adversary or real threat. Persia/Parthia was a rival, but a limited one, not an existential threat. At most they would take away a few provinces for a few years. Even when Rome took what is now Iraq, it wasn't particularly committed to sprawling out [I]that[/I] far.
So, there was nowhere left to expand too. The Atlantic, Sahara, Persia, and the undesirablity of the north bracketed in the Republic. Thus, in the moment of Rome's great triumph, it suddenly became apparent that there was more to gain from trying to control what Rome already controlled then in trying to build up or expand the state.
That's the big parallel. With the USSR/Carthage gone, elites turned inward and began sharpening their knives. At the same time, for both, the military goes from a citizen force of conscript levies to a professional army—as Gibbon puts it in the Decline and Fall— "elevating war into an art, and degrading it into a trade."
China is a decent parallel to Parthia. And the large scale migrations to the West creates a similar set of problems to those faced by Rome due to the huge influx of slaves after their rapid expansion—most notably soaring economic inequality.
Rome faced a decline in all their institutions, and likewise America sees its unions wither away, its social clubs going extinct, its churches empty, etc.
But I don't think Trump is anywhere near competent enough to play Caesar, let alone Augustus. He's old and unfit, and he might not live out this term, let alone any additional ones (which he has no hope of engineering). This is probably more our Gracchi Brothers moment, or at most our Marius and Sulla.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus I wonder if these kinds of historical parallels really are an accurate portrayal of this moment. I've said this often, and of course there is endless blather about Trump, but I think the single, biggest social factor in his rise is television (and the various new media it has given rise to). Modern entertainment media is so incredibly vivid and real-looking that I honestly think a lot of people can't differentiate reality from illusion at all; they honestly believe that existence is a movie. And Donald Trump is a kind of fantasy figure in that world. After all it's widely acknowledged that the TV show The Apprentice was a major factor in keeping his business and image alive after many business failures. And that show was all fantasy: the opulent suites where the show was set were presented as being Trump's but in reality, they had to be built by the network because the actual offices were pretty dingey. So Trump's never-ending refrain of 'Fake News' is more descriptive of him than of any actual media (with the exceptions of those media trying to be part of his fantasy world). Trump is the demagogue that modern media enabled, allowing tens of millions to vicariously inhabit his fantasy, rich man's world, while thumbing his nose at the Government and the law. As I said, with this victory, all of his Big Lies will now become part of the fabric of US culture. It's extremely warped, and it will have consequences, when the sets come tumbling down and reality barges in. But that won't be in the form of electoral defeat so much as the catastrophic consequences of greed, hatred and delusion.
javi2541997November 07, 2024 at 05:28#9454840 likes
It was sexism, frank, indeed. But it is very surprising when Latino countries such as Argentina had Cristina Kirchner or Eva Perón; in Honduras, Xiomara Castro is the President, etc. It is mind-blowing that they prefer to vote for a man who is clearly against Hispanic culture rather than a woman. As I said yesterday, I didn't think the sexism was that severe.
But it is very surprising when Latino countries such as Argentina had Cristina Kirchner or Eva Perón; in Honduras, Xiomara Castro is the President, etc.
It's just that Latino women didn't switch from Biden to Trump, but a significant number of Latino men did, so people figure it was sexism, I guess because they can't think of what else it would have been.
Wikipedia on enfant terrible :Jacques Chevrier emphasizes the singularity of such "terrible children" in West Africa culture, despite what the phrase "enfant terrible" can evoke among European readers.[1] He explores the fact how initially the enfant terrible although seen as a destructive and malevolent figure can often become the savior.[1] This paradox is explained by the fact that the enfant terrible are from the non-human or divine world and that their actions, no matter how absurd, must be interpreted as signs of superior knowledge.[2]
javi2541997November 07, 2024 at 16:30#9455700 likes
Reply to frank What I always understood enfant terrible as this: One whose startlingly unconventional behavior, work, or thought embarrasses or disturbs others.
It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. :smile:
Let's see how long it will take for the gullible voters to realize that Trump doesn't give a shit about them.
I doubt many Trump voters actually count on Trump doing anything for them. Because the worldview of these people is typically rugged individualism. I surmise they see Trump as a role model, as a type of person they themselves aspire to be. They don't see him as a father figure or someone who will help them, they despise such figures.
I was very surprised so many women would swallow the insults from Trump/Vance and vote for the pro-life sexual predator. If Harris had talked about protecting men whether they like it or not and bragged about grabbing dick, she would have gotten about 0% of the male vote.
ChristofferNovember 07, 2024 at 21:12#9456670 likes
Here's a good take on the failures of the democrats.
As mentioned, the biggest problem with the democrats is catering to right wing voters just granting them a miniscule increase in voters, rather than forming a strong left narrative around things that a majority actually wants.
Most usually just talk about Trump and his people being stupid, but when it comes to marketing and forming a cohesive and strong marketing narrative to campaign on, the democrats are fucking amateurs.
The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general.
It's like, minor parts of the democratic party that agree with this should just do a hostile takeover and put all the old demented idiots in retirement homes... except for Bernie. :sweat:
The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.
— David Brooks
Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.
Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now.
ChristofferNovember 07, 2024 at 22:30#9457130 likes
The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.
— David Brooks
Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.
Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now.
:up:
Imho populism + sexism also among Democratic voters = Trump defeats Harris: in 2016 Hillary received 66m votes and 2020 Joe received 81m votes (W) and 2024 Kamala received [s]68m[/s]74m votes. Apparently, regardless of candidate quality, we 21st century Americans prefer a lawless president / "dictator" (tyranny) to a neoliberal woman president (quasi-liberty). :confused:
Reply to 180 Proof I think the crucial, and depressing, point is that the voters don’t think it matters, and/or they don’t believe these things about Trump. Polls show even disapproval of the Jan 6th outrage became muted over the intervening years. The point is, it has been clear from day 1 that many people swallow Trump’s lies wholesale, which is why he puts so much effort into denigrating the media. Fox audiences believe Trump over the NY TImes and WaPo. If the electorate mainly comprised those readers Trump would have been walloped.
We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.
Nonetheless, you don't need to be enthusiastic about the future. I mean, Donald Trump and his voters have my respect right now, but I doubt that this country is going to get any better.
My problem with the democrats are not big spending and high taxes. My problem with them is that they use this money in order to divide families (when you promise 1.7 trillion US dollars to single mothers, in order to buy groceries, is like you are encouraging women to get divorce and their children to be cared by the government), make young people less productive (cause truth be told if someone asks me why I never married I would tell her/him that in the years when I was more fertile like a man, I was looking to get my PHD, instead of making some kids), help out corporations, enable genocides and civil wars, and so on.
Four years with Trump, if we are really lucky, we might see less wars, but there's nothing revolutionary in him. The guy is still promising people cheaper oil & coal (because this is what his friends want him to do in the 21st century, when countries like China and South Korea are leading the total electrification of a new fusion-energy-oriented world), and I am wondering what will happen when his friends in the farming and various industries tell him that with 20 million illegals being deported some of these businesses and industries may collapse. I mean the guy may build a wall and have his ICE officers look tough in front of the cameras, but he won't stop the diversification of this country (which will make USA, UK and Western Europe look like the Balkans or Brazil for centuries to come), he always will have an ear for his rich friends, and he won't transform news outlets, social media, schools, corporations, the judiciary, etc.
In the best case scenario, you will have less wars in the four next years and a big, beautiful wall in the border with Mexico, but you shouldn't expect anything else to change in this country. Inequalities will keep rising, media outlets and social media will keep brainwashing the youth, higher education will make US population older (like is already doing in Europe, where Italians are the nation with the most diplomas and with the less kids), the judiciary will be controlled by the two major parties, our planet will become warmer, dirtier and less habitable year by year.
Elections make many Americans feel better (through releasing some of the anger they have been experiencing), but nothing will get better till we see a real/big revolution in this country and/or in the world. MAGA is not a revolution. MAGA is just a trend to release anger and keep life going on, till the day when the real problems will become irresolvable and will hit all of us in the face.
The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general.
Also ditch all the social stuff while you're at it. Nobody cares about identity politics or whether someone says mean words.
The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat. Maybe they'll let the party decide next time, though to be honest I'm hoping for more of a dark horse candidate like Obama than some of the obvious options on the table like Newsom.
We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.
The U.S. elections seemed to be an IQ test, and look at the results. Now it depends on the way each of us sees it. Are we entitled to call more than 73 million voters crackpots? There are more voters for Trump than citizens in my country.
Within those 73 million voters, there are women, Latinos, and probably LGTBQ too. What if those voted against Kamala because of a sexist bias?
Latinos are very sexist; that's 100% accurate.
I see that feminism is not strong enough as it is in Europe.
I will not understand if Trump obtained some LGTBIQ votes. That would be reckless and crazy, but are they stupid? No, I don't think so.
LeontiskosNovember 08, 2024 at 07:24#9457730 likes
The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat.
The parties are in disarray. 2016 saw two populists make waves, Trump and Sanders. If I recall, when Sanders was checked by the powers of the DNC, 4/10 Sanders voters moved to Trump. Of the two populist hijackings of 2016, one worked and one didn't, and the effects were predictable. The Democrats paid a price in votes and palatable candidates, and the Republicans paid a price in policy. There is pressure to reshape the two parties. For the Republicans the reshaping is already well underway; for the Democrats it looks inevitable.
But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center. So I don't agree that "the solution isn't hard" for the Democrats. Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions? Move left and abandon the center? Oddly, the Democrats find themselves in a strange pickle just 8 years after Obama left office. Their only grievous mistake was running Clinton in 2016.* I don't think they would've won the election any other way in 2020, given Sanders' head start. (Cue the Bernie Bros' protestations...)
* And perhaps letting Sanders run as a Democrat in 2020. But they did not want to risk him running as an independent.
What if it’s just because Harris sucked as a candidate, was never voted on to be the nominee, ran towards the right and away from Bernie, couldn’t talk without a teleprompter and endless coaching, and had no vision or policy to offer other than a pathetic “$25 thousand down payment” for homebuyers and that she wasn’t Donald Trump.
Now she, like Hillary, can also fuck off forever. Along with Biden.
But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center.
I disagree that Trump has moderated alot of his positions. In fact he seems to be moving to the extremes on issues like immigration (where he wants mass deportations) and trade (where he wants to impose a global tariff on all goods). The only area where he's moderated is on abortion and social security but apart from that he's a standard Republican and governed like one in his first term.
Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions?
The Democrat platform isn't the problem since it remains popular (while Trump's ironically enough isn't) but Democrats aren't able to sell it as well as Trump is able to sell himself which goes back to the main problem I see for Democrats.
Last I checked Harris in the closing stretch of the election avoided going into any policy specifics while using the same old "Trump bad" line of attack that's been used since 2016. It's not surprising why she lost.
I suppose if I were to look on the bright side of things it's better off for the Democrats that Trump won this time since they were in major need of rebranding anyways. Even if Harris won, I would imagine she'd be a mediocre president who wouldn't accomplish anything and likely lose reelection putting the party in the same spot in 4 years. Losing to Trump twice after barely eeking out a win in 2020 when they ran their "safe" candidate should be a clear sign that what they're doing isn't working. Also puts them in a good position if Trump inevitably screws things up now that he's in power again.
javi2541997November 08, 2024 at 08:58#9457920 likes
Reply to Mikie It is true that Kamala's nomination was awful, and everything happened very fast. But it was that, or continuing with Biden, and the result would have been even worse, honestly.
I think it is important to do self-criticism, but on the other hand, I think we should look at what the people really have as values. They voted against a system. Donald Trump is charged with multiple felonies, but surprisingly, people decided to believe that the problem is the judiciary system and not him. Let's see what happens in the next four years. Time passed by more quickly than we thought. But, in my opinion, the key would be to switch the mindset of the people and help them to believe and respect the system again.
Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to vote Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, but I would love to vote Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Ocazio-Cortez.
However, I agree with you on that sexism does play a big role. Telling from UK, Germany, Israel, and Italy, there's only one path for women to lead countries: they need to be (very) conservative women.
It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, than the liberal ones. So, either Ivanka or Tulsi might become our first female president :rofl:
I've heard that people used to call "moma" Catherine the Great, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel (though I don't know if that is correct).
Finland and New Zealand were able to elect female liberals as their leaders. Both women received a lot of attention, but their stardom didn't pass the 12 month threshold :rofl:
I detect curious amounts of resentment towards men in the comments. :chin:
That's something dems have to deal with. If you apply feminist and black rhetoric in an election, you should expect patriarchal and white identity responses.
I have no idea how democratic countries can be run with women or men assuming to be different from the rest, but there's definitely going to be a lot of resentment if countries become California and promise people reparations (because 8 generations ago some of their ancestors were slaves).
Did anyone tell these liberals that serfdom in Europe ended with the French Revolution? Who is going to pay for reparations when 90% of the world population are the descendants of peasants who (till two centuries ago) used to be either slaves or serfs?
Trump got roughly the same number of votes this year that he did in 2020– about 74 million. Harris got about 10-11 million less than Biden in 2020. That’s the real story, despite some inroads made among certain demographics by Trump. The turnout for Harris, like for Hillary, was low.
There’s no surprise as to why they would be. There was no reason to vote FOR her, and the motivation to vote AGAINST Trump, though still the correct move, wasn’t good enough.
This wasn’t a landslide, and wasn’t a mandate. But that’ll be the takeaway from the cult. But that’s a great thing— I hope they continue believing the whole country has gone “maga.”
There’s no surprise as to why they would be. There was no reason to vote FOR her, and the motivation to vote AGAINST Trump, though still the correct move, wasn’t good enough.
I'm pretty sure campaigning with the Cheneys while snubbing the left on Gaza contributed to that. Perhaps stop trying to court this mythical sane Republican voter next time.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 08, 2024 at 20:35#9459390 likes
By all means, the Democratic Party is welcome to move further to the left next election. Openly embrace the anti-American, anti-Israeli marchers. Make Palestine and bringing down capitalism their main focus. Definitely a winning strategy -- people will be motivated and will vote in droves!
If they move any further to the left, they would just be centrist or maybe center-right. They would not be left in any European country. Not even the right in Europe would dare privatize health care.
As for Israel, you better be thankful the US donor class "supports" it, because it has no friends left and is a pariah state, for good reason. And your friends those fanatical Evangelicals are the most anti-Semitic of them all
I disagree that Trump has moderated alot of his positions. In fact he seems to be moving to the extremes on issues like immigration (where he wants mass deportations)
The only area where he's moderated is on abortion and social security but apart from that he's a standard Republican and governed like one in his first term.
Abortion, social security, IVF, LGBT... Trump is also moving the party towards non-interventionism. RFK and Gabbard are former Democrats, to name two within his administration.
The Democrat platform isn't the problem since it remains popular (while Trump's ironically enough isn't) but Democrats aren't able to sell it as well as Trump is able to sell himself which goes back to the main problem I see for Democrats.
This seems backwards to me. Trump's public persona was a liability in this election, not a boon. The Democrat platform was bad enough to strongly neutralize that liability. I am amazed at how completely it was neutralized.
Losing to Trump twice after barely eeking out a win in 2020 when they ran their "safe" candidate should be a clear sign that what they're doing isn't working.
So what needs to change if "the platform isn't the problem"? A more impressive candidate and a focus on the policy proposals? I am not sure what golden policy proposals the Democrats are supposed to have in their back pocket.
It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.
In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.
So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it.
LeontiskosNovember 08, 2024 at 21:10#9459540 likes
Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards.
Of course, the US is not Europe. The US is an outlier in first world countries, failing to provide healthcare as right to everyone, among other scandals.
So yes, the US is to the right of the developed world by these standards. Doesn't mean the people are, but the system is. If you remove comparisons between developed countries, then there is no metric to say what's left or right or anything else.
I mean, for reference, anything to the right of Trump is called "radical left". That's insane.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 08, 2024 at 21:37#9459670 likes
Of course, because it was the evangelical Christians who lynched Jews on the street of Amsterdam last night. We must blame modern day anti-Semitism on the Christians or Israel itself. One group must not be named. :rofl:
I live among the evangelicals in one of the most conservative, evangelical states in the US. I understand the left likes to point the finger at them for anti-semitism but that just hasn't panned out in my experience. This group is highly pro-Israel and often quite philo-semitic.
javi2541997November 08, 2024 at 21:51#9459790 likes
As for Israel, you better be thankful the US donor class "supports" it, because it has no friends left and is a pariah state, for good reason.
:100: :clap:
Más alto pero no más claro si quieren.
One of the main problems on the horizon after US elections is how the artificial state will wipe out Gaza and erase towns and cities in Lebanon, legitimately, because his best friend—Uncle Sam—allows him to do so. :sad:
It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.
In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.
So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it.
I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability.
javi2541997November 08, 2024 at 22:07#9459950 likes
I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability.
Very confusing, Varoufakis and Modi have good books on the EU, but it is a bureaucratic mess. Not all of it is bad by any means, but still, highly perplexing.
As I’ve said before, the most moronic of analysts will show up claiming that Harris didn’t go far right enough. They’ll act as if moving left is unpopular (it isn’t), and a guaranteed loss (it won’t be). At least David Brooks isn’t such an idiot as to claim that.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 08, 2024 at 22:37#9460110 likes
Mikie, I'm agreeing with you. The Democratic Party needs to go further left and actively embrace the anti-Israel, anti-American masked marchers terrorizing synagogues. Gotta double down. Motivate people to the cause.
I'm pretty sure campaigning with the Cheneys while snubbing the left on Gaza contributed to that. Perhaps stop trying to court this mythical sane Republican voter next time.
Exactly. Turns out sending billions to aid a genocide isn’t as popular as zionist imbeciles think it is.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 08, 2024 at 22:46#9460200 likes
"Majority of Americans support mass deportations" (CBS).
Out of all the proposals, as with tariffs, it's popular, but the least popular out of the other options. Polls often also show a bigger support for a pathway to citizenship according to this Pew poll for instance. Trump has no interest in that.
Trump's love of tariffs is idiosyncratic from all political angles, true. But because of that it is not polarizing in any partisan manner.
Not really. There's still a partisan split on it but apart from that yes it's a pretty controversial proposal, and I've even found his own supporters expressing concerns about it. Their answer is usually that it's one of those non-promises that he says he's gonna do but not really (despite doing it in his first term), somehow to be distinguished from those promises that they like that he will 100% do without question.
RFK and Gabbard are former Democrats, to name two within his administration.
I mean RFK is his own case on things like healthcare and vaccines, which is apparently the one thing he's gonna have influence on in a Trump administration. Calling that "moderating" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...
This seems backwards to me. Trump's public persona was a liability in this election, not a boon. The Democrat platform was bad enough to strongly neutralize that liability. I am amazed at how completely it was neutralized.
I can only speak to my own personal experience, but when I hear people say they "liked Trump's policies" they usually refer to how they felt about the state of the economy 4 years ago and they think Trump being in office will bring that back. They never really go into specifics about his actual policies even when I persistently press them. They think he will bring down prices but I bet they won't be able to tell you how he would do it because Trump himself is unable to tell you how he would it when he's asked. His actual stated policies include the tariffs and mass deportations I mentioned, tax cuts, and harassing the Fed to cut interest rates again, all inflationary BTW.
It's not policy proposals but rather nostalgia and in this election the latter took precedence over the former. Very little in this election was really about both candidate's actual plans, making meaningless stunts like Trump working at McDonalds the only other thing on voter's minds when they go to the voting booths. Say what you want about his personality, but he is a funny and charismatic guy, and people like Harris are not and when the latter refuses to go into details about what she believes in, and says she'll just continue Biden's legacy, then voters decided accordingly.
So what needs to change if "the platform isn't the problem"? A more impressive candidate and a focus on the policy proposals? I am not sure what golden policy proposals the Democrats are supposed to have in their back pocket.
Messaging means alot which goes back to what I said about Trump being a great salesman and the Democrats being lousy at it. Trump is able to latch on to people's discontent in 2016 and this year about how bad everything is, even if he offered little in the way of solutions in the latter. Harris offered nothing.
Of course we shouldn't discount the self-imposed disadvantages the Dems had too going into this election. Fact is, we're analyzing an election loss where the Democrat ran a 3 month presidential campaign after taking over their 80 year old incumbent who was already incredibly unpopular during a time where people felt like the current economy wasn't so great.
Perhaps the reason for the election results are as simple as running a half-baked candidate in a year where the incumbent party was unpopular, especially given how widespread the shifts to the right are. As much as people like to make personal abandonment stories about certain demographics feeling left out it may be more a case of "inflation bad and Trump fix inflation" that affected and moved people this time around. Both could be easily fixed come 2028 if Trump ends up messing something up and the Democrats actually run a proper primary next time.
Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards.
Who cares about your "world standards" (which conveniently and arrogantly exclude most of the world)? The point you were responding to had to do with the U.S. electorate's view of a DNC which moves left. You responded with a non-sequitur about European standards.
LeontiskosNovember 09, 2024 at 00:44#9460820 likes
I explicitly referred to developed nations. I don't think it makes much sense to compare Germany to Ecuador. You can do so if you want to, but it would be better to compare Germany to France or to Japan.
If you want to compare the US to other countries, then it is most sensible to do so with a Western European countries or Canada. On economic and social issues, the democratic part is to the right of every developed country, so the Democratic party could not run with the platform they have and call themselves "the left".
That's just a fact.
If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.
That's up to people's consideration as to what counts as left or not.
That's my arrogant view.
LeontiskosNovember 09, 2024 at 00:51#9460850 likes
The point you were responding to had to do with the U.S. electorate's view of a DNC which moves left. You responded with a non-sequitur about European standards.
If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.
There are only 13 states that have banned abortion. There are 8 states that have no restrictions at all. The rest are about par with European countries, so I guess you could say the US is mostly socially progressive, with a touch of hyper-progressive, and a bit of retrograde.
True, but before no states had abortion bans. It's fine for individual states to get that right, for sure. Sucks bad for those women who can't do much in those 13 states.
If not for the federal ban, then as you say, it is quite progressive in many social aspects, most notably and most importantly, freedom of speech.
That is one area in which the US clearly has the upper hand compared with most other countries. It's an impressive win vs. the state.
I don’t see anything significantly changing— things will remain the same crappy situation for most people. There’s a lot of hysterics, but the most damaging and the most consistent will be continued tax cuts, deregulation, and climate denial. In other words, right back to a stupider and more vulgar neoliberalism.
Any chance of success went out the window in 2021, when the 3.5 trillion dollar Bernie-backed reconciliation bill was killed by Manchin and Sinema. That would have been very good for the country. Instead we got crumbs and some baby steps in climate policy. Not good enough, not impactful enough.
Any chance of success went out the window in 2021, when the 3.5 trillion dollar Bernie-backed reconciliation bill was killed by Manchin and Sinema. That would have been very good for the country. Instead we got crumbs and some baby steps in climate policy. Not good enough, not impactful enough.
Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.
As for the rest, well, I hope you are right in this case. I shudder to think things will change to the significant worse. But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.
Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.
Well it will accelerate emissions, yes. It’ll send a poor message to the world, and will generally be taking us backwards in myriad ways when we’re already out of time and not doing enough domestically or globally. That’s gravely stupid. But that’s what an ignorant electorate just thrust into power for 4 years. I fully agree.
But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.
Not much to figure out, it’s right there in what they say and what they’ve already done. So I think my prediction, if you call it that, is fairly certain yeah.
Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization.
Nobody who's serious thought we'd reach 1.5C anyways even if we collectively got our act together. The 2030 goals are unrealistic too given how we like to flirt with electing climate denying idiots half the time. On the bright side, civilization won't end but we're gonna be way worse off than we would otherwise. The age of endless growth is gonna probably come to a halt at some point, one way or another.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 09, 2024 at 04:25#9461190 likes
Yeah because it can’t be that college kids don’t like genocide. The 60s protests were USSR too, etc. typical rationale for delusional apologists of genocide. But yeah, go with that. I go with the China boogyman myself.
True, the 1.5 goal was already surpassed this year, but the important issue is to avoid going much further beyond that.
Now it will be almost impossible to stop maybe even 2 degrees, and that's a disaster.
I mean, we don't know until we get to it (with 100% certainty anyways) but growing food will become much harder, a huge percentage of marine life will vanish, living in many parts of the world will become unfeasible.
That's pretty bad.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 09, 2024 at 05:10#9461260 likes
5.4 million killed in Congo. - Silence
500k killed by Assad in Syria. - Silence
500k killed in Sudan. - Silence
400k killed in Yemen. - Silence
~40k killed in Gaza - extreme outrage
But that aside, if you’re so dense that after 100s of pages on the Israeli thread you still don’t understand why there would be more outrage and protesting about Gaza than Congo or Sudan, I won’t even bother answering in any serious way. Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. It’s always been your answer, so I’ll play along.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 09, 2024 at 05:32#9461280 likes
Yes, silence. Where are the protests against Assad? Or Yemen? Or Sudan? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. Now if it was Jews killing those Arabs the college campuses would take notice.
No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.
I will never understand that level of destruction. What is the point of dropping nuclear attacks in a territory? Japan suffered the consequences, but they came back fast. After the end of WWII, every conflict should have been resolved diplomatically. We failed regarding this point. Europe is also guilty, absolutely. We just looked the other way, and our passivity is also reportable. I hope I am just overreacting, and the world will not look that bad for the next lustrum, but my expectations are low right now.
No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.
Nope. You lose your heads if the US is really involved in the fight. Conflicts were the US is absent simply don't exist to you. Those conflicts are like the trees in the forest that fall that nobody hears.
Was the US involved in the First and Second Congo War?
Not much, even if many African countries were.
Was the US involved in Yemen?
With a few drones, notably killing during the Obama years an under aged US citizen, because his father (another US citizen) had supported muslim extremists after a stint in an Egyptian prison. But otherwise, this was a Saudi debacle before the attacks on shipping.
Was the US involved in Syria?
With a puny force that withdrew. Anyway this wasn't a real commitment as Americans were too afraid to back anybody in Syria, because they're Muslims and hence possibly Muslim extremists. (As the minorities like Christians basically support the regime as they fear reprisals on them)
But good that we heard from you that 40 000 is a few according to you.
I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.
But that's not all! His tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy are going to spell disaster for government debt, while expenditure czar Musk does to public services what he's already done to Twitter, albeit on an astronomically larger scale. So, co-inciding with climate catastrophe, economic apocalypse. A perfect storm. Once the euphoria of change is over, the awful reality will begin to dawn.
Reply to Manuel My eldest son lives and works in Wisconsin, where he moved ten years ago after marrying a girl from there. So I have two American grandchildren (dual citizens both). Her family is died-in-the-wool Democrat, albeit often highly disgruntled with their party. But he and I can barely speak about the politics. He's just accepted a new executive role in biotechnology. I hope to Christ the political situation doesn't turn out as badly as I know it probably will, for him and for everyone.
Another of those 'wisdom of hindsight' articles - a WaPo OP from March this year, saying the Dems really had better find a candidate other than Harris, and pronto. I think they needed a bigger personality - male (sorry to say), loud, opinionated, brash, telegenic, and anti-Trump. Although damned if I can think of one in Democrat ranks. But it's too late now, the horse has well and truly bolted.
Your son is Australian right? He will be fine if he's white, most likely. It's black and brown people that will have an issue, sad to say.
Maybe another candidate could have won. Maybe not. Hard to say. Biden being so old and being the current president makes it difficult to campaign criticizing him harshly, which is what I suspect most Dems would have liked.
On the one hand, there is no doubt this was the Democrats race to lose (they have more registered voters). On the other, so many people in the US are just clueless and very badly informed.
Reply to Manuel It's not that I expect him in particular to be singled out, or anything, but only if the political climate becomes so hostile, and the economic consequences so severe, that it affects everyone.
I've spent some time with him in Wisconsin, in the Lakes district. Actually a beautiful and serene part of the world, and overall quite genteel. But there are dark forces beneath the placid surface.
Something I will add - our first visit to the US, in 2009, for the inaugural Science and Nonduality conference in San Rafael. In the cafeteria on the first day there, a young guy opined that the Republicans were facing long-term electoral oblivion, because their major constituency, old and white, was diminishing, and the multi-cultural younger generation hated their brand. I think that was something like the accepted wisdom - but it is precisely what this election has proven wrong. Trump was elected by those very multi-cultural young voters whom the Democrats had assumed they could count on.
[quote=WaPo;https://wapo.st/3CkNI0Z]“It’s very simple: If you try to win elections by talking to the elites of this country, you’re going to get your ass kicked — there are not enough Beyonces, Oprahs or Hollywood elites to elect anyone,” said Chris Kofinis, former chief of staff to Sen. Joe Manchin III (I-West Virginia). “Trump is not the disease. He is the symptom. The disease is political, cultural, and economic elites who keep telling the public what they should think, feel and believe — and guess what they told them on Tuesday: Go to hell.”[/quote]
Bernie's attitude and behaviour is admirable. He's Good with a capital g. He's not the only one. Add to that that Bernie was right at the time - when no one else was or very few others were - on several very important impactful issues throughout recent history.
If only the world could be ran by people like him. Shame he's nearly censored across the board. That's no accident. Shame that there are so many people with strong unfounded opinions and feelings... all waiting to erupt at the sound of the word "socialist".
Reply to Echarmion True, that, but it's also the phemenon of turning against incumbency. If the Regime doesn't deliver, it'll be a revolving door as far as the electorate is concerned. And everyone knows, Trump is far better at complaining than delivering.
"Incumbency" seems to increasingly be defined not as any specific government, but as the entire socio-political (though curiously not the economic) status quo.
Reading what people say in right-wing spaces, they're mostly convinced that they're facing an ideologigally motivated group across politics, the media and civil society which will destroy western society unless they're stopped by an overwhelming counter-movement.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 10, 2024 at 13:57#9463870 likes
The point stands that many more much larger humanitarian crises exist around the world yet none generates the attention of Israel-Gaza today. It's not about sheer number of lives lost. It's clearly ideological. A narrative has been developed unlike in other (much larger) humanitarian crises that fits perfectly into the hot button issues of today.
Reading what people say in right-wing spaces, they're mostly convinced that they're fading an ideologigally motivated group across politics, the media and civil society which will destroy western society unless they're stopped by an overwhelming counter-movement.
Given the number of kids identifying as LGBT and choosing to sterilize themselves and undergo surgeries I wouldn't say they're too far off. Public trust in higher education has plummeted and anti-semitism has risen. We live in scary times where very basic questions like "what gender am I?" are now suddenly up for question. Not a good sign.
Public trust in higher education has plummeted and anti-semitism has risen. We live in scary times where very basic questions like "what gender am I?" are now suddenly up for question. Not a good sign.
And do you think we're looking at the cause here or the symptoms?
My personal explanation, which admittedly is typically pretentious armchair philosophy, is that what we're seeing is the result of a lack of avenues for (systemic) progress.
We've lived through the "end of history", but now on the other side we realise we're facing all the same problems, plus a couple of new ones. But at the same time we've lost all faith in utopia. There's no longer anything out there we can strive for without reservation.
One thing that strikes me in conversations is that everyone is pessimistic. Whether it's the climate or islam, the looming disaster is a common thread.
ChristofferNovember 10, 2024 at 15:24#9464030 likes
Given the number of kids identifying as LGBT and choosing to sterilize themselves and undergo surgeries
There's however a great deal of statistical shifts due to the very fact that with an increasing tolerance towards a group that previously were stigmatized, more people feel secure in opening up about who they are.
It was the same during the 80s and 90s, as society started to believe that there was a sudden increase in homosexuality, when in fact, the higher tolerance and raising inclusion of homosexuality in society meant that people could open up more about their homosexuality. So the statistical numbers went up based on the hidden statistics that were invisible due to stigma.
This is why I don't think the public is able to understand statistics correctly and make accurate assessments about reality. Because it's not just math correlating with society on a 1 to 1 alignment, but many factors that need to be incorporated in order to actually know if something has changed or if it's affected by other factors.
Many researchers have basically concluded that a large portion of the perceptive increase is because the number of people were always there, hidden under years of traumatic and violent suppression of their sense of self, in which they could never tell anyone what they felt. The agony of not being able to tell anyone and not being able to live aligned with who they are.
In my perspective, all I see that's happening right now is that transsexual people are the new black people, the new homosexuals, the new hated group that society can use in their ill-constructed and uneducated reasoning about a world and society falling into ruin.
It's once again the herd mentality and echo chambers of the public believing they understand statistics, biology, psychology and history when in fact they don't, and only push themselves into lesser and lesser ability to interpret the world through a functioning empathy.
Nearly 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. Aside from this, the number of minors seeking gender affirming care nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021 from 15,000 to 42,000 and the trend has continued.
My main concern is with child transition though. We can't be asking children to determine their gender and then load them up with sterilizing hormones and permanent & quite painful surgeries. They simply don't have the mental capacity to make those sorts of decisions: How is it that children cannot buy alcohol or weed, yet they can apparently consent to permanently altering their bodies and destroying their fertility?
I certainly believe society should be nice and civil to transgenders. I also understand that transgender life is inherently difficult and expensive and painful.
More sinister is the idea, floating around in some radical circles, that we have no essential gender identity and it's entirely up to the individual (including the child) to self-define. Nature apparently gives us nothing; we are our own Gods. That scares me.
ChristofferNovember 10, 2024 at 17:01#9464210 likes
Nearly 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. Aside from this, the number of minors seeking gender affirming care nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021 from 15,000 to 42,000 and the trend has continued.
How do you know that this isn't a natural number? On which basis are you making the argument and at which percentage do you know is the "correct percentage" for society?
It's culture and society that has educated you into certain classifications and categorical ideas. If people are to classify the "natural" percentage among the human species, then how do you classify this? Seen as it may be affected by herd tribe sizes and procreation habits over time, changing sociological dynamics.
Until you have a measure stick, you can't know what the actual percentage is. What kind of measuring stick do you have?
My main concern is with child transition though. We can't be asking children to determine their gender and then load them up with sterilizing hormones and permanent & quite painful surgeries. They simply don't have the mental capacity to make those sorts of decisions: How is it that children cannot buy alcohol or weed, yet they can apparently consent to permanently altering their bodies and destroying their fertility?
This recommendation for being careful I can agree with. However, it's not just asking them what they think that determine things. In most cases there's a long investigation before determining if it's a sociological confusion or actual. There's an idea that children merely say they want to change sex and doctors pull out the tools, that's not how these things go.
There's also actual physiological aspects of gender that puts things into further perspective:
Robert Sapolsky:...would have this part of the brain the size, not the sex they were born with, but with the sex they insisted they always actually were
The problem is that the pushback from adults stuck in traditional thinking makes it harder for actual investigation to take place and once again a stigma that often makes these children grow up in agony and social confusion because no proper investigation was done as it gets stuck in outdated morals and stigma.
transgender life is inherently difficult and expensive and painful.
Only for those who live in areas that don't accept or don't fully commit to accept their existence. It's actually the opposite for many who transitioned and getting what they need, they have much better mental and physical health. The one's in pain, especially not getting subscriptions they need, live in areas with transphobes running the ship. The usual shit.
More sinister is the idea, floating around in some radical circles, that we have no essential gender identity and it's entirely up to the individual (including the child) to self-define. Nature apparently gives us nothing; we are our own Gods. That scares me.
This is the normal simplification that's going around. There are physical indicators (like in the Sapolsky lecture) making some cases actual physical and medical in nature. But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender. Gender is a construct that society has made up rules and culture around.
Most behavioral differences between women and men are superficial, programmed by culture and social norms rather than incorporated in our chromosomes and genes. Most of the genetical and biological differences have to do with certain hormonal behavior differences, chemical differences, but very little actually affect identity to the point it is a fundamental difference. Most notable difference is mainly muscle mass and seen as sexual orientation doesn't seem to correlate that much with some basic sex, not even that is inherent to the biological sex.
While it's important that society and culture adapts to new knowledge about ourselves as humans, it's important that this is done without harming people. But so far, the foundation on which people make decisions and definitions about others seem to be primarily made up by people not educated or knowledgeable on the subject, rather than following the actual research and science being done, and in so hurts far more than believing they protect. Not only does the science show that most opinions are just culturally programmed, the discourse itself surrounding the sciences and research shows to be culturally affected and limiting the ability for people to understand the conclusions being done by people who actually study these subjects. The bottom line is that most people in society do not actually know what they're talking about, but they sure have strong opinions anyway.
I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals. I fear that ’90s-style centrism will march on, by a sociological force of its own, until the parties have entirely switched their social positions and the world is given over to Trumpism.
Can anything reverse it? Only a resolute determination by the Democratic Party to rededicate itself to the majoritarian vision of old: a Great Society of broad, inclusive prosperity. This means universal health care and a higher minimum wage. It means robust financial regulation and antitrust enforcement. It means unions and a welfare state and higher taxes on billionaires, even the cool ones. It means, above all, liberalism as a social movement, as a coming-together of ordinary people — not a series of top-down reforms by well-meaning professionals.
That seems a long way away today. But the alternative is — what? To blame the voters? To scold the world for failing to see how noble we are? No. It will take the opposite sentiment — solidarity — to turn the world right-side up again.
Let’s pray that the Republicans eliminate the filibuster at long last. They’re in the majority, they should be able to do what they want.
Trump has been pushing it and still continues to, and that’ll be great news if it succeeds. Bad news for the country and the world in the short term, but very good news going forward.
But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender.
Exactly. Transsexualism use to claim a medical basis, but the new wave of trans advocacy seems to be pushing to eliminate that, and I can't say that I blame them. Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?
Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity. Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.
A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.
Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?
The investigation is primarily for children, not adults. Adults have to rather go through dealing with a long line of other adult assholes who question their agency as human beings.
Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity.
Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex.
Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.
This is not what's going on. That is a conservative-held and marketed narrative that skews how these processes are actually done. The investigation into transsexuality in children is not just saying yes or no. There are both medical and psychological evaluations, very extensive. On top of that the statistics on regret among surgery sex change is around 1%. Compare that to knee replacements and nose-jobs where the regret rates are much higher but there's no evaluation before. Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation.
As I've said, the "increase" can simply be that modern society understands and listen to transgender people much better and it enables more to open up about their situation, compare to before when sometimes there were even the risk of violence against them by both family and their social sphere.
A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.
Depends on the situation. Many still hold on until they grown past puberty. But for many who are really medically confirmable, such puberty without hormon treatment can be extremely distressful. Among transgender children, thoughts of suicide exist in around half the group and almost a quarter have made attempts. The reason for it primarily links to how they're treated by family and people around them, while the lack of help and gender-affirming care are also factors.
Bottom line, while there is a ratio of detransitioning, the regret-ratio is much lower than the harm caused by the lack of support these children get. And that support is not in the way of talking them out of it, but rather in support of their gender identity. A big problem is the time it takes for a proper investigation, in which hormone therapy comes into play too late. It's also not common they get this therapy without being diagnosed with gender dysmorphia.
So calling it "criminal" in the way you did is not a proper way to deal with this topic. The only criminal thing is the high suicide rates among LGBTQ+ due to the still existing stigma and behavior against them. A behavior that will just become worse with Trump and Musk at the helm spewing their bullshit to mindless zealots.
The only criminal thing is the high suicide rates among LGBTQ+ due to the still existing stigma and behavior against them.
The world is bending over backwards to affirm trans people in what is clearly a delusion (that men can become women and women can become men), so I'm not sure what more can be expected.
Some people are always going to refuse to accept what is in their view clearly a lie (and a harmful one, at that), and such is their right.
What happens when youthful beauty fades, biological realities set in and people realize they have mutilated their own bodies, sterilized themselves, committed themselves to a life-time of medication on the basis of a fantasy that can never be realized? People get suicidal.
It's extremely sad, but unsurprising.
ChristofferNovember 11, 2024 at 11:15#9465810 likes
I'm not surprised to see the usual transphobic reactions as soon as the topic is raised. It's not a delusion, especially when the neurological research on the topic shows there are physiological differences in transgender people's brains showing attributes that misaligns with their medical sex. But I'm not surprised that your knee jerk reaction ignored that material I provided.
What happens when youthful beauty fades, biological realities set in and people realize they have mutilated their own bodies, sterilized themselves, committed themselves to a life-time of medication on the basis of a fantasy that can never be realized? People get suicidal.
This is how you prove that you've not read a thing about the topic.
The only thing that is extremely sad and unsurprising is how people like you come to these conclusions without having a anything else than an emotional knee jerk reaction to the topic; calling transgender people liars and delusional, ignoring the research and have zero ability to understand statistics on the subject.
It's basically just transphobia. The new fad among people who need an outlet to blame problems on. As it was with black people, homosexuals, jews, and so on. We're seeing the same kind of behavior against transgender people; calling them delusional and liars, purring them through the same kind of treatments. All while scientists are finding evidence that the phenomena isn't at all a construct, but has physiological attributes and signifiers.
I mean, the echos of old talk is telling:
Anita Bryant, 1970:"What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that their way is acceptable."
"“I know that homosexuals (transgender people) cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.”"
Jesse Helms, 1994:“Homosexuality (transsexualism) is abnormal, a perversion, and a disease.”
"The homosexual (transsexual) movement threatens the very foundation of our society."
Mary Whitehouse, 1980s:“The risk of children being influenced into homosexuality (transsexuality) is unacceptably high.”
Pat Buchanan, 1992:“There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war… for the soul of America.”
Paul Cameron, 1989:“The gay (transsexual) agenda is destroying the moral fabric of this country.”
James Dobson, 2004:“The institution of marriage and family is being attacked by those who want to redefine these foundational concepts.”
Phyllis Schlafly, 1970:"The ERA would lead to unisex bathrooms and homosexual marriages… society is meant to keep men and women in different roles.”
I mean, we could go on, but historically we're just witnessing the echoes of past behaviors.... again.
Maybe part of this modern rise of the old racist, homophobic and misogynic behaviors is because the conservatives are running out of people to blame? Since history has gone through its hate against most groups in society already, and they are once again losing their transphobic stance, it starts to become a sort of "then, let's hate everything then".
Going to be interesting to see what the next group these people will hate and put blame on.
Not really. I don't hate or fear trans people - I support any adult's right to choose.
However, when you start blaming a society that's bending over backwards to accomodate trans people, I am not going to sugar coat things.
When this thing that on the surface looks like it would destroy your mental health starts actually destroying people's mental health, how is that in any way surprising?
They’re not liars or delusional. The claim is that what is delusional is the belief that you can change sexes. I’ve seen no convincing evidence to counter that argument— but I’m open to hearing one.
Reply to Tzeentch It's not accurate to consider regret a major factor. It's 1 to 2%.
There was an extensive and interesting discussion about transgenderism between @fdrake and @Isaac here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13830/positive-characteristics-of-females/p1
It's not accurate to consider regret a major factor. It's 1 to 2%.
I straightforwardly mistrust those statistics (Zembla made some interesting programs about the topic). But then again, I'm not saying adults shouldn't be allowed to live in whatever way they desire.
I'm simply taking issue with blaming high suicide rates on "society" when that society is doing everything it can to be accomodating, while people are subjecting themselves to these kinds of extreme and irreversible procedures.
But yea, this is getting off-topic.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 11, 2024 at 16:16#9466540 likes
Being trans places one on the margins even if everyone is nice to you and you suffer no employment hurdles. Trans folk will watch their cis peers get married and have children while they have sterilized themselves and likely engage in some form of polyamory given monogamy doesn't really make sense. And then there's the issue of what happens when the beauty fades.
I still support an adult's right to choose and acknowledge that this actually could be the best path for some people. But I would not promote it. It is wrong to tell a child that they are the sole determiners of their identity.
However, when you start blaming a society that's bending over backwards to accomodate trans people, I am not going to sugar coat things.
Suger coat what? An argument you still haven't supported with anything other than that you think this is how it is? Who's really coming off as delusional?
When this thing that on the surface looks like it would destroy your mental health starts actually destroying people's mental health, how is that in any way surprising?
Can I see some research and statistics on this destroying people's mental health or are you just gonna continue pointing out things you have no support behind?
This is your emotions speaking, and since it's an argument out of emotion, it is transphobic. Just like if someone wants to limit freedoms for homosexuals based on nothing more than they're "not gonna suger coat truths about how society accommodates homosexuals too much". Just like a racist cannot just say they aren't racists and then they're not, it's the behavior, rhetoric and conclusions made that defines who someone is.
If you have nothing but unsubstantiated causation without evidence statements and pathologizing remarks about transgender people, then that is simply transphobia.
And why not let a neutral analytical system (GPT-o1) review what you wrote and see what it finds when I ask it "How accurate is this text?"
GPT-o1:Conclusion
The text contains several inaccuracies and misconceptions about transgender individuals and the effects of gender-affirming care. Current research supports that acceptance and appropriate medical treatment generally lead to positive mental health outcomes for transgender people. It's important to approach this topic with empathy and rely on evidence-based information to foster understanding and support.
So, basically you're just pushing the same unsubstantiated ideas that can be found in conservative ideologies.
I'm simply taking issue with blaming high suicide rates on "society" when that society is doing everything it can to be accomodating, while people are subjecting themselves to these kinds of procedures.
What you might not understand is that you are exposed to an observation of society through media. I absolutely doubt that you actually talk to or have insight into the perspective of transgender people and their experiences in society. Just because Disney+ makes shows with lots of LGBTQ+ characters in it, does not mean that society is doing everything it can to accommodate. Most of society consist of people like you, just like people during the 80s and 90s who believed whatever emotional nonsens they could think of and criticized society for accommodating gay people and that this would lead to mental health issues for these people.
This happens every time there's a societal shift into acceptance of previously stigmatized groups.
It starts out with raging hate, public outcries against the groups, then it transitions to official channels being more inclusive, while the public slowly change into what we see many do now; people who say similar things like "they can do whatever they want but not close to me", while later it goes into a false form of defense of these people, a stage in which the societal norm is to accept the group and in doing this, the previous anti-people will do what you do now, talk like you care about them, but still retain the same false claims and judgements as before. The dissonance becomes so obvious.
They’re not liars or delusional. The claim is that what is delusional is the belief that you can change sexes. I’ve seen no convincing evidence to counter that argument— but I’m open to hearing one.
Gender identity and medical sex are two different things. But even so, if you check the Sapolsky video you can see how even medical sex is more complex than just what you have between your legs. Anyone who boils this down to purely their culturally biased ideas about gender and sex and who ignores the vast amount of research on this subject is clearly not engaging with it honestly. Putting the conclusion of "delusion" before the cart of actually doing the argument.
For instance, what Sapolsky talks about is that areas like the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) and the amygdala shows a size and neuron density of the BSTc in transgender women have been found to resemble those of cisgender women. There are actual differences to our brain that has to do with our brain in relation to our bodies and in transgender people it's found that even if the chromosomes and organs align, their brain have conflicting functions, meaning, the brain and body have different perceptions of what sex it actually is. The XX and XY chromosomes direct the development, but since male and females are more similar than not, people fall on a form of gradient between the two, heavily influenced by the chromosomes.
If someone develops a brain that comes in conflict with the body's perception of its sex, is it delusional that the brain, which regulates emotions and is the seat of our consciousness is drawn to wanting a correction to get rid of the resulting dysmorphia?
What I see is, especially in relation to the topic within the election and conservative media is the same old dusty story of them looking at this as they did on homosexuality when it became more commonly accepted in society, and they believed this was a delusion that would corrupt children and societal values. All while none of them actually engaged with either research on the subject or ever even engaged with the gay community in a way of attempting to understand it.
What is more delusional, people who make absolutist conclusions without research backing it up, or people who follow what the research suggests and talk to the people it affects?
Open a new thread if you want to continue discussing.
It's related to Trump's stance and the conservative narrative that will become more common in the next four years. People like you will continue to spread further bs and be part of that transphobic movement. Your ignorance here is the proof enough.
Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex.
Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?
Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation.
Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. The question is really just whether they get their HRT. The surgeries come later.
ChristofferNovember 11, 2024 at 17:24#9466760 likes
This is probably the most highly-esteemed platform for investigative journalism in the Netherlands.
The documentary is takes a critical look at the treatments, primarily focused on the Dutch treatements. It doesn't lead to the generalize conclusions you are making. The problem is that things like this becomes a foundation for conclusions that doesn't correlate with the specifics of the criticism.
Yet there is still a screening for adults who seek to transition.
Yes, and why do you think that is? Why do people who want a nose job get none such treatment but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation? Any other decision an adult makes about their bodies require much less investigation. Shouldn't people who do plastic surgery also go through a psychological investigation about their self-image, seen as this is a very existing problem in society? It needs to go in one or the other direction, make screenings of everyone looking for any changes to their bodies, or don't treat some different than others. Which way do you suggest?
Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?
Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not.
Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. Do we allow a child to transition if their parents say no?
The investigation is both medical and psychological. Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up. Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly.
What criteria do you suggest we follow other than the most up to date research?
ChristofferNovember 11, 2024 at 17:59#9466920 likes
For example, let's stop the ongoing trend of nose jobs. The regret rate among patients is at an average 16.4%. Since this leads to mental health issues such as "Body Dysmorphic Disorder", depression, anxiety and "Post-Surgical Dissatisfaction" with many returning for correction that only deepens the problems, I suggest that we should ban nose jobs in society.
Why isn't this an equal issue in society seen as how many go through with it? Why aren't we looking into these mental health issues? Why is it that transgender people gets this much critique? Why is it that the dissatisfaction rate or regret gets unproportionally large empirical room compared to almost all other treatments? Why is the satisfaction rate and the mental health improvements among transgender children ignored or overlooked while the extremely low regret rate gets all the attention? The critical examination has only concluded the lack of extensive long term data. It's not at all enough for the kinds of conclusions you make. Especially seen as the data so far points in the other direction.
This specific sub-topic started with the fact of the general public's inability to make reasonable conclusions based on their lacking ability of statistical understanding. The interpretations of statistical data leads to the conclusions they want to make, primarily because it is focused in on specific numbers, not within context or with surrounding factors taken into consideration. In this case, the lack of long term data in research becomes empirical evidence for why children shouldn't get treatment. Even though we have observations of declining mental health among children who didn't get treatment. The regret rate among the group going through treatment is around 1%. A 0% rate is statistically impossible, but 1% is remarkably low in statistics. If you focus in on the 1% and get their regret voiced out, you can make a good case against treatment through emotionally loaded arguments, but it would be a skewed argument that do not portray the general reality of transgenders situation.
BitconnectCarlosNovember 11, 2024 at 18:15#9467010 likes
but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation?
Now that is cruel. In the US you can get HRT after a 45 minute consultation (although it varies state by state). Making a suicidal population wait years to be "trans-vestigated" before given access to HRT is cruel.
Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not.
Ok but non-binary people do transition and they have just the same right to as transwomen or transmen. They just want to feel more in accordance with their non-binary gender identity and I don't see the problem with that.
And virtually all of us have male characteristics and female characteristics.
Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up.
Now that is surprising to me if true. I wonder whether this is true across time. I don't recall this being much of a thing decades ago. We've always had feminine boys and masculine girls.
Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly.
You ever consider maybe there's no clear cut line between the two? I've seen experiments where children take a sleeve of oreos over $10,000. I simply don't trust their judgment especially when it comes to very major life issues like going through puberty and maintaining their fertility. A child simply can't look decades down the line like an adult can. A child can see the here and the now. They can regurgitate ideas that have been taught to them and appeal to them. They cannot understand themselves because the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20s and they are not fully formed.
EDIT: It is different if we are talking about a child of 16 or 17 rather than 6 or 7.
For example, let's stop the ongoing trend of nose jobs. The regret rate among patients is at an average 16.4%. Since this leads to mental health issues such as "Body Dysmorphic Disorder", depression, anxiety and "Post-Surgical Dissatisfaction" with many returning for correction that only deepens the problems, I suggest that we should ban nose jobs in society.
Why isn't this an equal issue in society seen as how many go through with it?
Yea, why isn't it? I would say the normalization of cosmetic surgery is a serious issue, actually. I can't think of anything more damaging to say to a young person than "You are, indeed, not good enough and we should mutilate you to make you better".
Do note that I said nothing about bans, but I'm glad my argument sounds authoritative enough that it would merit a ban. Just something to think about...
It’s compelling. But who really knows? I don’t. I feel like Bernie would have done better, but he would have had the entire Democrat establishment after him— twice as much as that short window in early 2020 when he looked like he would win the nomination after Nevada, and there were 3 or 4 op-eds in the NY Times every day just trashing him, with idiots like Bret Stephens losing their shit about him being the nominee and vowing never to vote for him EVER, even voting for Trump if he were nominated.
Given that, who knows if he would have pushed through?
I agree. Bernie would probably have comfortably won against Trump, even back in 2016, just because he is a normal man with normal views and seems to possess a moral backbone (a rarity in politics).
I spent some time wondering why the Democrats went with circus candidates instead of him, but then the obvious conclusion came: Bernie is just as big of a threat to the neocon establishment as Trump is.
Reply to Michael What? And end up with the same insanity as the USA? No thank you. We do need to make some hard choices on industry. Vertical integrated industries for anything space- and self-defence related. Import duties on anything not produced in line with our sustainability and human rights practises as that simply creates an unfair competitive advantages compared to EU producers; and simply start producing a lot more ourselves again with no reliance on anybody else but the EU states.
Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening.
A grey area is if he is nominated as Speaker of the House (which doesn't require being a congressman), and then having the President and Vice President resign.
So don't worry, there might be a way to get Obama back.
ChristofferNovember 15, 2024 at 12:02#9475160 likes
Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening.
Trump basically has dominance over most parts of the US government. So why won't that happen if people support him in it? It's not a natural physical law that it wouldn't happen and right now it seems he doesn't have much blocking him if he wanted to change it.
A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both houses and three quarters of the states.
What governs that ruling? I mean, what governs the form in which amendments are decided?
I'm just saying, what would stop someone if they would do anything to stay in power? What rules actually applies, especially having the supreme court in your pocket and hints at uprooting other fundamentals?
Well, if you're talking about practical enforcement then it's whoever the armed forced listen to.
Basically, I'm wondering, how far can Trump stretch his power until the population and other government authorities had enough. Around 27 years ago, a blowjob was too much for the public and politics to handle, but now we have a president that seems to push things further and further. So when will people say enough is enough? What's the line? The actual line that is. At which crossing it would result in removal by force.
So when will people say enough is enough? What's the line? The actual line that is. At which crossing it would result in removal by force.
By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening.
ChristofferNovember 15, 2024 at 14:20#9475370 likes
By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening.
So, where is the line being drawn? There are many instances in that description where I would think that people had enough and remove him by force.
Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act? Disregarding the status of Hitler within the context of history, if we look at his rise to power, it was a long line of exploiting democratic institutions in order to gain power legally. All while the opponents struggled within their own parties. The narrative of Trump's rise to power is similar to Germany in the 30s. Like then, the depression produced an extremely dissatisfied group of working class people, which is similar to the post 2008 financial crash. On top of that, the pandemic and economic turmoil at the moment, most people viewed Hitler as a savior.
The interesting thing is how no one opposed Hitler until it was too late. So when is too late? How far is a line drawn until people realize that things have gone too far?
Most of Trump's worst statements are dismissed as jokes. In the same way as Hitler's opposition dismissed him as a buffoon. So maybe Trump just is a buffoon and we just get 4 years of shenanigans that can be laughed at while his support sinks and we get another 2020 election with some half-assed democrat that the people don't really like or support.
Or, with the much greater grip on power this time around, he slowly installs ways to hold on to power and step by step dismantle the institutions that are there to block anyone from gaining authoritarian power.
People generally don't notice the small steps until its too late. But even if many notice it and talks about it, when is it enough to organize any kind of removal by force against him?
When is the line so crossed that a large portion of the population is organized and standing behind a coup removal of him because the normal process of removal has been dismantled?
The US seems to naively think that fascism and totalitarian power is a thing that simply "don't happen here". Something that happens elsewhere. But when taking into account how most aspects of Trumpism looks eerily similar to how other states went from free democracies to authoritarian, the pieces are on the board.
If that is just a coincident that this buffoon of a clown happens to have similar pieces on the board as authoritarian leaders who took power, remains to be seen.
But the question remains... where is the line drawn?
But the question remains... where is the line drawn?
I don't think there is one. He was elected for a reason: because he represents what the majority of Americans want the USA to be. This isn't evil or unnatural. History repeats itself.
ChristofferNovember 15, 2024 at 15:57#9475490 likes
I don't think there is one. He was elected for a reason: because he represents what the majority of Americans want the USA to be. This isn't evil or unnatural. History repeats itself.
it was a long line of exploiting democratic institutions in order to gain power legally.
He could very well dismantle everything through legal means until it grants him the power to take the next steps. Seen as many Maga zealots would fight for him, he could install them as his own agency/force to do his biddings.
Him being elected were for reasons that, if we listen to the voters, are all fair game. I'm not talking about the election, there wasn't anything illegal or wrong with that. I'm talking about how he will wield his power over the next four years. Where is the line drawn if he goes too far? When would people, hypothetically, realize a line has been crossed and action needs to be taken so as to prevent things from escalating into a situation in which it's impossible to take action at all?
He could very well dismantle everything through legal means until it grants him the power to take the next steps. Seen as many Maga zealots would fight for him, he could install them as his own agency/force to do his biddings.
That's Project 2025, which is a plan for removing all opposition to Trump in the government. His VP endorsed it, but Trump hasn't. His VP embraces "dark Enlightenment" principles, which basically says the Enlightenment was bullshit and we need to go back to monarchy.
For some years now I've also believed the US has problems that would best be addressed by a dictator, such as changing social norms that result from neoliberalism. I'm starting to understand why Lenin was opposed to democracy. Lenin was a monster, btw, I'm just saying I'm seeing the dimensions of the challenges he faced.
For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep.
Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act?
The majority of voters think things are bad and blame the government. They want change and destroying the government as it is will bring change. A demagogue steps in, with promises he won't keep, and scapegoats to be eliminated as the solution.
The Clown did something he's good at, "drag others down to his level and beat them with experience" (paraphrasing Twain or whoever). Why play his game? That's his circus.
That's Project 2025, which is a plan for removing all opposition to Trump in the government. His VP endorsed it, but Trump hasn't. His VP embraces "dark Enlightenment" principles, which basically says the Enlightenment was bullshit and we need to go back to monarchy.
Partly why I'm not so worried about Trump, but more worried about what he's bringing with him. What he is legitimizing.
For some years now I've also believed the US has problems that would best be addressed by a dictator, such as changing social norms that result from neoliberalism. I'm starting to understand why Lenin was opposed to democracy. Lenin was a monster, btw, I'm just saying I'm seeing the dimensions of the challenges he faced.
I think such thoughts are young thoughts of rebellion. The allure of quick fixes in frustration of the status quo. In reality, people need to be careful constructing the new house, and see to it being properly built with the care of wise builders.
For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep.
Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. The potential scenario of Trump taking authoritarian power in a way that crosses the line of what the US generally stands for; pushing the boundary of what people generally deem normal for what the US is, might be pushed so far that people don't realize it's already over.
But for the ones who notice, when is the line crossed? Because there has to be line clearly drawn and people knowledgeable enough to know when its crossed.
Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.
Sam Harris said voters don't like seeing women boxers punched in the face by men. He's right. Biological men in women's sports is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but it's indicative of a mindset Americans find abhorrent. It's also stupid policy. Biological men should not be in women's sports.
Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening.
Ahahaha, rule-based thinking has never stopped dictators. If he's so inclined he will look for other ways. I personally think he's in it for himself, vanity, greed, etc. and therefore don't think there's a particularly high chance but even so "culture eats rules for breakfast".
ChristofferNovember 17, 2024 at 13:32#9479880 likes
I think it might be you who discounts the possibility of a US dictatorship, not Americans. A lot of Americans want it now.
What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood.
Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.
Exactly, the line seems to exist all over the place, pushed and pulled by the preferences of the one evaluating its placement. But the interesting thing is when a line gets crossed that fully rally the people against an authoritarian leader.
When I hear Trump "joke" about a third term, I'm thinking of the movie Civil War in which part of the reason why that fictional conflict started was both the president dismantling the FBI and going for a third term. It eerily echoes what Trump is talking about. As I said, he's most of the time just bullshitting for likes and attention, it's part of his shenanigans, but even so, if he were to act on his authoritarian fantasies, when would the people be like "that's too far" and arm up a coup?
The only thing that makes a civil war unlikely is if Trump is bullshitting. If he's not, all he says are grounds for how such a conflict would happen. I don't think that the population would just stay silent and take it if it were to happen that he acts in violence against the people. I don't think the military would follow orders of it either. But it is interesting to speculate at which point the people would collectively wake up into organized rebellious opposition against him.
Primarily since the people of a nation like the US are so far in thought from such actions. If something like this would have happened in France, a person like Trump wouldn't be able to sneeze in the wrong direction before the people storm against it.
Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues by taking non-problems and statistically insignificant events and blowing them up into a “crisis,” and the inevitable see everyone gradually jump on board.
Trans issues, the border, immigrants, Iran, Muslims, critical race theory, ESG, DEI, voter fraud, the national debt (only while Democrat in office), etc. All complete bullshit. They’re masters of proposing solutions in search of problems. I remember how each one of these started, in the infancy of their propagandic journey — it’s been enlightening watching the evolution.
Then it’s fun to watch the lemmings in the press, the Democratic Party, and all the way down to goofy internet posters on Reddit, Twitter, and even here, tacitly accept the framing and react accordingly — all while the planet burns and wealth inequality gets wider.
What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood.
I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different?
Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues ...
They would not be nearly so successful if not for Fox and more recently the proliferation of podcasts that cynically treat politics as a rule free, fact free competitive sport.
I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different?
Not sure what you mean, I'm agreeing with you on the point of people craving for a form of tyranny. As long as that tyranny takes the shape of being on their side it is an alluring idea for the simple minded ones.
I would say though, that there is one form of tyranny that is required even though people have problems with handling the parameters of such ideas. And that's the tyranny against intolerance and anti-democracy. I think that there should be an absolute intolerance against even the slightest notion of change that does not aim to improve democracy and the quality of it. Any attempt by an individual or small group to increase their own power outside of democratic means should be a straight to jail situation. A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes. Because any change that is substantial cannot be by the tyranny of the minority.
In such a system, Trump would be removed long before he's even close to running for president, by the reason of how he talked about the US and its politics alone. If any politician even utters any form of anti-democratic idea to the public they should be disqualified and banned from halls of power.
I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature.
If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow.
RelativistNovember 17, 2024 at 21:00#9480930 likes
I'm also inclined to ban people born male from participating in female sports, as a general rule, because they had the benefit of testosterone after they reached puberty. I was curious about the testosterone of pre-pubescent boys and girls and was surprised to discover that girls have more testosterone than boys (see this).
It also leaves open the problem of intersex people like Caster Semenya - she was classified as female at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone. IMO, she should not be allowed to participate in female sports.
A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes.
Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail.
I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature.
It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices.
If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow.
Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.
Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.
Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail.
Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected.
It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices.
People are gullible to make choices if manipulated. Real choices are reliant on truth and honesty from the people giving out that choice. This gullible nature has been established by enough research into both psychology and social psychology. If we can agree on this being true about people, especially in social groups, then it should be obvious that for democracy to function as it is intended, there shouldn't be any possibilities of political actors to manipulate this gullible nature and instead force politicians to stand by truth and facts.
If all political agents do this, then we focus society to democratically function by the idea of Wisdom of Crowds. Rather than become a demagogy.
It is naive to not recognize the gullible nature of people while forming protections against those wanting to destroy democracy. Otherwise we risk being blind to those who use democracy to destroy democracy.
Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.
Democracy is a form of power. The problem is that people can only think in binary or extreme forms. It's either authoritarian or it is democratic etc. We are either under full control of one or a few or we are absolutely under the tyranny of the gullible morons of the masses. But I don't think that is true at all, that kind of absolutist thinking is for the shallow simple minded people who think in polarized forms.
Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power. But democracy needs to have a system that does not collapse onto itself. It needs to get rid of grifters and manipulators, get rid of psychopaths and power hungry career politicians. The only politicians who should be allowed in such halls of power should be those with absolute interest in caring for the people, humanity and society. Anyone of them who's just there to gain their own power should be defeated in a show of societal force that prevents people to even dare to try and seize power.
It should be dangerous as hell to try and seize power in such a system. To the point of absolute annihilation. If that is true for all in such a society, then no one can wield power for their own benefit against anyone, and society truly governs itself with representatives rather than individuals.
Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected.
For Americans "government" does refer to the system. We use "administration" to refer to the people who occupy the executive branch at a certain time.
The whole population of the USA watched as Trump attempted to override an election, going so far as to contact the Pentagon for help. Those same Americans re-elected Trump. As the US heads further and further toward right-wing authoritarianism, it's not gullibility, it's not childishness, and it's most certainly not the work of one man. It's that the political pendulum is swinging toward something that's always been native to the US ever since Hamilton arranged for the president to have direct access to the Treasury. There's nothing that can stop Trump except maybe a bullet.
Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power.
It usually takes a few generations for that to happen. New monarchies can be very beneficial to society as the new dictator seeks to establish legitimacy.
What are the forces behind the movement today? Dissatisfaction and the desire for change play a role, but is authoritarianism the only option? Of course one man's authoritarianism is another's New Deal. From that perspective some see MAGA is a correction.
Is the demagogue or a plutocracy or kleptocracy the natural consequence of democracy?
Reply to Fooloso4 With any historical event you can play a game. Find the causal factors in
1. The moments just prior to the event.
2. The previous three decades.
3. The previous three generations.
4. The unfolding narrative of the culture spanning 1-2 millennia.
5. Human nature.
I'm not mad at MAGAs, a majority of white women and "low information" citizens for again voting for The Clown. Instead, I'm pissed at the ten-plus million of Dems who didn't bother to vote for the second time in 8 years (2 out of the last 3 general elections) most likely because the Dem candidate for president was female.
Lesson: (If I'm not profoundly mistaken) many working class, non-college educated men & women would rather not vote than vote for an "Alpha Woman" to be POTUS.
It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.
Reply to Mikie It's stupid policy to have 11 million undocumented people living in this country. It's stupid politics on the Democrats part to tolerate/enable that and label anyone who disagrees as racist. It's also evil to let people stream into the country illegally so we can benefit from their exploitation.
A pundit once said if Americans are faced with a choice of a Democrat who won't enforce borders and a fascist who will, they'll pick the fascist. I hope Democrats learn from this shellacking.
It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.
I've watched this from a distance, so I don't really know what happened. A lot of comment on this election result seems to focus on questions of perception. It's payback for the neoliberal elites, sneering at the uneducated in the fly over states; it's perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok; it's moral panic - a nation at risk of transgender reassignment; It's a choice between more neoliberalism or embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard.
To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? And, if this is the case, is this driven by intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?
perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok
For many the economy is a matter of what they can and cannot afford. For some there is real hardship and financial insecurity. For others it is being able to afford a house or what their parents had. And for still others it is resentment that they can't afford a big house or fancy car or luxury vacation.
Unfortunately Trump will take credit for an improving economy, just as he did last time around.
I don't think payback for liberal elites, transgender issues, and "wokeness" are that important. It is more a matter of what people see and hear in the media than these things having a significant effect on their lives.
To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump?
I think people are fickle. The Founders were well aware of this and tried to minimize it.
... intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?
It certainly seems as if this is the case, but I think the whole thing might be to a greater or lesser extent exaggerated. People are growing weary of it. The sport of "owning the libs" is getting old and tired. It takes time to adjust to change, and things continue in significant ways. Often acceptance comes with a new generation.
Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked.
Reply to Fooloso4 Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 7 million Democratic voters who had voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.
At least in part because they too chose change. She did not do a good job of articulating how her administration would differ from his. At one point she said she would not have done much differently She later attempted to walk that back.
Trump painted her as a radial progressive. In response she attempted to appear as a moderate maintaining the status quo.
Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 13 million Democratic voters who haf voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.
Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time.
I think, for worse or better, this is it. There's no inherent bigotry or biases to people involved. Its to types of information, and styles of presentation.
I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. They care she's a hypocrite, panders and has next to nothing to offer in the current climate (in their view).
The reason Dems didn't vote for Harris is simply: She did not inspire their vote. Adding in some form of bigotry is a fully-on cope.
Looks like Trump will get under 50%. Hillary did better than he has this time in the popular vote, winning by more.
So much for a landslide and a mandate. But we’re witnessing the peak of Trumpism, regardless. And what amazing leadership picks so far— Dr. Oz, a supplement-peddling charlatan; Matt Gaetz, a Dr. Seuss-looking teenage girl enthusiast; Linda McMahon, straight from the world of wrestling— obvious pick for education; and of course several climate deniers to lead the EPA, Energy, and Interior. Perfection.
4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good.
4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good.
Problem with that is that then the Democrats won't make much effort to do anything and we will have four years after that both cleaning up after Trump and not doing politics that actually benefit the people.
Democrats need a strong counter to what Trump offers, not in "spirit", but in actual work. As mentioned earlier, Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. They now have four years to find and build up a candidate that can inhabit his abilities and policies. Form a good marketing campaign for it and tour around listening to people who will get screwed by Trump politics.
Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want.
We really don't know how many people would have voted for him. The label "socialist" still scares a lot of people. I do think, however, that targeting wealth disparity might be a winning message.
ChristofferNovember 20, 2024 at 15:48#9489760 likes
We really don't know how many people would have voted for him. The label "socialist" still scares a lot of people. I do think, however, that targeting wealth disparity might be a winning message.
The map over donors from the public towards candidates is a pretty clear indicator of what the people want. What the Democratic party then does is just ignoring this and go for the elite at the top (those criticized for being out of touch with the people).
The fear mongering using "socialist" is just the right playing their cards. Sanders modell his politics after Scandinavia and people buying into the socialist fear mongering gets quite the cognitive dissonance when living conditions in Scandinavia are brought up to be among the world leading. But they're not socialist nations.
What Sanders is capable of doing is to sell in the politics and policies to the people with just basically asking them what they want and then telling them that's what these policies will do. "You can't take care of your sick relative and need to have three jobs to even support basic living conditions? Here's the welfare system to support it, free health care, sick leave, vacation weeks, constitutional workers rights etc."
He says things as they are and gives people what they ask for. The problem in the US is that Democrats are too afraid of losing voters on the right, who themselves want better living conditions and they do it by just catering in to the same lies and narratives of the right rather than go harder into left economics and give people what they want.
And we see more and more people just saying the same things that the Democrats have been following for years now: "do the same tactics as the right", "try to speak the Maga language" and more of such nonsense, pushing the party more and more to the right by the day.
Instead of just facing reality and distinguish themselves as a left leaning party. Here's the left economics focused on supporting the people.
The absolute hilarity of the right trying to cater to the working class while still increasing the people's living costs while funding the military to such an excess it nearly breaks the economy, much rather than taking a microscopic part out of that to fund a really functioning and good health care system, better education, support for the conditions of the working class etc.
...things that overall, over time, produces the foundation for future industry, entrepreneurs, engineers and workers who can build an improved future.
This short-term self-indulging elitist politics need to stop and it will stop when parties like the Democrats choose someone with a properly intelligent vision that the people can gather around. When are people going to realize that politicians go by their own interests, in the direction of money ans building their own wealth of power rather than caring anything for how to actually care for a nation and the world?
This is why I want to ban anyone from halls of power who's not a true representative of the people and who constantly lies. Statements in politics that aren't factual should lead to removal of their power. It would get rid of not just clowns like Trump, but all clowns on both sides.
The fear mongering using "socialist" is just the right playing their cards.
I am not sure that is entirely true. It may be that people do not understand Sander's proposals, but a proper understanding of a candidate's position has never been a requirement for voting.
Unless I am missing something, if donations are any measure then Harris would have won.
How do you figure that? It's not about winning the election but who's the Democrat's candidate running for office. Without Sanders, she's third, and that's including all the public exposure she's got as a VP.
I am not sure that is entirely true. It may be that people do not understand Sander's proposals, but a proper understanding of a candidate's position has never been a requirement for voting.
He's being countered and bullied by both the Republicans AND the Democrats. He doesn't get as big of a stage and he's never been an elected candidate that gets all the attention to speak nationally. And it's not about understanding his position, it's about understanding his politics. The people actually understands him and likes his proposals because of it, every time he's spoken it's relatively crystal clear. Compare that to the non-vision gobbledygook that the other Democrats constantly spew out. And he has the ability to change his rhetoric depending on the crowd. When he speaks to working class voters he's doing the most basic 1 to 1 logic of policy to result based on their questions.
Yes, I'm more in favor of democracy than most, that's why a representative democracy should actually work as one and have true representatives, not manipulators, liars and demagogues. To force the representatives to form policy out of facts, research and what the people ask for, pitting that against other politicians who have other conclusions about how to solve issues. What we see in politics, especially in the US today, is not actually democracy and everyone who thinks that, are fools.
... a representative democracy should actually work as one and have true representatives ...
But that is not what we have. The question is how to democratically make it a representative democracy? Banning people from the halls of power is anti-democratic.
ChristofferNovember 20, 2024 at 18:24#9490020 likes
Donors who gave to Bernie over other Democrats only shows that Democratic donors favored him, not that he had the support of the people.
The map shows people's donations. There's no candidate voting by the people, the people can only vote on what the Democratic party puts forward. If the people were to vote for a candidate, it would have been Sanders.
But that is not what we have. The question is how to democratically make it a representative democracy? Banning people from the halls of power is anti-democratic.
Banning people who actively lie is a protection of the democracy. Banning people who try to manipulate and abuse their power is protecting democracy. If you tolerate the intolerable, it's going to erode everything and you lose democracy. You're not banning representation of the people, you're not banning based on political leaning or politics, you ban people who abuse their power and through that focus politics to function as representative of the people's vote.
Just reacting like that to the concept of "banning people" is like the freedom of speech ticks that people misuse as some kind of defense for whatever they like. You need to have context, otherwise it's like when someone is banned off this forum, people would complain that this is anti-democratic, disregarding that censorship has to do with state censorship, banning people off this forum is there to protect the standards of quality that this forum has. It's the same principle. Getting rid of the demagogues require getting rid of the people who act as demagogues. And that requires laws and regulations to do it in order to protect the quality of democracy that should be considered obvious. It's not rocket science.
You do not know that. The approval of Democratic donors is not the same as the approval of "the people".
It's as much representative of the people as an election itself. You think they would donate to someone they wouldn't vote for? And on top of that, what other metric do you have to measure this?
Not unless it is done democratically. How would that work?
By checking against facts. For example, politicians inflate numbers all the time to make their statements sound better, only to retract when stakes are less high. By demanding facts to be represented correctly you can install a strike method to make sure continuously lying politicians stay to actual facts.
Demagogues can win democratically by just playing the part, scheme and hide problems. "Democratically" doesn't mean anything if there's no protection of truth surrounding it.
How would you make sure that anything "democratically" is handled with care to protect itself? Hitler got to his power "democratically".
It is anti-democratic! I don't know what the forum would look like if it were democratic, but my guess is that I would prefer it the way it is.
While there's no democratic election of the moderators, I would say that if some mod were to abuse his power and people rise up to that, the other mods would surely democratically decide to strip that mod of those powers. And for bannings, they're done together with a stated reason for it, and if that reason isn't according to the rules, then that too could be contested. So far the reason why things on this forum works is because to become a mod you need to show that you have the virtue of keeping the quality of this forum. And it works well.
But then, apply that to the scale of society, it's impossible to keep it from being infested by corruption and bad actors. Through democracy it works better to cycle leaders and make the people decide who they trust. But such trust can be manipulated.
So how do you get similar quality, but through a democratic system, without having the ability to safeguard against bad actors? Banning the ones who lie and scheme, taking down the leaders who try to manipulate the masses to hide the fact they're not on their side.
It is not the same principle. One is a government regime the other is a forum.
You don't know what an analogy is? We are talking about different governing systems, on how to improve the quality of representative democracy. We ban people on the forum in order to not infest the place with low quality trash that's only there to feed the ego of the person behaving like that.
In the government, politicians should not be there to feed their ego, to work for themselves, they are there for the damn people, to represent the people who put them there. That's the whole point of democracy. And if politicians lie and cheat people to get votes, then it's not a democracy anymore, it's a demagogy.
To argue for better protection of the democratic system is to argue for a way to keep such manipulators and liars out of halls of power. To effectively ban them from being there. The people they were supposed to represent can choose another one who can behave according to the rules and regulations of such a protection system, just like we have rules on this forum. Banning such people do not remove the representative power of the people, it protects the whole system from abusers of power.
Right, it is not. Rocket science is much less complicated.
I don't think so, I think people are lost in definitions and ideologies. People seem unable to look at a system without wearing lenses of their personal value systems infecting how they read certain words.
Democracy is not a single thing that cannot be evolved. There's lots of room to improve a democratic system to rid itself of corruption, demagogues and improve the quality of its people-representative function as a governing power.
So the teenage girl-screwing creep is out of the mix — oh, what high standards the GOP has!
It's very telling of the entire republican party being so ignorant and bad at speaking out against these creeps and behaviors of Trump and his closest circle of people that the entire party is immoral.
How much proof is needed?
If you are a republican, are you supporting this or not? If not, then speak up, if so, then you're just as immoral as them. And if you're against it, but fear them, then bite the damn bullet and organize together into a new party. Take the loss if that leads to a loss in the next election through diluting the voters between the two factions. Eventually your moral faction of the republican party will gain in popularity and snuff out the immoral trash of the other. The Lincoln Project already tries this, support them, gain their strength instead.
Republicans turning a blind eye towards the immorality makes them complicit in the immorality. Either take a stand against it or embrace it, either way, the current state of republicans is that of immoral bad people. Doesn't matter where you stand politically, that conclusion is solid.
It's very telling of the entire republican party being so ignorant and bad at speaking out against these creeps
Yeah, there’s really no parity. Both parties are bought by corporations and are comprised of wealthy people educated at Ivy Leagues, generally — but anyone not locked in the “go team” red/blue tribalism can still see the differences. These nominees are beyond satire.
It’s just that people have stopped caring. They don’t trust anything, they don’t know anything, and they’ve now been influenced by something even worse than “mainstream media” — social media “influencers” and memes. :vomit:
They’re isolated on their information islands, transported there by big tech algorithms, addicted to their phones — all for profit. Not a great situation. You see it in polls where it’s asked if the stock market is doing well and Republicans say it’s awful, when it’s at record highs. I assume the same can be done with Democrats.
We’re no longer in the neoliberal era, it’s claimed. We’ll see. Biden was neoliberalism lite, Trump is just an idiot — so anything is possible. But what eventually emerges will be interesting to see. And how it disseminates to the masses via this strange media landscape.
ChristofferNovember 24, 2024 at 07:44#9498200 likes
We’re no longer in the neoliberal era, it’s claimed. We’ll see. Biden was neoliberalism lite, Trump is just an idiot — so anything is possible. But what eventually emerges will be interesting to see. And how it disseminates to the masses via this strange media landscape.
I think post-truth-ideals have taken over from neoliberalism. It's not a value system, but a sign of neoliberalism breaking down. The values of neoliberalism have programmed everyone to only be looking out for themselves; both as a sense of having a strong identity standing against the world, as well as stopping to care for anything. Everyone is in a bubble thinking they can exist without having to interact with anyone else but who they choose to. That they're not affected by climate change, economics, war and so on.
Communism was something that previously stood as a counter-weight to the neoliberal change. But since the fall of the Soviet union and placing communism's tyranny on full display as a failed system, it's more or less died out and neoliberalism could rage freely. We have the playbook for communism, we know how it played out, but we haven't truly for neoliberalism until now. We're starting to see the terrors of what it really did to our culture. And in the hindsight of the future I believe we will look back at the peak of neoliberalism just as we look back at the peak of failed communist empires obscuring the tyranny and terrors at its core. We will have an historical context showing identity enforcement and the tyranny of isolation that failed to organize people into movements for the betterment of humanity. Failing to organize the world into dealing with something like the climate change for instance.
Trump's authoritarianism is a clear sign that neoliberalism is ending. I'm only hoping it inspires a new world order to form around less authoritarian views as people get fed up with that form of fallout from the ending neoliberalism. And that the world finds a better equilibrium between the liberal values of freedom and the necessity of collaborative collective projects and systems that help people and improves life for all.
I don't think that's really a dream scenario, because I'm seeing how fed up people are with how things have been run over the past 50 years. No one wants a communist state, people don't want authoritarian leaders, they don't want a state boot, but they also don't want the soulless capitalist neoliberal machine just grinding them into mindless dust in which the existential dread of being reach a climax of absolute meaninglessness. People crave for a system that actually works, something well-planned and intelligent.
It might not look like it with all the trash and unintelligent brain rot that's going around, but you can see it in people's eyes... they're tired. They want meaning. Some go back to religion, only to find themselves in the same mess of incoherent ideas that it had. But some look for more collective coherence, something that connects people beyond the superficial realm of online trash that is algorithmically controlled social media.
People need big projects, big movements, stuff that connects and builds towards something profound or that gives a sense of it.
One example of how neoliberalism has reached its end and is about to fall is young people's interest in only short form TikTok-style media. The entertainment industry became democratized with the rise of YouTube and short form media to the point that it took the formula of commercials as the main media format. TikTok and Instagram reels functions like commercials, one after another of short form content. It flipped the idea of watching a show with commercial breaks into the commercial format being the main form of entertainment. But there's very little substance in this format, not because it's uncreative, but that it doesn't have the time to form deeper meaning. It's like looking for answers to existential questions in the commercial breaks on TV.
But young people have started to behave lost, finding themselves dissolution and without a sense of actual meaning. We're seeing a peak of this soulless consumption of the neoliberal market and that soullessness is beginning to become clear to everyone. There's a reason why we see trends like the vinyl records making a comeback. It's not because of some hipster-nostalgia, but for the purpose of slowing down and be more personal with things like listening to music. People are leaving social media or don't care for it as much anymore; they're mostly using it as a main form of communication with friends and family, but not as an identity sign post.
This form of anti-behavior against the plastic shallow nature of neoliberalism will build something new, it's a movement that is yet to have a specific form and core idea, it's a reaction that I think is the seed for what's to come after neoliberalism as a system of values truly crash down.
Absolutely true. But…there’s still a majority in this country that isn’t into Trump. They didn’t turn out for Harris like they did for Biden, and there’s good reasons for that too. That’s the other side of the coin.
Also, Fox and friends are entertaining, like The Jerry Springer Show. Has been referred to as entertainment, for that matter.[sup](thedispatch, logicallyfacts)[/sup] Compare to more sober, boring, ordinary news channels.
The source-memes and whatever it all is (plus the amount of that stuff around), begs the question of where they came from and who wrote them. Determining (and perhaps poking at) their murky origins might be worthwhile.
Compare to more sober, boring, ordinary news channels.
Tik Tok and all the rest — something like 50% of users aged 18-29 use it to catch up on politics — are much flashier than Frontline or 60 Minutes, let alone reading a paper. That’s just the way it is right now. It’ll change, but whether for better or worse I have no idea.
So, Biden pardons Hunter. Me, I think it was perfectly justifiable, but what's the bet that within a New York minute, you know who will be citing it in support of pardons for January 6th felons.
A pretty face, and some 634K followers on x/twitter as of typing, networked.
An example of what mad dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit campaigning can look like:
At a glance, it looks like noisy satire, except a couple of classes below The Onion.
I wouldn't want to impede their right to post nonsense, though some accountability would be great.
Reply to Benkei, well, now and then I get a notice, a way to keep tabs on what's going on.
Becoming informed is not the same as taking the notices/stories seriously.
I'm guessing those propagandists/influencers are having an impact, but it's unclear how much.
What's up with Matt Gaetz? Can we now rest assured every time the democrats are accused of something ludicrous like a pedophile ring, it's projection in its purest form and it's Republicans actually doing this?
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
Again, less than a majority of "We the Sheeple" have ignorantly voted for the Felon-in Chief (FOTUS) "they deserve" – shame! So now the hostile takeover of this moribund 'constitutional republic' (1787-2024) is on the verge of fully establishing an oligarchic kakistocracy (with "tech bro" stooge Vance-in-waiting with his finger on the "Twenty-fifth Amendment trigger). :mask:
Though a speculativesingularitarian, IRL as a Black American activist I've never been tempted/persuaded by accelerationism (why?); but ...
[quote=nails in the republic's coffin]• Carter-Mondale's Legacy –
Reagan (& Bush), 1981-1993
• Clinton-Gore's Legacy –
"Dubya", 2001-2009
• Obama-Biden's Legacy – Trump The Clown, 2017-2021
• Biden-Harris' Legacy –
[b]Trump The Convict[b], 2025-TBD[/quote]
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. . . .
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
If this does not describe the current political climate, I don't know what does.
Former illegal immigrant from White South Africa and so-to-be trillionaire welfare queen & wannabe Bond-villain Elon Muskbought the US Presidency and took a huge step closer to MakingApartheidGreat Again. Will there be blood after all? TBD.
update:
Far-right wingnut (racist, nativist) groups in both North America and Europe praise Elon Musk's "salute" ...
I don't think that white supremacists liking his salute means he himself is a nazi. I just think he's stupid and don't know what he's doing. Paying people to paint him as a smart man, as a leader. He was just outed to have paid some other gamer to play a character in a game to a point of being the best game character in the world, then trying to act like he was responsible for it, which other experts of that game saw through.
He spends a lot of time on crafting an image of himself as this super smart individual who think above society, but he's an insecure incel-type who gets high on power. Here's what I wrote in the news thread about his salute:
These new incel-type billionaires and celebrities do whatever it takes to frame themselves as masculine hard men, but they're like those insecure kids in school who tried too hard to be cool and tough but when cornered they could lash out in pathetic ways, while sometimes truly dangerous ways. In the US I'd argue it's those personalities who are more often than not the school shooting types.
Elon Musk seems to be such a person. He's not smart, but he spends a lot of money on trying to show the world that he is. He's radicalized into other people's ideologies because he's not smart enough to spot his own biases. He pays people to play his video games so that he can show his progress being that of the best players in the world.
It's all a show to fill that craving for attention. And up on that stage he doesn't know what to do. He dances around like an awkward drunk and he tries to interact with the audience in this euphoria of power, and in that moment he strikes a greeting that he doesn't understand looks like something else.
I don't think he did made that salute intentionally. I think it's being used by everyone online and in media to craft this narrative.
But I'm not sure this other explanation is any better. It just shows he's an insecure, emotionally unstable and stupid man who is easily drawn into ideologies with whoever gives him power and attention of a crowd.
A nazi we can deal with and fight, but a stupid man with too much power can be more dangerous. That's what no one seems to get in all this. Stop putting people in boxes and realize the actual issues, otherwise it's impossible to fight the real dangers.
If you fight him with the pretense that he is a nazi, then you will probably fail as he probably isn't and all the offense you used up with that pretense ends up being a weakness in the critique.
The public, on all sides, are so ill-equiped to deal with stuff like this today, everyone jumps deep into any polarized depth at the first glance of anything that can enforce their ideas.
Of course white supremacists will take advantage of this, but I don't think Musk is a nazi, I think he's just stupid and in over his head. He gets so high on the attention of the crowd that he doesn't know what he's doing.
Just look at his awkward dance; is that a man who is knowledgeable about, and controls his own body with enough self-knowledge to know what salute he's making?
I don't think he's a nazi either (btw, why does it matter?), just an über-rich, sociopathic, racist provocateur.
Which is why I think it's important to know why he's an über-rich, sociopathic, racist provocateur. We can't criticize and fight labels; they are incapable of being criticized as they describe themselves. A nazi is just as much of a label as a sociopath and über-rich. We cannot criticize a sociopath for being a sociopath, since it just underlines what is already known.
But we can criticize what's underneath. Why is he a sociopath? A racist? Über-rich? Doing so opens up to actual critique and means of fighting against these types.
One interesting reveal of this was that after years of trying to criticize Trump for being, what he's already being, nothing stuck. Except when people started calling him "weird". That somehow affected him more than anything else. Because it's not a label, it was calling out his behavior as being at odds with the norms.
That such a basic description of Trump rattled his emotions and senses more than calling him a racist underlines how labels are meaningless when dealing with these people.
Calling Musk "an insecure boy" I think carries more weight to him than calling him a sociopath. He made a twitter tantrum over the fact that gamers called him out as having faked his success in the video game. In a way much more childish than he usually does.
Because just calling these people labels ends when they deny it. Not because they're right, but because the discussion won't be able to move past such blunt denial.
But it absolutely matters if he is a nazi or not. If he is, then that's what's being fought against. If he's not, then trying to fight him as someone who does a nazi salute will just backfire as the reasons for it is something else than being a nazi.
Reply to Benkei Ah, right. No need to listen to anything they're saying, because we already know they're nazis. We've been told as much by the Media™, and they never lie to us about anything.
Elon isn’t a Nazi and this whole thing is kind of silly, on the one hand. On the other hand, he’s got the intellectual capacity of a 10 year old, and has devolved into a Twitter addict — so who knows where it leads. I didn’t think Kanye “loved Hitler” years ago either.
These guys are so “open minded” that they can be convinced of anything. Maybe the earth is flat? Who knows. Look at how Rogan has become a Trumper and climate denier. A real 180 in just a few years. A lot of it is audience capture and opportunism, but still— anything is possible in social media land.
javi2541997January 24, 2025 at 11:30#9632920 likes
Reply to Mikie Ditto. I am not entitled to criticise him because I am aware of his development regarding space and other engineering stuff, but he reminds me of toddlers when he starts to rant about politicians or whoever decides to delete their 'X' account. I recall when the Brazilian Supreme Court banned X in Brazil, and he began to harshly condemn and rave against Brazilian judges.
Crazy on the one hand, but cringe, embarrassing, and pathetic on the other.
In American life, a better life often involves compromise. Developing good skills in compromising will lead to a better life. Over three hundred million Americans used their lived experiences to decide our country’s political future. No matter what percentage of Americans actually voted, their families and friends make up 100% of America. I encourage us to respect ourselves.
Every two years we get to choose what kind of country we are.
Respect that.
Many countries do not get that chance.
Comments (2443)
Of course, the absolute funniest situation is one where Trump wins the popular vote and loses the Electoral College, since the cognitive dissonance will be overwhelming.
But maybe he won't outperform his polls the same way. I sometimes wonder if there is a "punishment effect" in polls where supporters of a candidate they are unhappy with lie about who they support as consequence free way to voice dissent. This seems at least plausible to me because primary voters are vocal about doing this, and they sometimes do it in large numbers (e.g. over the Gaza War this cycle). So perhaps Harris can make it a short night. I sort of doubt it though.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
:rofl:
Consider this recent article on how easily "betting markets" are manipulated ...
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/dont-trust-the-political-prediction-markets
@Baden @Mikie @Benkei
Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/940625
>>> Roevember 5 :victory:
Lol.
As if there would be a "diplomatic solution" for the artificial state that ought to be part of Russia (or at least parts that are Novorossiya) and is ruled by nazis.
But coming back to the thread.
European green parties are demanding that Jill Stein would not run, because it favors Trump.
First, it's none of their business and second, this is the utter stupidity that continues the stranglehold of the two dominant parties in US politics (which is one cause of the stagnation and corruption).
Also shows just how much "comradeship" there's in the green ideology.
Lol, Biden just showed again why the Democrats sidelined him (or the people who sponsor the party). Yet how could he remember the classic gaffe made by Hillary Clinton?
Best way to get people to vote for Trump.
In March/April 2022 there was a basis for peace, agreed upon and signed by the Ukrainian delegation. The West blocked it.
In other words, the West is the pink elephant in the room that does not want peace. It's obvious once you simply look at their actions rather than their words.
Oh and ermm.. Lol!
Ermm... You might start doing that with Russia. :wink:
That's a fact you'll somehow have to deal with if you want to argue the Russians cannot be reasoned with.
Where are you getting this? I've read this and it says:
This suggests that "the West blocked it" is just Putin's propaganda.
White House altered record of Biden’s ‘garbage’ remarks despite stenographer concerns
Trying to rewrite history and dupe posterity is the end result of their brand of political correctness, so it is no surprise.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-garbage-transcript-puerto-rico-trump-326e2f516a94a470a423011a946b6252
Well I can't wait for the cognitive dissonance freakout here on this thread when Harris-Walz wins (possibly declared as soon as next Wednesday night). :wink:
>>> Roevember 4
This was already reported on earlier by Israeli mediator Naftali Bennett, but the Ukrainian diplomat confirmed it.
You mean this?
I wish I had your confidence. I've been stuck waiting with time to kill all day and been feeling an increasing sense of doom looking at the analysis. Nate Silver's op-ed in particular.
Bizarrely, polling suggests Democrats will do better where they need to do good to win if turnout is low.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1852448089157595643?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle
Did he say she should be fired upon? Of course not. But Headline-readers have fallen for it, of course.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/1852347667726147826?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
But wait!
He meant to say that the porn star would not be so saucy if she had gone to Vietnam.
Why would there be a freakout? Almost everyone here and elsewhere has said the race is at best about 60/40 in favour of Trump. A 40% probability coming true isn't going to cause anyone to freak out or even bat an eyelid.
There would only be a freakout if your prediction of Harris winning the popular vote by nine points or so and a blue tsunami carrying her to a landslide victory is correct. That's not going to happen though.
It will be close with Harris carrying the popular vote by between 1 and 2.5 %. Trump will get at least 46%. @180 Proof's prediction of Trump at about 42% is way off in my view. Not long to go and things could still change, but it will take something dramatic to reset the race now.
I think you are betting too heavily on women. It may be more conducive to appeal to independent voters, yet I haven't seen VP doing it yet.
If only she would vow to do away with student loans, which seems like a rallying point... :chin:
The Ukrainian situation might have started in some (out of sight) way between 1991 and 2009.
Certain people wouldn't accept a wholly independent Ukraine. That independence itself meant that Crimea wasn't for the Kremlin to control, and their empowering influence over Ukraine would diminish. Loss. "Must regain."
The sentiment might be older, but sometime after the cold war it apparently came into focus, became important to a number of (let's say) "concerned citizens", important enough to solidify the collision course of which we're seeing the results.
Operatives deployed, people friendly/susceptible to "the cause" rallied + more hired, "little green men" sent, Ukrainian "red lines" crossed, takeover, invasion, bombing, grab, all the while utilizing that suppress-rinse-revise machine (including domestically). Hostilities (+ elsewhere).
As far as I can tell anyway, the "root cause" was that seemingly inevitable collision set in motion by a number of "entitled", influential people asserting ownership, and rejecting a friendlier course, or democratic course for that matter. The Ukrainians (and most of the world) said "No".
Might be worth noting that the Kremlin's course of action hasn't resolved (maybe can't resolve) their supposed fear of NATO. To keep NATO at bay, are they going to make Donbas a minefield with anti-missile installations or something?
[sup]? there's plenty more evidence to this story (which is what it is) — coherent, plausible, straightforward enough[/sup]
Bennett's comments were obviously highly controversial, which is probably why he was pressured to backtrack on them.
However, Ukrainian diplomat Alexander Chaly who was part of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul gave a first-hand account that confirmed Bennett's initial statements.
All I can find about him is this:
He doesn't seem to know what happened. But the above is consistent with what I posted earlier:
Quoting Tzeentch
Or, as explained above, the original remarks were badly translated and misrepresented, and he wasn't being pressured to backtrack at all.
I think you're falling for Russian propaganda. The very notion that "the West" wants the war to continue is simply ridiculous.
Answer: yes, it was possible, and this is confirmed to us first-hand by a Ukrainian account no less.
It is clear as day.
If you want to believe my views, based on neutral, Western and Ukrainian sources are a product of propaganda, I think that says more about your own biases than mine.
That “diplomatic solution” was giving in to absurd Russian demands.
All you really seem to be saying is that surrender is possible. And yes, it is, but Ukraine shouldn’t surrender. They’ve been unjustly invaded by a foreign nation. The best “diplomatic solution” is Russia fucking off and paying reparations.
Nope. The Ukrainians put their signature under the draft, so unfortunately this narrative doesn't work.
They agreed to an initial deal but then Russia unilaterally changed the deal to include ridiculous terms that Ukraine was right to object.
Instead, they mention a certain British clown traveling to Kiev, after which the negotiations are mysteriously aborted even though all signs were that an agreement was close.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ronpaul/status/1852493942283239458?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
:smirk:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008 :victory:
>>> Roevember 2
Either Trump or Harris could easily win 300 plus electors. Every single swing state is within the margin of error. I will only strongly disagree that Texas, Florida and Ohio are in play.
And I'l stick to my prediction that Harris will lose unless she wins MI and WI, though I think she'll win Pennsylvania.
Anyhow, we are---thankfully---running out of time to argue about it.
So many margin calls on either side. Selzer's poll was bold if anything, let's see how she stacks up this time. Quite nerve racking honestly...
:smirk:
Consider these 'more grounded' (re: historical-social context) guesstimates:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/11/why-this-highly-accurate-market-based-election-indicator-seems-to-be-predicting-a-kamala-harris-win/
https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/america-votes/historian-allan-lichtman-standing-by-harris-victory-prediction-despite-polling
https://fortune.com/2024/11/03/presidential-poll-iowa-selzer-donald-trump-warning-kamala-harris-surge-midwest-blue-wall/
addenda to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/934008
nota bene:
Quoting 180 Proof
Roevember is here! :victory: :smile:
@Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @Shawn @Count Timothy von Icarus
It reminds me of that time in High School when I was an unwarned participant of a game of chicken on a street out West as a passenger in a rusty Impala...
What I liked about Selzer is that she refused to speculate how her method would work in other States. Her groove was "try it and see what you find."
Aside from the truth US elections are there for Democrats to lose, we can probably add the GOP doesn't understand women.
Oh sure - there are good indications she can win, maybe by a margin which shatters most of the deadlocked polls.
But - it needs to get done and we can't take anything for granted. He *could* win. So, hedge your bets just in case.
Hah!
Well. I am cautiously optimistic. But you can never tell. Hopefully we will be able to see what the heck most pollsters got wrong in assumptions, IF they were wrong, which seems likely given so many .2, .4 and 1% margins.
We will see on Tuesday. But, you made it alive out of that chicken game :)
Yet many here enthusiastically and repeatedly promote these falsehoods. And notably simply disregard every other aspect, like the russification and things like Putin declaring more Oblasts to be part of Russia, not just the now occupied territories. Yet but selectively picking your narrative one can say nearly anything.
It surely started then. We just didn't notice as first the restoration/reconquest of the Empire wasn't so evident, even if many especially in the Baltics and in Eastern Europe warned about this. Perhaps we thought that Russia could move on like Great Britain or Austria once the empire collapsed.
Quoting jorndoe
At first, this was rather delusional and talk that fringe politicians could say. Until it wasn't anymore.
But of course, this is for another thread.
Yet the obvious issue here is to understand that the objective of Russia is the reconquest of lost territories and to break the link of Atlanticism between the US and Europe. Russia's hostility towards the EU is logical consequence of this. The more broken and disunified Europe is, the more influence Russia has here. This is a far more hostile attack towards the US and the EU than China has ever done (at least after the involvement in the Korean War). How this isn't seen as overtly hostile and people have these delusional hallucinations of Russia and the US getting together against China is incredible. Russia's hostile policies are clear and have been long term. And similarly Trump's idea that he can end this war immediately is silly campaign talk just for on niche of voters.
That North Korean troops are now at the Ukrainian front is extremely telling just where things are going.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944276
WHETHER THE MAGA CIRCUS LIKES IT OR NOT, WE'RE GOING TO REJECT THE CLOWN. :mask:
>>> Roevember 1
Echo chambers, conspiracy narratives, christian evangelism, low education and so on.
The general human condition is that we are always prone to bias and avoid complex thought. It takes effort to stay educated and informed, to think and be vigilant.
Everyone is like this, which means that the general public are inclined to follow the herd, follow what emotionally feels right, and with the right narrative, truth and reality does not matter. It is relative.
To generalize... everyone is basically stupid and populists and demagogues take advantage of this by both constructing false narratives, appeal to emotion and flood elections with so much conflicting information that truth doesn't matter anymore.
It's why it's impossible to use rational arguments with these people. Within these groups, truth has eroded so much and been replaced by emotional chanting that it basically is a fundamentalist religion. If you listen to his crowds, they're chanting as a cult. Meaning, they don't even seem to understand what they're chanting, what the implications are of the words they say. They blindly follow him.
It's the same mechanics that transformed morally good people in Germany to follow Hitler into death.
And with online social media, the speed at which this stupidity spreads, there's no wonder we've seen an uprising of this type of mindless cult behavior in many countries around the world.
If you are a person with power and you reach out your hand to stupid people and tell them that they are the best people in the world, you're giving them dreams and hopes they have never felt. They don't understand world politics, they don't understand economics or the justice system, they are fundamentally lost in their existential struggles and then this powerful figure, who's name is on many things in society, who's up there at the top, but behaves just like them, reaches out a hand... it's like a divine experience to them.
It's the SAME mechanisms as cults. Someone with power who "sees you" and tells you that you are chosen to be the new elite and that everyone who called you stupid in your past will be punished. Every family member who cut ties with you will return back and tell you they're sorry for not believing you. You're part of the promised people, the kings and queens in the new world order.
I have no problem understanding why people follow Trump, regardless of his behavior. People are more stupid than they think and it demands effort to always be vigil of your own biases. These people have no such abilities and thus are open to a total annihilation of their inner agency, making them into zealots and drones.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/penguinsix/status/1853139558252040626?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
The bipartisan Trump team is a big FU to the establishment uniparty, but also the inevitable result of the political triangulation made popular by bill Clinton and its most recent representative, Kamala Harris. The two parties were nearly indistinguishable since then until now. Whatever the results, new parties are emerging from the old ones.
:100:
Nice. I resemble that remark.
If Trump loses (and I think he wins), he will claim victory before all votes are counted, scream about fraud and cheating without evidence, claim early votes or delayed counts (which are totally predictable) are illegitimate, and that the election was stolen from him again. Why? Because Trump is not psychologically capable of losing; that would make him a loser.
Given how obvious this is, and the fact that I’m calling it right now, you would think everyone would take these claims with a huge grain of salt— if not ignore them completely (the rational choice). The 2020 behavior is also quite enough to warrant waving it off as nonsense. But just watch — IF he loses, this is what will happen, and his gullible, irrational followers will go along with it.
Let it be noted. Quite pathetic, but clear as day. I’d bet anything on it.
In America on the ballot today there is a simple, yet fateful question: FOR TYRANNY (Trump-Vance) OR AGAINST TYRANNY (Harris-Walz)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Tyranny
Roevember is here! :fire: :party: :hearts:
Are you nervous?
Do you think there will be surprises in the so-called swing states?
Oh buddy, I hope women just help this one out, as you hope they do.
Actually, why does anyone ever think that their elected president is going to fix their life? So far, elections over decades just show how society swings back and forth. It's usually just about people having hope of change and getting disappointed. So they swing back and forth, without a thought in their head that their lives are unimportant to any president. That they're just meat to be herded.
The problem is direction, vision. There are no visions. True visions. There are just scam narratives. A true visionary president who has a real plan for making society better and people agreeing to that vision not out of propaganda, but out of a will to work for a change that is properly thought through. That will change things to the better.
But the system is set up to rewards scammers and narcissists, because those people knows how to play around with people's emotions rather than being forced to confront their intellect through systemic guardrails.
How I'd wish democracy was in actual serious trouble. To the point of people seeing that danger head on, not in some abstract analysis by experts, but in society. That way people would want to change the system because they would realize what the current system can lead to.
People are too comfortable at the moment.
They do not vote wishing their lives would be fixed but saved. The political slogans have mottos such as 'democracy is in danger' 'save America', 'Israel or Palestine existence', and the delicate topic of abortion and pro-life. One side of the voters thinks that if their opponents win, their lives are at risk. So do the others otherwise.
Doesn't matter. The principle I described is the same. Swing voters goes back and forth expecting change, but their lives do not change. All they're doing is lowering the propaganda narratives down to even further polarized language.
People don't know what they want in life, or what they need, people just dream nightmares or utopias and fall into the narratives of those who can scare or give them hope.
My point is that democracy isn't in danger... it's in some ways already dead. And people need to realize this in order to rebuild it.
Of course, we may not know the results tonight.
People do not learn lessons on a sociological scale. Individuals learn lessons, if the population is inclined and willing to listen to those who learned lessons about past events, they can change. If they reject these lessons, they will repeat history.
Society didn't learn any lessons from WWII, individuals did and their lessons were taught to the rest. Fortunately those lessons shook enough to form a consensus on where history should go.
Today, however, people do not seem to listen to individuals who want to teach. People are so called, "fed up with experts". They will only listen when they, themselves, face the consequences that would gives the lessons the experts already learned.
For something like climate change, this is what will happen. People won't want any change until storms and catastrophes absolutely destroy their lives. When the heatwaves, hurricanes, floods and stuff keeps coming and don't stop. When relatives and friends die because of this, then they will start to learn the lessons. And when the rest of us have said "we told you so" and they finally agree, only then will change come into play... far too late to make a difference.
And seen as more and more individuals who learned lessons from WWII disappear, there's no wonder that the mechanics of what enabled WWII to happen will start to appear again.
The fundamental stupidity of humanity as a whole and over history is staring back at you.
I agree. But a large number of Americans think otherwise. I was watching the news, and experts on this matter said Trump supporters really believe that if Kamala wins, American democracy and security are in danger, when they are already flawed, as are most of the Western countries. Maybe spreading fear in the eventual lack of national security and individual freedom is a successful political strategy. I can't imagine the individual rights and freedom of people like Elon Musk and WASP families at risk, but surprisingly, millions of voters do.
I don't think Trump will win. And I don't think his stolen claims get as much traction, though tensions will arise, no doubt.
Let's see how my comment ages. My feeling is that he will get trounced in the EC.
Clown on me if I am wrong, as I should deserve it.
I won’t. I hope you’re right.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/942675
People seems to forget that everyone said the same in 2016.
That is correct. And he could win. It's merely anecdotal and vibes based, which is as good as useless.
But - we are here to talk. EDIT: I think the similarities between Clinton's situation and Harris situation are an exaggeration.
Again, we will see in a few hours.
That sentence doesn't really make sense but I still understand what you're saying; for one, people actually like Harris.
Yes. Very poor sentence, I meant to say, I don't think there are many similarities between Clinton and Harris' situation. The only surprise was turnout for Trump in states assumed to be blue, that went for him.
This time, there is no such complacency in the "blue wall" states. Furthermore, I think that pollsters may for once be over-estimating Trump.
Finally - Selzer's poll aside - it's been a brutal week for Trump.
Just before 5PM, Trump wrote on Truth Social:
"A lot of talk about massive CHEATING in Philadelphia. Law Enforcement coming!!!"
Voters in this election were overwhelmingly concerned about the condition of democracy and the economy as they cast ballots. Americans put democracy first, with 35% stating it was the most important factor in selecting how to vote for president, followed by the economy at 31%, an NBC News exit poll revealed. Abortion (14%) and immigration (11%) were the second most important issues for voters, with only 4% naming foreign policy.
This sounds hopeful for Harris supporters.
:shade:
I agree, I don't understand how so many people are calling Harris a winner at this stage. There's nothing that really points towards it. Remember that there's a lot of Trump voters who don't want to be open about it.
And usually, authoritarian people gain power when the world is in turmoil. People are gullible and believe that someone will come in and just "fix things" without any negative consequences.
So at the moment I think people need to come back down to earth and don't get the hopes up too much.
You are right, he may well be the winner. For sure.
But beyond a shadow of a doubt, in political philosophy?
That's more than we can know.
Instincts are another matter.
I am derailing actually, just wanting to say that, no, my feeling is not rational. It is very firm though :smile:
:wink: Follow me down these rabbit holes to Wonderland, my friend ..
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944276
Women. losing rights by changes in law. The U.S. is suddenly the new Tehran.
It shows 78% chance Trump wins.
Not going to call it for Trump until Harris loses one of MI, WI, or PA.
That is the prudent thing to do.
But it does not look good in most of those states.
You are technically correct.
Also, I am a total and complete clown. Never take my US political predictions seriously. smh
Since you weren't going to call it, I got to do it.
Data looks bad for Harris for sure. She's even winning less women than Biden... Dems never gonna learn.
More extreme climate disasters are also now locked in. Enjoy.
But I don't understand why people think Trump does anything for them.
I don't know what to say, frankly.
The average American doesn't want to be ruled by a woman. I never expected their sexism to be that severe.
That's likely an important element. What % that covers is not entirely clear, but yes, it is a factor.
You can't say it's because she's black because Obama was in office two terms, so if you can't call the average American racist, you've still got misogyny to argue.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 though. Only lost due to electoral college set up.
Quoting Baden
True! And still...
He'll burn down the system. That's what people want. They're tired of politics, tired of being responsible for the world's ills, tired of worrying about climate change or foreign policy, tired of the current state of capitalism (though the latter they don't identify as the problem).
The solution is to burn it all down. Elect someone obviously hated by politicians and the media. Someone who is "unfit for office", which to their ears means he's a danger to the status quo. He's a danger to "democracy"? Great that means he'll change the system which doesn't work for ordinary Americans.
This is not meant as an indictment. There's stupidity and cultish behaviour around Trump, but their feeling that something is deeply wrong is understandable. It's not limited to the US either. I see a lot of the same sentiment in Europe now.
I totally agree with this. This is the real reason why Trump is elected (or if he get's through to get the second term). And thus it really doesn't matter what a debacle the whole Trump II administration turns out to be, as long as the media is offended and the elites are angry, Trump voters are happy. Because he is tearing down the rotten system. The smug media/Hollywood apparatus doesn't simply understand this and because it fully has gone with the Democratic narrative, it helps Trump to be the contender (and possible winner) he is.
Anyway, these so-called liberals don't understand how hypocrite bigots they are when they talk about white-trash, hillbillies and flyover country and then uphold the woke narrative. Somehow, when it's your own race, whites talking about whites, in the US you can be publicly as offensive as ever. All what this does is that it shows the actual bigotry in the American system.
First thing in a democracy is to respect your fellow citizens who disagree with you and vote differently. And never, ever, ridicule them.
Some relevant iconography:
This icon is ubiquitous in Buddhist cultures. They are called 'the three poisons', responsible for all human misery. Snake represents hatred. Pig represents greed. Rooster is ignorance. They're running the show now.
I still blame Biden ultimately for tying his party's hands like this. Even Harris herself is incapable of distancing herself from him because she's a part of his administration. His decision to run again and his (even now) stubborn belief that he's capable of winning is the biggest reason why the Democrats lost.
I always feared the worst, but I think this is going to be a lot worse than I feared. I think I'm going to get my head out of news broadcasts and go back to just studying philosophy and Buddhism.
Isn't Trump just another celebrity, virtue signalling, identity policies wanker (albeit of the right)? Do you think that he and Vance and Musk and RFK and Bannon will be able to agree on anything and not end up derailing themselves in acrimony in a few months? Seems to me that Musk, Bannon and RFK will need to take out Trump in '25 so they can get to the real work.
Yeah, it is crazy. Surprisingly, he beat the odds.
Musk says he wants to slash government spending and bust unions, while RFK undermines vaccines. Both of these people could've pushed for climate action on the right given their backgrounds, but why make things better when you can make everything a hell of a lot worse?
who happens to now be the most powerful man in the world. The Republicans now control the White House, Senate and House. Forget about environmental policies and climate targets. Forget about all the lawsuits and indictments he was facing, he'll walk away scot free. It's a disastrous outcome.
Around the time he bought Twitter.
@180 Proof?
Allan Litchman (“never wrong in 40 years” 13 keys guy)
Michael Moore
Bill Maher
Nate Silver (barely)
James Carville
…anyone else care to add to this?
The polls turned out fairly accurate— still underestimating Trump but not by as much.
Now it’ll be fun watching the Republicans try to govern and yet still blame democrats when everything goes to shit, as it always does under their leadership.
Some of my friends keep telling me that Trump is what happens when the liberals have lost their way. What do you think are the lessons for Democrats here?
Sublime experience.
Not to run an empty, establishment candidate who runs away from every popular progressive policy there is, and who has no principles. They played this one by the book— and failed yet again. Didn’t help that she, like Clinton (and, to a degree, Biden), was essentially anointed by the DNC.
It gets tiresome having to exclusively vote AGAINST something— that’s extremely uninspiring. Despite all the gaslighting, I never felt the so-called “energy,” and I imagine millions of others didn’t either. It all felt rather bland and formal and forced and coached. Like Hillary all over again: machine-like; robotic. I still voted against the worst, as we all should, but eventually you have to offer something as well. Biden, pressured by Bernie (as he needed that large cohort to get elected), ran on several of his policies. Kamala immediately ran to the “middle,” which every bozo pundit in their infinite wisdom said to do. You see the obvious result.
What will they actually learn? Nothing, probably. Maybe blame Russia again, or run even MORE to the right next time.
Quoting Wayfarer
Musk indeed had been a democrat. Why the Biden administration snubbed Musk, like for example praising electric car makers other than Musk, who has been the leader and the newcomer, is basically typical Democratic fumbling. Yes, Musk may not have been a supporter of trade unions, but still. And likely the real cause is him buying Twitter and not being the DEI supporting political line tower as the other internet corporations.
Hence the outcome was logical and Trump got a great backer for his new administration.
That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks. Yes, I said to a friend yesterday that there wasn't a genuine bone in her body and, perversely, by contrast, Trump appeared spontaneous and real, even if he is a carny barker and quite obviously a cunt. What do they say? Shit has its own integrity...
Forgot to ask - what progressive policies are you referring to?
Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, Green New Deal, free public college, student debt cancellation, the PRO Act (unions), free child care and child tax credit, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, gun control, police reform, etc etc. She ran from all of it. Not only does it energize the base, but most of it has broad appeal. Not to mention she’s a war hawk and genocide supporter like Biden.
Also, for the record: Bernie would have won.
[quote=Peter Hartcher, Sydney Morning Herald] George Washington notably declared American democracy to be “an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people”.
The American people are now abandoning it as a failed experiment.
In word and in deed, Donald Trump for years has made plain that he does not respect the results of elections, unless he is winning.
Yet most American voters, in full knowledge, cast their ballots for him in this election.
In case anyone had forgotten his autocratic instinct, Trump issued a reminder just two days before election day.
He has never accepted the outcome of the 2020 election, fomented a riot to try to stay in the White House, and on Sunday said that “I shouldn’t have left” it.
Seven in 10 Americans understood the risk, telling CNN pollsters last week that they didn’t expect Trump would concede defeat if he lost. Yet most voters willingly handed him power.
If Washington was the father of America’s democracy, Trump has auditioned to be its undertaker and is now positioned to duly deliver.
He didn’t have to seize power. America, the modern world’s greatest champion of democracy for the past eight decades, has lost faith in its calling.
That is the true uniqueness of this election – not the candidates, not the policies, not the pageantry. They matter. And, in a democratic system, the power holders and their policies can be replaced, renewed, reviewed.
But in an autocracy, an absolute leader is not interested in being replaced nor his policies reviewed. The great advantage of democracy is not that it produces the best possible government but the bloodless removal of a bad one, as Karl Popper said.
Trump has made clear, over and again, that, if given power, he will not surrender it. As he said to an audience this year, vote for him “just this time, you won’t have to do it any more. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more”.
When Joe Biden took power, he said he would try to save American democracy.
“From the very beginning, nothing has been guaranteed about democracy in America,” he said in 2022. “Every generation has had to defend it, protect it, preserve it, choose it.”
Until now. Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, failed.
Democracy has been in retreat on planet Earth since the “democratic recession” took hold at the time of the global financial crisis 16 years ago. Only 24 full democracies survive among the world’s 200 nations, according to The Economist’s Democracy Index.
And now the centrepiece of the system, the hub of a network of democratic allies embracing more than 40 nations, has collapsed in on itself.
American democracy was hollowed out by a failure of its promise to its people. Most Americans believe that their country is riddled with corruption, most believe that government serves the elites and not the people, and “nearly half of all voters are sceptical that the American experiment in self-governance is working”, to summarise a New York Times poll published last month.
And now they have delivered the death sentence to the system they feel betrayed them.
Not because they expect Trump to actually fix a broken system. In her landmark work, The Politics of Resentment, political scientist Katherine Cramer described how she took regular part in a wide range of community groups in her home state of Wisconsin, one of the swing states in deciding elections and part of the great swath of left-behind, fly-over America.
When Kramer asks groups of Trump supporters how they expect he will improve their lives, they are surprised at the question, she reports. They don’t expect Trump to be the vehicle for their improvement but for their disenchantment and anger.
When Trump said last year “for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution”, he spoke for those voters. They have given up on their system, feeling abandoned by smug big-city elites, but have confidence in Trump to offend the elites and damage their system.
The US, the nation that kept liberty alive in the face of a fearsome axis of autocracies eight decades ago, seems to be losing confidence that it’s worth the effort.
Will Trump’s America be prepared to confront the rising partnership of autocracies in their fast-forming new front – Xi Jinping’s China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the ayatollahs’ Iran and
Kim Jong-un’s North Korea?
It must be in question. A former Trump national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, explained why Trump prefers the world’s worst dictators to America’s traditional allies. It’s part of “his struggle for self-worth”. If he’s accepted by so-called strongmen, “he might convince others, and especially himself, that he was strong”.
Benjamin Franklin said that America was “a republic, if you can keep it”. He might be surprised to know that, in the end, it just gave democracy away.[/quote]
Because now they own everything and will have no problems installing whatever policy they like.
The rational concept is to never treat his voters as stupid. To listen and understand why they vote for him. But listening to voters outside the voting halls, in interviews that weren't pre-planned democratic hit pieces trying to find the bottom of the barrel... they're still not convincing me that they aren't stupid. It's just not as blunt as the Maga trumpsters being portrayed so far; it's more that they simply either do not understand the basics of economy or have any actual insight into the actual policies and politics that's been done.
So many people just don't understand why there's inflation. Some people think the Trump tariffs will grant them more income because they believe it's the other nations who pay them. Or that Biden's strategies to fight inflation was the cause of the inflation, not the Ukraine war and it's energy politics, and the pandemic screwing around with the global market.
I know children in school who learn this shit when they're around 12, who understand the basics of it.
If anything, this just confirms the notion that people are gullible and stupid. What's the point in listening to these people complaining in ways that have no relation to the real world? It's just emotional garbage reasoning, it's just biases and fallacies and a basic inability to have integrity towards manipulators. It's impossible to meet their wants and needs since they live on another planet.
We've had 80 years of processing "why the German people where so stupid in following Hitler", there's been literature, shows, theatre, movies and even video games handling the concepts and intellectual discussion with the public about why people follow charismatic leaders who doesn't give a shit about them.
Hell, THIS YEAR we had one of the biggest stories about this turn into a massive cinematic hit in Dune part 2, that is primarily about this concept. But in hindsight... there are so many people who just shouted "Lisan al Gaib" when watching the movie, believing in Paul in the same way as the fremen people. How the point of the story went right over the heads of the gullible... again.
No, these people deserve the sledge hammer of reality to the face. Maybe this time, when Trump policies aren't blocked by democrats in other sectors of the government; the people will actually, finally, open their fucking eyes.
Quoting Mikie
I was wrong. :zip:
As Mao said: "All is chaos under the heavens, the times are excellent." The EU is too inflexible to take advantage of this but we know Russia, India and China will. And of those I'd rather have India do well than the other two.
But the world is globally moving in the direction of post-truth behaviors. And in such a climate, you can't have an election if there are no laws preventing lies. Lies and opinions aren't the same thing. A post-truth world thrives in lies because voters doesn't care what is true, reasonable or good even for them, they go with the narrative that is emotionally good for them. This is what fuels people like Trump.
So there's no surprise that we see more of this. Economic turmoil and world uncertainty almost always generates a populist response.
The problem people have when trying to analyze the world is that their political bias also produces a cognitive bias. People leaning towards the left have been living in a delusional idea that things can't get worse. They believe that the good will prevail.
If there's one position where I've been trying to be for a long time, it's on the side of truth, to the best of my ability. That doesn't make me an unmoving static centrist, no, I think that this political categorization and labeling of everyone around us needs to fucking stop.
There's only two sides right now. The side of the lies, filled with populists, criminals, corruption, war and hate. And the side of truth, filled with rational reasoning, scientific methods and thinking, problem solving, humanism and collaboration.
What the post-truth world needs is better ways of streamlining how we reach truth. Better ways of how to cut through the noise of lies and bullshit in order to collaborate for a better future for all.
Right now, there are no tools of a democratic society to handle post-truth representatives and their followers, because the very thing that a democratic society was founded on were that people followed actual truth. When truth disappears because the tools of rationality and reasoning gets demolished, we also lose the foundation for a democratic nation to function properly.
In essence, democracies of the world today aren't equipped to handle a post-truth movement. It doesn't win on arguments for truth, it doesn't win on policy that are meant to improve society, it wins on noise, lies and a people who don't care about truth anymore.
What good is a democracy when no one votes based on truth and politicians don't have to fear any truths? In which you only have to be charismatic and make noise to win. Then the actual politics doesn't matter anymore. It's not an election about what matters for people, it's a popularity contest that risk people's lives.
I think the democratic world needs to wake up and look at the system itself. To stop thinking that just having a democratic system, regardless of its quality, is as good as it gets.
The world needs to politically evolve into caring more for truth. Otherwise we will all live in the utter chaos of a fully post-truth society where nothing matters to people and no one knows where to even begin to find answers to what's actually going on.
In what way?
I guess. He kind of did some of this during his last term too.
Well, four more years for them to see everything burn.
Those are plentiful! Liberals cry about everything. :)
Nah, hold your machiavellian ass. If you truly think they will get destroyed by their own idiosyncrasy, well, that is unlikely to happen.
Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha.
I saw that June debate between Biden and Trump and to tell you the truth I saw Joe being too old, but I sympathized with him for the reason that Joe Biden was putting effort to answer the questions of the journalists, whereas Donald Trump was not answering any questions.
Kamalahaha believed that "kindhearted democrats" need good vibes, not answers. That was a big mistake and I hope Pelosi, Clooney and Kamalahaha fire themselves from the Democratic Party, cause they will be complicit in this crazy comeback of climate-change deniers, gun-loving, god-fearing, republicans.
Stop blaming middle-class Americans for this ugly outcome! Democrats should blame themselves and their corporate media only. One of the very few things I came to agree with JD Vance is that corporate media are the biggest threat to American democracy on this day.
I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.
I don't think so. Post-truth can only survive as a society so far as to give people nothing for their devotion to bullshit. And any attempts to install authoritarian leaders by ripping the constitution and dismantling guardrails of democracy will lead to civil war before any such authoritarian regime takes place.
Another scenario is that the nation gets divided so much it actually breaks apart. With a Christian fundamentalist society spread across the deep red states making up a new nation, while the rest and blue states form their own. It's usually what happens if a divide gets too polarized and doesn't lead to civil war. So, in your scenario of dictatorship, it would be a nation with an authoritarian leader built upon Christian fundamentalism akin to Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east.
It could very well end up in a similar image of Margaret Atwood's Gilead.
While something like this shouldn't be brushed off as pessimistic fear mongering, I do think that such a future is unlikely. Primarily because there are enough people who don't want it and they are only passive about it until it seriously threatens them. If Trump tries anything drastic these four years, I believe there will be enough republicans who are rational enough to block it, since not all are Trump fundamentalists. And the blowback from these coming four years will likely spark a major return for the democrats in which they might realize how in danger the nation is, installing enough protections from leaders like Trump and maybe even reforming the democratic process nationwide to fit more up to date democratic systems in the world.
If there is a crisis, or civil war happening in the next 50 years, I think that the US will transform into a proper parliament and abandon the old system. The bipartisan system is so broken that it's not a democracy anymore and people are fed up with this "voting for the least bad" type of election.
People will get fed up with idiots running things, especially when the real consequences kick in.
I love his soundtrack for The Leftovers.
me too. :heart:
Sadly, the live-action-roleplay of his opponents continue. Fighting an imaginary fascism involves erecting an actual one, so I suspect political violence, institutional subordination, and a captured press will be working diligently to disrupt the Trump regime. Luckily the people aren’t buying it anymore.
Yeah, most people were I think. But this scenario wasn’t outside possibility— just sucks when it actually happens.
A fair point, but I actually thought this pointed in the other direction. Trump won after Brexit, with the Fac Five all winning or most winning right around that time.
Theresa Mayhem and Mo Mojo Bojo
2Dirty Dueterte
Majorly Magnificent Modi
Make Europe Great Again Le Pen (didn't quite win, but making it to the final was an unexpected win)
Outlandish Orban
:cool:
And we might also include Big Boy Bolsonaro and the apparent strength of Rootin Tootin Putin.
But since then the right wing waves have largely broken. Most of those people are out. The UK just had a hard shift the other way, and Modi lost a ton of seats, while Bibi is also looking in very rough shape. Xi is facing a Chinese economy facing a major, potentially sea change slow down. Meanwhile, Putin, the sort of arch mascot led his country into a disastrous war that destroyed and badly embarrassed his military, and had to flee his capital due to a mercenary coup.
To be sure, the anemic Western response in Ukraine (sending a handful of tanks years after it has become clear that sending actually meaningful numbers won't cause a catastrophic escalation, being unable to match Russian and North Korean shell production, etc.) is also embarrassing.
Yet in general, Trump's win seems more against the (short term) currents than with it. TBH, the exit polls make it seem like this is more of the Democrats than anything else. Biden had no business running for a second term and Harris was a bad candidate. That exit polls suggest that Trump lost significant support from white voters and yet seems likely to win the popular vote (the first GOP non-incumbent to do so in almost 40 years) should be a wake up call on Democrats. It seems to me that immigration is the number one issue carrying the far-right across the West and so far the liberal establishment in North America and Europe has largely refused to budge on it.
Of course, when far/further right parties win elections in Western countries they also don't really change immigration either. Trump seems to have the House and Senate, so we'll see. I think they will be far more interested in cementing systems or minority rule, cutting taxes, and removing various regulations than actually cutting off the supply of cheap labor or fixing the debt.
Yes, Nils Frahm too, of course.
Yes, likewise.
Deporting millions of immigrants sounds appealing to those who buy into scapegoating them for some problems in society, but it ignores the negative consequences. I don't think anything good can possibly come of it, if it actually comes to pass. It will fix no problems, it will just make some people happy that these "others" are out of our midst. It can't solve the real problems - that would require changing the laws, and Trump has told that's not necessary - his "extreme power" is all that's needed.
Deficit spending is a big concern for many, so slashing $2T from the budget sounds like the right thing to do. That exceeds the total amount spent on discretionary spending, so it would have to entail cuts to "mandatory" spending, including Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits, and the military. Wherever the cuts are made, that will negatively impact the recipients. On a macro level, decreased government spending will be contractionary to the economy - there will be less money in circulation, decreasing GDP - thus negatively impacting the economy as a whole.
Huge tarriffs will increase the prices of imported goods - so it will be directly inflationary. It is likely to result in retaliatory tarriffs that will decrease demand for US goods, so that will negatively impact manufacturing jobs - this will be balanced against the increased demand for domestic manufacturing, so there will be this win - but it's an macro balancing, not a micro one: some individual producers will do better (adding jobs) while others will do worse (losing jobs).
Removing taxes on Social Security income will benefit only higher income recipients (this includes me, BTW), and it will deplete the SS Trust fund 2 years earlier (from 10 to 8 years). Deporting undocumented immigrants, who pay into SS but will never receive benefits) will hurt it even more.
I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle.
Now it seems that 'It seemed clear to most people at least a year out' since he won Pennsylvania twelve hours ago. :roll:
He doesn't need to do them and would be better off not doing them. Things won't change but he can bullshit his way into telling people they have gotten better and alot of people may buy it. Of course I think he probably will do alot of them unfortunately. He sounds very passionate about tariffs as the solution to everything and he did do a trade war with China the last time around (though this time will be way more widespread and intense). Will people be swayed by his statements that he solved inflation despite prices likely increasing from the tariffs and them criticizing the Dems for being out of touch in the past 4 years? Maybe, I really cannot say, but it doesn't really matter at this point since they'll be dealing with it all the same.
I can point to alot of things that Dems did wrong (like running with the Cheneys while snubbing the Palestinians in their base) but replacing Joe was one of the only reasonable things they did this election cycle. Joe Biden was ultimately the biggest drag on the party even after dropping out and his connection to Kamala was what doomed her more than anything.
The problem with the Dems was what we saw these past few election cycles: the Dems never listen to their base. They could've let the voters decide who should best represent them but why do that and risk someone who the party establishment can't control when they can have one of their goons be nominated instead? The last time they didn't do that was in 2008 with a dark horse named Obama and look how that turned out for them. Clinton, Biden, and Harris were all terrible candidates. Clinton was massively unpopular when she ran in 2016, Biden couldn't even win the first few primaries despite being the frontrunner, and Harris didn't even get any votes in any of her primaries. But they were all nominated anyways and often through some shady tactics that undermined any opposition. Maybe next time they will let the party decide, but who knows if there will be a next time.
Yesterday more Americans chose rather than rejected tyranny. To wit:
make Apartheid great again
make Antisemitism great again
make Anti-women great again
make Anti-immigrants great again
make Anti-labor great again
make Anti-intellect great again
make Anti-democracy great again
make Above-the-Law great again
make Assholery great again ...
prevails – 'DJT is vox populi!' – the culmination of the last half-century of bipartian Neoliberal de-industrialization – 'It's the structurally exploitative-systematically discriminatory Plutonomy, stupid!' – aided and abetted by corporatist Reality TV, WWE & Social Media which has groomed (radicalized) the precariat for reactionary populism???
Fuck me.
Bernie. From the establishment's silencing of the right candidate for working class Americans came Trump's possibility to do what he's done.
It's a non-trivial matter to distribute culpability here. Clearly, lots of people are gullible and vote against their interests. Yet there is also manifest stupidity and ignorance.
How to make sense of this? For now, answers are pending.
Yup...
:gasp:
But I will note that the Trump phenomenon has normalised mendacity. It is indisputable that Trump lies continuously, about matters large and small, some of which concern issues of extreme national and global importance.
But with this victory, these lies have now become normalised - for example, the lie that Trump's many indictments were based on 'weaponising' politics and politicisation of the Department of Justice. The lie that the January 6th insurrection was anything other than a vile assault on democracy and law and order. All of this is now going to become normalised in public discourse.
There's a term, I think it's associated with Marxist philosophy, although I'm not highly familiar with it - 'false consciousness'. This is what I think the whole Trump phenomenon crystallises in the electorate. An entire national identity that has lies as part of its identity. It can't be good.
Yep. Bernie would have won, in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. But the DNC made sure that didn’t happen. So this outcome isn’t surprising— which is why I called it weeks ago.
Trump is still the stupidest choice, but this will come with a lot of good things— like giving yet another “wakeup call” to the Democratic Party and the inevitable infighting and finger pointing. It’ll be fun watching what nonsense excuses they come up with. :lol:
A simple question I ask is: how many times did Harris rally with Bernie?
… and how many with Liz Cheney?
That’ll tell you everything you need.
My family was annoyed that I was calling it for Trump :lol:
But yeah, it’s good to take some time away. Most people I talk to really don’t follow any of this that closely. What they end up with is whatever simple soundbite or slogan happens to make its way into their brains.
Political hobbyism, that’s all this is really. Don’t lose any sleep over it. Use whatever you feel to get involved locally. It’ll reset your perspective a bit.
In a post-truth society, the public have stopped pursuing truth, stopped listening to experts and scientists. Rather they let themselves follow whatever is emotionally satisfying, be it their own opinion or someone else's opinion.
Liars, scammers and manipulators have always existed, but the public have generally been able to arrive at the truth together, fighting back at the ones trying to scam their ways into power.
But in a post-truth society the public is in an intellectual disarray. They aren't able to organize around a truth or around some facts and thus will fail to keep demagogues and authoritarian grifters away.
This is why Trump is elected. The noise of post-truth society let's people like Trump do whatever they want and people will never be able to align around what they think about him. Only the ones who sees him for what he is are able to, but as we're seeing globally, more and more people are unable to do this.
It's one of the reasons why I am so focused on research, scientific methods and such in other arguments on this forum. Because people have lost touch with what rational reasoning really is. Whenever I see someone, in their argument, target scientists and their research with a vague concept of science changing all the time, and therefor "scientific research and findings can't be trusted", I know that I'm dealing with someone who has succumbed to the post-truth world.
It blocks any ability to progress ideas, to have proper discussions. Facts and truth are called into question so often that any attempt to form actual knowledge is futile.
The challenge, globally, is how we get rid of this post-truth bullshit. How research, experts, proper discussions, scientific methods and facts return back to normalcy and popularity again.
Instead of teaching people that all their opinions matters, teach them that facts and truth matters and their opinions are worthless without them. Make it embarrassing again to utter stupidity. Something that people look down on enough so that it hurts sociologically.
This inclusion bullshit of everyone's opinion mattering has shaped everyone into their own little expert who knows everything about everything.
It needs to stop, because this is what fuels the post-truth world that grifters like Trump feeds on. They won't disappear as symptoms until the root cause is treated.
How? I have no clue, but it's up to society to solve this. It's this that needs to happen. Everything else is just barking up the wrong tree.
[quote=Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post]when a country deliberately rejects decency, truth, democratic values and good governance, the problem is not a candidate, a party, the media or a feckless attorney general. Democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires a virtuous people devoted to democratic ideals. Whether we can recover the habits of mind — what we used to call civic virtue — will be the challenge of the next four years and beyond.[/quote]
Personally, I doubt it. I feel a grave crisis is imminent, but we'll see.
Trump ran on immigration last time and he had the House, Senate, and Court for 24 months and they didn't even a single vote on migration, not even token changes, not even during the lame duck session. And he oversaw a 13 year high in illegal crossings. His base didn't get upset with him then. They would get upset if there were major disruptions in the economy, so he might not do much of anything.
Same for repealing Obamacare.
Maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised, but I am thinking it's more of the same.
Yep. Extending tax cuts, no national abortion ban, some dressed up nonsense on the border (packaged as something new, but basically continuing what’s been done with some murmurs about a wall), maybe some tariffs on Chinese goods (as Biden has done), and otherwise a bunch of hot air. He’ll be even worse on the Middle East, but will possibly stop funding the proxy war in Ukraine (perhaps the one bright spot).
The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly).
Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map.
But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd.
The IRA was the only reason why I wanted Harris to win since she literally has nothing on climate for me to care about. She would've continued the funding at least. It's fate is largely on the House now though as you say a slim GOP majority will likely not repeal the IRA given it's benefits to red districts. The great thing is that the Republicans don't really care about the debt so whatever tax cuts they have planned will likely just be subsidized through more borrowing.
Quoting Mikie
There's always the possibility of the Dems getting rid of the filibuster and passing all the court proof laws they want. I don't care about the argument that this gives Republicans the same power. If they want to use it to enact some of their preferred legislation like a federal abortion ban then they're more than welcome to try. Maybe we'll see politics actually be about a clash of ideas again.
Quoting Mikie
What names do you have in mind to pin our hopes behind? Bernie is too old now (older than Biden) and alot of the names floated before Harris became the nominee like Shapiro and Whitmer aren't really appealing. AOC also lost alot of her luster too since her initial victory in 2018.
I'm hoping for Jon Stewart personally. He's antiwar so he'll be way better on issues like Gaza and he's Jewish so the Israelis can't call him an anti-Semite. He's an outsider but a big enough celebrity that he can't be dismissed out of hand by the MSM. Plus he's funny and as Trump has shown being funny overrides literally everything in politics.
Title 42 is no longer available, per court ruling, but I expect he'll come up with some quasi-legal basis to duplicate what he did before. He explicitly said no changes to law were needed; all he needed to do was to exercise his "extreme power to shut down the border" (i.e. skirt the law).
Anyone paying any attention to the temperature of the USA over the last 12 months would have seen this coming a mile off. As i did. Perhaps be less pedantic.
Yes, but his party had full control of government and didn't even hold a vote on migration. To vastly oversimplify, Big Business wants migrant labor. They want wages down, rents up, and unions out, all of which are supported by more or less staying the course on current policy. Some headline grabbing moves that "trigger the libs," (e.g. family separation) is all the base seems to need.
Trump's senior citizen base wants their home values to keep always trending upwards and price stability for goods and services. Major shifts in migration levels, let alone removing large numbers of people, would cause huge problems for both. So I doubt they change much for the same reason that they ran on repealing Obamacare for 10+ years and didn't touch it—because as much as the base likes the idea of doing it they would hate the consequences.
Total immigration was higher under Trump than under Obama for most years and deportations were lower than under Obama as well, it's just that Trump adopted high profile, needlessly cruel family separation policies. But his general lack of competence and inability to pick competent leaders meant the CBP was in some ways less effective even as it widened its scope for who it would deport.
“Trump supporters spent years fomenting concern about election integrity. On Tuesday, they set it all aside.”
Lol— what a shocker! Who would have thought?! It’s almost as if it is, and always was, complete bullshit.
I don't think there was any temperature. Male Latinos didn't back Harris the way they had Biden. One swing state elected a Democratic Jew for governor, but Trump for president. Latino sexism maybe.
Mike Duncan, who did the History of Rome and Revolutions podcast and put out a few popular histories, had a very good analogy back when he was covering Rome during the Obama-era.
When Rome still had rivals, it needed civic virtue to keep the fragile Republic going. It needed to levy large conscript armies from a willing and patriotic populace, particularly after the disaster at Cannae where Rome lost 65-80,000 men in a single day to Hannibal. It needed competent leaders, as well as at least some level of meritocracy to be able to overcome its many rivals.
After Rome finally defeated Carthage, they were left without any unifying adversary or real threat. Persia/Parthia was a rival, but a limited one, not an existential threat. At most they would take away a few provinces for a few years. Even when Rome took what is now Iraq, it wasn't particularly committed to sprawling out [I]that[/I] far.
So, there was nowhere left to expand too. The Atlantic, Sahara, Persia, and the undesirablity of the north bracketed in the Republic. Thus, in the moment of Rome's great triumph, it suddenly became apparent that there was more to gain from trying to control what Rome already controlled then in trying to build up or expand the state.
That's the big parallel. With the USSR/Carthage gone, elites turned inward and began sharpening their knives. At the same time, for both, the military goes from a citizen force of conscript levies to a professional army—as Gibbon puts it in the Decline and Fall— "elevating war into an art, and degrading it into a trade."
China is a decent parallel to Parthia. And the large scale migrations to the West creates a similar set of problems to those faced by Rome due to the huge influx of slaves after their rapid expansion—most notably soaring economic inequality.
Rome faced a decline in all their institutions, and likewise America sees its unions wither away, its social clubs going extinct, its churches empty, etc.
But I don't think Trump is anywhere near competent enough to play Caesar, let alone Augustus. He's old and unfit, and he might not live out this term, let alone any additional ones (which he has no hope of engineering). This is probably more our Gracchi Brothers moment, or at most our Marius and Sulla.
It was sexism, frank, indeed. But it is very surprising when Latino countries such as Argentina had Cristina Kirchner or Eva Perón; in Honduras, Xiomara Castro is the President, etc. It is mind-blowing that they prefer to vote for a man who is clearly against Hispanic culture rather than a woman. As I said yesterday, I didn't think the sexism was that severe.
Seems gratuitous since you've just been fucked by several million of your countrymen.
These people are no more stupid or ignorant than those voting for Democrats.
:rofl:
:sweat:
.
I'll do it. I mean, I'm not American, and don't know anything, but then that's probably a good thing.
I won't golf, because golf sucks, but I will sleep in till at least 10am. I'm not a morning person.
The destruction of the Earth's climate? Tax cuts for the super wealthy? Increased hostility towards China, including trade wars?
There is ignorance everywhere. But some of it is quite worse for people at large.
It's just that Latino women didn't switch from Biden to Trump, but a significant number of Latino men did, so people figure it was sexism, I guess because they can't think of what else it would have been.
If Donald Trump is a metaphor for something, what is that something? I mean to you, not Americans.
Good question.
I would say Trump is a metaphor for Enfant terrible, but in an American context.
Is that bad or good?
It is up to each of us to interpret whether it is good or bad. :smile:
It's like the Fool. Ambiguous and possibly holy.
I doubt many Trump voters actually count on Trump doing anything for them. Because the worldview of these people is typically rugged individualism. I surmise they see Trump as a role model, as a type of person they themselves aspire to be. They don't see him as a father figure or someone who will help them, they despise such figures.
This is hte kind of comment that gets a scoff and a 'piss off' from me, sorry mate.
Oh no. I'm deeply wounded now. :groan:
:up:
As mentioned, the biggest problem with the democrats is catering to right wing voters just granting them a miniscule increase in voters, rather than forming a strong left narrative around things that a majority actually wants.
Most usually just talk about Trump and his people being stupid, but when it comes to marketing and forming a cohesive and strong marketing narrative to campaign on, the democrats are fucking amateurs.
The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general.
It's like, minor parts of the democratic party that agree with this should just do a hostile takeover and put all the old demented idiots in retirement homes... except for Bernie. :sweat:
— David Brooks
Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.
Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now.
Watch the video I posted, he references it.
Quoting Mikie
:up:
Imho populism + sexism also among Democratic voters = Trump defeats Harris: in 2016 Hillary received 66m votes and 2020 Joe received 81m votes (W) and 2024 Kamala received [s]68m[/s]74m votes. Apparently, regardless of candidate quality, we 21st century Americans prefer a lawless president / "dictator" (tyranny) to a neoliberal woman president (quasi-liberty). :confused:
We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.
Nonetheless, you don't need to be enthusiastic about the future. I mean, Donald Trump and his voters have my respect right now, but I doubt that this country is going to get any better.
My problem with the democrats are not big spending and high taxes. My problem with them is that they use this money in order to divide families (when you promise 1.7 trillion US dollars to single mothers, in order to buy groceries, is like you are encouraging women to get divorce and their children to be cared by the government), make young people less productive (cause truth be told if someone asks me why I never married I would tell her/him that in the years when I was more fertile like a man, I was looking to get my PHD, instead of making some kids), help out corporations, enable genocides and civil wars, and so on.
Four years with Trump, if we are really lucky, we might see less wars, but there's nothing revolutionary in him. The guy is still promising people cheaper oil & coal (because this is what his friends want him to do in the 21st century, when countries like China and South Korea are leading the total electrification of a new fusion-energy-oriented world), and I am wondering what will happen when his friends in the farming and various industries tell him that with 20 million illegals being deported some of these businesses and industries may collapse. I mean the guy may build a wall and have his ICE officers look tough in front of the cameras, but he won't stop the diversification of this country (which will make USA, UK and Western Europe look like the Balkans or Brazil for centuries to come), he always will have an ear for his rich friends, and he won't transform news outlets, social media, schools, corporations, the judiciary, etc.
In the best case scenario, you will have less wars in the four next years and a big, beautiful wall in the border with Mexico, but you shouldn't expect anything else to change in this country. Inequalities will keep rising, media outlets and social media will keep brainwashing the youth, higher education will make US population older (like is already doing in Europe, where Italians are the nation with the most diplomas and with the less kids), the judiciary will be controlled by the two major parties, our planet will become warmer, dirtier and less habitable year by year.
Elections make many Americans feel better (through releasing some of the anger they have been experiencing), but nothing will get better till we see a real/big revolution in this country and/or in the world. MAGA is not a revolution. MAGA is just a trend to release anger and keep life going on, till the day when the real problems will become irresolvable and will hit all of us in the face.
Also ditch all the social stuff while you're at it. Nobody cares about identity politics or whether someone says mean words.
The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat. Maybe they'll let the party decide next time, though to be honest I'm hoping for more of a dark horse candidate like Obama than some of the obvious options on the table like Newsom.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1854760849291829688?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
The U.S. elections seemed to be an IQ test, and look at the results. Now it depends on the way each of us sees it. Are we entitled to call more than 73 million voters crackpots? There are more voters for Trump than citizens in my country.
Within those 73 million voters, there are women, Latinos, and probably LGTBQ too. What if those voted against Kamala because of a sexist bias?
Latinos are very sexist; that's 100% accurate.
I see that feminism is not strong enough as it is in Europe.
I will not understand if Trump obtained some LGTBIQ votes. That would be reckless and crazy, but are they stupid? No, I don't think so.
The parties are in disarray. 2016 saw two populists make waves, Trump and Sanders. If I recall, when Sanders was checked by the powers of the DNC, 4/10 Sanders voters moved to Trump. Of the two populist hijackings of 2016, one worked and one didn't, and the effects were predictable. The Democrats paid a price in votes and palatable candidates, and the Republicans paid a price in policy. There is pressure to reshape the two parties. For the Republicans the reshaping is already well underway; for the Democrats it looks inevitable.
But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center. So I don't agree that "the solution isn't hard" for the Democrats. Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions? Move left and abandon the center? Oddly, the Democrats find themselves in a strange pickle just 8 years after Obama left office. Their only grievous mistake was running Clinton in 2016.* I don't think they would've won the election any other way in 2020, given Sanders' head start. (Cue the Bernie Bros' protestations...)
* And perhaps letting Sanders run as a Democrat in 2020. But they did not want to risk him running as an independent.
What if it’s just because Harris sucked as a candidate, was never voted on to be the nominee, ran towards the right and away from Bernie, couldn’t talk without a teleprompter and endless coaching, and had no vision or policy to offer other than a pathetic “$25 thousand down payment” for homebuyers and that she wasn’t Donald Trump.
Now she, like Hillary, can also fuck off forever. Along with Biden.
I disagree that Trump has moderated alot of his positions. In fact he seems to be moving to the extremes on issues like immigration (where he wants mass deportations) and trade (where he wants to impose a global tariff on all goods). The only area where he's moderated is on abortion and social security but apart from that he's a standard Republican and governed like one in his first term.
Quoting Leontiskos
The Democrat platform isn't the problem since it remains popular (while Trump's ironically enough isn't) but Democrats aren't able to sell it as well as Trump is able to sell himself which goes back to the main problem I see for Democrats.
Last I checked Harris in the closing stretch of the election avoided going into any policy specifics while using the same old "Trump bad" line of attack that's been used since 2016. It's not surprising why she lost.
I suppose if I were to look on the bright side of things it's better off for the Democrats that Trump won this time since they were in major need of rebranding anyways. Even if Harris won, I would imagine she'd be a mediocre president who wouldn't accomplish anything and likely lose reelection putting the party in the same spot in 4 years. Losing to Trump twice after barely eeking out a win in 2020 when they ran their "safe" candidate should be a clear sign that what they're doing isn't working. Also puts them in a good position if Trump inevitably screws things up now that he's in power again.
I think it is important to do self-criticism, but on the other hand, I think we should look at what the people really have as values. They voted against a system. Donald Trump is charged with multiple felonies, but surprisingly, people decided to believe that the problem is the judiciary system and not him. Let's see what happens in the next four years. Time passed by more quickly than we thought. But, in my opinion, the key would be to switch the mindset of the people and help them to believe and respect the system again.
Though, what meaningful change could have been expected from an establishment candidate?
The US establishment has grown so problematic that its interests run diametrically opposed to anything that could be seen as meaningful change.
Let's hope this is the final nail on their coffin, but after four years of Orange Doofus I'm sure Frankenstein's monster will rise again.
Kamala is no deal. She made Trump look genius.
Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to vote Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, but I would love to vote Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Ocazio-Cortez.
However, I agree with you on that sexism does play a big role. Telling from UK, Germany, Israel, and Italy, there's only one path for women to lead countries: they need to be (very) conservative women.
It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, than the liberal ones. So, either Ivanka or Tulsi might become our first female president :rofl:
Like Margaret Thatcher, yea. I've long thought that the first female president would be a Republican, but I thought Harris would prove me wrong.
I couldn't have said it better. :up:
Gee, I wonder why people don't vote for that.
I've heard that people used to call "moma" Catherine the Great, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel (though I don't know if that is correct).
Finland and New Zealand were able to elect female liberals as their leaders. Both women received a lot of attention, but their stardom didn't pass the 12 month threshold :rofl:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1854850516242563072?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Enjoy the moment buddy. :grin:
That's something dems have to deal with. If you apply feminist and black rhetoric in an election, you should expect patriarchal and white identity responses.
I have no idea how democratic countries can be run with women or men assuming to be different from the rest, but there's definitely going to be a lot of resentment if countries become California and promise people reparations (because 8 generations ago some of their ancestors were slaves).
Did anyone tell these liberals that serfdom in Europe ended with the French Revolution? Who is going to pay for reparations when 90% of the world population are the descendants of peasants who (till two centuries ago) used to be either slaves or serfs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
Collapse in Democratic Turnout Fueled Trump’s Victory
There’s no surprise as to why they would be. There was no reason to vote FOR her, and the motivation to vote AGAINST Trump, though still the correct move, wasn’t good enough.
This wasn’t a landslide, and wasn’t a mandate. But that’ll be the takeaway from the cult. But that’s a great thing— I hope they continue believing the whole country has gone “maga.”
I'm pretty sure campaigning with the Cheneys while snubbing the left on Gaza contributed to that. Perhaps stop trying to court this mythical sane Republican voter next time.
As for Israel, you better be thankful the US donor class "supports" it, because it has no friends left and is a pariah state, for good reason. And your friends those fanatical Evangelicals are the most anti-Semitic of them all
I've started speculating that the EU is actually an oligarchy. Thoughts?
"Majority of Americans support mass deportations" (CBS).
Quoting Mr Bee
Trump's love of tariffs is idiosyncratic from all political angles, true. But because of that it is not polarizing in any partisan manner.
Quoting Mr Bee
Abortion, social security, IVF, LGBT... Trump is also moving the party towards non-interventionism. RFK and Gabbard are former Democrats, to name two within his administration.
Quoting Mr Bee
This seems backwards to me. Trump's public persona was a liability in this election, not a boon. The Democrat platform was bad enough to strongly neutralize that liability. I am amazed at how completely it was neutralized.
Quoting Mr Bee
So what needs to change if "the platform isn't the problem"? A more impressive candidate and a focus on the policy proposals? I am not sure what golden policy proposals the Democrats are supposed to have in their back pocket.
It's a complex subject. The way it is currently structured is based on a system which basically gives German banks the power to control the value of the Euro based on German elite financial needs.
In an ironic twist, the European Central Bank is worse than the Fed. The only mandate the ECB has is to control inflation. At least the Fed attempts to keep unemployment low as one of its mandates, in addition to controlling inflation.
So yes, it is an Oligarchy - as everywhere else, but it has a very strange dynamic to it.
"If the Democrats move left they would only be centrist in Europe, therefore such a move would not make them left."
The U.S. is not Europe. This is not a good argument.
Not economically no. Now, or as of the removal of Roe, not even socially. If they manage to get Roe back in, then we can speak about the Democrats being left on world standards.
Of course, the US is not Europe. The US is an outlier in first world countries, failing to provide healthcare as right to everyone, among other scandals.
So yes, the US is to the right of the developed world by these standards. Doesn't mean the people are, but the system is. If you remove comparisons between developed countries, then there is no metric to say what's left or right or anything else.
I mean, for reference, anything to the right of Trump is called "radical left". That's insane.
Of course, because it was the evangelical Christians who lynched Jews on the street of Amsterdam last night. We must blame modern day anti-Semitism on the Christians or Israel itself. One group must not be named. :rofl:
Wow.
You are missing the point big time.
Should've expected it.
And ignore the evangelicals at your risk.
I live among the evangelicals in one of the most conservative, evangelical states in the US. I understand the left likes to point the finger at them for anti-semitism but that just hasn't panned out in my experience. This group is highly pro-Israel and often quite philo-semitic.
:100: :clap:
Más alto pero no más claro si quieren.
One of the main problems on the horizon after US elections is how the artificial state will wipe out Gaza and erase towns and cities in Lebanon, legitimately, because his best friend—Uncle Sam—allows him to do so. :sad:
It's understood that Trump will back an Israeli attack on Iran.
I've been reading about it and find myself confused. Even proponents of the EU claim there's a lack of accountability.
He will back a lot of Netanyahu's reckless actions for the next four years.
It will be a nightmare.
Lo que nos toca ahora es muy jodido....
Quoting frank
Very confusing, Varoufakis and Modi have good books on the EU, but it is a bureaucratic mess. Not all of it is bad by any means, but still, highly perplexing.
Go back to the thread where you cheer a genocide— your delusions are irrelevant here.
Quoting Manuel
Yep. But don’t tell that to genocide apologists, because it’s anti-semitism to oppose the murder of 15,000 babies.
Mikie, I'm agreeing with you. The Democratic Party needs to go further left and actively embrace the anti-Israel, anti-American masked marchers terrorizing synagogues. Gotta double down. Motivate people to the cause.
:rofl:
Exactly. Turns out sending billions to aid a genocide isn’t as popular as zionist imbeciles think it is.
You don't think the marchers are anti-American? How many more American flags need to be burned for that to be the case?
:rofl:
Yes yes, they’re all anti-America. Probably a Red China conspiracy. Back to bed now grandpa.
Could be a nuclear war. We haven't had one of those in a while. :smile:
If you believe these mass protests are purely organic I've got a bridge to sell you.
Out of all the proposals, as with tariffs, it's popular, but the least popular out of the other options. Polls often also show a bigger support for a pathway to citizenship according to this Pew poll for instance. Trump has no interest in that.
Quoting Leontiskos
Not really. There's still a partisan split on it but apart from that yes it's a pretty controversial proposal, and I've even found his own supporters expressing concerns about it. Their answer is usually that it's one of those non-promises that he says he's gonna do but not really (despite doing it in his first term), somehow to be distinguished from those promises that they like that he will 100% do without question.
Quoting Leontiskos
I mean RFK is his own case on things like healthcare and vaccines, which is apparently the one thing he's gonna have influence on in a Trump administration. Calling that "moderating" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...
Quoting Leontiskos
I can only speak to my own personal experience, but when I hear people say they "liked Trump's policies" they usually refer to how they felt about the state of the economy 4 years ago and they think Trump being in office will bring that back. They never really go into specifics about his actual policies even when I persistently press them. They think he will bring down prices but I bet they won't be able to tell you how he would do it because Trump himself is unable to tell you how he would it when he's asked. His actual stated policies include the tariffs and mass deportations I mentioned, tax cuts, and harassing the Fed to cut interest rates again, all inflationary BTW.
It's not policy proposals but rather nostalgia and in this election the latter took precedence over the former. Very little in this election was really about both candidate's actual plans, making meaningless stunts like Trump working at McDonalds the only other thing on voter's minds when they go to the voting booths. Say what you want about his personality, but he is a funny and charismatic guy, and people like Harris are not and when the latter refuses to go into details about what she believes in, and says she'll just continue Biden's legacy, then voters decided accordingly.
Quoting Leontiskos
Messaging means alot which goes back to what I said about Trump being a great salesman and the Democrats being lousy at it. Trump is able to latch on to people's discontent in 2016 and this year about how bad everything is, even if he offered little in the way of solutions in the latter. Harris offered nothing.
Of course we shouldn't discount the self-imposed disadvantages the Dems had too going into this election. Fact is, we're analyzing an election loss where the Democrat ran a 3 month presidential campaign after taking over their 80 year old incumbent who was already incredibly unpopular during a time where people felt like the current economy wasn't so great.
Perhaps the reason for the election results are as simple as running a half-baked candidate in a year where the incumbent party was unpopular, especially given how widespread the shifts to the right are. As much as people like to make personal abandonment stories about certain demographics feeling left out it may be more a case of "inflation bad and Trump fix inflation" that affected and moved people this time around. Both could be easily fixed come 2028 if Trump ends up messing something up and the Democrats actually run a proper primary next time.
I risk a reply out of annoyance. But it's best not to waste time with people who believe this
Who cares about your "world standards" (which conveniently and arrogantly exclude most of the world)? The point you were responding to had to do with the U.S. electorate's view of a DNC which moves left. You responded with a non-sequitur about European standards.
I explicitly referred to developed nations. I don't think it makes much sense to compare Germany to Ecuador. You can do so if you want to, but it would be better to compare Germany to France or to Japan.
If you want to compare the US to other countries, then it is most sensible to do so with a Western European countries or Canada. On economic and social issues, the democratic part is to the right of every developed country, so the Democratic party could not run with the platform they have and call themselves "the left".
That's just a fact.
If Roe got re-introduced as law, then you can argue, with some reason that the US is to the left of other countries on social issues.
That's up to people's consideration as to what counts as left or not.
That's my arrogant view.
Quoting Leontiskos
There are only 13 states that have banned abortion. There are 8 states that have no restrictions at all. The rest are about par with European countries, so I guess you could say the US is mostly socially progressive, with a touch of hyper-progressive, and a bit of retrograde.
Like I said— probably Chinese communists.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/1855068507290956271?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
True, but before no states had abortion bans. It's fine for individual states to get that right, for sure. Sucks bad for those women who can't do much in those 13 states.
If not for the federal ban, then as you say, it is quite progressive in many social aspects, most notably and most importantly, freedom of speech.
That is one area in which the US clearly has the upper hand compared with most other countries. It's an impressive win vs. the state.
Let's hope Trump doesn't squash those freedoms.
I don’t see anything significantly changing— things will remain the same crappy situation for most people. There’s a lot of hysterics, but the most damaging and the most consistent will be continued tax cuts, deregulation, and climate denial. In other words, right back to a stupider and more vulgar neoliberalism.
Any chance of success went out the window in 2021, when the 3.5 trillion dollar Bernie-backed reconciliation bill was killed by Manchin and Sinema. That would have been very good for the country. Instead we got crumbs and some baby steps in climate policy. Not good enough, not impactful enough.
:up: :up:
Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. Granted, this is somewhat medium-ish term, but that's big.
As for the rest, well, I hope you are right in this case. I shudder to think things will change to the significant worse. But your prediction is bad enough if it comes to fruition.
Interesting times indeed...
Well it will accelerate emissions, yes. It’ll send a poor message to the world, and will generally be taking us backwards in myriad ways when we’re already out of time and not doing enough domestically or globally. That’s gravely stupid. But that’s what an ignorant electorate just thrust into power for 4 years. I fully agree.
Quoting Manuel
Not much to figure out, it’s right there in what they say and what they’ve already done. So I think my prediction, if you call it that, is fairly certain yeah.
Nobody who's serious thought we'd reach 1.5C anyways even if we collectively got our act together. The 2030 goals are unrealistic too given how we like to flirt with electing climate denying idiots half the time. On the bright side, civilization won't end but we're gonna be way worse off than we would otherwise. The age of endless growth is gonna probably come to a halt at some point, one way or another.
Iran, Qatar, and others. Don't take my word it's what leaders in US intel say. Follow the money. Of course Iran has a hand in it.
Yeah because it can’t be that college kids don’t like genocide. The 60s protests were USSR too, etc. typical rationale for delusional apologists of genocide. But yeah, go with that. I go with the China boogyman myself.
True, the 1.5 goal was already surpassed this year, but the important issue is to avoid going much further beyond that.
Now it will be almost impossible to stop maybe even 2 degrees, and that's a disaster.
I mean, we don't know until we get to it (with 100% certainty anyways) but growing food will become much harder, a huge percentage of marine life will vanish, living in many parts of the world will become unfeasible.
That's pretty bad.
5.4 million killed in Congo. - Silence
500k killed by Assad in Syria. - Silence
500k killed in Sudan. - Silence
400k killed in Yemen. - Silence
~40k killed in Gaza - extreme outrage
Why is that, Mikie?
Nope.
But that aside, if you’re so dense that after 100s of pages on the Israeli thread you still don’t understand why there would be more outrage and protesting about Gaza than Congo or Sudan, I won’t even bother answering in any serious way. Instead, here’s the answer: antisemitism. It’s always been your answer, so I’ll play along.
Yes, silence. Where are the protests against Assad? Or Yemen? Or Sudan? Americans don't care. No Jews, no news. Now if it was Jews killing those Arabs the college campuses would take notice.
No one cares when Muslims kill thousands of muslims, but a Jew kills a few Muslims? We lose our heads.
Yep, that’s it. Nailed it. Run along now.
I will never understand that level of destruction. What is the point of dropping nuclear attacks in a territory? Japan suffered the consequences, but they came back fast. After the end of WWII, every conflict should have been resolved diplomatically. We failed regarding this point. Europe is also guilty, absolutely. We just looked the other way, and our passivity is also reportable. I hope I am just overreacting, and the world will not look that bad for the next lustrum, but my expectations are low right now.
Hopefully any use will be limited. It would be nice if Iran would stop instigating conflict though.
Nope. You lose your heads if the US is really involved in the fight. Conflicts were the US is absent simply don't exist to you. Those conflicts are like the trees in the forest that fall that nobody hears.
Was the US involved in the First and Second Congo War?
Not much, even if many African countries were.
Was the US involved in Yemen?
With a few drones, notably killing during the Obama years an under aged US citizen, because his father (another US citizen) had supported muslim extremists after a stint in an Egyptian prison. But otherwise, this was a Saudi debacle before the attacks on shipping.
Was the US involved in Syria?
With a puny force that withdrew. Anyway this wasn't a real commitment as Americans were too afraid to back anybody in Syria, because they're Muslims and hence possibly Muslim extremists. (As the minorities like Christians basically support the regime as they fear reprisals on them)
But good that we heard from you that 40 000 is a few according to you.
You know, I suppose the only silver lining here, quite literally (for me), is that I think Trump is right on Ukraine IF he is honest about it.
That view triggers the hell out of libs. But he's right about it, gotta say it.
Everything else (Israel included) will be much worse.
But that's not all! His tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy are going to spell disaster for government debt, while expenditure czar Musk does to public services what he's already done to Twitter, albeit on an astronomically larger scale. So, co-inciding with climate catastrophe, economic apocalypse. A perfect storm. Once the euphoria of change is over, the awful reality will begin to dawn.
It should be evident very soon. The people saying I regret voting for Trump" will come put so quickly. It is so predictable and maddening.
Along with all else mentioned, yeah, we're fucked.
Another of those 'wisdom of hindsight' articles - a WaPo OP from March this year, saying the Dems really had better find a candidate other than Harris, and pronto. I think they needed a bigger personality - male (sorry to say), loud, opinionated, brash, telegenic, and anti-Trump. Although damned if I can think of one in Democrat ranks. But it's too late now, the horse has well and truly bolted.
Your son is Australian right? He will be fine if he's white, most likely. It's black and brown people that will have an issue, sad to say.
Maybe another candidate could have won. Maybe not. Hard to say. Biden being so old and being the current president makes it difficult to campaign criticizing him harshly, which is what I suspect most Dems would have liked.
On the one hand, there is no doubt this was the Democrats race to lose (they have more registered voters). On the other, so many people in the US are just clueless and very badly informed.
I've spent some time with him in Wisconsin, in the Lakes district. Actually a beautiful and serene part of the world, and overall quite genteel. But there are dark forces beneath the placid surface.
[quote=WaPo;https://wapo.st/3CkNI0Z]“It’s very simple: If you try to win elections by talking to the elites of this country, you’re going to get your ass kicked — there are not enough Beyonces, Oprahs or Hollywood elites to elect anyone,” said Chris Kofinis, former chief of staff to Sen. Joe Manchin III (I-West Virginia). “Trump is not the disease. He is the symptom. The disease is political, cultural, and economic elites who keep telling the public what they should think, feel and believe — and guess what they told them on Tuesday: Go to hell.”[/quote]
It's hard to say. We can only hope for the best and try to help out whatever way we can to combat this right-wing plague surging everywhere.
Bernie's attitude and behaviour is admirable. He's Good with a capital g. He's not the only one. Add to that that Bernie was right at the time - when no one else was or very few others were - on several very important impactful issues throughout recent history.
If only the world could be ran by people like him. Shame he's nearly censored across the board. That's no accident. Shame that there are so many people with strong unfounded opinions and feelings... all waiting to erupt at the sound of the word "socialist".
Sad world.
I'm very lucky.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945770
:up: :up:
That's not just an US phenomenon either. Young male voters are making a sharp turn to the right in the west.
"Incumbency" seems to increasingly be defined not as any specific government, but as the entire socio-political (though curiously not the economic) status quo.
Reading what people say in right-wing spaces, they're mostly convinced that they're facing an ideologigally motivated group across politics, the media and civil society which will destroy western society unless they're stopped by an overwhelming counter-movement.
The point stands that many more much larger humanitarian crises exist around the world yet none generates the attention of Israel-Gaza today. It's not about sheer number of lives lost. It's clearly ideological. A narrative has been developed unlike in other (much larger) humanitarian crises that fits perfectly into the hot button issues of today.
Quoting Echarmion
Given the number of kids identifying as LGBT and choosing to sterilize themselves and undergo surgeries I wouldn't say they're too far off. Public trust in higher education has plummeted and anti-semitism has risen. We live in scary times where very basic questions like "what gender am I?" are now suddenly up for question. Not a good sign.
I don't know the number. I have always assumed though that it's not a relevant amount of people.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And do you think we're looking at the cause here or the symptoms?
My personal explanation, which admittedly is typically pretentious armchair philosophy, is that what we're seeing is the result of a lack of avenues for (systemic) progress.
We've lived through the "end of history", but now on the other side we realise we're facing all the same problems, plus a couple of new ones. But at the same time we've lost all faith in utopia. There's no longer anything out there we can strive for without reservation.
One thing that strikes me in conversations is that everyone is pessimistic. Whether it's the climate or islam, the looming disaster is a common thread.
There's however a great deal of statistical shifts due to the very fact that with an increasing tolerance towards a group that previously were stigmatized, more people feel secure in opening up about who they are.
It was the same during the 80s and 90s, as society started to believe that there was a sudden increase in homosexuality, when in fact, the higher tolerance and raising inclusion of homosexuality in society meant that people could open up more about their homosexuality. So the statistical numbers went up based on the hidden statistics that were invisible due to stigma.
This is why I don't think the public is able to understand statistics correctly and make accurate assessments about reality. Because it's not just math correlating with society on a 1 to 1 alignment, but many factors that need to be incorporated in order to actually know if something has changed or if it's affected by other factors.
Many researchers have basically concluded that a large portion of the perceptive increase is because the number of people were always there, hidden under years of traumatic and violent suppression of their sense of self, in which they could never tell anyone what they felt. The agony of not being able to tell anyone and not being able to live aligned with who they are.
In my perspective, all I see that's happening right now is that transsexual people are the new black people, the new homosexuals, the new hated group that society can use in their ill-constructed and uneducated reasoning about a world and society falling into ruin.
It's once again the herd mentality and echo chambers of the public believing they understand statistics, biology, psychology and history when in fact they don't, and only push themselves into lesser and lesser ability to interpret the world through a functioning empathy.
I love all this fortune-telling. Why would black and brown people have an issue?
Nearly 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+. Aside from this, the number of minors seeking gender affirming care nearly tripled between 2017 and 2021 from 15,000 to 42,000 and the trend has continued.
My main concern is with child transition though. We can't be asking children to determine their gender and then load them up with sterilizing hormones and permanent & quite painful surgeries. They simply don't have the mental capacity to make those sorts of decisions: How is it that children cannot buy alcohol or weed, yet they can apparently consent to permanently altering their bodies and destroying their fertility?
I certainly believe society should be nice and civil to transgenders. I also understand that transgender life is inherently difficult and expensive and painful.
More sinister is the idea, floating around in some radical circles, that we have no essential gender identity and it's entirely up to the individual (including the child) to self-define. Nature apparently gives us nothing; we are our own Gods. That scares me.
How do you know that this isn't a natural number? On which basis are you making the argument and at which percentage do you know is the "correct percentage" for society?
It's culture and society that has educated you into certain classifications and categorical ideas. If people are to classify the "natural" percentage among the human species, then how do you classify this? Seen as it may be affected by herd tribe sizes and procreation habits over time, changing sociological dynamics.
Until you have a measure stick, you can't know what the actual percentage is. What kind of measuring stick do you have?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This recommendation for being careful I can agree with. However, it's not just asking them what they think that determine things. In most cases there's a long investigation before determining if it's a sociological confusion or actual. There's an idea that children merely say they want to change sex and doctors pull out the tools, that's not how these things go.
There's also actual physiological aspects of gender that puts things into further perspective:
The problem is that the pushback from adults stuck in traditional thinking makes it harder for actual investigation to take place and once again a stigma that often makes these children grow up in agony and social confusion because no proper investigation was done as it gets stuck in outdated morals and stigma.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Only for those who live in areas that don't accept or don't fully commit to accept their existence. It's actually the opposite for many who transitioned and getting what they need, they have much better mental and physical health. The one's in pain, especially not getting subscriptions they need, live in areas with transphobes running the ship. The usual shit.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is the normal simplification that's going around. There are physical indicators (like in the Sapolsky lecture) making some cases actual physical and medical in nature. But the core problem that people, for some reason, never understands about gender science and philosophy, is that there's a difference between medical sex and gender. Gender is a construct that society has made up rules and culture around.
Most behavioral differences between women and men are superficial, programmed by culture and social norms rather than incorporated in our chromosomes and genes. Most of the genetical and biological differences have to do with certain hormonal behavior differences, chemical differences, but very little actually affect identity to the point it is a fundamental difference. Most notable difference is mainly muscle mass and seen as sexual orientation doesn't seem to correlate that much with some basic sex, not even that is inherent to the biological sex.
While it's important that society and culture adapts to new knowledge about ourselves as humans, it's important that this is done without harming people. But so far, the foundation on which people make decisions and definitions about others seem to be primarily made up by people not educated or knowledgeable on the subject, rather than following the actual research and science being done, and in so hurts far more than believing they protect. Not only does the science show that most opinions are just culturally programmed, the discourse itself surrounding the sciences and research shows to be culturally affected and limiting the ability for people to understand the conclusions being done by people who actually study these subjects. The bottom line is that most people in society do not actually know what they're talking about, but they sure have strong opinions anyway.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1855331430613880939?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Glad to be one and not the other.
He has it basically right.
Frank states it better:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/democrats-trump-elites-centrism.html
Trump has been pushing it and still continues to, and that’ll be great news if it succeeds. Bad news for the country and the world in the short term, but very good news going forward.
I have seen your political posts and discussions here and elsewhere.
I frankly don't think there would be any point in discussing these matters with you.
Exactly. Transsexualism use to claim a medical basis, but the new wave of trans advocacy seems to be pushing to eliminate that, and I can't say that I blame them. Why should an adult even need to go through a medical screening (to determine whether s/he is "really" trans) to be prescribed HRT when gender is a social phenomenon?
Especially with the idea of "non-binary" today -- are we going to now claim a scientific/medical basis for that? What biological markers would determine that? Absurdity. Let adults live their own lives, but it is criminal in my opinion to permit children to sterilize themselves (and set them on a life path of marginalization) when any decent society acknowledges the need to place rules on children and make decisions for them.
A child can still take steps to transition without HRT and surgeries.
I get it: you can’t substantiate your beliefs. You don’t want to see your errors collide with truth.
The investigation is primarily for children, not adults. Adults have to rather go through dealing with a long line of other adult assholes who question their agency as human beings.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Non-binary has to do with gender identity, not biological sex.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is not what's going on. That is a conservative-held and marketed narrative that skews how these processes are actually done. The investigation into transsexuality in children is not just saying yes or no. There are both medical and psychological evaluations, very extensive. On top of that the statistics on regret among surgery sex change is around 1%. Compare that to knee replacements and nose-jobs where the regret rates are much higher but there's no evaluation before. Conclusion on that is that parents and doctors aren't just letting kids do anything without proper investigation.
As I've said, the "increase" can simply be that modern society understands and listen to transgender people much better and it enables more to open up about their situation, compare to before when sometimes there were even the risk of violence against them by both family and their social sphere.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Depends on the situation. Many still hold on until they grown past puberty. But for many who are really medically confirmable, such puberty without hormon treatment can be extremely distressful. Among transgender children, thoughts of suicide exist in around half the group and almost a quarter have made attempts. The reason for it primarily links to how they're treated by family and people around them, while the lack of help and gender-affirming care are also factors.
Bottom line, while there is a ratio of detransitioning, the regret-ratio is much lower than the harm caused by the lack of support these children get. And that support is not in the way of talking them out of it, but rather in support of their gender identity. A big problem is the time it takes for a proper investigation, in which hormone therapy comes into play too late. It's also not common they get this therapy without being diagnosed with gender dysmorphia.
So calling it "criminal" in the way you did is not a proper way to deal with this topic. The only criminal thing is the high suicide rates among LGBTQ+ due to the still existing stigma and behavior against them. A behavior that will just become worse with Trump and Musk at the helm spewing their bullshit to mindless zealots.
:rofl:
Satire couldn’t be as good.
The world is bending over backwards to affirm trans people in what is clearly a delusion (that men can become women and women can become men), so I'm not sure what more can be expected.
Some people are always going to refuse to accept what is in their view clearly a lie (and a harmful one, at that), and such is their right.
What happens when youthful beauty fades, biological realities set in and people realize they have mutilated their own bodies, sterilized themselves, committed themselves to a life-time of medication on the basis of a fantasy that can never be realized? People get suicidal.
It's extremely sad, but unsurprising.
I'm not surprised to see the usual transphobic reactions as soon as the topic is raised. It's not a delusion, especially when the neurological research on the topic shows there are physiological differences in transgender people's brains showing attributes that misaligns with their medical sex. But I'm not surprised that your knee jerk reaction ignored that material I provided.
Quoting Tzeentch
Please provide the evidence for this lie and a solid argument on who benefits from it.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is how you prove that you've not read a thing about the topic.
Quoting Tzeentch
The only thing that is extremely sad and unsurprising is how people like you come to these conclusions without having a anything else than an emotional knee jerk reaction to the topic; calling transgender people liars and delusional, ignoring the research and have zero ability to understand statistics on the subject.
It's basically just transphobia. The new fad among people who need an outlet to blame problems on. As it was with black people, homosexuals, jews, and so on. We're seeing the same kind of behavior against transgender people; calling them delusional and liars, purring them through the same kind of treatments. All while scientists are finding evidence that the phenomena isn't at all a construct, but has physiological attributes and signifiers.
I mean, the echos of old talk is telling:
I mean, we could go on, but historically we're just witnessing the echoes of past behaviors.... again.
Maybe part of this modern rise of the old racist, homophobic and misogynic behaviors is because the conservatives are running out of people to blame? Since history has gone through its hate against most groups in society already, and they are once again losing their transphobic stance, it starts to become a sort of "then, let's hate everything then".
Going to be interesting to see what the next group these people will hate and put blame on.
Not really. I don't hate or fear trans people - I support any adult's right to choose.
However, when you start blaming a society that's bending over backwards to accomodate trans people, I am not going to sugar coat things.
When this thing that on the surface looks like it would destroy your mental health starts actually destroying people's mental health, how is that in any way surprising?
They’re not liars or delusional. The claim is that what is delusional is the belief that you can change sexes. I’ve seen no convincing evidence to counter that argument— but I’m open to hearing one.
Probably a topic for another thread though.
Posted in the wrong thread.
There was an extensive and interesting discussion about transgenderism between @fdrake and @Isaac here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13830/positive-characteristics-of-females/p1
I straightforwardly mistrust those statistics (Zembla made some interesting programs about the topic). But then again, I'm not saying adults shouldn't be allowed to live in whatever way they desire.
I'm simply taking issue with blaming high suicide rates on "society" when that society is doing everything it can to be accomodating, while people are subjecting themselves to these kinds of extreme and irreversible procedures.
But yea, this is getting off-topic.
Being trans places one on the margins even if everyone is nice to you and you suffer no employment hurdles. Trans folk will watch their cis peers get married and have children while they have sterilized themselves and likely engage in some form of polyamory given monogamy doesn't really make sense. And then there's the issue of what happens when the beauty fades.
I still support an adult's right to choose and acknowledge that this actually could be the best path for some people. But I would not promote it. It is wrong to tell a child that they are the sole determiners of their identity.
In what way is society "bending over backwards"?
Your rhetoric and reasoning suggests otherwise.
Quoting Tzeentch
Suger coat what? An argument you still haven't supported with anything other than that you think this is how it is? Who's really coming off as delusional?
Quoting Tzeentch
Can I see some research and statistics on this destroying people's mental health or are you just gonna continue pointing out things you have no support behind?
This is your emotions speaking, and since it's an argument out of emotion, it is transphobic. Just like if someone wants to limit freedoms for homosexuals based on nothing more than they're "not gonna suger coat truths about how society accommodates homosexuals too much". Just like a racist cannot just say they aren't racists and then they're not, it's the behavior, rhetoric and conclusions made that defines who someone is.
If you have nothing but unsubstantiated causation without evidence statements and pathologizing remarks about transgender people, then that is simply transphobia.
And why not let a neutral analytical system (GPT-o1) review what you wrote and see what it finds when I ask it "How accurate is this text?"
So, basically you're just pushing the same unsubstantiated ideas that can be found in conservative ideologies.
Quoting Tzeentch
How convenient it must be to just ignore what doesn't fit your opinions.
Quoting Tzeentch
What you might not understand is that you are exposed to an observation of society through media. I absolutely doubt that you actually talk to or have insight into the perspective of transgender people and their experiences in society. Just because Disney+ makes shows with lots of LGBTQ+ characters in it, does not mean that society is doing everything it can to accommodate. Most of society consist of people like you, just like people during the 80s and 90s who believed whatever emotional nonsens they could think of and criticized society for accommodating gay people and that this would lead to mental health issues for these people.
This happens every time there's a societal shift into acceptance of previously stigmatized groups.
It starts out with raging hate, public outcries against the groups, then it transitions to official channels being more inclusive, while the public slowly change into what we see many do now; people who say similar things like "they can do whatever they want but not close to me", while later it goes into a false form of defense of these people, a stage in which the societal norm is to accept the group and in doing this, the previous anti-people will do what you do now, talk like you care about them, but still retain the same false claims and judgements as before. The dissonance becomes so obvious.
Quoting Mikie
Gender identity and medical sex are two different things. But even so, if you check the Sapolsky video you can see how even medical sex is more complex than just what you have between your legs. Anyone who boils this down to purely their culturally biased ideas about gender and sex and who ignores the vast amount of research on this subject is clearly not engaging with it honestly. Putting the conclusion of "delusion" before the cart of actually doing the argument.
For instance, what Sapolsky talks about is that areas like the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) and the amygdala shows a size and neuron density of the BSTc in transgender women have been found to resemble those of cisgender women. There are actual differences to our brain that has to do with our brain in relation to our bodies and in transgender people it's found that even if the chromosomes and organs align, their brain have conflicting functions, meaning, the brain and body have different perceptions of what sex it actually is. The XX and XY chromosomes direct the development, but since male and females are more similar than not, people fall on a form of gradient between the two, heavily influenced by the chromosomes.
If someone develops a brain that comes in conflict with the body's perception of its sex, is it delusional that the brain, which regulates emotions and is the seat of our consciousness is drawn to wanting a correction to get rid of the resulting dysmorphia?
What I see is, especially in relation to the topic within the election and conservative media is the same old dusty story of them looking at this as they did on homosexuality when it became more commonly accepted in society, and they believed this was a delusion that would corrupt children and societal values. All while none of them actually engaged with either research on the subject or ever even engaged with the gay community in a way of attempting to understand it.
What is more delusional, people who make absolutist conclusions without research backing it up, or people who follow what the research suggests and talk to the people it affects?
It's related to Trump's stance and the conservative narrative that will become more common in the next four years. People like you will continue to spread further bs and be part of that transphobic movement. Your ignorance here is the proof enough.
No, there are actually large reservations to be had with the figure posted.
This is probably the most highly-esteemed platform for investigative journalism in the Netherlands.
But of course I am just a "transphobe", blablabla... :yawn:
Yet there is still a screening for adults who seek to transition.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, and gender identity is the subject here not biological sex. We're moving past transsexualism (now often considered an outdated term) into transgenderism. Or are we going to insist that those seeking to transition possess the correct biological markers before allowing them access to HRT?
Quoting Christoffer
Proper investigation into what? That they're "really" transgender? That they were "really" born in the wrong body? The medical community creates the criteria. The question is really just whether they get their HRT. The surgeries come later.
The documentary is takes a critical look at the treatments, primarily focused on the Dutch treatements. It doesn't lead to the generalize conclusions you are making. The problem is that things like this becomes a foundation for conclusions that doesn't correlate with the specifics of the criticism.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, and why do you think that is? Why do people who want a nose job get none such treatment but adults who want to transition need to go through years of investigation? Any other decision an adult makes about their bodies require much less investigation. Shouldn't people who do plastic surgery also go through a psychological investigation about their self-image, seen as this is a very existing problem in society? It needs to go in one or the other direction, make screenings of everyone looking for any changes to their bodies, or don't treat some different than others. Which way do you suggest?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Non-binary can rely on an underlying bias towards a certain sex, but it's not equally common they do transitions. The foundation for transitioning is still based on the same experience of either alignment or not.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The investigation is both medical and psychological. Most children have some confusion about their gender, it's part of growing up. Investigation is about trying to differentiate if this is such common confusion or being a more fundamental case of transgenderism. I'm not sure what makes you think children are put into transitioning just haphazardly.
What criteria do you suggest we follow other than the most up to date research?
For example, let's stop the ongoing trend of nose jobs. The regret rate among patients is at an average 16.4%. Since this leads to mental health issues such as "Body Dysmorphic Disorder", depression, anxiety and "Post-Surgical Dissatisfaction" with many returning for correction that only deepens the problems, I suggest that we should ban nose jobs in society.
Why isn't this an equal issue in society seen as how many go through with it? Why aren't we looking into these mental health issues? Why is it that transgender people gets this much critique? Why is it that the dissatisfaction rate or regret gets unproportionally large empirical room compared to almost all other treatments? Why is the satisfaction rate and the mental health improvements among transgender children ignored or overlooked while the extremely low regret rate gets all the attention? The critical examination has only concluded the lack of extensive long term data. It's not at all enough for the kinds of conclusions you make. Especially seen as the data so far points in the other direction.
This specific sub-topic started with the fact of the general public's inability to make reasonable conclusions based on their lacking ability of statistical understanding. The interpretations of statistical data leads to the conclusions they want to make, primarily because it is focused in on specific numbers, not within context or with surrounding factors taken into consideration. In this case, the lack of long term data in research becomes empirical evidence for why children shouldn't get treatment. Even though we have observations of declining mental health among children who didn't get treatment. The regret rate among the group going through treatment is around 1%. A 0% rate is statistically impossible, but 1% is remarkably low in statistics. If you focus in on the 1% and get their regret voiced out, you can make a good case against treatment through emotionally loaded arguments, but it would be a skewed argument that do not portray the general reality of transgenders situation.
Now that is cruel. In the US you can get HRT after a 45 minute consultation (although it varies state by state). Making a suicidal population wait years to be "trans-vestigated" before given access to HRT is cruel.
Quoting Christoffer
Ok but non-binary people do transition and they have just the same right to as transwomen or transmen. They just want to feel more in accordance with their non-binary gender identity and I don't see the problem with that.
And virtually all of us have male characteristics and female characteristics.
Quoting Christoffer
Now that is surprising to me if true. I wonder whether this is true across time. I don't recall this being much of a thing decades ago. We've always had feminine boys and masculine girls.
Quoting Christoffer
You ever consider maybe there's no clear cut line between the two? I've seen experiments where children take a sleeve of oreos over $10,000. I simply don't trust their judgment especially when it comes to very major life issues like going through puberty and maintaining their fertility. A child simply can't look decades down the line like an adult can. A child can see the here and the now. They can regurgitate ideas that have been taught to them and appeal to them. They cannot understand themselves because the brain doesn't stop developing until the mid 20s and they are not fully formed.
EDIT: It is different if we are talking about a child of 16 or 17 rather than 6 or 7.
The foundation of my opinion is intuition, and I am unashamed to admit it.
I don't expect anyone to take it seriously, but alas here we are.
Intuitions lead to investigations, and, lowe and behold, investigations lead to indications that something is fishy.
Quoting Christoffer
Yea, why isn't it? I would say the normalization of cosmetic surgery is a serious issue, actually. I can't think of anything more damaging to say to a young person than "You are, indeed, not good enough and we should mutilate you to make you better".
Do note that I said nothing about bans, but I'm glad my argument sounds authoritative enough that it would merit a ban. Just something to think about...
Quoting Christoffer
I don't remember the last time "society" was being blamed for the high rates of suicide among recipients of cosmetic surgery.
That, and the fact that transgender viewpoints are finding their ways into children's classrooms which is obviously not where they belong.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888
FeelTheBern
https://theintercept.com/2024/11/12/trump-harris-democrats-working-class-voters/ :fire:
:up:
It’s compelling. But who really knows? I don’t. I feel like Bernie would have done better, but he would have had the entire Democrat establishment after him— twice as much as that short window in early 2020 when he looked like he would win the nomination after Nevada, and there were 3 or 4 op-eds in the NY Times every day just trashing him, with idiots like Bret Stephens losing their shit about him being the nominee and vowing never to vote for him EVER, even voting for Trump if he were nominated.
Given that, who knows if he would have pushed through?
I spent some time wondering why the Democrats went with circus candidates instead of him, but then the obvious conclusion came: Bernie is just as big of a threat to the neocon establishment as Trump is.
e.g. 53% of White women again chose a "Your Body, My Choice" misogynist by playing the "White Power" (MAGA) race card.
addendum to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945715
@Amity @Mikie @Benkei @Maw @Wayfarer @Fooloso4 @Vera Mont @Baden
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/945323 [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy [2]
I'd support a USE.
It's cool, we're better than them. I'd suggest letting the Scandinavians take the lead, they seem to know what they're doing.
https://people.com/donald-trump-mentions-third-term-house-gop-meeting-8744857
Well, he certainly can't be elected again. That would require a constitutional amendment which ain't happening.
A grey area is if he is nominated as Speaker of the House (which doesn't require being a congressman), and then having the President and Vice President resign.
So don't worry, there might be a way to get Obama back.
Trump basically has dominance over most parts of the US government. So why won't that happen if people support him in it? It's not a natural physical law that it wouldn't happen and right now it seems he doesn't have much blocking him if he wanted to change it.
A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both houses and three quarters of the states.
What governs that ruling? I mean, what governs the form in which amendments are decided?
I'm just saying, what would stop someone if they would do anything to stay in power? What rules actually applies, especially having the supreme court in your pocket and hints at uprooting other fundamentals?
Well, if you're talking about practical enforcement then I suppose it's the armed forced which has the final say.
Basically, I'm wondering, how far can Trump stretch his power until the population and other government authorities had enough. Around 27 years ago, a blowjob was too much for the public and politics to handle, but now we have a president that seems to push things further and further. So when will people say enough is enough? What's the line? The actual line that is. At which crossing it would result in removal by force.
By that time it may be too late to remove him by force or any other means. He has made it clear that he will be firing military leaders who do no demonstrate sufficient "loyalty", that is, obedience to him. He will have eliminated government agencies, made the Department of Justice an instrument of his will, effectively curtailed the powers of Congress to act against him, and have a Supreme Court that promotes theocratic rule and an even larger majority if there is an opening.
So, where is the line being drawn? There are many instances in that description where I would think that people had enough and remove him by force.
Or are people that gullible, naive and blind that it would get so far before people act? Disregarding the status of Hitler within the context of history, if we look at his rise to power, it was a long line of exploiting democratic institutions in order to gain power legally. All while the opponents struggled within their own parties. The narrative of Trump's rise to power is similar to Germany in the 30s. Like then, the depression produced an extremely dissatisfied group of working class people, which is similar to the post 2008 financial crash. On top of that, the pandemic and economic turmoil at the moment, most people viewed Hitler as a savior.
The interesting thing is how no one opposed Hitler until it was too late. So when is too late? How far is a line drawn until people realize that things have gone too far?
Most of Trump's worst statements are dismissed as jokes. In the same way as Hitler's opposition dismissed him as a buffoon. So maybe Trump just is a buffoon and we just get 4 years of shenanigans that can be laughed at while his support sinks and we get another 2020 election with some half-assed democrat that the people don't really like or support.
Or, with the much greater grip on power this time around, he slowly installs ways to hold on to power and step by step dismantle the institutions that are there to block anyone from gaining authoritarian power.
People generally don't notice the small steps until its too late. But even if many notice it and talks about it, when is it enough to organize any kind of removal by force against him?
When is the line so crossed that a large portion of the population is organized and standing behind a coup removal of him because the normal process of removal has been dismantled?
The US seems to naively think that fascism and totalitarian power is a thing that simply "don't happen here". Something that happens elsewhere. But when taking into account how most aspects of Trumpism looks eerily similar to how other states went from free democracies to authoritarian, the pieces are on the board.
If that is just a coincident that this buffoon of a clown happens to have similar pieces on the board as authoritarian leaders who took power, remains to be seen.
But the question remains... where is the line drawn?
I don't think there is one. He was elected for a reason: because he represents what the majority of Americans want the USA to be. This isn't evil or unnatural. History repeats itself.
As I mentioned...
Quoting Christoffer
He could very well dismantle everything through legal means until it grants him the power to take the next steps. Seen as many Maga zealots would fight for him, he could install them as his own agency/force to do his biddings.
Him being elected were for reasons that, if we listen to the voters, are all fair game. I'm not talking about the election, there wasn't anything illegal or wrong with that. I'm talking about how he will wield his power over the next four years. Where is the line drawn if he goes too far? When would people, hypothetically, realize a line has been crossed and action needs to be taken so as to prevent things from escalating into a situation in which it's impossible to take action at all?
That's Project 2025, which is a plan for removing all opposition to Trump in the government. His VP endorsed it, but Trump hasn't. His VP embraces "dark Enlightenment" principles, which basically says the Enlightenment was bullshit and we need to go back to monarchy.
For some years now I've also believed the US has problems that would best be addressed by a dictator, such as changing social norms that result from neoliberalism. I'm starting to understand why Lenin was opposed to democracy. Lenin was a monster, btw, I'm just saying I'm seeing the dimensions of the challenges he faced.
For many voters the lines have already been crossed and Trump will get us back on the right side. For others Trump crosses the line. With Trump the line continues to move. The US survived Trump the first time around and so many think we can survive Trump 2.0. That there is no real danger. We can survive this or that, and one thing after another it is no longer clear where the lines are. This is authoritarian creep.
Quoting Christoffer
The majority of voters think things are bad and blame the government. They want change and destroying the government as it is will bring change. A demagogue steps in, with promises he won't keep, and scapegoats to be eliminated as the solution.
Because he's the president elect of the United States.
Partly why I'm not so worried about Trump, but more worried about what he's bringing with him. What he is legitimizing.
Quoting frank
I think such thoughts are young thoughts of rebellion. The allure of quick fixes in frustration of the status quo. In reality, people need to be careful constructing the new house, and see to it being properly built with the care of wise builders.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, and so far no lines are crossed. The potential scenario of Trump taking authoritarian power in a way that crosses the line of what the US generally stands for; pushing the boundary of what people generally deem normal for what the US is, might be pushed so far that people don't realize it's already over.
But for the ones who notice, when is the line crossed? Because there has to be line clearly drawn and people knowledgeable enough to know when its crossed.
I think it might be you who discounts the possibility of a US dictatorship, not Americans. A lot of Americans want it now.
Well, so far he is not the president. Although it is within the powers of the office, his choice of people like Gaetz, Kennedy, and Musk, and threats to remove military leaders who are not sufficiently "loyal" crosses a line. Replacing people who are competent and can serve as a check against his self-serving interests and destructive tendencies with people who are not but are willing to do whatever he wants is crossing a line.
:up:
Ahahaha, rule-based thinking has never stopped dictators. If he's so inclined he will look for other ways. I personally think he's in it for himself, vanity, greed, etc. and therefore don't think there's a particularly high chance but even so "culture eats rules for breakfast".
What I meant was that the idea of speed running society to preferable changes by overthrowing democracy is what childish minds think leads to a better world. I'm not saying that such childish minds exist all over society, but it says something about the knowledge and intelligence of the population if such ideas remain into adulthood.
Quoting Fooloso4
Exactly, the line seems to exist all over the place, pushed and pulled by the preferences of the one evaluating its placement. But the interesting thing is when a line gets crossed that fully rally the people against an authoritarian leader.
When I hear Trump "joke" about a third term, I'm thinking of the movie Civil War in which part of the reason why that fictional conflict started was both the president dismantling the FBI and going for a third term. It eerily echoes what Trump is talking about. As I said, he's most of the time just bullshitting for likes and attention, it's part of his shenanigans, but even so, if he were to act on his authoritarian fantasies, when would the people be like "that's too far" and arm up a coup?
The only thing that makes a civil war unlikely is if Trump is bullshitting. If he's not, all he says are grounds for how such a conflict would happen. I don't think that the population would just stay silent and take it if it were to happen that he acts in violence against the people. I don't think the military would follow orders of it either. But it is interesting to speculate at which point the people would collectively wake up into organized rebellious opposition against him.
Primarily since the people of a nation like the US are so far in thought from such actions. If something like this would have happened in France, a person like Trump wouldn't be able to sneeze in the wrong direction before the people storm against it.
Trans issues, the border, immigrants, Iran, Muslims, critical race theory, ESG, DEI, voter fraud, the national debt (only while Democrat in office), etc. All complete bullshit. They’re masters of proposing solutions in search of problems. I remember how each one of these started, in the infancy of their propagandic journey — it’s been enlightening watching the evolution.
Then it’s fun to watch the lemmings in the press, the Democratic Party, and all the way down to goofy internet posters on Reddit, Twitter, and even here, tacitly accept the framing and react accordingly — all while the planet burns and wealth inequality gets wider.
I'm not sure why you think this. All ancient democracies ended in tyranny. What makes you think we would be different?
They would not be nearly so successful if not for Fox and more recently the proliferation of podcasts that cynically treat politics as a rule free, fact free competitive sport.
:up:
Very true— although liberal leaning establishment media go right along with most of it too. The “border crisis” especially.
There is no border crisis, and there never was.
Not sure what you mean, I'm agreeing with you on the point of people craving for a form of tyranny. As long as that tyranny takes the shape of being on their side it is an alluring idea for the simple minded ones.
I would say though, that there is one form of tyranny that is required even though people have problems with handling the parameters of such ideas. And that's the tyranny against intolerance and anti-democracy. I think that there should be an absolute intolerance against even the slightest notion of change that does not aim to improve democracy and the quality of it. Any attempt by an individual or small group to increase their own power outside of democratic means should be a straight to jail situation. A rigid form of system that can only be changed by a large amount of all its citizens, say 90% of all people need to be behind it to make substantial changes. Because any change that is substantial cannot be by the tyranny of the minority.
In such a system, Trump would be removed long before he's even close to running for president, by the reason of how he talked about the US and its politics alone. If any politician even utters any form of anti-democratic idea to the public they should be disqualified and banned from halls of power.
I'm of the opinion that a government should be run by only the competent and one way to make sure of it is to ban anyone who can't form policy and politics that aren't for the benefit of the people and the nation. They need to show that they are stable individuals who work as actual representatives of their voters for the purpose of steering the ship with confidence and not malice. If people are angry about something, it does not help them whatsoever to align with someone who wants to basically take their voting power away from them. Sorry to say, but people are generally gullible and stupid and the only way to guarantee that they don't shoot themselves in the foot is to make sure that there's never ever any candidate who can take advantage of their gullible nature.
If people cannot imagine a society in which both freedom of speech, and an intolerance against the anti-democratic authoritarians can co-exist, then they're not really thinking beyond the shallow.
I'm also inclined to ban people born male from participating in female sports, as a general rule, because they had the benefit of testosterone after they reached puberty. I was curious about the testosterone of pre-pubescent boys and girls and was surprised to discover that girls have more testosterone than boys (see this).
It also leaves open the problem of intersex people like Caster Semenya - she was classified as female at birth, but has internal testes that produce testosterone. IMO, she should not be allowed to participate in female sports.
Flexible governments survive where rigid ones fail.
Quoting Christoffer
It's strikes me as very strange that you think you're a supporter of democracy when you think people are too gullible to make their own choices.
Quoting Christoffer
Maybe. Monarchy is a very robust form of government, even more so when linked to a state religion. We'll pretty much all go back to monarchies as climate change sets in. Democracy is just a tool. It's not a good in itself.
Quoting frank
e.g. Dune.
Yes, but I didn't say government, I said system, as in the system that protects the democratic process. Rigid enough so that no one could overthrow the system just by being elected.
Quoting frank
People are gullible to make choices if manipulated. Real choices are reliant on truth and honesty from the people giving out that choice. This gullible nature has been established by enough research into both psychology and social psychology. If we can agree on this being true about people, especially in social groups, then it should be obvious that for democracy to function as it is intended, there shouldn't be any possibilities of political actors to manipulate this gullible nature and instead force politicians to stand by truth and facts.
If all political agents do this, then we focus society to democratically function by the idea of Wisdom of Crowds. Rather than become a demagogy.
It is naive to not recognize the gullible nature of people while forming protections against those wanting to destroy democracy. Otherwise we risk being blind to those who use democracy to destroy democracy.
Quoting frank
Democracy is a form of power. The problem is that people can only think in binary or extreme forms. It's either authoritarian or it is democratic etc. We are either under full control of one or a few or we are absolutely under the tyranny of the gullible morons of the masses. But I don't think that is true at all, that kind of absolutist thinking is for the shallow simple minded people who think in polarized forms.
Democracy is far better than authoritarian systems as the authoritarian systems easily becomes corrupted or form abuse of power. But democracy needs to have a system that does not collapse onto itself. It needs to get rid of grifters and manipulators, get rid of psychopaths and power hungry career politicians. The only politicians who should be allowed in such halls of power should be those with absolute interest in caring for the people, humanity and society. Anyone of them who's just there to gain their own power should be defeated in a show of societal force that prevents people to even dare to try and seize power.
It should be dangerous as hell to try and seize power in such a system. To the point of absolute annihilation. If that is true for all in such a society, then no one can wield power for their own benefit against anyone, and society truly governs itself with representatives rather than individuals.
For Americans "government" does refer to the system. We use "administration" to refer to the people who occupy the executive branch at a certain time.
The whole population of the USA watched as Trump attempted to override an election, going so far as to contact the Pentagon for help. Those same Americans re-elected Trump. As the US heads further and further toward right-wing authoritarianism, it's not gullibility, it's not childishness, and it's most certainly not the work of one man. It's that the political pendulum is swinging toward something that's always been native to the US ever since Hamilton arranged for the president to have direct access to the Treasury. There's nothing that can stop Trump except maybe a bullet.
Quoting Christoffer
It usually takes a few generations for that to happen. New monarchies can be very beneficial to society as the new dictator seeks to establish legitimacy.
What are the forces behind the movement today? Dissatisfaction and the desire for change play a role, but is authoritarianism the only option? Of course one man's authoritarianism is another's New Deal. From that perspective some see MAGA is a correction.
Is the demagogue or a plutocracy or kleptocracy the natural consequence of democracy?
Or is our system robust enough to self-correct?
1. The moments just prior to the event.
2. The previous three decades.
3. The previous three generations.
4. The unfolding narrative of the culture spanning 1-2 millennia.
5. Human nature.
It's fun. Try it with the civil war.
I'm not mad at MAGAs, a majority of white women and "low information" citizens for again voting for The Clown. Instead, I'm pissed at the ten-plus million of Dems who didn't bother to vote for the second time in 8 years (2 out of the last 3 general elections) most likely because the Dem candidate for president was female.
Lesson: (If I'm not profoundly mistaken) many working class, non-college educated men & women would rather not vote than vote for an "Alpha Woman" to be POTUS.
So will the DNC learn this lesson? :mask:
I doubt it ... TBD.
What is the lesson? Not to nominate a woman?
Do you think a man would have won?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/946060
It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.
A pundit once said if Americans are faced with a choice of a Democrat who won't enforce borders and a fascist who will, they'll pick the fascist. I hope Democrats learn from this shellacking.
I've watched this from a distance, so I don't really know what happened. A lot of comment on this election result seems to focus on questions of perception. It's payback for the neoliberal elites, sneering at the uneducated in the fly over states; it's perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok; it's moral panic - a nation at risk of transgender reassignment; It's a choice between more neoliberalism or embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard.
To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? And, if this is the case, is this driven by intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?
Neither does anyone else.
Quoting Tom Storm
For many the economy is a matter of what they can and cannot afford. For some there is real hardship and financial insecurity. For others it is being able to afford a house or what their parents had. And for still others it is resentment that they can't afford a big house or fancy car or luxury vacation.
Unfortunately Trump will take credit for an improving economy, just as he did last time around.
I don't think payback for liberal elites, transgender issues, and "wokeness" are that important. It is more a matter of what people see and hear in the media than these things having a significant effect on their lives.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yeah, I agree. What they don't think about is what happens after the destruction. What replaces it.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think people are fickle. The Founders were well aware of this and tried to minimize it.
Quoting Tom Storm
It certainly seems as if this is the case, but I think the whole thing might be to a greater or lesser extent exaggerated. People are growing weary of it. The sport of "owning the libs" is getting old and tired. It takes time to adjust to change, and things continue in significant ways. Often acceptance comes with a new generation.
Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked.
That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.
Case in point.
Quoting Fooloso4
Maybe. :smirk:
Trump painted her as a radial progressive. In response she attempted to appear as a moderate maintaining the status quo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_crisis#
Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time.
I think, for worse or better, this is it. There's no inherent bigotry or biases to people involved. Its to types of information, and styles of presentation.
I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. They care she's a hypocrite, panders and has next to nothing to offer in the current climate (in their view).
The reason Dems didn't vote for Harris is simply: She did not inspire their vote. Adding in some form of bigotry is a fully-on cope.
I don't either. I guess we've moved on from sexism. That's cool.
:lol:
So much for a landslide and a mandate. But we’re witnessing the peak of Trumpism, regardless. And what amazing leadership picks so far— Dr. Oz, a supplement-peddling charlatan; Matt Gaetz, a Dr. Seuss-looking teenage girl enthusiast; Linda McMahon, straight from the world of wrestling— obvious pick for education; and of course several climate deniers to lead the EPA, Energy, and Interior. Perfection.
4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good.
Problem with that is that then the Democrats won't make much effort to do anything and we will have four years after that both cleaning up after Trump and not doing politics that actually benefit the people.
Democrats need a strong counter to what Trump offers, not in "spirit", but in actual work. As mentioned earlier, Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. They now have four years to find and build up a candidate that can inhabit his abilities and policies. Form a good marketing campaign for it and tour around listening to people who will get screwed by Trump politics.
:up:
Quoting Christoffer
:up:
We really don't know how many people would have voted for him. The label "socialist" still scares a lot of people. I do think, however, that targeting wealth disparity might be a winning message.
The map over donors from the public towards candidates is a pretty clear indicator of what the people want. What the Democratic party then does is just ignoring this and go for the elite at the top (those criticized for being out of touch with the people).
The fear mongering using "socialist" is just the right playing their cards. Sanders modell his politics after Scandinavia and people buying into the socialist fear mongering gets quite the cognitive dissonance when living conditions in Scandinavia are brought up to be among the world leading. But they're not socialist nations.
What Sanders is capable of doing is to sell in the politics and policies to the people with just basically asking them what they want and then telling them that's what these policies will do. "You can't take care of your sick relative and need to have three jobs to even support basic living conditions? Here's the welfare system to support it, free health care, sick leave, vacation weeks, constitutional workers rights etc."
He says things as they are and gives people what they ask for. The problem in the US is that Democrats are too afraid of losing voters on the right, who themselves want better living conditions and they do it by just catering in to the same lies and narratives of the right rather than go harder into left economics and give people what they want.
And we see more and more people just saying the same things that the Democrats have been following for years now: "do the same tactics as the right", "try to speak the Maga language" and more of such nonsense, pushing the party more and more to the right by the day.
Instead of just facing reality and distinguish themselves as a left leaning party. Here's the left economics focused on supporting the people.
The absolute hilarity of the right trying to cater to the working class while still increasing the people's living costs while funding the military to such an excess it nearly breaks the economy, much rather than taking a microscopic part out of that to fund a really functioning and good health care system, better education, support for the conditions of the working class etc.
...things that overall, over time, produces the foundation for future industry, entrepreneurs, engineers and workers who can build an improved future.
This short-term self-indulging elitist politics need to stop and it will stop when parties like the Democrats choose someone with a properly intelligent vision that the people can gather around. When are people going to realize that politicians go by their own interests, in the direction of money ans building their own wealth of power rather than caring anything for how to actually care for a nation and the world?
This is why I want to ban anyone from halls of power who's not a true representative of the people and who constantly lies. Statements in politics that aren't factual should lead to removal of their power. It would get rid of not just clowns like Trump, but all clowns on both sides.
Unless I am missing something, if donations are any measure then Harris would have won.
Quoting Christoffer
I am not sure that is entirely true. It may be that people do not understand Sander's proposals, but a proper understanding of a candidate's position has never been a requirement for voting.
Quoting Christoffer
So, you are not in favor of democracy.
How do you figure that? It's not about winning the election but who's the Democrat's candidate running for office. Without Sanders, she's third, and that's including all the public exposure she's got as a VP.
Quoting Fooloso4
He's being countered and bullied by both the Republicans AND the Democrats. He doesn't get as big of a stage and he's never been an elected candidate that gets all the attention to speak nationally. And it's not about understanding his position, it's about understanding his politics. The people actually understands him and likes his proposals because of it, every time he's spoken it's relatively crystal clear. Compare that to the non-vision gobbledygook that the other Democrats constantly spew out. And he has the ability to change his rhetoric depending on the crowd. When he speaks to working class voters he's doing the most basic 1 to 1 logic of policy to result based on their questions.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, I'm more in favor of democracy than most, that's why a representative democracy should actually work as one and have true representatives, not manipulators, liars and demagogues. To force the representatives to form policy out of facts, research and what the people ask for, pitting that against other politicians who have other conclusions about how to solve issues. What we see in politics, especially in the US today, is not actually democracy and everyone who thinks that, are fools.
Donors who gave to Bernie over other Democrats only shows that Democratic donors favored him, not that he had the support of the people.
Quoting Christoffer
But that is not what we have. The question is how to democratically make it a representative democracy? Banning people from the halls of power is anti-democratic.
The map shows people's donations. There's no candidate voting by the people, the people can only vote on what the Democratic party puts forward. If the people were to vote for a candidate, it would have been Sanders.
Quoting Fooloso4
Banning people who actively lie is a protection of the democracy. Banning people who try to manipulate and abuse their power is protecting democracy. If you tolerate the intolerable, it's going to erode everything and you lose democracy. You're not banning representation of the people, you're not banning based on political leaning or politics, you ban people who abuse their power and through that focus politics to function as representative of the people's vote.
Just reacting like that to the concept of "banning people" is like the freedom of speech ticks that people misuse as some kind of defense for whatever they like. You need to have context, otherwise it's like when someone is banned off this forum, people would complain that this is anti-democratic, disregarding that censorship has to do with state censorship, banning people off this forum is there to protect the standards of quality that this forum has. It's the same principle. Getting rid of the demagogues require getting rid of the people who act as demagogues. And that requires laws and regulations to do it in order to protect the quality of democracy that should be considered obvious. It's not rocket science.
You do not know that. The approval of Democratic donors is not the same as the approval of "the people".
Quoting Christoffer
Not unless it is done democratically. How would that work?
Quoting Christoffer
It is anti-democratic! I don't know what the forum would look like if it were democratic, but my guess is that I would prefer it the way it is.
Quoting Christoffer
I agree.
Quoting Christoffer
It is not the same principle. One is a government regime the other is a forum.
Quoting Christoffer
Right, it is not. Rocket science is much less complicated.
It's as much representative of the people as an election itself. You think they would donate to someone they wouldn't vote for? And on top of that, what other metric do you have to measure this?
Quoting Fooloso4
By checking against facts. For example, politicians inflate numbers all the time to make their statements sound better, only to retract when stakes are less high. By demanding facts to be represented correctly you can install a strike method to make sure continuously lying politicians stay to actual facts.
Demagogues can win democratically by just playing the part, scheme and hide problems. "Democratically" doesn't mean anything if there's no protection of truth surrounding it.
How would you make sure that anything "democratically" is handled with care to protect itself? Hitler got to his power "democratically".
Quoting Fooloso4
While there's no democratic election of the moderators, I would say that if some mod were to abuse his power and people rise up to that, the other mods would surely democratically decide to strip that mod of those powers. And for bannings, they're done together with a stated reason for it, and if that reason isn't according to the rules, then that too could be contested. So far the reason why things on this forum works is because to become a mod you need to show that you have the virtue of keeping the quality of this forum. And it works well.
But then, apply that to the scale of society, it's impossible to keep it from being infested by corruption and bad actors. Through democracy it works better to cycle leaders and make the people decide who they trust. But such trust can be manipulated.
So how do you get similar quality, but through a democratic system, without having the ability to safeguard against bad actors? Banning the ones who lie and scheme, taking down the leaders who try to manipulate the masses to hide the fact they're not on their side.
Quoting Fooloso4
You don't know what an analogy is? We are talking about different governing systems, on how to improve the quality of representative democracy. We ban people on the forum in order to not infest the place with low quality trash that's only there to feed the ego of the person behaving like that.
In the government, politicians should not be there to feed their ego, to work for themselves, they are there for the damn people, to represent the people who put them there. That's the whole point of democracy. And if politicians lie and cheat people to get votes, then it's not a democracy anymore, it's a demagogy.
To argue for better protection of the democratic system is to argue for a way to keep such manipulators and liars out of halls of power. To effectively ban them from being there. The people they were supposed to represent can choose another one who can behave according to the rules and regulations of such a protection system, just like we have rules on this forum. Banning such people do not remove the representative power of the people, it protects the whole system from abusers of power.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't think so, I think people are lost in definitions and ideologies. People seem unable to look at a system without wearing lenses of their personal value systems infecting how they read certain words.
Democracy is not a single thing that cannot be evolved. There's lots of room to improve a democratic system to rid itself of corruption, demagogues and improve the quality of its people-representative function as a governing power.
:fire: :death:
It's very telling of the entire republican party being so ignorant and bad at speaking out against these creeps and behaviors of Trump and his closest circle of people that the entire party is immoral.
How much proof is needed?
If you are a republican, are you supporting this or not? If not, then speak up, if so, then you're just as immoral as them. And if you're against it, but fear them, then bite the damn bullet and organize together into a new party. Take the loss if that leads to a loss in the next election through diluting the voters between the two factions. Eventually your moral faction of the republican party will gain in popularity and snuff out the immoral trash of the other. The Lincoln Project already tries this, support them, gain their strength instead.
Republicans turning a blind eye towards the immorality makes them complicit in the immorality. Either take a stand against it or embrace it, either way, the current state of republicans is that of immoral bad people. Doesn't matter where you stand politically, that conclusion is solid.
Yeah, there’s really no parity. Both parties are bought by corporations and are comprised of wealthy people educated at Ivy Leagues, generally — but anyone not locked in the “go team” red/blue tribalism can still see the differences. These nominees are beyond satire.
It’s just that people have stopped caring. They don’t trust anything, they don’t know anything, and they’ve now been influenced by something even worse than “mainstream media” — social media “influencers” and memes. :vomit:
They’re isolated on their information islands, transported there by big tech algorithms, addicted to their phones — all for profit. Not a great situation. You see it in polls where it’s asked if the stock market is doing well and Republicans say it’s awful, when it’s at record highs. I assume the same can be done with Democrats.
We’re no longer in the neoliberal era, it’s claimed. We’ll see. Biden was neoliberalism lite, Trump is just an idiot — so anything is possible. But what eventually emerges will be interesting to see. And how it disseminates to the masses via this strange media landscape.
I agree with everything there. Trump and everything we see is the symptom of the modern condition.
Quoting Mikie
I think post-truth-ideals have taken over from neoliberalism. It's not a value system, but a sign of neoliberalism breaking down. The values of neoliberalism have programmed everyone to only be looking out for themselves; both as a sense of having a strong identity standing against the world, as well as stopping to care for anything. Everyone is in a bubble thinking they can exist without having to interact with anyone else but who they choose to. That they're not affected by climate change, economics, war and so on.
Communism was something that previously stood as a counter-weight to the neoliberal change. But since the fall of the Soviet union and placing communism's tyranny on full display as a failed system, it's more or less died out and neoliberalism could rage freely. We have the playbook for communism, we know how it played out, but we haven't truly for neoliberalism until now. We're starting to see the terrors of what it really did to our culture. And in the hindsight of the future I believe we will look back at the peak of neoliberalism just as we look back at the peak of failed communist empires obscuring the tyranny and terrors at its core. We will have an historical context showing identity enforcement and the tyranny of isolation that failed to organize people into movements for the betterment of humanity. Failing to organize the world into dealing with something like the climate change for instance.
Trump's authoritarianism is a clear sign that neoliberalism is ending. I'm only hoping it inspires a new world order to form around less authoritarian views as people get fed up with that form of fallout from the ending neoliberalism. And that the world finds a better equilibrium between the liberal values of freedom and the necessity of collaborative collective projects and systems that help people and improves life for all.
I don't think that's really a dream scenario, because I'm seeing how fed up people are with how things have been run over the past 50 years. No one wants a communist state, people don't want authoritarian leaders, they don't want a state boot, but they also don't want the soulless capitalist neoliberal machine just grinding them into mindless dust in which the existential dread of being reach a climax of absolute meaninglessness. People crave for a system that actually works, something well-planned and intelligent.
It might not look like it with all the trash and unintelligent brain rot that's going around, but you can see it in people's eyes... they're tired. They want meaning. Some go back to religion, only to find themselves in the same mess of incoherent ideas that it had. But some look for more collective coherence, something that connects people beyond the superficial realm of online trash that is algorithmically controlled social media.
People need big projects, big movements, stuff that connects and builds towards something profound or that gives a sense of it.
One example of how neoliberalism has reached its end and is about to fall is young people's interest in only short form TikTok-style media. The entertainment industry became democratized with the rise of YouTube and short form media to the point that it took the formula of commercials as the main media format. TikTok and Instagram reels functions like commercials, one after another of short form content. It flipped the idea of watching a show with commercial breaks into the commercial format being the main form of entertainment. But there's very little substance in this format, not because it's uncreative, but that it doesn't have the time to form deeper meaning. It's like looking for answers to existential questions in the commercial breaks on TV.
But young people have started to behave lost, finding themselves dissolution and without a sense of actual meaning. We're seeing a peak of this soulless consumption of the neoliberal market and that soullessness is beginning to become clear to everyone. There's a reason why we see trends like the vinyl records making a comeback. It's not because of some hipster-nostalgia, but for the purpose of slowing down and be more personal with things like listening to music. People are leaving social media or don't care for it as much anymore; they're mostly using it as a main form of communication with friends and family, but not as an identity sign post.
This form of anti-behavior against the plastic shallow nature of neoliberalism will build something new, it's a movement that is yet to have a specific form and core idea, it's a reaction that I think is the seed for what's to come after neoliberalism as a system of values truly crash down.
https://apple.news/AEToGjqpLR4aQxsRScVmgVA
Absolutely true. But…there’s still a majority in this country that isn’t into Trump. They didn’t turn out for Harris like they did for Biden, and there’s good reasons for that too. That’s the other side of the coin.
:up:
Also, Fox and friends are entertaining, like The Jerry Springer Show. Has been referred to as entertainment, for that matter.[sup](thedispatch, logicallyfacts)[/sup] Compare to more sober, boring, ordinary news channels.
The source-memes and whatever it all is (plus the amount of that stuff around), begs the question of where they came from and who wrote them. Determining (and perhaps poking at) their murky origins might be worthwhile.
Tik Tok and all the rest — something like 50% of users aged 18-29 use it to catch up on politics — are much flashier than Frontline or 60 Minutes, let alone reading a paper. That’s just the way it is right now. It’ll change, but whether for better or worse I have no idea.
An example of what mad dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit campaigning can look like:
Liz Churchill
[tweet]https://twitter.com/liz_churchill10[/tweet]
At a glance, it looks like noisy satire, except a couple of classes below The Onion.
I wouldn't want to impede their right to post nonsense, though some accountability would be great.
Does it work, are they making a difference?
[sup]2023Aug21 | 2023Oct20 | 2023Dec18 | vatniksoup | vaxopedia[/sup]
Becoming informed is not the same as taking the notices/stories seriously.
I'm guessing those propagandists/influencers are having an impact, but it's unclear how much.
Heed Bernie's warning
Exactly. The problem isn't one party or the other. The problem is both parties.
Abolish political parties. Abolish group-think and group-hate.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
20January25 (am)
Again, less than a majority of "We the Sheeple" have ignorantly voted for the Felon-in Chief (FOTUS) "they deserve" – shame! So now the hostile takeover of this moribund 'constitutional republic' (1787-2024) is on the verge of fully establishing an oligarchic kakistocracy (with "tech bro" stooge Vance-in-waiting with his finger on the "Twenty-fifth Amendment trigger). :mask:
Though a speculative singularitarian, IRL as a Black American activist I've never been tempted/persuaded by accelerationism (why?); but ...
[quote=nails in the republic's coffin]• Carter-Mondale's Legacy –
Reagan (& Bush), 1981-1993
• Clinton-Gore's Legacy –
"Dubya", 2001-2009
• Obama-Biden's Legacy –
Trump The Clown, 2017-2021
• Biden-Harris' Legacy –
[b]Trump The Convict[b], 2025-TBD[/quote]
Quoting George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)
If this does not describe the current political climate, I don't know what does.
20January2025 (pm)
:fire: :death:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963735
Sieg Heil 2025!
Former illegal immigrant from White South Africa and so-to-be trillionaire welfare queen & wannabe Bond-villain Elon Musk bought the US Presidency and took a huge step closer to Making Apartheid Great Again. Will there be blood after all? TBD.
update:
Far-right wingnut (racist, nativist) groups in both North America and Europe praise Elon Musk's "salute" ...
https://apnews.com/article/musk-gesture-salute-antisemitism-0070dae53c7a73397b104ae645877535
I don't think that white supremacists liking his salute means he himself is a nazi. I just think he's stupid and don't know what he's doing. Paying people to paint him as a smart man, as a leader. He was just outed to have paid some other gamer to play a character in a game to a point of being the best game character in the world, then trying to act like he was responsible for it, which other experts of that game saw through.
He spends a lot of time on crafting an image of himself as this super smart individual who think above society, but he's an insecure incel-type who gets high on power. Here's what I wrote in the news thread about his salute:
Quoting Christoffer
Of course white supremacists will take advantage of this, but I don't think Musk is a nazi, I think he's just stupid and in over his head. He gets so high on the attention of the crowd that he doesn't know what he's doing.
Just look at his awkward dance; is that a man who is knowledgeable about, and controls his own body with enough self-knowledge to know what salute he's making?
I don't think he's a nazi either (btw, why does it matter?), just an über-rich, sociopathic, racist provocateur.
Which is why I think it's important to know why he's an über-rich, sociopathic, racist provocateur. We can't criticize and fight labels; they are incapable of being criticized as they describe themselves. A nazi is just as much of a label as a sociopath and über-rich. We cannot criticize a sociopath for being a sociopath, since it just underlines what is already known.
But we can criticize what's underneath. Why is he a sociopath? A racist? Über-rich? Doing so opens up to actual critique and means of fighting against these types.
One interesting reveal of this was that after years of trying to criticize Trump for being, what he's already being, nothing stuck. Except when people started calling him "weird". That somehow affected him more than anything else. Because it's not a label, it was calling out his behavior as being at odds with the norms.
That such a basic description of Trump rattled his emotions and senses more than calling him a racist underlines how labels are meaningless when dealing with these people.
Calling Musk "an insecure boy" I think carries more weight to him than calling him a sociopath. He made a twitter tantrum over the fact that gamers called him out as having faked his success in the video game. In a way much more childish than he usually does.
Because just calling these people labels ends when they deny it. Not because they're right, but because the discussion won't be able to move past such blunt denial.
But it absolutely matters if he is a nazi or not. If he is, then that's what's being fought against. If he's not, then trying to fight him as someone who does a nazi salute will just backfire as the reasons for it is something else than being a nazi.
https://youtu.be/NjWl_RNDMSA?si=DgDuAl14WOuubUhh
Was there anything in that interview that struck you as particularly nazi?
These guys are so “open minded” that they can be convinced of anything. Maybe the earth is flat? Who knows. Look at how Rogan has become a Trumper and climate denier. A real 180 in just a few years. A lot of it is audience capture and opportunism, but still— anything is possible in social media land.
Crazy on the one hand, but cringe, embarrassing, and pathetic on the other.
Like what? I’ve never been impressed by Elon. His engineers and developers are amazing people. The fact that he owns companies isn’t impressive.
Bring a billionaire doesn’t make you a genius.
25January25
:death: :fire:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/962520
31January25
Re: Dunning-Kruger populism ...
update:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966525
In American life, a better life often involves compromise. Developing good skills in compromising will lead to a better life. Over three hundred million Americans used their lived experiences to decide our country’s political future. No matter what percentage of Americans actually voted, their families and friends make up 100% of America. I encourage us to respect ourselves.
Every two years we get to choose what kind of country we are.
Respect that.
Many countries do not get that chance.