Somewhere between 'zero' and 'Buckleys' would be my estimate.
A rally kicking off former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign opened Wednesday with an invocation from a Christian pastor – a practice not unusual for a GOP political event.
What was notable, however, was Haley’s choice of pastor: John Hagee, a high-profile televangelist and founder of a Christian Zionist group, and a political activist who has made headlines for a number of controversial remarks, including those considered anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. ....
“To Pastor Hagee, I still say I want to be you when I grow up,” Haley said.
She has a much better shot at that than the Presidency.
Reply to frank AFAIK, so far only DeSantis & Individual-1 (less and less) ... they're also looking for anyone who the MAGA mouth-breathers will support. Like Pence (who's delusional), Haley ain't one of them.
Agent SmithFebruary 17, 2023 at 02:41#7817000 likes
So, we're electing leaders based on sex/gender now? Barack Obama wasn't given accommodation in the White House because he was black, he was for the simple reason that he had or seemed to have a good plan as regards how to run the country. Obama just happened to be black. :smile: Hopefully, if Nikki Haley becomes POTUS, she too just happens to be a woman.
Obama was the less bad option in both elections. IMO, his being black helped in 2008.
Then America is doomed! A leader is chosen for leadership qualities and there's no correlation between the color of one's skin, gender too for that matter, and how well you can manage a country's affairs. :smile:
So, we're electing leaders based on sex/gender now?
Seemingly, the masses go to vote just for trivial aspects rather than asking to the politicians more effectiveness. We live in a period of time where it is more important for a politician to have a good spotlight than a great rethoric.
Agent SmithFebruary 17, 2023 at 05:52#7817410 likes
Seemingly, the masses go to vote just for trivial aspects rather than asking to the politicians more effectiveness. We live in a period of time where it is more important for a politician to have a good spotlight than a great rethoric.
Seemingly, the masses go to vote just for trivial aspects rather than asking to the politicians more effectiveness. We live in a period of time where it is more important for a politician to have a good spotlight than a great rethoric.
I've generally never seen it much different than this, it's just that each generation's trivialities seem more grotesque that the last.
AFAIK, so far only De Santis & Individual-1 (less and less) ... they're also looking for anyone who the MAGA mouth-breathers will support. Like Pence (who's delusional), Haley ain't one of them.
I'm not across this issue - living elsewhere - but this seems on the money. Trump still has a hold of a significant chunk of the GOP. Do you think De Santis will be a bigger problem than Trump - being more disciplined and focused?
javi2541997February 17, 2023 at 06:20#7817500 likes
Reply to Tom Storm In the WH, yes; but I don't think DeSantis will get that far precisely because his reactionarypopulist – fascistic, racist, mysogynist, public health-denying – policies in Florida amply demonstrate how much scarier he'd be than Individual-1.
I suspect Biden will announce in the fall that he's not running in 2024. Kamala Harris is already DOA (and good riddens). Watch California governor Gavin Newsom for President (with Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer for VP). Now that's a MAGA-killing ticket! Not nearly as far left as I'd like or this country needs but consistently more firmly progressive than Biden-Harris (or Obama-Biden or Clinton-Gore).
But Ann Coulter is an idiot. I think Haley will appeal to swing voters because she seems to have a moral center. DeSantis comes across as a slug after what he did with shipping immigrants all over the place.
Yup, but she reflects what a significant number of MAGA folks think Quoting frank
Haley will appeal to swing voters because she seems to have a moral center.
That may be so, but apart from Romney and a few isolated others the Republican Party has no moral center. I could be wrong (happens on a regular basis) but I don't see any scenario in which Haley can win in the primaries.
I could be wrong (happens on a regular basis) but I don't see any scenario in which Haley can win in the primaries.
Famous last words, though. If you're thinking that just because of racism, I think you might be mistaken. I don't think the average Republican is racist.
My fairly incautious guess, at this point, is that DeSantis beats Trump in the primary, the latter forms his own independent party sabotaging the Republican vote in the general and Biden cruises into another four terms.
Reply to frank Maybe a Republican woman President, before Sarah Palin helped sink McCain's candidacy, had a good chance but in this post-Tea Party & MAGA-insurrectionist era I expect it will be two or three more Presidential elections before "Republican primary voters" throw up a nominee – man or woman – who will have an even chance to win enough of Independents and former-GOP voters to get back into the WH. My guess is that the fallout from Individual-1 & co's indictments, convictions and consequent civil unrest / political terrorism will have catastrophic electoral consequences for the GOP that will last for at least a generation.
Reply to Benkei Well, my track record is pretty good. I predicted HRC would find a way to throw the 2016 election, that Individual-1 would be impeached by the end of 2019 (because of Mueller's Report, I thought, which I was wrong about), in the summer of 2019 that Individual-1 would lose reelection in 2020 and that there would be no "red tsumani" in 2022. I'm on a roll, Benkei. :wink:
I expect it will be two or three more Presidential elections before "Republican primary voters" throw up a nominee – man or woman – who will have an even chance to win enough of Independents and former-GOP voters to get back into the WH.
I think it just depends on who looks the best on tv. The reason I'm keeping my eye on Haley is that she managed to be elected governor of SC, but at the same time doesn't show up as a complete sycophant or psycho.
I'll admit that it's also because DeSantis makes my stomach turn, he's such a slug, and Biden definitely looks weak.
Four terms? Imagine, he'd be a spry 98 years old at the end of it, our own Mugabe.
More seriously, I don't even think he should run for one more term. Age isn't just a number, and he'll be 82 before his second inauguration. The Democrats have plenty of good candidates to run and I can certainly see it benefiting them to put a new face out there given prevailing economic conditions.
Trump will probably win the GOP primary. Desantis is polling well for the same reason almost every Republican in the huge field in 2016 polled well for short periods. He isn't Trump and people don't know much about him. Trump has already opened up a 14 point lead on him and we haven't even seen Desantis embarrass himself by explaining why he is running against Trump even though he claims to believe Trump won the last election in a landslide.
But Trump-lite doesn't bring the out the enthusiasm like the Orange Augustus himself. The "hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory," crowd isn't going to go for anyone else. Like, are they going to vote for Mike Pence? They were chanting about hanging him in 2021. Plus, it looks like the GOP establishment will sabotage themselves by having too many candidates to split votes between again. MTG will quite likely be the VP.
The more frightening thing is that I can totally see Trump beating Biden, probably while losing the popular vote by 9-10 million votes this time, and his platform of revenge policies, for example, making almost the entire federal civil service political appointees, would be disastrous.
Plus, what a cruel irony it would be to see the first female President and for it to be MTG. That is the type of irony fate seems to like delivering lately.
My fairly incautious guess, at this point, is that DeSantis beats Trump in the primary, the latter forms his own independent party sabotaging the Republican vote in the general and Biden cruises into another four terms.
Trump not getting the candidacy of the GOP and then going third party and making sure that the Dems win would be a very likely, logical way how things would unfold. I agree that this is a genuine possibility.
Let's see in 2024 if you are a fortuneteller, @Maw.
(Page 2 of this thread is allways easy to find, even when it's running in over hundred pages).
Count Timothy von IcarusMarch 17, 2023 at 19:28#7898910 likes
Reply to ssu
Of course, he needs to stay out of prison until November 2024 to do that, which could prove difficult.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus Ah! Wishful thinking. Or should I say that you have an optimist view of the US justice system? Well, belief in the system keeps it up, as they say.
This might happen if the Republican populace simply grows tired of the Donald. And that can happen. Otherwise, imagine the life of the judge afterwards who puts Donald Trump into jail.
Perhaps Donald can have a ghostwriter then writing his "My Battles" book while in prison!
Reply to frank Elections have consequences, at least to some extent. As it happens, Twiddledee and Twiddledum will have slightly different policies, and there might even be differences that "make a difference". On the other hand, T'dee and T'dum generally have the same large policy objectives -- maintaining the capitalist order, maintaining the two-party system (Demican / Repocrat), maintaining the highly uneven distribution of wealth, maintaining military strength, and so on.
The election is roughly 17 months away; Nikky Haley and others ??? may be irrelevant way before then.
I find it difficult to get aroused about 2024. I expect the process and result to leave me underwhelmed, very disappointed, deeply chagrined, highly annoyed, and more!
It isn't just that the existing political process will fail to solve our significant -- even existential -- problems. It IS the case that the existing political process CAN NOT solve our problems.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus I agree that Biden is too old to run again. Granted, there are very lucid 95 year olds, but they aren't under the pressures of POTUS.
It isn't just that the existing political process will fail to solve our significant -- even existential -- problems. It IS the case that the existing political process CAN NOT solve our problems.
We still have to have a president, though. If we have no head of government, somebody will invade.
How many Americans believe the elections are street theatre for the public, that it really doesn't matter which party wins. That there is a psychopathic power elite that believes democracy is a joke.
If we have no head of government, somebody will invade
Yes, because The Prez stands at the Gates of America very much like Gandalf stood before the Gates of Minas Tirith, and by his power turned away the servant of Sauron. EVEN Donald Trump was able to thwart invasions from the Bahamas and bird-like aliens from a distant star system, just by standing resolutely in front of the the urinal in the oval room powder room.
Iceland is waiting for a lapse in our powerful presidency, as is Lichtenstein, Morocco, and Sri Lanka.
Can the POTUS by force of his high office turn back ICBMs? Apparently -- otherwise the Soviet Union would have long since buried us, as Nikita Khrushchev foretold. Unfortunately, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was able to slip past the Great Guardian and Guarantor of Freedom.
Well now it appears law enforcement is prepping for an indictment announcement next week. This is a New York indictment, but a Georgia one also seems quite likely.
Maybe he can stretch it out long enough to win and we'll have the crisis of a President with multiple state warrants out for his arrest in felony charges.
Yes, because The Prez stands at the Gates of America very much like Gandalf stood before the Gates of Minas Tirith, and by his power turned away the servant of Sauron. EVEN Donald Trump was able to thwart invasions from the Bahamas and bird-like aliens from a distant star system, just by standing resolutely in front of the the urinal in the oval room powder room.
Iceland is waiting for a lapse in our powerful presidency, as is Lichtenstein, Morocco, and Sri Lanka.
Can the POTUS by force of his high office turn back ICBMs? Apparently -- otherwise the Soviet Union would have long since buried us, as Nikita Khrushchev foretold. Unfortunately, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was able to slip past the Great Guardian and Guarantor of Freedom.
This sounds slightly sarcastic.
Count Timothy von IcarusMarch 18, 2023 at 16:32#7900840 likes
Update: Trump himself has released a statement about his immanent arrest from a warrant to be issued in three days and called for protests and supporters to "take back our nation." Ya love to see it.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus I don't think Trump can win again. Except the Dems are staking a lot on helping Ukraine, and Putin might just decide to escalate things in an attempt to help his isolationist buddy Trump. Desperate people do desperate things.
IT’S TIME!!! WE ARE A NATION IN STEEP DECLINE, BEING LED INTO WORLD WAR III BY A CROOKED POLITICIAN WHO DOESN’T EVEN KNOW HE’S ALIVE, BUT WHO IS SURROUNDED BY EVIL & SINISTER PEOPLE WHO, BASED ON THEIR ACTIONS ON DEFUNDING THE POLICE, DESTROYING OUR MILITARY, OPEN BORDERS, NO VOTER I.D., INFLATION, RAISING TAXES, & MUCH MORE, CAN ONLY HATE OUR NOW FAILING USA. WE JUST CAN’T ALLOW THIS ANYMORE. THEY’RE KILLING OUR NATION AS WE SIT BACK & WATCH. WE MUST SAVE AMERICA!PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!
MAGA nation seems riled up. Lots of Twitter posts, oh no!
All because their criminal hero is throwing a toddler tantrum over (maybe) being held accountable for one of his many crimes -- this one being fairly minor compared to others.
“I have no interest in getting involved in some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA,” DeSantis said at a news conference Monday,
NBC
I guess this is a Soros-DA:
"Bragg is from Harlem, and grew up on Striver's Row.[2] In an interview with The American Prospect, Bragg noted that he had been "deeply affected by the criminal justice system – most directly through three gunpoint stops by the NYPD."[3] He graduated from the Trinity School[4] before attending Harvard College. He graduated from Harvard cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in government in 1995[2][5] and earned his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review.[5][4]"
Mr. DeSantis has honed an agenda that attacks progressive orthodoxies where they are most likely to affect and annoy conservative elites: gay and trans inclusion in suburban schools, diversity and equity in corporate bureaucracies, Black studies in A.P. classes and universities. None of these issues have any appreciable impact on the opportunities afforded to working-class people. And yet conservative elites treat it as an article of faith that these issues will motivate the average Republican voter.
The conservative movement has staked its viability on the belief that Americans resent liberal elites because they’re “woke” and not because they wield so much power over other people’s lives. Their promise to replace the progressive elite with a conservative one — with men like Ron DeSantis — is premised on the idea that Americans are comfortable with the notion that only certain men are fit to rule.
Mr. Trump, despite what he sometimes represents, is no more likely than Mr. DeSantis to disrupt the American oligarchy. (As president, he largely let the plutocrats in his cabinet run the country.)
Few politicians on either side appear eager to unleash — rather than contain — America’s leveling spirit, to give every American the means and not merely the right to rule themselves.
If DeSantis were elected, he'd be the first Italian American to reach that office. Why can't he show some respect for the principle of tolerance that makes his candidacy possible?
Sort of. They are accused of pushing woke ideology for a variety of reasons, which in turn makes them a target for "cancellation." It is surprising though, given Disney has very much catered to the Evangelical right in its content production over the past decades.
But it is less shocking then the new right wing trend of attacking the US security apparatus (the FBI, the intelligence community) and the military. This would have been unthinkable in the W. Bush Era, but now memes like this are quite common:
It's a very weird thing that the radical far-right, with their proclamations of an immanent "Boog," or "second civil war," has decided to attack the military as insufficiently righteous. Apparently, the new utopia/minority rule will be brought about by legions of amateur, majority senior citizen revolutionaries.
I can't say I recall a single revolt in history with a median age of 55, but if you look at armed protests in the US that would be my low end estimate for age. It's weird, especially since half the nation's budget is transfer payments to seniors. I suppose it is more about social control, not economic factors though.
I can't say I recall a single revolt in history with a median age of 55, but if you look at armed protests in the US that would be my low end estimate for age. It's weird, especially since half the nation's budget is transfer payments to seniors. I suppose it is more about social control, not economic factors though.
Maybe it's a red state thing where aging militias aren't being replaced with younger members?
I can't say I recall a single revolt in history with a median age of 55, but if you look at armed protests in the US that would be my low end estimate for age. It's weird, especially since half the nation's budget is transfer payments to seniors. I suppose it is more about social control, not economic factors though.
I would like to see some statistics to this effect. That would not be my guess.
Ageism is still considered fair game, while other forms of discrimination may be declining.
I don't think anything like "statistics," for that exists. You'd be hard pressed to get people arming up to protest tyrannical government to fill out surveys for you.
However, armed right wing protests since 2020 have generally been photographed in detail, so you can take a look for yourself. That the crowds are majority male, by a large margin, majority White, by an even larger margin, and skew older seems readily apparent.
And I was making a comparison to other revolutionary movements and the compositions of militaries. The maximum age to enlist or receive a commission is 35 for the Army, 28 for the Marines for example. It's a historical anomaly for such a movement to include more men with grey hair than ones you could mistake for undergraduates. That said, it's not particularly surprising since Donald Trump, still mostly a hero in far-right circles, lost voters under 30 by a landslide 29 points (by contrast, W. Bush split 18-24 voters almost even). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184426/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-age-us/
Not that there is any definite overlap between people who vote for Y candidate and those who bring assault rifles to their governor's front lawn, but I'd have to imagine the recruiting pool is a subset of the larger whole for any set of political radicals.
I don't know, maybe that sort of thing will become more common as society ages overall. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be ageist. Certainly there have been plenty of older, very successful revolutionaries. It's just strange for the entire cohort to be older. Normally it's the young people who get all hot headed and want to tear institutions down without fully thinking through what that means. I don't think the small subset of people marching around state houses with rifles particularly represents any age bracket as a whole.
That's not even the wild part. Generally if you want to take control, especially as a minority, you want the military on your side. And this has always tended to be more true of right wing groups. The far-right turning on the military is the truly bizarre part.
I'm still sticking with my prediction from a couple of months ago about the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 2024 despite Biden's lame-duck postponing announcenent today.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781912
So Bernie announced he's not running, and will be supporting Joe. That means an end of an important period. Bernie will never be president (not that there was a huge chance anyway, given the DNC).
Bernie ran two very important campaigns. His policies are now in the mainstream discussion, and his supporters have helped push Biden farther than he would have otherwise been.
So Biden versus Trump, again. What a pity. An easy choice, though. Vote against Trump again. Prevent him from getting into office. Then keep grinding on with local/state work.
That should be the extent of the mental energy used these next 16 months. But I'm guessing it won't be. Because when it comes to the US, we have to turn it into an overwhelming spectacle. Talk about overcomplicating.
Biden carries with him “cheat sheets” that provide advance knowledge of a reporter’s question, whom to call upon, etc.
One hilarious example shows Biden needs guidance for even the most basic of tasks.
“YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants,” the note read, then immediately directed the oldest-ever president, “YOU take YOUR seat.”
Just like his last campaign the whole presidency is a complete sham. The man is not under control.
The idea that a politician can represent me is an obsequious one, especially if they’ve never met me or considered my concerns. So I don’t look at it as someone representing me as if he was carrying out my will.
Here the leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen cannot even face a reporter’s questions without a cheat sheet and a public relations team. It’s all a scripted show. I prefer reality television.
Here the leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen cannot even face a reporter’s questions without a cheat sheet and a public relations team. It’s all a scripted show. I prefer reality television.
Most powerful the world has ever seen? Eh, that's more likely the British Empire.
Do my eyes deceive me, or may the American people get a chance to vote for an actual person rather than condemning the world to another 4 years of (p/m)uppetry?
As long as Republicans can't break off from Trump and create a party with stability against the Democrats, the Republicans will always be pure chaos and bullshit.
The idea that any Republican would vote for Trump just to get Republicans into power is a ridiculously desperate need for power. It's like: "Let the world burn, as long as I can have the slightest seat of power".
If that is their ambition, then there's no moral soul left in that party whatsoever. I'd like to see the more functioning, stable, and intellectual Republicans break off from Trump and start their own party or seriously try and take over the Republican party by outing all the stupid morons who infected it. How far does it need to go before Republicans do this for real? Or are there so many morons in the Republican party that it's a doomed case?
The republicans are no longer a political party. Here I agree with Chomsky.
But what they’ve left behind is hardly admirable— the “intellectual” republicans are still neoliberals through and through. All their talk of small government always was a pretext for vicious class warfare and their complete obedience to corporate power. Even more savage than the Wall Street democrats, who at least throw a few crumbs to the 80-90% of the population struggling to keep up once in a while, and believe in things like climate change.
Unfortunately there’s no choice anymore for anyone thinking rationally about the world. The Democratic Party is currently the place to push for changes. We’ve seen that in the old bones of Biden, who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on, but who has been far more progressive than Obama or Clinton, largely due to activist pressures and the strength of the Sanders campaign in ‘16 and especially ‘20. His advisors know that many voting blocks simply won’t accept the policies of his predecessors whole hog.
But that’s national stuff, where we don’t have much impact other than in how we vote. What matters more isn’t really any party, but what we do locally and how we organize— i.e., how we increase our power. There’s a great book on this called Politics is For Power, by Eitan Hirsch. I think this is where our focus should be; the choice for who to vote for in ‘24, in contrast, should take 5 minutes of brain power.
[quote=Steve Schmidt, former GOP senior campaign advisor, from discussion with former Senator Al Franken (D-MN), podcast 7 May 2023] I regard him as a philosopher. He is a practioner of philosophy – Donald Trump; and he is a philosopher of fuckyouism.[/quote]
elected officials like the Frump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Wendy Rogers, Ted Cruz, ...
in the US anyway? Bernie at least comes through as a better choice of a representative (of course labeled an evil commie), and I'm sure there must be many others, regardless of party, but then those...people rise and the circus comes to town.
EDIT
Wasn't intended to discredit JFK. Englitch being my 2nd language shows.
Reply to jorndoe What makes him an idiot exactly? It seems he has a lot of guts, throwing down the gauntlet towards big pharma, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the foreign policy establishment, etc.
I thought that type of thing would be looked upon more favorably here.
Well, as we’ve now learned a million times, we live in bizarro world. Given this, I predict Trump’s chances of becoming president will only increase after this verdict.
Reply to Mikie If Sexual Predator-1 is on the ballot in the fall of 2024 he will be running as an Independent / Third Party candidate and not as the GOP nominee. Why?
(1) by the end of 2023, the jury in NYS civil lawsuit will find him responsible for over a decade of state tax fraud, putting him and his children on the hook for damages $500million – $1billion and effectively shutting down the Trump Organization, etc by preventing the family from doing business in NYS – SP-1will be so broke that campaign mega-donors will completely abandon him (as his buddy Rupert Murdoch already has) as well as Russian Oligarchs & the Saudis ...
(2) by the end of 2023, SP-1 will be indicted for dozens of RICO felonies in Fulton County, Georgia, with a trial set to begin in the summer/fall of 2024 – Senate Minoriry Leader "Moscow Mitch", in order to protect the GOP's slim chances of winning back the US Senate in 2024, will lead GOP senators to begin to openly withdraw their support during the GOP primaries and even openly criticizeSP-1as a serial electoral"LOSER"just as former GOP governor Chris Christie is already doing ...
(3) lastly, also by the end of 2023, a Federal Grand Jury and the DoJ will indict SP-1 for Seditious Conspiracy & Insurrection, among several other charges, and this will trigger legal challenges in State & Federal courts to remove SP-1 from ballots for president (or any federal office) pursuant to the prohibitions specified in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution – without GOP big money or his own financing, without the support of GOP senators and live wall-to-wall 24/7 media chatter about legal challenges to officially disqualifySeditionist-1from any federal office including the presidency, the GOP will abandon him next spring (or sooner) in order to begin saving itself as a viable party for the 2026 midterms abd 2028 general election.
Out of spite and malignant narcissistic dementia, Seditionist-1 will run as a third party spoiler to punish the GOP for abandoning him siphoning off enough voters to guarantee a Democrat wins the presidency (not Biden) as well as violence by MAGA terrorists leading up to and around the election next fall. And all this in the political context of the collapse of FOX Noise (re: Smartmatic & shareholders' lawsuits plus Tucker Carlson's retaliation) and demise of the right-wing SCOTUS (re: Thomas & wife, et al) as well.
You’ve laid out a good case. I think some of it is wishful thinking (like how soon there will be a verdict in the NY civil case, and the extent to which donors and senators abandon him), but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
I don’t think it matters to his voters, who will double down as they always do, will send him millions of dollars, and will rally around him as a victim of left wing conspirators. They will also destroy any challenger, as we see already with DeSantis, who was supposed to be the shoo in.
I wouldn’t put it past him to run as an independent or Patriots Party or something like that, but there will be no need: the voters will vote him in as a Republican.
Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
Reply to Mikie The NYS civil trial begins October 2nd; it's a black & white "documents case" that should last no more than two months with a verdict just in time for Xmas or sooner. Loser-1 will not offer a defense just like in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit and the Trump Organization was convicted of 17 felonies last fall which are also at the heart of the state's civil case. It's wishful thinking at best on your part, Mikie, to believe this lawsuit won't reach a verdict againstLoser-1 by the end of this year.
Rubert Murdoch has already abandoned him. I suspect other far less well-known to the public mega-donors already have as well (which is why Loser-1 has veen griftingsohard since his failed coup attempt).
Senators Mo Brooks & Mitt Romney released separate statements today declaring Loser-1 is unfit to be president. More to come, Mikie. Let the avalanche begin ...
Keep in mind, the voters only matter – get a say – once 'the establishment' (mega-donors, party leaders, politicians & pundits) has signed-off on the candidates. Loser-1, while still the front runner today, is hemorraging the establishment support he needs so that his MAGA maniacs can get a chance to vote for him in the primaries. Yeah, I get it, they don't care about his past or pending civil, criminal & financial troubles but, all indications are, the GOP establishment cares about winning / regaining power in Washington DC and Loser-1 looks more and more to them like an obstacle to power. MAGA morons be damned, there aren't enough of them –'without Never Trumpers, suburban GOP women, under 35 years olds and most Independents – for Loser-1 to win a general election. This has been obvious and confirmed since 2018 and confirmed again in 2020 & 2022 (remember the Trumpy "red ripple"?) :smirk:
Lastly, Desantis is sabotaging himself even as he throws red meat at MAGAts. Also, between getting punk'd by Mickey Mouse and being Loser-1's first and easiest rival to attack, Desantis has offered himself up as a tag-team practice dummy.
Again, I hope so. But so far every time it looks as though the Republicans are going to get away from Trump -- the apex being the week after January 6th -- he comes back, again and again. And it's obvious why: the voters.
Keep in mind, the voters only matter – get a say – once 'the establishment' (mega-donors, party leaders, politicians & pundits) has signed-off on the candidates.
But he's beat the establishment, over and over again. The establishment never liked him. They've tolerated him because he still gives tax cuts, deregulates everything, etc. So they put up with almost anything else, as long as he continues to win and give them what they want. Only trouble is, now he's not really winning.
The voters will apparently follow him into a volcano. Take a look at the polls. It's absurd. You have well over half believing the election was "stolen," simply because he says so.
Yeah, I get it, they don't care about his past or pending civil, criminal & financial troubles but, all indications are, the GOP establishment cares about winning / regaining power in Washington DC and Loser-1 looks more and more to them like an obstacle to power.
True. But again, they're in quite a dilemma, because the voters still love him and he refuses to pass the baton. He's destroying DeSantis before he's even declared himself a candidate. The establishment doesn't like this, of course, but they're stuck with him. The megadonars simply don't matter if he remains the frontrunner in the polls and has a massive campaign war chest largely funded through small donations from the faithful.
I'm not saying any of this is good for the Republican party -- it isn't, as was seen in 2020 and 2022. He is bleeding suburbia and independents. But even at that, it was still very close. In a sane world, all of them should have been blowouts. (Including 2018, which people forget was not a blue wave. Dozens won by shockingly few votes.) But the point stands: he's still the frontrunner, and very likely the Republican nominee.
All right then, you're on. I bet $10 at 5:1 odds. So $50 to you if you're right in either case. And yes, I'll be VERY happy to pay it, because I hope you're right on both counts.
[Edit: personal bets are probably looked down on here, so how about this instead: I'll donate $50 to TPF if you're right, and you donate $10 if I'm right. Deal?]
In uneasy times many look towards an authoritarian figure, in marked contrast to our current president, who is widely seen as only a figurehead, perhaps senile, controlled by a progressive cabal. We drift towards Banana Republic-hood with every video clip of Trump - no matter if they portray him as good or bad. He exudes confidence. :sad:
On a side note. Imagine - just imagine - the howls from the Republican Party if George Santos were a Democrat. The outrage! The denunciations! The calls for action! How dare he!
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
//although should note some exceptions:
[quote=NYTimes]Other Republicans were less merciful, particularly Mr. Santos’s fellow New Yorkers. Representative Anthony D’Esposito, who represents parts of Nassau County, called Mr. Santos a “serial fraudster” who should “resign from office.” Representative Mike Lawler of the Hudson Valley said Mr. Santos’s conduct had been “embarrassing and disgraceful, and he should resign.”[/quote]
My fairly incautious guess, at this point, is thatDeSantis beats Trump in the primary, the latter forms his own independent party sabotaging the Republican vote in the general and Biden cruises into another four terms.
Hosting Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, in a Twitter audio event on Wednesday to announce his presidential run was supposed to be a triumphant moment for Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter.
Instead, the event began with more than 20 minutes of technical glitches, hot mic moments and drowned-out and half-said conversations before the livestream abruptly cut out. Minutes later, the livestream was restarted as hundreds of thousands of listeners tried to tune in. Mr. DeSantis had not said a word at that point.
Putin's Bitch goes on trial in NYC for 34 felonies (so far) on 25 March 2024 during the middle of the GOP primaries. By then the NYS Attorney General and E Jean Carroll (et al) will have bankrupted Loser-1 with punitive damages fines. His "presidential candidacy" is DOA. :lol:
[quote=Politico]Ron DeSantis - There could be a charming, easy-going lad hibernating under all that permafrost, a Republican Mister Rogers who wants to be your friend and neighbor. But reporters must rely on what they’ve seen and heard during his stint in Congress and over the four years he’s occupied the Florida governorship. He looks and acts like the guy who would confiscate the ball kicked accidentally onto his lawn by kids playing on the sidewalk. Aloof and distant, as if nursing some eternal grudge, DeSantis seems as tightly wound as a fishing reel and a better candidate for residence on a desert island than the White House.[/quote]
Maybe Elon should invite him on a rocket launch next.
(It’s probably that sense of harbouring a grudge that makes him most like Trump. (He would resent that.))
The rapidly ballooning field, combined with Mr. Trump’s seemingly unbreakable core of support, represents a grave threat to Mr. DeSantis, imperiling his ability to consolidate the non-Trump vote, and could mirror the dynamics that powered Mr. Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016.
It’s a matter of math: Each new entrant threatens to steal a small piece of Mr. DeSantis’s potential coalition — whether it be Mr. Pence with Iowa evangelicals or Mr. Scott with college-educated suburbanites. And these new candidates are unlikely to eat into Mr. Trump’s votes. The former president’s base — more than 30 percent of Republicans — remains strongly devoted to him.
Ny Times
I agree with this. It benefits Trump.
Maybe the RNC takes a page from the DNC playbook and consolidate around one person once it’s clear that the non-Trumps are splitting the votes.
What Republicans don't understand that now Donald Trump has become what Hillary Clinton was for Republicans, a figure that makes them see red in anger. When the democrats chose Hillary for President, they obviously had forgotten how bad her image had already been when just the first lady.
With Trump it's worse. Nothing can mobilize the Dems better to vote than Trump being the GOP candidate. Anybody else, and the GOP has a good chance to win. Now other candidates can change and thinking of them can change, but this will stay.
If Trump becomes the GOP candidate, again the country will look like it's breaking apart.
A massive dumpster fire then that election. Something that I'm not keenly looking forward to.
A massive dumpster fire then that election. Something that I'm not keenly looking forward to.
Yes. It's going to suck. If the number of people running in the Republican primaries is high, that helps Trump. His base is solid, so the others just split the 70% that's left. If Republicans really don't want Trump representing them, they'd have to get their shit together and stand united behind an alternative. I don't expect that to happen.
So really, if a Republican doesn't want Trump, it would be best to become a swing voter.
If the national Democrats could be more like Minnesotans, perhaps they'd have a better shot.
Minnesota now offers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, the opportunity for any resident to buy into Medicaid, free public college tuition for low- and middle-income families, a new child tax credit for those families, free breakfast and lunch for all public school students, driver’s licenses for all residents regardless of their immigration status, and stronger protections for workers seeking to unionize.
Middle-class seniors will no longer have to pay state income taxes on Social Security benefits. A law immediately restoring the voting rights of felons who have completed their prison sentences expanded the franchise to 55,000 more people. Minnesotans serving life behind bars for crimes they committed as minors are now eligible for supervised release 15 years into their sentence. Suspending gun permits for people experiencing a mental health crisis got easier. Recreational marijuana is legal. A new state law protects abortion rights. A “trans refuge” law shields transgender children who travel to Minnesota for medical transitions from legal repercussions in their home states. And Minnesota has set a goal of moving to 100% carbon-free energy by 2040.
All decent families are alike; each corrupt family is corrupt in its own way.
Sleepy Joe's family:
• Hunter Biden
e.g. 2013 energy industry (China) & 2014 "Burisma" (Ukraine) – more than $10 million (investigated by DoJ special counsel since 2018 that has resulted in guilty plea (pending as of 20Jun2023) to two misdemeanor tax charges plus five years probation on an unrelated firearm charge)
Traitor/Seditionist-1's family:
• Ivanka & Jared Kushner
e.g. $640 million jointly reported "investment" income while both were employed by the WH 2017-2021 (re: deals in China, etc – yet to be investigated)
• Jared Kushner
e.g. $2 billion from Saudi Arabia in 2021 for ??? (yet to be investigated)
• Ivanka Kushner, Donald Trump Jr & Eric Trump
e.g. along with their father, they are principles of the Trump Organization, currently facing civil lawsuit by NYS AG for over 200 documented cases of (state & federal felony) tax fraud, etc from 2011-2015 for at least $250 million (trial begins 2Oct23)
@NOS4A2 – Like Hillary's emails, IDGAF about Hunter Biden's laptop. :victory: :mask:
Reply to 180 Proof I wish Christie had a chance, but I don't expect him to last. He's a solid opposition voice, although that seems to be more the result of Trump shunning him by not rewarding him for his support following Trump's (actual) presidential win. Who knows. If Trump had embraced him early on, maybe he'd be another Rudy Giuliani clown show by now.
Trump's father Fred lived to 93, so it looks like maybe Donald will actually live through all these trials.
Complete waste of time, as has no chance of passing the Senate, only serving to illustrate the mendacity and corruption of MAGA Republicans.
Adam Schiff said, for his part, “You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You who are the authors of a big lie about the last election must condemn the truth tellers, and I stand proudly before you.”
Reply to RogueAIReply to WayfarerReply to 180 Proof Jesus. Political opponents are now enemies and a mainstream newspaper uses that language as if it's normal. And none of you seem to have an issue with it. You realise the USA is completely fucked right?
Schiff promised them evidence of Russian collusion and when he didn’t deliver they didn’t care. He deceived congress, the public, and the world and it is quickly forgotten. They followed the Big Lie™ all the way to the end.
Reply to Mikie Whoever the Dem candidate will be in the end will decisively beat any GOP canditate in 2024 due to a significamt "leftward" shift in support by Independents and higher turnout by Dems base voters because of Traitor-Seditionist-1's multiple prosecutions and SCOTUS' MAGA decisions on abortion plus ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819011
Reply to RogueAI As long as Shillary isn't the supremely unpopular Dems nominee who carelessly throws away the election again, IMO, Traitor-Seditionist1 can't win.
Reply to 180 Proof I wish this were so, but the Democrats have a unique ability to undermine their own chances. If there are 19 ways to win an election and 1 way to lose, the Dems will seize that one chance out of 20. They will occasionally win because they do not correctly implement that one chance and actually win through incompetence.
Cornel West is running as a Green Party candidate.
I like Cornel West very much. I think more serious parties is a good idea and would be an improvement in our two party system.
On the other hand, third party votes in swing states are a waste and, essentially, a de facto vote for one’s least preferred candidate. That’s simple arithmetic, so it’s always puzzled me why some people push for not voting given the importance of the election in a country like the US, where even small differences between parties make a big difference in the world.
However, I’m trying to give the idea more weight. Chris Hedges, a person I admire and have much to learn from, seems to advocate for this position. He’s helping Cornel West. He seems to believe that the only way out of this cycle is to make the Democratic Party afraid, to the point where there’s real reforms.
I need to think more about it, but it still seems to me misguided.
Reply to EricH Yeah, in 2024 that "1 way to lose" will be the same as 2016: HRC. The Dems don't learn new tricks often ... though maybe VP Harris :yikes: (if Biden drops out of the race and the Dems don't nominate e.g. Gov Newsom, Gov Whitmer, et al) – HRC redux.
Btw, Putin's Bitch & MAGA GOP candidates have lost in 2018, 2020 & 2022.Despite media hysteria (which is needed apparently to keep the rabble mobilized), MAGA GOP prospects in 2024 are even bleaker in no small part due to SCOTUS' 2022, 2023 (& probably 2024) rulings.
Not seeing that leftward shift in independents yet
Neither do I. Be patient. Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756539
Thanks, "Independents". :smirk:
Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me).
True…no doubt it’ll tighten up as time goes by. Always does. Nominating Trump is probably a mistake, but I can’t underestimate the electorate’s ability to do silly things.
I remember when Ralph Nader, who I admire, cost Gore the election ...
I don't remember this. What I do remember is that an incumbent vice-president during a time of (domestic) 'peace & prosperity' lost both the popular incumbent president's home state AND his own home state, which put in play Florida which was controlled at the time by the Bush family. Maybe – as a Green Party activist from the late 80s throughout the 90s and supporter of Nader three times for president – my recall is biased, but nonetheless Gore lost both Arkansas & Tennessee (and had refused to let Bill Clinton – unquestionably the best retail politician of his generation – campaign for him in the weeks before election day) contributed significantly more to him losing the election than a very marginal third party candidacy (IIRC, even Pat Buchanan, the far right Reform party candidate, received more votes than Gore had in some Dem precincts according to Florida election officials ... which even got chuckles from Buchanan on cable news). Blaming Gore's loss in 2000 on Nader is, it seems to me, as deluded and/or disingenuous as blaming HRC's loss in 2016 on "Bernie Bros". In both cases – losing the electors for states which, but for the Dems, wouldn't have been in play while also winning the popular vote (a feat which hadn't happened since the late 19th century) – poorly run campaigns of unlikeable candidates, aided and abetted by the DNC no less, threw away those elections.
Reply to RogueAI If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas, the Bush machine stealing Florida wouldn't have mattered.
Either you want the U.S. to be a democracy in which case it's absurd to wish rival parties out of existence (this is the one place where choice and competition are actually important). Or you don't want a democracy but a dual party system that makes a minimal pretence to democracy but where corruption, laziness, and complacency are the norm. I understand in individual cases actual democracy can be inconvenient but the degree to which it is so is directly proportional to your inability to believe in it.
I understand in individual cases actual democracy can be inconvenient but the degree to which it is so is directly proportional to your inability to believe in it.
Sometimes democracy just doesn't work for the people. Democracy isn't an inherent good. It lasts as long as it provides minimal stability. Once things actually start breaking down, dictatorship is likely the next step since that's the only kind of government that can act swiftly and effectively to re-establish stability.
FWIW, my two bits – political democracy withouteconomy democracy is, in effect, 'democracy in name only' (DINO). The United States, I think, much more so than other G7/Western European welfare-states is now – has always been – a DINO wherein the broader stakeholder population is substantially disenfranchised by structural as well as partisan machinations of the shareholder (i.e. investor) class.
Asked to raise their hands if the candidates believe climate change is human behavior driven, no one did so…it was interrupted by Desantis, who seemed to be somewhat panicked about the question.
I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.”
I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.”
And I bet their other slogan is "We can't reduce our emissions because we'll be reliant on Chinese technology now that they somehow got a head start in the industry"...
...Or some other reason why we shouldn't do anything. I've sort of heard them all at this point.
That’s exactly what was said as well! I think Burnham raised that point— that we get our batteries and EVs from China manufacturing. It’s just a joke.
Haley:
“Is climate change real?” she said. “Yes, it is. But if you want to go and really change the environment, then we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”
I think Desantis looked awful in this farce. Vivek was much more in-your-face, but really obnoxious. Christie looked OK but was loudly booed and didn’t get much time. Haley and Scott were bores. Pence did OK, for Pence. Although he’s about as exciting as cardboard.
I reckon DeSantis has no chance, that his shctick will never extend to the US at large. It goes down OK in Florida due to favourable demographics, but he's the least likeable candidate by a country mile. The kind of guy, someone said, who would confiscate the neighboring kids' ball if it was kicked onto his lawn. All up, Trump is going to manage to completely ruin the Republican nomination process, anyway. While I believe there is absolutely zero chance of him being the eventual nominee, a huge percentage of the Republican elecorate will merrily follow him off the cliff. There's only one candidate who's really going to stand to benefit, and he's not a Republican.
Asked to raise their hands if the candidates believe climate change is human behavior driven
Is that how it was phrased? Like asking, "do you believe in God?" There are other forces at work on the climate. A more delicately composed question, like,"do you think human behavior is as responsible for climate change as natural causes?" might have gotten a few positive responses. Maybe not. Going all in and declaring a non-believer a heretic worthy of belonging to a "basket of deplorables" will win few converts.
Reply to Wayfarer What does a typical hero look like in the US? Dirty Harry, any spy movie with lots of collateral damage and breaking of rules, etc. Fits right in popular fiction.
Other lowlights
- Vivek Ramaswamy being applauded for calling climate change a hoax
- 6 out of 8 candidates saying they would support Trump (you can see de Santis glancing around to make sure others were doing it first)
When the autopsy on the death of Western democracy is written, these will be mentioned in the pathologists report.
On the plus side, at least Hayley supported Ukraine.
Why are they allowing this man to continue? It’s not like they’ll lose the seat. How bizarre.
In that moment, while Mitch McConnell’s dying brain struggled and failed to make sense of its present reality, all the dourness was gone from his face. All the downward gravitational pull from a lifetime in the DC swamp. All the seriousness. All the scheming. All the warmongering, tyranny and abusiveness.
In that moment of amnesiac innocence, you’d never be able to tell from looking at Mitch McConnell how many people he’s helped kill. How much suffering he’s helped cause. How much health and thriving he’s frozen out of humanity in his joyless facilitation of corporate dystopia.
All you’d see is a man. A cute, harmless, befuddled old man. All the dark, dense, contracted energy gone from his form in a sweet tender moment of intimate indivisibility.
McConnell is clearly past it. Looks like a befuddled old man when this happens. He plainly needs to retire straight away but then common sense is in very short supply in US politics nowadays.
Reply to BC Very likely. I mentioned previously that I witnessed something exactly the same at a relative's 90th birthday celebration. He got up to say a few words but suddenly fell silent mid-sentence and had to sit down. He was very embarrased about it and had his son contact us later to say he had suffered a 'mini-stroke'. He died not long after. But McConnell seems so enfeebled and so clearly unfit for such a strenuous position, he really should have more sense. (Although there's a bit of unease as to who will replace him, what with some of the nutjobs in the the current GOP - although John Thune doesn't look too obviously terrible, aside from the fact that he's a Republican. ;-) But at least he's been critical of the Orange Emperor.)
Reply to Wayfarer Diane Feinstein is another one who should retire forthwith. I don't think Biden is holding up all that well -- he appears to be aging more rapidly lately. It's one thing to be old and doing reasonably well at home, with nothing much on one's schedule, and something else being a senator, representative, president, or Supreme Court judge.
Reply to BC If Republicans nominate someone like DeSantis or Haley, the debates will be brutal for Biden. But they're stuck in racial grievance mode and they want RETRIBUTION.
Reply to BC Mahathir held it together in Malaysia into his nineties. Biden doesn’t project well but I think he’s sound. It’d be great if the Dems had a younger alternative, but….
180 ProofSeptember 13, 2023 at 03:03#8371940 likes
Reply to frankPutin's Bitch definitely won't be the GOP nominee, Sleepy Joe might not be on the ballot either and I haven't seen a thing in the last seven or so months to change my mind in either case. I suspect, though, that if Harris is the nominee, low voter turnout will definitely benefit the GOP candidate. IMO, either Gavin Newsom and/or Gretchen Witmer would win at least as decisively as Biden won in 2020.
From four months ago, my predictions have been on track and in some ways better than I'd imagined ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807006
Here's a piece from a Dutch historian and expert on the US about the radicalisation of the Republican Party: https://www.maartenonline.nl/als-een-partij-gek-wordt/
My first vote for president was JFK. I have never seen a presidential election like the upcoming one. The potential candidates are like Looney Tune characters. Please, third partiers, come forth!
Seems a good outcome for Democrats. Particularly Andy Beshear in Kentucky who had a solid win in a nominally Red state. Hopefully a harbinger for next year.
Reply to 180 Proof Apparently there's nothing to get your base as excited as hatred for the other side. That's how Trump won the first time and now with bland 80-year Mr. Potato-face representing the Democrats there's not enough to hate for the Republicans to get sufficiently riled up.
But certainly politics couldn't be that dumb right? Right? :scream:
Reply to Benkei IMHO, Hillary threw away the 2016 election by refusing to campaign in the white working class-dominated states she had lost to Bernie Sanders in the party's primaries which, not coincidentally, were the three states where Donald wound up beating her by a combined 7/10ths of a percent. He didn't win the popular vote in 2016 or 2020 and fortunately he's not running against Hillary again. :shade:
The MAGA "base" is a massive hate-cult that comprises only about a third of the electorate; 2024 will be Biden's / Dems' election to lose (much like Hillary in 2016) because Donald (even IF he somehow trundles through the GOP primaries despite by then (1) having lost his business "empire" and (2) being on trial for 'crimes against the United States') can't' win. So far, Benkei, Biden / Dems don't give any indication he is / they are careless enough to buck the trend and throw away next year's election.
The 2018-2020-2022-2023 trend is very blue (anti-MAGA) heading into 2024
My view is that DJT is leading the entire MAGA cult off an electoral cliff, lemming-like, and that his lead in the polls will basically amount to giving them enough rope to hang themselves (scary though it might seem in the meantime :yikes: )
This ruling will force SCOTUS to decide the issue for all 50 states ... soon after they decide Putin's neoNazi Bitch – Joe Biden, Barack Obama & George W. Bush does not – have "absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution".
Reply to Relativist If a majority of GOP primary voters want a chance at taking back the White House in 2024, then they will show SP-1 the door in the spring (or sooner). Of course, he'll continue to play the whiny victim and run as a 3rd party spoiler to keep the grift going in order to pay his legal bills. Otherwise, SP-1 will take what's left of the GOP down in flames (à la the Hindenburg) with him next fall. :mask:
RelativistDecember 26, 2023 at 02:44#8650490 likes
Reply to 180 ProofAt this point, it seems a majority of the GOP want him to be the candidate, and believe he will win for the 3rd time. Losing the case against Carroll didn't hurt him. What do you think will turn this around?
Reply to Relativist This far out from the 2024 election, polling only indicates relative name recognition and nothing more. What will "turn this around" is GOP primary voters deciding they want to beat Biden more than they want to loyally back a proven loser (neither SP-1 nor MAGA candidates have won a majority of voters in general, midterm & special elections, nationally or locally, since 2016 to 2023). Also, SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 was the final nail in SP-1's coffin as all of the "pro-life" (anti-woman) ballot measure defeats in "red states" such as Ohio & Kansas unequivocally demonstrate. IMO, there is nothing non-trivial to "turn around" (and hasn't been since the day Putin's Bitch pre-ejaculated that he's running again for the presidency (i.e. to stay out of prison)).
RelativistDecember 26, 2023 at 05:08#8650550 likes
Reply to 180 ProofGOP do not consider Trump a "proven loser" (70% believe he won in 2020), a majority are delighted Roe was overturned, and Trump's indictments just fire up the base. A conviction might hurt him, but I doubt one will occur in 2024.
On the plus side: Trump "only" has about 50% support among GOP. If the field narrows down to 2 (e.g. Trump vs Haley), early enough, there's a fair chance Trump won't get the nomination. Then, I agree, he'll run as a 3rd party and doom the election for the GOP.
Reply to Relativist You're entitled to your opinon, so we disagree on a number of points. Let's resume this discussion ten and a half months from now, Relativist, and see who got it more right than wrong.
The election results say otherwise. Republicans have under-performed in every election since Trump's initial win. Then everyone forgets about that in the meanwhile and Trump leads the media on a wild goose chase into conspiracy theories and grievances. And come the next actual election, the results for the Republicans, as distinct from the fevered fantasy of a Trump presidency, will be abysmal. The real shame of the matter is that there’s a whole lot of really important legislative work that needs doing, there are enormous economic, political, and environmental challenges to deal with, whilst MAGA are totally absorbed in what can charitably be designated a circle jerk.
Reply to Relativist It's only natural that what remains of the GOP increasingly has higher approval ratings for Trump but this is accompanied by a decline in overall GOP voters.
RelativistDecember 27, 2023 at 15:45#8654430 likes
Reply to Benkei I feel safe in predicting that Biden will again win the popular vote... But it remains to be seen if he can carry the swing states he needs to win. Biden's unpopularity may lead many to stay home rather than vote. Biden barely won some states in 2020, so it wouldn't take much of a shift.
I feel safe in predicting that Biden will again win the popular vote... But it remains to be seen if he can carry the swing states he needs to win. Biden's unpopularity may lead many to stay home rather than vote. Biden barely won some states in 2020, so it wouldn't take much of a shift.
I predict low voter turnout. I think that will help Trump. GOP voters are old and reliable.
So, do you think if Trump is convicted in the January 6th Trial, where he's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding etc, and sentenced to prison (pending appeal), that he will nevertheless remain a viable candidate? (The trial is scheduled for 4th March this year.)
So, do you think if Trump is convicted in the January 6th Trial, where he's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding etc, and sentenced to prison (pending appeal), that he will nevertheless remain a viable candidate? (The trial is scheduled for 4th March this year.)
The New York Times says yes. Being convicted doesn't automatically disqualify him. If the majority of states wanted to disqualify him they could, but they won't. That means he'll probably be the Republican candidate, whether he's convicted or not.
Reply to frank Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution doesn't disqualify candidates on the basis of them being convicted of a felony (a major oversight in my view), do you think he'd be a viable candidate? Do you think the electorate and the Party would be willing to put that aside and vote for him anyway?
Do you think that if he is convicted of those crimes there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado Supreme Court judgement of 'disqualification because of insurrection'?
Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution doesn't disqualify candidates on the basis of them being convicted of a felony (a major oversight in my view), do you think he'd be a viable candidate? Do you think the electorate and the Party would be willing to put that aside and vote for him anyway?
I really don't know. He won't take the popular vote, but as for the electoral college, it comes down to what the swing states do. Biden is the incumbent, and the economy is doing ok. Both of those give him an advantage. The voters turned against Trump in 2020. It's possible that they'll do that again. It will be close, though.
I’m just praying you come out of it still a democracy! Sorry, but I’m just saying what many other people around the world are thinking about, some rubbing their hands together and waiting with smug looks on their faces, thinking that it’s only a matter of time, and others, like me, praying you lot pull together because we could really do with you putting your differences aside and showing a united front right now! Okay, rant over. (I’m still quietly praying though.)
Assuming the Romney/Manchin ticket does not materialize. If it does, all bets are off.
I would vote for them.
If only ranked choice voting were possible! That would make such a ticket truly viable - no one would fear wasting their vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of winning.
Reply to Wayfarer It's meaningless because the caucus had the lowest turn out since 2000 due in part to brutally frigid weather and yet about two-thirds of the voters are right-wing Evangelical (i.e. faux) Christians. Next week in very Independent / libertarian, much better educated New Hampshire, which is an open primary in which non-Republicans can also vote in the GOP primary, Loser-1's margin will be very slim (or he'll lose outright, which is quite possible). He'll kill Haley in her home state of very evangelical, less educated South Carolina after that though.
Reply to 180 Proof Please stop talking about "brutally frigid weather". Spells of below-zero F temperatures (and lower wind-chill) are not abnormal in this part of the world. Indeed, it's refreshingly normal after months of abnormally warm to brutally hot weather. Trump's Iowa win was not a cold day in hell -- it was entirely expected. The cold day in hell would be his second inauguration. Hopefully he will be locked up in solitary by that time.
None of them were previously President either though
And none had to run for president just to stay out of prison because they had been indicted with 91 felonies, or had been found civilly liable of sexual assault (rape in most other jurisdictions) or had been sued by their home states and found civilly liable for massive tax, bank & insurance fraud either. :mask:
Reply to 180 Proof Yup - the entire situation is novel. Exactly as i said.
Count Timothy von IcarusJanuary 17, 2024 at 21:07#8731020 likes
Unfortunately, even if Trump loses, America politics are going to remain incredibly broken. The US cannot even follow through on its commitments to Ukraine/Europe despite the fact that the overwhelming number of lawmakers from both parties support more aid for Ukraine.
We've reached a new low, where even the few areas of agreement between the parties end up getting wed to hit button domestic issues. Now aid to Ukraine has been made contingent on an immigration deal during an election year (one packed with administrative poison pills as well), making it 50/50 at best if anything gets passed before November. Unfortunately, this is going to have very real consequences on the battlefield, especially as air defense munitions run low.
The adults in the room are going to need to recognize that they have to be willing to pass legislation without their party's most radical members or America's already battered credibility as a partner (or even an adversary) on the world stage is completely ruined.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the country defaults on its debt, sparking a huge crisis. If anything, the GOP losing big over the next 10 years or so will probably only make this more likely, as they lose any share in wanting to see success.
The only consolation is that, given how polarized things are, it seems fair to assume that very few voters are going to switch parties for the Presidential ticket. Demographics being what they are, this probably means Trump loses by 9-11 million votes this time instead of just 7.5 million, although this hardly precludes him taking office again. That's probably the worst case scenario, especially if there are some Florida in 2000 style shenanigans surrounding his victory.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the country defaults on its debt, sparking a huge crisis.
I'm not so sure. No Democrat wants to see a debt default. I would guess most independents don't, either. Same with moderate Republicans. For the foreseeable future, there's going to be enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to avoid a default.
Unfortunately, even if Trump loses, America politics are going to remain incredibly broken.
I don't want to believe that. I mean, it is easy to believe, but at the same time, this forthcoming election may well be a circuit-breaker. I'm convinced that Trump will loose, even if he is the nominee, which I think is highly dubious. The 'Red Wave' never materialised at the half-terms. The Republicans now have a majority of only three after Santos' expulsion, it's conceivable that the Democrats might win the House, Senate and White House. And the House Republicans are basically split between moderates and the MAGA fringe, who are detested by a lot of people on both sides.
Despair and cynicism are part of the MAGA narrative - 'everything is broken, only we can fix it'. If I wanted to go and do the research on Biden's legislative and economic wins, I'm sure I could find it, although I don't want to spend the time. And yes, they're doing a very poor job of communicating those wins, but then Trump continues to suck all the oxygen from the room.
Agree the Ukrainian stalemate is disgraceful, and I'm sure there are Republicans who agree with that, but they're over a barrel held by halfwits like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan. The rot really set in with Gingrich and the Tea Party fundamentalists, and they are carrying it forward. But I refuse to give up hope.
Reply to Wayfarer The good news is that I imagine most voters don't like Trump and believe he's a danger to democracy. The bad news is that I don't know how much that will drive them out to vote in November. The Democrats aren't really doing a great job of convincing them, particularly since they're running a candidate who's arguably as unpopular.
Reply to Wayfarer He's seen the same on the othe rside. Dishonest, manipulative, fraudulent, hell-bent on harming America and f**king with elections etc...
Reply to AmadeusD But it's objectively untrue. You know the MAGA have been trying to pin crimes on him - just one! - for the last three years, they have found absolutely nothing. He's been a dedicated public servant all his career. You need to be more discriminating, there is not a moral equivalence at work, it is not 'both sides are to blame'.
Reply to Wayfarer Absolutely not, no, while I also understand what you're getting at - Facts don't care about feelings, haha. But sources matter - and each decides their source is reliable, despite pretending tha t there's an absolute answer - it's all spin. It's all paraphrasing, interpolating and media horsecrap from top to bottom - eg, its extremely shaky ground to attribute inflation changes to Biden during this term. From 2020 onward, so many machinations of hte world would outstrip the ability of governmetn action to affect things like employment and inflation. You may disagree, but having watched from afar this seems inarguable. It's happened everywhere. But i'm sure there are plenty of articles claiming its Biden's doing (which is patent, inarguable nonsense).
Additionally, Biden has been found to have fabricated his educational history in public, among other things. There is absolutely no basis to be pretending Biden is a clean-handsman. He made plenty of utterly absurd votes throughout his career, including opposing desegregation efforts that were working.
I may have to duck out, because you are clearly committed to a certain view, and while i respect that, I don't, overall, respect approaching politics in the way you are. It seems to be counterproductive, and at times outright ridiculous (not you; the approach). My take; that's all. I can conceive of choosing to lionise a politician. If, for whatever reason, you are convinced Biden is not, as a career politician, an absolute crank, I don't know what to say.
Ftr, i think both are precluded from being reasonable candidates. They are both, for different reasons, completely inadequate to be in charge of anything reasonably important.
I have successfully predicted the outcome of every US presidential race since Van Buren other than my one embarrassing misstep in the James K. Polk match up against Henry Clay, so consider those credentials as you will, but I see a Trump victory. No one is getting out of bed to vote for Joe, not even Joe.
Don't kill the messenger. I too wish things were different.
I have successfully predicted the outcome of every US presidential race since [ ... ] I see a Trump victory. No one is getting out of bed to vote for Joe, not even Joe.
Yeah well, I just can't help but seeing things a little differently (or clearly), making me a broken record predicting the coming Biden blowout ...
At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the country defaults on its debt, sparking a huge crisis.
Not in our lifetime, Count. IMO, the sovereign wealth of the G-20 nations (including the BRICS) and their IMF, World Bank & GATT-affiliated central banks – the investor class (bond market-makers) – won't "allow" a petrodollar-denominated US default. Probably not in our grandchildren's lifetimes either. Bretton Woods still has all of the world's major economic powers by the short-n-curlies. :eyes: :mask:
Reply to 180 Proof You're just painting the future you want to see in the spirit of tracht gut vet zein gut, but I'm seeing into the soul of America and just reporting what stares back at me.
Blame the Democrats for running a corpse for President.
Reply to Hanover :lol: The MAGA-rot is not (yet) "the soul of America"; if it was, then Loser-1 would not have lost the popular vote in 2016 & 2020 as well as his MAGA candidates would not have lost most, if not all, the elections and special elections since 2016.
Reply to 180 Proof There is no soul of America, but a few groups here and there that sort of share the same soul until they figure out how they're different and then they can divide into different groups.
I do actually think Trump will win.
Not sure if you're following the prosecution of Trump in Atlanta over the Georgia election. The DA hired her lead prosecutor, not by doing a nationwide search for the best and brightest to take on the man who is vying for the most powerful position in the world, but by rolling over in bed and finding the guy that just fucked her and asking him if he'd be interested in the job. She then pays him over $600,000 (which no ADA makes ever, and is more than she makes) and then they use that money to go on trips.
Then she goes in front of her church and tells them the scrutiny over this guy is because he's black and not over the two white guys she appointed also, as if this might have more to do with selecting your secret boyfriend for the job and not much to do with race. And she still hasn't admitted or denied the allegation she's fucking her chief prosecutor.
It's just so disappointing to have these unforced errors and to feed right into the Trump narrative that everyone else is more fucked up than he is. Trump calls the Georgia Secretary of State and asks him to go get him a bunch of votes, and Trump is going to get away with it because the hacks can't keep the train on the rails.
I don't know where I am anymore on any of this. They all live lives so different from me I can't compute any of this. I wouldn't let my wife work in my law firm and I'm a partner here. Can they not compute that a sexual partner will control the entire work environment and will be entirely unmanagable if allowed authority? And can't you be self-aware enough to know that your belief in the brilliance of your boyfriend might not be an objective evaluation? My rule is that if you call someone your boo boo or punkin, you can't hire them to lead your battle against the potential next leader of the free world.
It's so fucking stupid. Trump's going to win and she's going to lose whenever she is up for election. Follow that bullshit: A guy will try to steal an election for the highest position in the world and the prosecutor against him is going to pay the highest political price for it.
In terms of foreign policy he can hardly do worse than the Biden administration.
An isolationist America might actually produce a peaceful putting asleep of the American empire, rather than a world war which is what the US is coursing straight towards under this clownshow of an administration.
No one is getting out of bed to vote for Joe, not even Joe.
I don't want to vote for Biden, but I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, and I'm not going to throw my vote away on a hopeless third party candidate.
The DA hired her lead prosecutor, not by doing a nationwide search for the best and brightest to take on the man who is vying for the most powerful position in the world, but by rolling over in bed and finding the guy that just fucked her and asking him if he'd be interested in the job.
Do we have confirmation on that, though? CNN ran a story on that, but it was skimpy on details.
Sorry, but Trump was looking for illegal votes, which if found would have put him in the lead. He wasn’t telling the governor to fabricate votes or find hidden Trump votes. So Not only are they corrupt, but they’re misinforming you, persecuting innocent people, and making a mockery of the justice system while doing so.
I don't want to vote for Biden, but I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, and I'm not going to throw my vote away on a hopeless third party candidate.
I respect that position. I would waste my vote though, if I chose to.
Whether or not Loser-1, if past elections & special elections (2016-2023) are prologue, Dems, Indies, Never Trumpers & pro-choice suburban GOP women voters will significantly out-vote "anti-women" MAGA-GOP voters all the way down the ballot this fall. Follow the numbers (like I did in 2020), my friend, they don't lie. :mask:
Not sure if you're following the prosecution of Trump in Atlanta over the Georgia election ... It's just so disappointing to have these unforced errors and to feed right into the Trump narrative that everyone else is more fucked up than he is.
I'm following like a hawk and it looks to me like another sideshow that's only fodder for cable infotainment talking heads. Yeah, "what the hell was she thinking?" Worse case scenario: DA Willis recuses and her office goes on with their slam dunk prosecution of Criminal Defendent-1 & co. What I'm really watching for is Judge McAfee scheduling DA Willis' RICO trial to begin in June after Trumper-stooge Cannon, in March or sooner, postpones the Mar-a-Lago Obstruction & Espionage trial until after the general election. "Wishful thinking?" TBD.
I'm wondering though, would this be sufficient to vote Clown?
From my spot, nope, but I'm no Denverite.
If you live in an area where children are removed from school buildings on occasion to make room for illegal immigrants, or hospitals shut down, then perhaps Clown doesn't look so bad.
What was the worst thing he did in his first term, prior to January 6th?
Reply to jgill You kidding? The last presidential debate between the two was a disaster for Trump. He completely derailed the debate, talked over everyone, including the moderator, and kept devolving into outright raves.
Every time Trump speaks, he says the same things - the Government is evil/leftist lunatics, I'm victim of a plot/unfair persecution, all the charges against me are lies. He has no policies as such, only talking points which spill out of his constant monologue. And, he lost the election.
?jgill
You kidding? The last presidential debate between the two was a disaster for Trump. He completely derailed the debate, talked over everyone, including the moderator, and kept devolving into outright raves.
I watched him for awhile in the recent town hall meeting in Iowa and he looked quick witted and vibrant. We'll see where all this goes. Curious times. I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.
I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.
Well, I hope the ticket of either Gavin Newsom & Gretchen Witmer or Gretchen Witmer & Gavin Newsom comes out of the Dem's 2024 convention. They would electrify this dead-ass electorate and blowout Loser-1 or any other MAGA-GOP stooge this fall. :victory: :smirk:
Yeah— so much time is spent on election deniers that this significant little fact is often overlooked. Trump lost, and lost big. 7 million votes or so. Rather than question why, Trump made up fairytales which his cult swallowed and continues to believe/defend. Then the MAGA crowd failed in Georgia, then failed in 2022.
They’ll likely fail again in the fall. But they won’t even scratch their heads about it— because they’ll claim it was rigged. The problem is obvious: even against a weak candidate like Biden, independents and most of the American electorate hate Trump, and for very good reason.
Perhaps compared to Joe Biden, yes. Trump is at least energetic when talking about himself.
And anyway, usually American debates between candidates is just a "Gotcha!"-seeking moment with the candidates simply speaking pest about the other candidate. Policy hardly comes up. Only perhaps in some 5 second memorized quick lines. And Trump of course has the "best": everything will succeed when he's in charge. Just as like, uh... last time.
They’ll likely fail again in the fall. But they won’t even scratch their heads about it— because they’ll claim it was rigged. The problem is obvious: even against a weak candidate like Biden, independents and most of the American electorate hate Trump, and for very good reason.
The big question is how many American will just stay home.
The big question is how many American will just stay home.
So much as they do and hand Trump a second term it won't be like in 2016 where everyone was assured that Clinton would win. Not only are Democrats and anti-Trump independents (with the exception of Biden apparently) convinced that Trump could win, but they think he's likely to at this point in time. Maybe that will light something under them or maybe not, but it's certainly not an easy decision to make.
Gotta say the De Santis implosion was visible months ago. He’s just such a wooden, unlikeable, self-righteous prick of a guy. The sort of guy, it was said, if the neighbour’s kids kicked a ball over his fence, he’d confiscate it and threaten them. Oh for some real Republican challengers to the Orange Emperor, but this guy was never going to be one of them. (Still reckon Trump’s ‘inevitable’ nomination is going to implode also, but we’ll have to wait and see.)
The big question is how many American will just stay home.
The more Trump keeps up his ridiculous scare-talk, the bigger the chance of a sizeable protest vote. A lot of the younger electorate hate and fear him, and hate and fear are good antidotes to apathy.
Reply to Wayfarer yay, another win for the Dems not because of their policy ideas but because so many people hate Trump. The state of US politics was already bismal under Bush Jr. but this is just getting ridiculous.
I don't think DeSantis will get that far precisely because his reactionary populist – fascistic, racist, mysogynist, public health-denying – policies in Florida amply demonstrate how much scarier he'd be than Individual-1.
No matter the faults of the Democratic Party, this election will be, as they say it is, a contest between democratic politics, in which anyone may have a voice, and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader.
It seems, when the roles are reversed, the assertion is the same...
You’re dead wrong about this moral equivalence. Only one party is supporting a leader who deliberately and demonstratedly attempted to overthrow the result of the last election, who’s minions brought 60 lawsuits against the result, all of which failed. You don’t understand, or don’t want to know, what is at stake - I can’t discern why. It might be cynicism - that all political parties are corrupt - or wishful thinking - that the Republican Party can’t have become this corrupted by one individual. But in either case, you’re mistaken. But I’m not going to debate it with you further, you can believe whatever you like, life is too short for pointless internet arguments.
Reply to Wayfarer You have gone from 0-100 and it speaks directly to me earlier comments about polarization.
Nothing you just said has much at all to do with why I asked, or what i asked you about..
I asked you a simple question, importing zero opinion of my own (which you already know doesn't comport with your comments here). I am interested in your answer - I have no debate to ascend to, or even an oppositional opinion to lay out. There is no 'moral equivalence'. It's a psychological question that I'm interested in your answer to.
Please, for the love of Philosophy, stop importing entire belief systems into my posts to avoid answering a simple question. If it is the case that you cannot speak in a political thread without doing so, please let me know immediately as I wont bother asking for your takes anymore. I sought to explore your thought on the matter, and nothing else. Assume whatever you want, but do not lay your assumptions on me. The plain fact is, I am interested as to why you see that psychological condition as one-sided. The facts don't get me there (which I don't deny).
Reply to Wayfarer Winning isn't about who's right or who is fair. Your arguments are irrelevant for the other side and they have their own problems with what "your" side does.
Reply to Wayfarer It absolutely, in no-way whatsoever imports a moral question of any kind, in any way.
What i asked was exactly as you quoted - Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with teh things you dont (they may be blatantly wrong - it's not relevant) and that what they believe is in line with whomever they see as a leader (who could be a murderous psychopath - it simply doesn't matter to the question i'm asking).
You: Agree with Biden (i assume) and Disagree with Trump (let's assume you're 100% in the right, there's no debate or 'other side' to be seen. I know you do). Therefore, to live under Trump would be to be required to live under a leader you vehemently disagree with on just about everything - which would feel like a Dictator.
Others: Agree with Trump and disagree with Biden. Same as above, in reverse.
and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader.
is not, in fact, the exact same thing the other side claims is the case, but in reverse? The facts of the matter are literally irrelevant. I want to know hwo you frame that opposedl psychologies when they are claiming the same thing. Most Republicans of the kind you're highlighting believe Biden is the Dictator (and, unless you've lost your mind, there's some extremely minor truck to that if you think the COVID measures were out of line - doesn't matter if you're right, it just explains the psychology of it, in that extremely minor way that it can) for the same reasons.
I literally said nothing that could possibly import the notion that I think you're inaccurate in your position on the facts.
and a dictatorship, where everyone must agree with the leader.
— Wayfarer
is, in fact, the exact same thing the other side claims is the case, but in reverse? The facts of the matter are literally irrelevant.
The facts are not irrelevant. This is not a hypotherical, like 'the trolley problem' in undergraduate tutorials. Real politics is at stake. Only one side is lead by someone who has tried to subvert the election. It doesn't matter how I or they feel about that. Everyone has a right to their own opinon, but nobody has a right to their own facts. It is a fact that Trump has said he wants to suspend the Constitution, jail his critics and purge the civil service. It is also a fact that neither Joe Biden nor any other Democrat has said any such thing.
Once again: I am not, have not, and will not lay out my opinion on this. I am asking you about yours. You seem to be really, seriously, entirely missing the point of what I'm asking here. The facts are completely irrelevant to my question.
Except this is exactly what I'm asking you about. So, yeah, this is literally the only thing that matters. I am not engaging you in a political debate. I am asking you a personal psychological question. If you don't care to answer, that's fine, but is an entirely different response to what you've, so far, jumped headlong into.
It is a fact that Trump has said he wants to suspend the Constitution, jail his critics and purge the civil service. It is also a fact that neither Joe Biden nor any other Democrat has said any such thing.
Yes. Those things seem to be clearly true. I never denied any of this, or intimated that I did/would (though, as a matter of curiosity I have heard talk from Dems of doing away with the Electoral College... It's no matter, don't get stuck on it. Just in passing).
Not in the question I asked. Not quite sure why you're hell-bent on bringing up the most dire and intense version of this. I haven't asked about any of that.
What the heck is going on my dude? This is so bizarre. Let me rephrase the question in a way that is politically expedient, and will massage your political leanings:
Why you think (some)Republicans feel exactly the same way?
So Trump will win New Hampshire tomorrow and will go on to easily win the nomination. Biden will win by mail-in vote, and will easily win the nomination.
The last year of speculation and hand-wringing was a complete waste of time. This was predictable.
Reply to Mikie I was under the impression it was more-or-less foregone that it was Trump v Biden this year and that the legal pressure on Trump was kind of the only upset to the apple cart.
Was that not the vibe in other quarters?
Reply to Wayfarer
My question comes squarely under 'General Discussion', does it not?
I also find that a really odd retort to my having parsed out exactly what I'm asking, through your emotional response.
Can you just let me know fi you don't care to answer the question please? I have no issue with that, if so. It would've just been easier to have an "I don't care to answer" earlier in this exchange :smile:
There's an undercurrent on this forum along the lines of: well, America is f***d, politics is f***d, Trump is just what you're going to get from American politics, and Biden, being a politician, is no different. There's no answer to that argument except for not arguing with it, as it's a pointless exercise.
There's an undercurrent on this forum along the lines of: well, America is f***d, politics is f***d, Trump is just what you're going to get from American politics, and Biden, being a politician, is no different
There may well be, but unless you can point me to where I said this, intimated this, or said something that could, without insanity, be interpreted as this, in line with the discreet question i asked, I have to assume you're not really trying to do anything but argue with people. Each time i make it clear you've gotten something well wrong (including pointing out hte thread title) you just move to another tactic to make it seem unreasonable. Hard to work with..
They’re provable lies, I’m afraid, and on a level that makes newspeak look like child’s-play. But that’s the sort of discourse we’re forced to deal with here.
Reply to NOS4A2 They aren't, though, that's the thing. Or you'd have demonstrated it by now, I'm sure.
But, as an example - the fact is, Trump quite directly noted that the 'Fraud' of the 2020 election justified the suspension of 'rules' including 'parts of the constitution' via Truth social. This is inarguable. The implication (and motivation, I guess) you could argue - but you wouldn't have much fun I don't think.
This is contextomy. It would be proper to quote in full instead of picking and choose which words you want to include and fill in the blanks with your own. It would be proper to include any clarifications. So there is no fact here.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” ; and
“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
There's your context, and the exact quotes. As noted - inarguable. It is a fact that this was done by Trump. That you do not accept this fact, despite its obtaining, isn't really that interesting.
Massive fraud allowing for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution is a far cry from Trump wanting to suspend the constitution. So thanks for the demonstration.
Reply to NOS4A2
P1: Trump believes the 2020 election was a Fraud
P2: Trump believes a fraudulent election justifies suspension of the Constitution *which is the correct reading of "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles...found in the Constitution"
C: Trump doesn't want to suspend the Constitution?
P2 ought to be: Trump believes “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“.
Upon any confusion, good faith demands you seek clarification, not assume motives and attribute to him words he never said.
Of what type do you think he was referring? Tax fraud? Or could it be, that I am well aware of the context and I am accurately portraying the situation here? because that's the case.
I’m just wondering how one gets from what is quoted to “Trump wants to suspend the constitution” or “Trump calls for the termination of the constitution”. What leads you to take that leap?
Reply to NOS4A2 I laid that out, fairly clearly. You had an objection. I pointed out it was an inaccurate objection, the answer to which is in the content of the quotes. You are back to pretending that didn't happen.
P1: Trump believes a Massive Fraud justifies the suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution"
P2: Trump believes the 2020 Election was a Massive Fraud ™
C: Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified (the idea that this doesn't imply he wants it to happen is bogus, and not a real argument).
So again, what type of Fraud do you think he was referring to?? I will take a second brush past this question as a fair estimate that you understand exactly that he's talking about the election, which he believed was a Massive Fraud™
Now, the above is clear any not really amenable to massage. However, lets leave it aside. I know what you're doing. I tend to do the same, when it's actually happening. JPB is a prime example of someone being taken out of context, lied about, interpolated until his entire persona appears to those who know nothing about it, as if a fully-fledge and technicoloured monster. I get it. But...
You would read the same thing that we are out of a Biden statement similar. You would not be so indolently pedantic as to deny the basic and obvious meaning of the statement, as if you didn't get it. So why with Trump?
Of course he’s talking about election fraud. What I’m wondering is how you can get from this quote:
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“
To this assumption regarding his motives:
“Trump wants to suspend the constitution”.
Or his beliefs:
Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.
His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. His absence from any position of power directly disputes even the possibility. So how do you get from one to the other, if not by way of the propaganda of his opponents?
Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.
His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.
His clarification directly disputes both assumptions.
My position (the second of your quoted objectionable quotes) is not disputed by anything he has subsequently said that isn't a direct contradiction of what he... said. So, I can accept he misspoke perhaps.
Not possible. Trump doesn’t misspeak and doesn’t lose. When he said Obama was the literal founder of ISIS, repeatedly, he both meant it and didn’t mean it. It’s sarcasm.
Concerning the constitution comment:
The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES
That comes from Trump, so it has to be true.
Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. Yada yada “contextomy” and boom, all good. Make America great again.
Reply to Mikie Personally, they're as bad as each other, for different reasons.
But, its totally understandable that someone is comfortable in your position. The GOP, and Trumpers more specifically (i.e the Trumpers in their capacities in teh GOP before Trump) have been the same type of dangerous for several decades at the least.
The newer 'woke' problems have been inching on us for only about 15 years, in my estimation. Easy to miss. However, I was chest-deep in it for a time(And i do mean.. DEEP.. I thought I was morally obliged to literally hand a job offer to a female if i got one, as an example of how deranged i was) and must conclude from my experiences they have an equal potential for social destruction unfortunately :(
Reply to Mikie Fair enough; I think it's clear they're 1. Less capable; 2. Less energetic and 3. Less aggrieved. The BLM protests are the 'canary' for that.
But, that said, I have just heard some lines from a podcast about the Conservative/Republican movement in the USA which are.. to my mind.. utterly bizarre and clearly an interpolation from someone who is extremely biased.
Yet, i know that isn't hte case, in this particular case. So i assume i am underinformed :)
I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.
She comes through as "no-nonsense" personality-wize (if that means much). She's given no good indication of stepping up though, or what her programme would be, i.e. why to vote for her. I can see her as US president anyway.
His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.
His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, namely, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”.
You said: “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other?
I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.
So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense?
So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense?
I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.
His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does,
They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.
The only possible point you could conceivably make that doesn't require you lying, is that you think 'allow' and 'justify' in this context are somehow materially different, in that they indicate different attitudes or intentions about the objects in question (the rules, articles etc.. of the Constitution).
How you could possibly think that is, I think, not something a sane person could understand.
I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.
Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.
Is this a full direct quote?
“Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.
You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like.
You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like.
I can do you one better - I quoted him. Which, you know, anyone who can read (you) can see. This is how i know you're lying. Nothing i can do with it, but point htis out as it happens.
Your snark doesn’t change the fact you removed most of his argument and filled it with your own assumptions. That’s the way propaganda works, and I was only hoping you wouldn’t allow yourself to be misinformed, and worse, to pass it off as unarguable fact. My apologies.
Reply to NOS4A2 I'm unsure it wise to end this exchange with a school-yard misrepresentation. But you do you, Boo :kiss: I'm sure outside of this thread we'll have great conversations.
I predict just before the presidential election Biden will declare war, possibly with Iran. It won't be pretty, but it will draw upon patriotism of the citizenry. It might work or it might not. Remember the disastrous departure from the now Taliban country.
Voted last night in the primary. Quiet at the polling place. My vote for Vermin Supreme was part of a complicated moral strategy which will make a big difference.
Reply to Wayfarer Tbf, any person at least five years younger than Trump is probably a better option. Though, that gives them room to prove me wrong :lol:
Reply to jgill IMO, all things being equal as of the 24th day of the year, Biden doesn't need to "start a war" to get reelected against a party that has lostevery popular vote (i.e. general, midterm, off-year & special elections) since 2016 and against a (prospective) nominee whose support has shrunk since 2020 because he has done – continues to do – nothing to expand his support. The MAGA-GOP is a shrinkingdead cult walking (à la Jim Jones) off of an electoral cliff. Just my $0.02. :mask:
Reply to AmadeusD As things stand today, I can't imagine Loser-1 pulling a Grover Cleveland (1892) this fall. Of course, 9½ months is like many lifetimes in US electoral politics and so much could happen, no matter how improbably, to snatch Biden's & the Dems' defeat from the jaws of victory; in that case however, well, the banana republicanization of the US would be complete (spasibo, Vlad :shade:) and then I'd whole-heartedly support the secession of N. California, Oregon & Washington in order to form the independent Republic of Pacifica (btw, I'm a resident of Washington state) – or just resign myself and my community to riding out the obligatory, likely catastrophic, attempt to restore regular 'constitutional' order by military coup, etc. :mask:
Reply to 180 Proof, if it were to come to that (significant internal US instability/strife), then there'd be a wider impact as well. Authoritarian regimes would have a bit less to worry about (or to deter them), which, in turn, would come back to impact the US. So, strifers would invite this.
I offer this dire prediction concerning the election campaigns…
Mr Trump will be in middle of a rally or debate, in full harangue, and despite being in excellent physical condition and of serene disposition, will suffer a massive heart attack and/or stroke in front of a huge audience. He falls to the ground, and gawking onlookers hear him say ‘Ivanka is soooo hot…’
Whether or not he survives depends on whether prayers on his behalf are directed toward the correct deity. (There are so many gods these days. They are harder to get a hold of, and even harder to understand, than tech support from India).
I myself am praying fervently to Jupiter that this tragedy may be averted!
Well, as US Senator Tim Scott's proud and dignified "twin", I'm praying to the Light Fifty for a "Second Amendment solution" with extreme prejudice to this MAGA Cult problem no later than the Fourth of July 2024. :pray:
Ironically, right now Trump seems to be holding up an immigration bill in the Senate that would help address the border that the GOP seems to approve of.
Then again I don't expect people to blame him. After all he got off scot free for the recent spike in oil prices despite pulling out of the Iran deal and cutting their supply off from the rest of the world.
Ironically, right now Trump seems to be holding up an immigration bill in the Senate that would help address the border that the GOP seems to approve of.
It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself.
It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself.
A fair assessment. I despise the two candidates. I keep hoping a third candidate will materialize.
Do you equally "despise" what Biden & Trump represent? Are their respective parties (coalitions) equally bad for the majority of communities in the US or equally detrimental to US interests vis-à-vis international relations (e.g. trade agreements, political treaties, strategic alliances)? Do you believe, jgill, the adverse difference between them is one of degree or a difference in kind? :chin:
Reply to 180 Proof Indeed. That is a salient question. I often ask something similar when I hear the old 'both parties/leaders are equally shit' trope. Things are rarely equally bad. I practice harm minimisation in politics. Clearly some options are far worse than others, even if the less worse is still fundamentally flawed.
Reply to 180 Proof I despise the far left and the far right equally. Those politicians close to the center have my respect, generally. And I despise both Biden and Trump equally. I have a plethora of reasons for my attitudes. No sense in elaborating. It's all been said over and over.
It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself.
Oh I understand very well his intentions. He's also on record saying he wants the economy to crash and the US to default on it's debt if it means he can score political points. The man doesn't care about anything apart from staying out of prison.
With all due respect, sir, if you believe Biden in anyway represents "the far left" (i.e. to the left of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader, et al), then you've not been paying attention for the last half century to Biden's political career.
And I despise both Biden and Trump equally.
So in your mind, woke corporate welfare-statism IS JUST AS BAD FOR YOUR COUNTRY AS autocratic ethnonational populism? Biden the neoliberal EQUALS Trump the neofascist?
(I guess, jgill, it's reasonable to assume, based on your reply, that in sum your answers to my previous post are: yes, yes, & difference in degree.)
Reply to 180 Proof it amuses and surprises me when people think an obedient servant to corporate power, a conservative like Biden is significantly of the left. Just goes to show how muddled political thinking can be.
?180 Proof
I despise the far left and the far right equally. Those politicians close to the center have my respect, generally. And I despise both Biden and Trump equally.
So in your mind, woke corporate welfare-statism IS JUST AS BAD FOR THE COUNTRY AS autocratic ethnonational populism? Biden the neoliberal EQUALS Trump the neofascist?
When I watch sanctuary regions in our country struggling to absorb, medically treat, educate and bring into our culture vast numbers of illegal immigrants; some if not many of whom who escape capture cartel affiliated, it gives me pause to consider what you have so emotionally described. Is the establishment of cartels that grow so powerful they essentially control governments better than a neofascist who moves to destroy them?
This is all hypothetical. I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow.
I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow.
Any more "moderate" than Biden would be useless, a complete corporate tool. I'm hoping for (at least) a solid left-liberal like Gov. Newsom or Gov. Witmer if Biden drops out.
I'm hoping for (at least) a solid left-liberal like Gov. Newsom or Gov. Witmer if Biden drops out.
My wife and I watched Bill Maher interview Newsom last week. She is more conservative than me, but we agreed he was very, very impressive and that we would vote for him under different circumstances.
Jan 26, 2024: Speaker Mike Johnson calls Ukraine-immigration deal ‘dead on arrival’ in House "Former president Donald Trump criticised the potential agreement being brokered in the Senate on his Truth Social site. The former president said “we need a Strong, Powerful, and essentially “PERFECT” Border and, unless we get that, we are better off not making a Deal"
It appears to me that Trump wants the "border" problems to persist, because it's to his political benefit.
creativesoulJanuary 28, 2024 at 13:24#8761430 likes
It appears to me that Trump wants the "border" problems to persist, because it's to his political benefit.
Spot on.
The republicans in congress have not supported border policy put forth after Trump voiced his opposition to it. Prior to that they were preparing to take action on the border issues. So, what we have is someone who is not an elected official influencing those who are to such a degree as to have them not take action on things they themselves loudly claim needs to be taken.
Why?
Because Trump wants to campaign on the 'border' and if there are bi-partisan actions taken to help correct the problems, then Trump's case is weakened, his plan is short circuited. So, just like Trump wants an economic crash to happen, he also wants the border to be a problem.
The Republican party is deliberately not taking action to correct illegal entry into the United States, because Trump wants it to be as big of a problem as it can be right now. That is to put Trump's political interests in front of what's in the best interest of America.
creativesoulJanuary 28, 2024 at 14:20#8761570 likes
Reply to Relativist Now Trump is literally saying "blame it on me" if no border bill passes. Though like I said before, the American people are probably not gonna blame him anyways and he knows it.
Reply to Mr Bee Trump is promising a "perfect" border solution. Reminds me of his criticism of the (imperfect) Iran nuclear deal- he promised to get rid of it, and get a better deal. He succeeded only in getting rid of it.
While people are bickering over a border, I'm just waiting for Sleepy Joe to go to war with Iran and blow up the Middle-East to salvage his chances at this election. :lol:
Are you claiming that if not for an election we would not go to war against Iran?
Is what Iran and its allies doing of no consequence?
This would only be a successful strategy if Congress approves the war. Does this mean that Congress wants to salvage his chances?
If this is a winning strategy wouldn't Trump also advocate for war?
Is what Iran and its allies doing of no consequence?
It might be of consequence, but going to war with Iran is another type of crazy. The US would get stuck in the worst quagmire thinkable, not to mention what it would do to the rest of the Middle-East, and it would dumpster what is left of the US empire in a single swoop.
This would only be a successful strategy if Congress approves the war. Does this mean that Congress wants to salvage his chances?
I don't know who controls congress. Probably it's a melange of the worst lobbies imaginable, and thus war with Iran to save Biden's campaign is definitely in the cards.
If this is a winning strategy wouldn't Trump also advocate for war?
Nah, Trump is running squarely against the neocon establishment with his isolationism. It was never really an option for him. Besides, why would they choose wild card Trump over puppet Joe?
While people are bickering over a border, I'm just waiting for Sleepy Joe to go to war with Iran and blow up the Middle-East to salvage his chances at this election.
Are you predicting Biden will go to war with Iran before the election? Are you also predicting this would help his chances of getting elected?
Oh, look - "radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq", directed by and/or supporting the election of Biden, attacked and killed three American soldiers.
I predict just before the presidential election Biden will declare war, possibly with Iran. It won't be pretty, but it will draw upon patriotism of the citizenry. It might work or it might not. Remember the disastrous departure from the now Taliban country.
I predict just before the presidential election Biden will declare war, possibly with Iran. It won't be pretty, but it will draw upon patriotism of the citizenry. It might work or it might not. Remember the disastrous departure from the now Taliban country.
— jgill
I thought this was unlikely, but after today..
What tends to get obscured in such speculation is the question of motive. There is an important difference between declaring war in response to the actions of an Iranian backed militia or other group and declaring war as a means of uniting the country against a common enemy. It may be that the latter is a consequence of the former but that does not mean it would be correct to attribute it as the motivating reason for it.
What tends to get obscured in such speculation is the question of motive. There is an important difference between declaring war in response to the actions of an Iranian backed militia or other group and declaring war as a means of uniting the country against a common enemy. It may be that the latter is a consequence of the former but that does not mean it would be correct to attribute it as the motivating reason for it.
I agree. I don't think it will help Biden if we get plunged into another MidEast adventure. Quite the opposite.
Of course there is reason to assume it can help Biden. Israel wants the US to go to war with Iran. Israel holds great sway in American domestic politics.
Of course there is reason to assume it can help Biden.
War is often divisive. Since Vietnam American wars have not united us. Just the opposite. One reason some cite for their support of Trump is that they think he is responsible for keeping us out of war.
And yet, still easy enough to get it exactly wrong.
Robert Gates, the former defense secretary under President Obama, seemed to reiterate in an interview that aired Sunday night that he believes President Biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.
Gates, who spent about three decades in the CIA, was introspective during an interview with CBS’ "60 Minutes," and was asked by Anderson Cooper, the correspondent, about his 2014 memoir titled, "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War."
• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution.
• By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualifyInsurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution.
• By 31Jan24, the Trump Org will be effectively dissolved in NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barred for life from the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on alldefendents' personal & real properties asap and savage TF out of them like piranha. :wink: :party:
• As of 1Feb24 the "great business man" will be, in effect, cash poorwhiningsquatting & shitting his old man diapers on a pile of fire-sale depreciating assets & compounding civil lawsuit debts ... So suddenly the upcoming GOP primary races are going to look pretty shaky even to the RNC, GOP senators & even a larger share of GOP-MAGA voters who might just stay home allowing Nikki Haley to be competitive in SC, etc.
• Btw, the J6 Conspiracy criminal trial in Wash. DC will conclude with a guilty verdict on all 4 felony counts by the end of August 2024 or sooner. I'm guessing (soon to be) Felon-1 will not be the GOP candidate by the Fall (or even by July).
The fact is: Republicans in Congress are saying we should attack Iran while Biden is looking for a diplomatic solution. Please explain how this is a cynical plot by Biden and/or Israel and neocons to get him elected.
It is not the neocons but the Evangelical Christian Right who are the most influential advocates for Israel. They are also the most influential advocates for Trump. For Christian Zionists Israel's war is all about the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Biden, like the rest of us, can get things wrong. The claim that I am responding to, and it is not one that you made, is that Biben will go to war in order to win the election. For example:
Reply to Fooloso4 First, your characterization of "a cynical plot" is markedly different from mine. I called it a perfect storm of perverse incentives, not a plot.
Next, you must understand that Trump is anti-establishment, and neither the neocons nor Israel (or the lobby) want him as president because of his isolationism. Of course these parties will happily use Trump to pressure Biden. Especially because the Israel lobby doesn't like Biden to begin with, so Trump isn't completely off the cards. Playing both sides is standard for these interest groups.
But Biden is clearly the easier one to control, and he's a neocon. Trump is a wild card and isolationist.
The Biden administration are the ones who gave Netanyahu cart blanche, and have been pointing fingers at Iran non-stop since the start of the conflict. Further, they've even circumvented congress to continue weapon sales to Israel, making the US complicit in Israel's crimes, which may very well be genocidal.
So it's clear Biden is trying to appease Israel, which may very well be what causes him to start this war - to cement support from the notoriously capricious lobby. If he acts like a stooge, the lobby will play him like a stooge and milk him for what he's worth.
If he refuses, the lobby will pressure him, quite possibly along with other interest groups who desire wider war, like the MIC, etc. And of course then the question is whether he caves or not. I think there's a good chance he does.
neither the neocons nor Israel (or the lobby) want him as president because of his isolationism.
The neocons no longer play a significant role in American politics.
According to Wikipedia:
The largest pro-Israel lobbying group is Christians United for Israel with over seven million members.
The footnoted Wikipedia source is Fox News.
If you do not understand the importance of the Religious Right you cannot give a plausible analysis of the part Israel plays. They are pro-Israel Zionists.
With the indiscriminate killing in Gaza Biden is well aware that support for Netanyahu's Israel may be working against him with liberal, moderate, and independent voters.
Trump is anti anything that will not be to his benefit. Support of Israel is to his benefit when it comes to his base.
No, that's too simple. Any American president has to "support" Israel. The question is what that support looks like.
It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.
Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.
In fact, the Trump phenomenon may give the Biden administration room to get away with a lot, including another war in the Middle-East against Iran and/or its proxies.
If you do not understand the importance of the Religious Right you cannot give a plausible analysis of the part Israel plays. They are pro-Israel Zionists.
Yes. The Israel lobby consists of various uncouth interest groups including Zionist Christians. I'm well-aware.
With the indiscriminate killing in Gaza Biden is well aware that support for Netanyahu's Israel may be working against him with liberal, moderate, and independent voters.
The question is whether that will weigh heavier than the lobby's influence. But yes, Biden is obviously between a rock and a hard place in that regard - that's part of the aforementioned perfect storm.
schopenhauer1January 30, 2024 at 16:43#8765120 likes
Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.
So this is a canard of the Left. Why is it that Leftists support Islamist causes? It's a rhetorical strategy to malign any policy against hostile actors in the region as Israel's bidding. Why wouldn't America want to support an ally, while at the same time support their own interests (shipping/cargo/trade/resources) in the region? It would be foolish to let Iran make mischief unabated. Iran is trying to show people like yourself how powerful they are, and Leftists go weak in the knees rooting for it, but in a "Because Israel is bad" sort of rhetorical ploy. If Israel is bad, then Iran's actions must go unattended, is pretty odd argument as whole, but fits right in with a certain worldview for sure. I call it Lefitst. Call it whatever you want. It's certainly not "Idealist", unless you mean the corrupt UN (which lets countries with human rights violations unironically cry foul).
In fact, the Trump phenomenon may give the Biden administration room to get away with a lot, including another war in the Middle-East against Iran and/or its proxies.
I mean, this could go the other way. If Biden doesn't do anything in the Middle East, Trump will use it as a case that he is the backchannel savior (ala Nixon during Vietnam).
I mean, this could go the other way. If Biden doesn't do anything in the Middle East, Trump will use it as a case that he is the backchannel savior (ala Nixon during Vietnam).
The Biden administration is doing what Israel wants - giving Israel cart blanche, blocking Security Council resolutions and continuing to funnel weapons and ammunition to Israel, even circumventing Congress if it has to, etc.
The "pressure" the administration puts is not actual pressure at all. It's simply what Biden has to do to avoid looking like a complete stooge, and Israel understands this is how it works.
Trump seems to me very much against this type of 'final solution' business in the Middle-East, so I personally find it very hard to believe he would try to profile himself as an even greater Middle-East hawk.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration hasn't stopped pointing fingers at Iran since the Oct. 7th attacks, so there's probably a lot of people wondering why he hasn't gone to war with Iran yet. In for a penny, in for a pound.
schopenhauer1January 30, 2024 at 18:00#8765320 likes
The "pressure" the administration puts is not actual pressure at all. It's simply what Biden has to do to avoid looking like a complete stooge, and Israel understands this is how it works.
The fact is that the US has interests in the region, and support their ally in the region. You don't have to look for old-school conspiracy theories of AIPAC for this. It's a worldview of balances of power. Iran represents something against US interests, especially with their use of proxies. Netanyahu is certainly an asshole, I grant that, but Biden simply doesn't want to make that kind of decision in the midst of this. I will say too that Israel has to get its shit together by finding a new strategy. Biden can only work with who he has got. Other than getting the hostages back, I see no way Israel will want to keep Hamas as a neighbor with their threat, and the US gets this threat.
Trump seems to me very much against this type of 'final solution' business in the Middle-East, so I personally find it very hard to believe he would try to profile himself as an even greater Middle-East hawk.
I would bet Trump would do anything he can to win Evangelical support.. So if Biden looks weak, he will just say that he can do better, whatever the case may be. Also, he is besties with Netanyahu. Don't count him out either for using war for his gain. He hasn't done it yet, but I wouldn't count it out. Saying that he is strictly an "isolationist" is believing he is principled or ideological to a fault. He is self-serving to a fault- there is a difference. Nixon went to China when it suited him. Nixon was virulently anti-communist when it served him. Etc. In fact, Nixon was able to stop the North Vietnamese delegation from taking the offer at the Paris Accords in '68 because Nixon wanted to look like the person who stopped the war. Trump isn't Nixon. No, he's worse.
So this is a canard of the Left. Why is it that Leftists support Islamist causes? It's a rhetorical strategy to malign any policy against hostile actors in the region as Israel's bidding. Why wouldn't America want to support an ally, while at the same time support their own interests (shipping/cargo/trade/resources) in the region? It would be foolish to let Iran make mischief unabated. Iran is trying to show people like yourself how powerful they are, and Leftists go weak in the knees rooting for it, but in a "Because Israel is bad" sort of rhetorical ploy. If Israel is bad, then Iran's actions must go unattended, is pretty odd argument as whole, but fits right in with a certain worldview for sure. I call it Lefitst. Call it whatever you want. It's certainly not "Idealist", unless you mean the corrupt UN (which lets countries with human rights violations unironically cry foul).
It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.
Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.
Remember the "Trump Peace Plan"? It was a proposal "negotiated" by Jared Kushner and Netanyahu, that gave Netanyahu what he wanted, and virtually nothing for Palestinians. Further, a large majority of evangelical Christians are Trump supporters, and they are extremely pro-Israel because of their view that God gave them this land.
... various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.
You are talking about Trump as if he is someone with principles. He is isolationist only to the extent he thinks it benefits him. He has not taken a clear stand on what he would do in the face of escalating conflict.
The Religious Right, the most powerful faction of this lobby is guided by revelation not reason. They are actually eagerly looking forward to this final prophesied holy war.
Yes. The Israel lobby consists of various uncouth interest groups including Zionist Christians. I'm well-aware.
What you do not seem to be aware of is just how much power and influence they have over Trump and what is no longer the Republican Party but now the Christian Party of Trump. They have been willing to look the other way when it comes to what Trump says and does, but this may be non-negotiable.
You got this much right: it is not rocket science. Unlike rocket science there are too many variables and indeterminacies to calculate.
The Religious Right, the most powerful faction of this lobby is guided by revelation not reason. They are actually eagerly looking forward to this final prophesied holy war.
And also, while the Right doesn't have a whole lot of fondness for Jews, they really don't like Muslims, so the enemy of their enemy is now their friend.
Reply to Fooloso4 You seem intent on linking escalation in the Middle-East to Trump, via the Israel lobby. Regardless of what I think of Trump, I don't think that's a serious argument. It's a bit cartoonish.
schopenhauer1January 30, 2024 at 18:57#8765420 likes
Reply to Fooloso4
I haven't figured out if Trump is fully "self-serving" in foreign policy or "Russia-serving". If it is Russia-serving, indeed he may have to tone down against Russia's interests in the Mid East. If he is self-serving, then any strong man (including Netanyahu) is fair game to admire and support.
I haven't figured out if Trump is fully "self-serving" in foreign policy or "Russia-serving". I
Perhaps he thinks they are the same.
He says that he likes winners. If it is strong man against strong man he likes whoever he thinks is winning. Unless he thinks this is against his interests.
And also, while the Right doesn't have a whole lot of fondness for Jews, they really don't like Muslims, so the enemy of their enemy is now their friend.
The whole thing is very peculiar. The Evangelicals have be seduced by power. Apparently, they do not think that the power of God is enough. Not ever their Saviors - both the old one and the new improved version are not enough. They have long desired and plotted to seize power. Israel is nothing more than a means to that end. They have no regard for the Jews. Together with the Muslims and liberals and LGBT and everyone else who is not what they themselves pretend to be will be left behind in the Rapture.
Btw, the J6 Conspiracy criminal trial in Wash. DC will conclude with a guilty verdict on all 4 felony counts by the end of August 2024 or sooner. I'm guessing (soon to be) Felon-1 will not be the GOP candidate by the Fall (or even by July).
"You know, we've got a lot of theories, we just don't have the evidence."
~Rudy Giuliani, Co-Conspirator-1
Reply to 180 Proof I agree:
• SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
• Trump will be cash constrained at some point this year (not as early as you say)
I disagree:
• that Engeron will dissolve the Trump Org in NY; I expect only a fine, commensurate with his savings on interest due to receiving interest rates more favorable than his finances warranted. This will contribute to Trump's cash constraints.
• that Trump won't be the GOP nominee. This is because 95% of delegates to the GOP nominating convention are committed to vote based on the primaries. They would be freed only if Trump were to drop out of the race - and that won't happen.
• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that.
• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that.
?180 Proof I agree:
• SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
• Trump will be cash constrained at some point this year (not as early as you say)
I disagree:
• that Engeron will dissolve the Trump Org in NY; I expect only a fine, commensurate with his savings on interest due to receiving interest rates more favorable than his finances warranted. This will contribute to Trump's cash constraints.
• that Trump won't be the GOP nominee. This is because 95% of delegates to the GOP nominating convention are committed to vote based on the primaries. They would be freed only if Trump were to drop out of the race - and that won't happen.
• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that.
Reply to Michael Agreed- but the appeals will take a while, and (if elected) SCOTUS will find some excuse (possibly a good one) to keep him out of prison while in office. It would, however, be the strongest possible case for an impeachment+removal (a truly "high crime") but of course- GOP still wouldn't convict.
Suggestion: let's vote against him, so these things don't come to pass.
SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
Then he will appeal to a higher authority - Donald J Trump.
From a video on Truth Social he posted, "God Made Trump". The narrator begins:
On June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said: ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God gave us Trump. God had to have someone willing to go into the den of vipers. Call out the fake news for their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s. The poison of vipers is on their lips. So God made Trump.
God said, “I will need someone who will be strong and courageous. Who will not be afraid or terrified of wolves when they attack. A man who cares for the flock. A shepherd to mankind who won’t ever leave or forsake them.
If they do not side with Trump and God the Supreme Court will have revealed that they too are wolves in sheep's clothing. Only those who stand with Trump/God, pledging absolute fielty to him/Him, will have any authority on Earth or in Heaven.
This is said in jest, but only in part. Even if he complies with the Court's decision he will continue his seditious rants. How far is the flock willing to follow in undermining law and order and replacing it with the Law and Order to be engraved on the tablets of Trump? The Word in its new and improved incarnation?
So, the Republicans are impeaching the Homeland Security secretary, on Trumped-up grounds, while at the same time their leader, Donald Trump, pushes them to torpedo the solution to the border security problem that this Secretary is being accused of neglecting, while in reality he has been involved with a bi-partisan solution.
[quote=Washington Post;https://wapo.st/3UgbylB]Democrats... criticized the impeachment proceedings as politically motivated, pointing out that GOP lawmakers were trying to oust Mayorkas for supposedly neglecting to secure the southern border, while at the same time opposing a bipartisan package under negotiation in the Senate that would seek to improve border security.[/quote]
It's astounding, the levels of hypocrisy, doubletalk and duplicitiousness the MAGA will sink to.
RelativistFebruary 01, 2024 at 02:49#8770180 likes
Reply to Relativist Of course it is. It's what happens when halfwits like Marjorie Taylor Greene are in charge of the henhouse. It's never about governance, only petty point-scoring.
[quote=The Hill;https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4440853-four-takeaways-from-a-heated-hearing-with-tech-ceos/]Senators grilled the CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Snap, Discord and X Wednesday in a heated hearing about harm posed to teens and kids online. [/quote]
How about grilling the CEOs of the very many major gun manufacturing companies about the horrors wrought by their wares? You know, Remington, Smith and Wesson, and the others? In addition to gun suicides there are also the many thousands of 'young people' shot and wounded or killed, many while attending school. But no, strangely enough- guns don't kill people, but social media kills people. And a much less controversial target, to boot.
Following up on the question of whether Trump will comply with Supreme Court decisions.
It may seem improbable but THIS
may the writing on the wall of what is to come from the Republican Party:
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who has said Texas should ignore the Supreme Court’s order allowing federal authorities to remove barbed wire along the southern border, compared the decision Tuesday to the 1857 high court ruling that upheld slavery.
Roy is among a number of Republicans who have described immigrants crossing the border as an “invasion” and said during a House hearing Tuesday that he will not let “statute books” stop him from defending his home.
Governor Greg Abbott issued a declaration arguing he has the legal power to overrule federal authorities in case of an “invasion.” What this means in practice is that he is claiming and acting on premise that the state and not the Supreme Court gets to interpret Federal law.
Reply to Fooloso4 Shouldn’t be surprise anyone, they’re a party of secessionists. 149 of them voted not to recognise the result of the last Presidential election. They’re spoiling for a fight but I hope it’s one they eventually lose.
Governor Greg Abbott issued a declaration arguing he has the legal power to overrule federal authorities in case of an “invasion.”
At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"?
Possibly when they cannot be admitted into a hospital for treatment because the medical system is flooded with non-citizens. Or when a mayor or governor asks the population to take these people into their homes. Or when the Tijuana cartel runs a major California city.
Until then, its merely a political issue. Or a humanitarian issue.
At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"?
At no point. The question of the interpretation of the law is to be left to the courts. Otherwise the law becomes whatever any citizen interprets it to be. What else might an individual or state regard as an invasion? There are many private citizens and in government who believe that this is a white Christian nation. What they might consider "too many" of those who are not white Christians to be an invasion and an existential threat to their God given rightful way of life.
I do agree that there is a serious problem at the border that must be dealt with but it cannot be solved through lawless disregard of the courts.
Problem at the border. Yeah, sure. The numbers have increased, and there’s a traffic jam. The rest is conservative media frenzy and stupid political stunts by right-wing governors. They don’t want the problem solved— they just want to use it in an election year.
So, let’s call it what it really is: Racist fear mongers blaming a Democratic administration for an overblown problem.
At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"? — jgill
At no point.
You misinterpret what I am asking. I'm not speaking of a citizen advancing a legal opinion. Only when does anyone begin thinking of the border problem as an invasion? When does a mother feeding her family a meal hear the latest news report and think, "Wow, sounds like an invasion!".
You misinterpret what I am asking. I'm not speaking of a citizen advancing a legal opinion.
These is an important difference between someone thinking it sounds like an invasion and acting to secure the border in a way that courts have determined is illegal. If she claims that she is within her rights to act this way because of an invasion she is advancing a legal opinion.
If she claims that she is within her rights to act this way because of an invasion she is advancing a legal opinion
I've spoken with her and she is shocked to hear that people think she is grabbing her shotgun and joining a convoy to the Border. What the court rules, she will follow . . . but reluctantly. Poor thing.
The number of illegal migrants bussed or flown to Denver has reached roughly 6% of the existing population. There was a piece on the news of a busload being driven to Colorado Springs, NOT a sanctuary city. The Springs has enough of a problem housing the homeless already there.
Those few from Venezuela are able to get work permits, but most are not.
Now THAT'S a majority. The kind of majority Trump felt entitled to in New Hampshire and Iowa (but *didn't* get).
Reply to jgill I do hear you on the alarm about undocumented arrivals. It's definitely a serious issue, but again, requires bipartisan support as it's bigger than either party. And that support is being jeopardised by Trump and his congressional minions for purely political reasons. He has no interest in solving it, only in exploiting it.
Reply to Wayfarer Of course it does. But up to 5,000 illegals/day is too many. Bring that number way, way down and perhaps re-institute a Trump executive order or two and an agreement might result.
This issue is so muddled with money for Ukraine and Israel - entirely separate concerns.
Reply to Wayfarer Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". But yes, 84 is too fucking old. You call that age discrimination, the rest of us call it common sense. There's a lot of things that start deteriorating from our 30s onwards. Memory and recall being the most important one.
• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution.
6Feb24: DENIED by Federal Appeals Court, Washington DC Circuit. The order of the Federal District Court is upheld and affirmed. Criminal Defendent-1 has to appeal to SCOTUS by 12Feb24, otherwise the district court can proceed with the "J6 Conspiracy" trial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175
i.e. Affirmed:
[quote=Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington DC Federal District Court]Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.[/quote]
Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump".
He also brings "not Republican" to the table, which entails (among other things) the expectation he'd block attempts to further restrict women's reproductive rights. It also entails appointment of judges that are more apt to have a more expansive view of civil rights.
Not always going to be a good thing. But hte former is definitely true, and good (in the sense that its worse to have a Republican swaying reproductive legislation).
By [s]31Jan24[/s] the Trump Org will be effectively [s]dissolved[/s] in NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barred [s]for life[/s] from the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on alldefendents' personal & real properties asap and savage tf out of them like piranha. :wink: :party:
Apparently, an Appellate-proof (restrained) judgment of over $450 million (disgorgement + interest), barred for (only) 3 years from doing business in NYS & borrowing from NYS chartered banks, an (enhanced) independent financial monitor & corporate compliance officer – straitjacket – for 3 years, but no "corporate death penalty" (yet?) ...
Look, this is going to be a long, grueling, and mostly pointless campaign, since everyone already knows which of the two elderly candidates they prefer to barely tolerate. The one who can’t walk up stairs or the one who can’t walk down ramps.
It gets so dull hearing these talking points. The American dream is dead because Mars bars were $1 and are now $1.25.
I know what you hacks on both sides will say before they say it. Is it really healthy to blame every problem on Joe Biden?
The reason for that [more people have registered as independent voters than ever] is this kind of mindless partisanship.
We gotta get used to it, this is it, this is the race. Biden and Trump, the race is over. This is bad news for the country, I think. Very good news for people who build ramps on debate stages.
Did you know that Bill Clinton, has been out of office for 25 years, is still younger than both of them? I’m not kidding about that. That is a true fact. Their combined age is 158 years old. The first debate is going to be at the Museum of Natural History.
You know what’s trending on Twitter? Dementia Don, because Trump was talking about Nancy Pelosi during January 6, but he kept calling her Nikki Haley.
You know what else Dementia Don did this week? This is a direct quote, I don’t know what it means, no one does, he said word for word, ‘We are an institute in powerful death penalty. We will put this on.’ Even Biden was like, ‘What the f---?'
By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualify Insurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution.
Well, I got the date right but the decision wrong: (maga-wingnut) SCOTUS is in the effing tank for (former) SCROTUS aka "Insurrectionist/Criminal Defendant/Fraudster/Rapist/Loser-1" ... making up stoopid ahistorical-ad hoc shit (like they did to overturn Roe v. Wade i.e. to jackboot curbstomp 'stare decisis') in order to further accelerate the bananafication of the US Republic.
It seems conservative justices are perfectly willing to be activists when it pleases them.
This isn't to contend that what is (or at least should be) the actual holding of the court, that Colorado cannot disqualify someone from being on the ballot for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, wasn't agreed to by all the Justices. It was. But as the concurring opinions point out, the decision goes beyond what was required to resolve the issue before the court, generally a no-no, and also assets that Congress must adopt legislation before Section 3 is enforceable at all. It hasn't done so, and there's no assurance it ever will. In which case, it seems Section 3 is superfluous until that occurs. Usually, it's also considered a no-no to construe a law in such a manner as to render it ineffective.
We can be thankful that the court didn't hold that there was no insurrection while it was at it.
Reply to 180 Proof It was a 9-0 decision, so it's not like this divided on ideological grounds.
The striking down of Roe v. Wade had to do with the Court's rejection of the Constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion up to a certain point in her pregnancy. It was not based upon there being a federal statute that guaranteed the right to an abortion that the Court decided violated the individual states' rights to regulate it.
That is, the Supreme Court's striking down Roe v. Wade wasn't based upon a violation of Constitutional federalist principles. It was based upon their reversing their view that the Constitution itself protected a woman's right to an abortion. It wasn't a state's rights decision.
I didn't read the recent Trump elections case, but I fully expected the decision to be supportive of keeping him on the ballot. From a practical perspective, I think the Court did the left a favor. The quickest way to get a hesitant Trump voter to commit to Trump is to make him think the other side has their thumb on the scale. That's actually why Trump's numbers keep rising with every new lawsuit brought against him.
It also doesn't hurt him that the Democrats are running someone who is brain dead and they think if they deny it everyone will think he's sharp as a tack.
It also doesn't hurt him that the Democrats are running someone who is brain dead and they think if they deny it everyone will think he's sharp as a tack.
The Democrats have yet to master the art of the lying.
The Supreme Court will indeed find whatever they want to find, as long as it helps Republicans. But this isn’t one of them. Trump shouldn’t be removed from the ballot until he’s convicted. Americans should get the chance to vote for this asshole, if they really want to. He seems ahead in the polls, so it seems there’s a chance they will.
The US is a very stupid country, you see. Or, better, extremely ignorant and desperate.
Reply to Mikie And yet the vast majority of the top universities in the world are in the U.S. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
And yet the vast majority of the top universities in the world are in the U.S.
And…?
Nevermind, I’ll make it easy: most people don’t go to universities, and of those who do, few get into the best ones. Of that small group, most are morons.
"Both national and swing state polls show Haley is a dramatically stronger candidate than Trump in the general election. (A new Marquette University poll has Haley beating Joe Biden by 16 percentage points, while Trump and Biden are in a statistical tie.)"
As there is now a murmur that she might consider running as an independent. In the very unlikely event that she was elected as a third-party candidate, which party would she be more likely to be able to negotiate policies with, in light of the dysfunction that characterises the MAGA-GOP? I think she would get no traction with the Republicans, who would be apoplectic at loosing, and that she would, in effect, be forced into a coalition with Democrats to pass any actual policies.
(Trump is even giving a pretence of presenting policies or ideas for governing any more. He's just ranting.)
Reply to Hanover I haven't read the ruling but if state electors can vote for someone else than the popular vote it seems prima facie inconsistent to claim it's a federal issue.
Reply to Mikie, would it be better to say that there are lots of fools (of whatever sort) around?
It's not confined to people that are extremely ignorant, though. Intellectuals may find faults all over (+ focus/magnify), and hence stoke fires all over. Fault-finding isn't that hard anyway.
So, choosing the right battles matter.
(Incidentally another reason that mudslinger-politicians are a turn-off, to me, more so than politicians that focus on what their programs are.)
Anyway, if the US was significantly weakened on the international stage (which could happen by domestic division or foolery), then others would just jump right in. In the present environment, I'm not all that optimistic in case that was to happen, but I guess we'll see (or might).
which party would she be more likely to be able to negotiate policies with, in light of the dysfunction that characterises the MAGA-GOP?
I'm not entirely sure how the details of these things go, but wouldn't she align with the Lincon Project and draw together the Republicans who don't want to be part of the MAGA cult?
Would it be so bold as to predict that at some point, the Republican party will split and the new faction will be called "New Republicans" or something like "True Republicans" or similar? Gathering momentum among normal people who usually vote Republican. That they would acknowledge that it's problematic to gain traction at this time in history, but that their goal is to build up a sense of trust that voters will get a stable Republican party by voting for them and their internal goal is to clean house and rid themselves of any MAGA supporters. That way, the MAGA cult will probably soon evaporate since they cannot get enough traction by numbers alone and the gullible cult folks who soon get tired of not being represented will move on and just vote for the new republican party while the core MAGA cult will just gather together in some remote location and shoot beer cans or whatever mindless trash they find meaningful.
I'm not entirely sure how the details of these things go, but wouldn't she align with the Lincon Project and draw together the Republicans who don't want to be part of the MAGA cult?
I don't know either, but I've been following US politics pretty closely - probably too closely - and it seems obvious the current Republican party is incapable of governing. As you will know, two weeks ago they sunk a bill that their own delegates had spent months working on, purely because Trump said it would make Biden look good. They're wasting massive amounts of time on the faux 'impeachment enquiry' on Biden just to help Trump settle imagined scores. Trump, meanwhile, is reduced to near-complete confusion and incoherency - he doesn't know who is President, he keeps confusing all of his many legal cases and simply babbling on stage. He's a complete mess and plainly incapable of governing anything whatever. So if an independent candidate DID win (it's a thought-experiment, not an actual prediction) he or she would have to turn to the Democrats because the Republicans can't manage a piss-up in a brewery.
So if an independent candidate DID win (it's a thought-experiment, not an actual prediction) he or she would have to turn to the Democrats because the Republicans can't manage a piss-up in a brewery.
I don't think any independent candidate would win, but they would split the votes so much if there were three options available that the democrats would win simply by the lack of enough votes on either side of the Republicans.
However, if, by some miracle, a stable Republican outlier wins instead as an independent, I think that she would gather everyone siding with the Lincoln project and build up a proper party through them. And they might even push out many of the MAGA cult members infesting the other halls of power in congress over time.
Regardless, I think the only way out and away from Trumpism is to have an independent option during election. Too many Republicans who hate Trump hate the Democrats more and they would vote for the independent voice and drag all the ones who's opting out entirely. It would divide the Republicans, but the smart ones would know it's their only option forward as the MAGA cult could very well spell the end for the Republican party as a whole. Soon or later the normal Republicans will have to take some home cleaning action. It's like they've been infested by cockroaches and have given up trying to solve the issue, but if they grow into too much of a problem they will have to start stomping them out and call exterminators.
The only possible 'stable Republican outlier' is, in fact, Nikki Haley. From the same source I quoted yesterday:
On Saturday, the Trumpified Missouri GOP held its caucuses. Lynn Schmidt, a Missouri Republican, described the scene in an email:
“There were 558 people in the gym for our caucus. When Haley was nominated, the room erupted in boos. Then they asked all of Haley's voters/supporters (62 of us) to line up two by two in the middle of the gym while the other 469 people continued to boo and jeer at us. We were literally lined up in the middle of the gym for all of our neighbors to see… They called us Democrats and talked about hating RINOS.”
You can imagine the MAGA group pelting Halley's followers with rotten fruit and excrement. That's about the level that they've sunk to.
In my view, the net effect of Trump's inevitable victory in the Primaries, is to lead the entire party off a cliff, lemming-like. That it will become obvious between now and the Republican Convention in July that, having won the mantle, there's no way he can actually execute, being so mired in legal problems, and so addled in his thinking.
As of [s]1Feb24[/s][18Mar24[] the "great business man" will be, in effect, cash poor whining squatting & shitting his old man diapers on a pile of fire-sale depreciating assets & compounding civil lawsuit debts ...
Yeah, Putin's Bitch f*cked around and is finding out! :lol:
I wouldn’t put it past him to run as an independent or Patriots Party or something like that, but there will be no need: the voters will vote him in as a Republican.
Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
All right then, you're on. I bet $10 at 5:1 odds. So $50 to you if you're right in either case. And yes, I'll be VERY happy to pay it, because I hope you're right on both counts.
[Edit: personal bets are probably looked down on here, so how about this instead: I'll donate $50 to TPF if you're right, and you donate $10 if I'm right. Deal?]
Trump’s candidacy is not official until the Nominating Convention in July in Milwaukee. And a lot could happen between now and then. At the 2016 convention there was a last-minute push by Never Trumpers that almost made it to a floor vote, and if you haven’t noticed, he’s picked up a lot of Republican enemies since then.
So if he comes out of the Convention the nominee, then I pay up.
It’s possible he will have been convicted in one of the felony cases he’s facing. While it’s true that (inexplicably) this doesn’t disqualify him, it will at least have some bearing on the Conference decision. (imagine the headline: ‘Republicans stick with Trump despite two impeachments and criminal conviction.’)
Reply to Mikie I still refuse to believe in Trump. Believing that he will win feeds the demon. In reality he’s leading what used to be the Republican Party into oblivion.
I get it. I’m far from a supporter, of course. But I have no faith in the Republican Party, and am beaten down with the facts— which is that his supporters are large enough and loyal enough to push him through almost anything.
Trump’s candidacy is not official until the Nominating Convention in July in Milwaukee.
The Republican National Committee has been taken over by Trump. Party Chairman Michael Whatley was picked by Trump. Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, will serve as the co-chair and was elected by unanimous vote.
If there has been nothing so far that has distanced the party from Trump I don't know what would. His trials are being treated as an asset. Us against everyone including the whole judicial system that they are claiming has treated him unfairly.
Reply to Fooloso4 I know all of that. Furthermore, they were forced to drop a motion to firewall off any Party finances from Trump's enormous legal expenses. He completely owns the Republican Party, and if and when he fails at the polls or is incarcerated, they'll be so much the worse for it. (In fact for Democrats, Trump might end up being boon rather than a bane.)
Well, Trump got a 10 day extension as well as only needs to post a smaller bond, 175 million dollars from 464 million dollars.
Last few weeks so many legal YouTubers were explaining how Trump's ask to the court of appeal had basis in law whatsoever, never been done etc.
Likely Trump will be able to secure this smaller bond; it is at least claiming he will. Definitely easier than half a billion.
Seems all these legal cases are going to be dragged out until the election, since as long as Trump can post bond then the appeal processes can go on for quite some time.
I think the main thing is that Trump will likely now avoid the embarrassing seizing of his properties. That would have been a near fatal blow, as it would just look "weak" which is not a good look for him as a rich "strong man" type (as far as his base is concerned).
Reply to boethius :lol: I'm not even a "liberal" (or member of the Democratic Party). Pro tip: stop disinforming yourself with FOX Noise (or other MAGA media).
Again, here's an undisputable Conservative, ex-GOP campaign consultant/operative you (& @NOSA2) can learn something from (other than "alternative facts") ...
?boethius :lol: I'm not a even "liberal" (or member of the Democrat>c Party). Pro tip: stop disinforming yourself with FOX Noise (or other MAGA media).
Please do provide a definition of liberal and explain how you aren't a liberal and aren't in a liberal echo chamber at the moment.
You post that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls (maybe it's true) and get back to you that he's in fact gaining support, and then you respond that polls aren't predictive until within 2 months of the election but continue to insist that Trump is losing support due to random pundit hot takes.
That's called being in a echo chamber of only considering what you want to hear.
As for FOX News and MAGA, I'm not American, I don't live in the US. I live in a country that has free health care, free upper education, sends pregnant women a box of essential baby supplies (while paying maternity leave even if you've never worked). I happen to be a citizen by one of my parents, but I choose to live here because it's about as far democratically left as you can get on the planet, and I want to go even further to the left supporting salary caps, nationalization of any monopoly, UBI to replace the patch work of social security, direct democracy and so on.
Although studious of Marx, I wouldn't call myself a Marxist for the simple fact Marx believed industrial capitalism brought some good things, whereas I view industrial capitalism as a grave error from the start that has brought nothing but industrial wars, loss of humanity, loss of community and loss of nature.
So I'm no ally of Trump or the Maga movement.
However, because of the total corruption of the American elites I do see why Trump is appealing to a lot of Americans (appealing enough to win the presidency once and win the latest primary).
It's just objective fact needed to understand US politics, which as a Canadian, it's a national sport to follow and shake our heads at.
I also honestly don't see how the neocons are better than Trump, and I honestly think Trump is better for the world than Biden and the usual suspects (of a long list of war crimes, including participation in this latest literal genocide).
Although I do not believe the dictum that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' holds true in all cases, I do think it's worth entertaining when it comes to Trump. Trump is in a fight with some of the most powerful and evil networks of people the world has seen in arguably over half a century.
The old fat orange f*cker's latest grift – launched during Holy Week no less – is a $60 "Trump Bible" for gullible, faux-Christian, "Trump sneakers"-wearing MAGA cultists. You can't make this stooopid stuff up. :lol:
Reply to 180 Proof Somehow I picture him coming upon a large consignment of misprinted bibles about to be discarded and he just has the cover glued on.
And you are entitled to your conspicuously uninformed, spectator's opinion, sir/mam.
Again, you state that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls to inform myself whether this is really true or not, and turns out he's not losing support.
Information that you then dismiss in favour of random pundit hot takes because polls aren't predictive.
... Well are random pundit hot takes based on Republican primary voting more predictive?
Feel free to inform us, to use your language.
As for spectator opinion; we all participate in the American empire, so it's hardly spectating. But even if it was a spectators position, you'd still need to justify why it's less worthy to consider. In more than a few cases spectators can far more easily discern what's going on than participants.
Again, you state that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls to inform myself whether this is really true or not, and turns out he's not losing support.
HarisX has Trump +2 in one poll and even in another.
Leger conducted two polls both with Trump +4.
Beacon Research/Shaw & Company Research has Trump +6, +5 and +5 in three polls.
Quinnipiac University has Trump +1 in one poll and Biden +3 in another concurrent poll.
The numbers could be different, could be exactly as you say that Trump is losing support and I'd go check and see the polls confirm what you say and come back and be all like "yep, Trump is tanking".
However, what the polls actually say, what multiple expert groups in trying to gauge public opinion conclude based on data, is that Trump is gaining support.
I understand you don't like it, but welcome to the real world.
Here's (a link to post with youtube discussing) why an explosion of terroristic political violence is more likely than not after Biden is reelected this fall (or even sooner in June/July when Criminal Defendent-1 is convicted of dozens of felonies in Manhattan) ...
?boethius :lol: I'm not even a "liberal" (or member of the Democrat>c Party). Pro tip: stop disinforming yourself with FOX Noise (or other MAGA media).
Says the bore who goes around commenting on discussions he’s not involved in to demonstrate his self-righteousness as an empathic communicator. That existence must be a healthy one indeed, I’m sure.
– a historically-informed US voter's perspective on the pending US presidential election of 2024.
The conversation is:
1. You claim Trump is losing support
2. I go check your claim against the polls
3. Your claim doesn't check out, so you move the goal posts to polling doesn't matter but Trump is still losing support because a large, but still minor, amount of Republicans didn't back Trump in the primaries.
4. I point out you're obviously living in a liberal media bubble where claims.
5. You then deny being in anyway a liberal, but refuse to provide a definition of liberal of which you are not, all while trying to accuse me of being an American conservative (which I'm happy to not only deny the charge but actually explain what I am instead of being an American conservative).
6. Instead of learning something from being totally wrong, you then just move your ad hominem to me being a spectator and that somehow disqualifies my participating on this forum (mostly run and maintained by Europeans, from what I gather); not clear why being not-American is disqualifying, just does for some reasons (aka. random walls you erect to maintain your echo chamber, instead of going out and building a real wall that matters to protect America!! Shame on you.).
7. I point out that your new claims have nothing to do with your first claim; if polls don't matter much until 1-2 months before the election, ok, but what's your evidence that primary votes do matter? Considering Trump won in 2016 with an important faction of Republican #Nevertrumpers. To which your evidence to explain this hodgepodge of inconsistent claims is random YouTubers that represent said liberal media bubble.
So ok, I get it, you want to live in your self-identified not-liberal echo chamber where Trump has no chance of winning and you feel the need to bring your echo chamber into this forum for further validation.
Reply to boethius I wouldn't try to tease this one out. Not necessarily a comment about 180, but these types of political discussions are basically snowballs. No one keeps track of their claims, everyone just ends up yelling at each other and nothing is achieved.
I initially expected better of this type of forum, but politics gonna politic i guess. Twitter nonsense is inescapable when its political talk.
?boethius I wouldn't try to tease this one out. Not necessarily a comment about 180, but these types of political discussions are basically snowballs. No one keeps track of their claims, everyone just ends up yelling at each other and nothing is achieved.
I'm keeping track.
Not out of personal or philosophical interest, but moral and civic duty.
And not because anything said on this forum is of any monumental political consequence, but rather to develop strategies for dealing with bad faith debate.
We are, in my view, repeating the circumstances of the original development of Western philosophy arising out of, and in opposition to, sophistry.
Precisely due to democratization of the public sphere in Greek democratic traditions (though none of them are actually democratic in a modern definition, more just large aristocracies, still far more democratic than top down rule).
This democratization of the public sphere in the Greek context was due to the Agora where all citizens could talk. For us cause of this is the internet. In between similar accrued with the printing press and pamphleteering.
Whenever the public sphere is democratized there is first dominance of bad faith tactics because people haven't learned yet to deal with them. In the greek context philosophy emerges; anyone can say anything but there are methods to separate truth from falsehood, better than no method. In the renaissance journalism emerges; anyone can write anything about what's happening anywhere, so we need people and institutions that build up a reputation to have an a priori set of probable facts (not all true, but at least a starting point to apply the reasoning methods bequeathed to us).
Today, anyone can copy and paste what the reputable journalistic institutions write, destroying their business model and undermining the entire system of public discourse built up since the invention of the printing press. Likewise, anyone can make an audio / visual emotional appeal promoting anything directly to the entire public.
This is a short summary of the history (there's also radio and television), but the point is that we're in a discursive environment where bad faith arguments dominate, exactly as you say everything political is just a snow ball fight.
In the previous philosophy forum, in the "before times" of the internet where television talking heads were still referring to everything on the internet as "blogs" and noting what was on "blogs" simply to post of it's irrelevant whatever it is, I focused on philosophical topics. This was literally 20 years ago and I was in my formative years, so genuinely didn't know if my beliefs held up to scrutiny (and of course they didn't and required a lot of reformulation). I then went off to accomplish my purpose and unfortunately the forum was disappeared from the internet.
This new forum emerged, public discourse degraded due to the above processes, and I just so happened to have gained considerable amount of experience debating with bad faith actors as corporate board director and oft times CEO. People will come up with the craziest shit when they want to under-deliver, underserved money or intellectual property, and managing corporations involves dealing with a considerable amount of bad faith.
Discerning good from bad faith, and how to deal with each, I would go so far as to say nearly entirely summarizes what management is about. Ipsofacto, seemed an additional dutiful purpose to join this forum to further develop and demonstrate methods of debating bad faith actors.
For the strategies appropriate to good faith and bad are not the same. The first thing a bad faith actor will do is take advantage of your ill adapted good faith habits. For example, if you're only accustomed to good faith debate (with friends and family and class mates and colleagues and so on) which is most of the time in real life, you'll likely have all sorts of bad habits when it comes to dealing with bad faith actors. For example, in good faith debate you assume your opponent seeks the truth as much as yourself, has at face value as credible premises as your own, and is speaking what they genuinely believe to be true. In short, in a good faith debate you pay a significant amount of respect to your interlocutor. Once you get into a management position of any significance, you immediately realize that a bad faith actor will take advantage of all of these good faith debate habits to harm you and people you're responsible as well as the entire world. It is not an intellectual debate, it is a conflict in which winning is important.
How do you win against a bad faith actor (often highly paid lawyers in a corporate context)?
First rule: respect is earned. Respect is earned by being good faith. If someone's good faith with me, I'll be good faith with them. If someone's bad faith with me, I will not be bad faith with them but I won't give them the benefits I extend to those of good faith either. Rather, I will, entirely legally and metaphorically, get my thumbs into their eyes and squeeze until they desist from attacking me, and the interests I represent, any further. I won't give them any ground whatsoever (i.e. I'll make them do the work of proving even those things that I know to happen to be actually true), I won't give them any respect (i.e. I won't assume their positions are on face value as credible as my own and continuously call out their bad intentions and deceptive practices), and above all I will make them understand I will never stop (i.e. they can't tire me out and I'll go to what would be, for many, irrational lengths in any quarrel: time, effort, pain, suffering, is of no consequence compared to satisfaction).
In short, if you want to deal with the bad faith actors of the world you must be, to them, a monster from the deep.
Transposing these methods to political public debate is my project here. We are in a time where everyone must become CEO's, unless we are to be ruled by our inferiors.
Well, whenever someone denigrates the forum, I am always skeptical of these claims of irrelevancy. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. You're here, I'm here, a bunch of other clever people are here, we can't know who's lurking in the shadows. Honest clever people do seek out analysis that can withstand scrutiny from opposing view points, and I always ask where there is a better forum of such debate and I never get an answer. Of course you have to be peculiar to actually participate in the debate, but maybe less peculiar and more important people, the non-weirdos as you say, come and watch and learn something. Maybe not, who knows.
However, my project isn't simply to engage with bad faith debaters here but to build up examples of the method of dealing with bad faith debaters in the context of political discourse.
I suppose the next step is to write a book or something and try to make the knowledge more accessible. For now, the forum permits creating material for the project in a reasonable amount of time, due to the stewardship of the moderators. And why does the moderators work make these sorts of discussion feasible to begin with? Because they get rid of bad faith actors (without purging their good faith political opponents and so create an echo chamber) that would simply destroy the space of discussion as their next bad faith tactic as a retort to being demonstrated to be and faith. So, the mere example of there being entirely opposed views "allowed to exist" here on the forum and the world doesn't end and actual debate between people who disagree can then take place, is as valuable a lesson as what approach to bad faith tactics are effective within the discursive battle field.
Well, whenever someone denigrates the forum, I am always skeptical of these claims of irrelevancy. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. You're here, I'm here, a bunch of other clever people are here, we can't know who's lurking in the shadows.
I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world.
I suppose the next step is to write a book or something and try to make the knowledge more accessible. For now, the forum permits creating material for the project in a reasonable amount of time, due to the stewardship of the moderators.
So, the mere example of there being entirely opposed views "allowed to exist" here on the forum and the world doesn't end and actual debate between people who disagree can then take place, is as valuable a lesson as what approach to bad faith tactics are effective within the discursive battle field.
Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier.
The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.
The one outlier is Wisconsin, where Biden leads by 3 points on the multiple-candidate ballot, and where the two candidates are tied in a head-to-head matchup."
I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world.
That seemed to me your point: that the forum is populated by weirdos and therefore that undermine my project, either due to a lack of reach or then engaging with weirdos is not representative, and so missing the mark of relevancy due to either or both.
My retort to that is that who knows what relevance the forum in itself has to global society, who visits and where those visitors then go and what they do and butterfly effect and all that. Perhaps it's irrelevant in any direct impact on society and policy makers, perhaps not. And my second point being that the project is anyways intended to have a second phase of writing a book or blog more accessible to the general public in anywise.
Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier.
This wasn't in retort to you, just emphasizing what I presume is common ground.
I also am not claiming my project will have some profound effect on society. It's entirely possible our civilization is completely doomed and talking at this point in history will have little effect on outcomes. Again, I think we'd agree that to what extent that's likely, and regardless of whether we agree at all on how likely it is, that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can.
"After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre is probably the best analysis that I've encountered of the discursive collapse of Western society, and his conclusion is basically the problem is unsolvable. He makes a compelling case but I suppose we should try to solve it anyways; give it a go, at least verify he is in fact correct.
that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can.
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? Too many ideas?
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter?
There's of course a difference between refuting duties one does not see do any good or then outweighed by other considerations or then one would perform the duty if there was reasonable incentive and disincentive binding everyone to do likewise; there's a difference between these positions and refuting all duties altogether. Usually when duties are discussed we're talking about things that are debatable on these various grounds, but the position of no duties at all is quite extreme: there'd be no duty of any kind to children under any circumstances such as the example above, no duty to stop the Nazis carrying out a genocide, no duty to refrain from serial murder and rape for that matter, and so on for all the most heinous acts that we may list and agree upon.
So, agreed we could continue on this topic on another thread, but I am curious if your position really is doubting all duties of any kind.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'?
I do not think the West is succeeding, so again perhaps a discussion for another conversation, but to summarize my view I do not view an unsustainable system as successful. Trading short term performance for long term survival is not a successful strategy, but entirely illusory.
For example, if you take methamphetamines to outperform your peers at work, it may appear you are very successful in the short term by working nearly 24/7, but as soon as the drug takes its toll and let's say you don't quit but just keep increasing the meth dose to keep performing until an overdose resulting in death or permanent disability, no one would consider this a "success"; no one would make a speech at your wake explaining that you were extremely successful and exemplary due to performing at a high level for a short period of time and everyone should do likewise.
The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability.
Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it.
I'll try to transcribe some key points from "After Virtue" to illuminate this point of view and what the problem is, but the title itself may give some impression of the core thesis.
The problem is not too many ideas but rather an inability to convert good ideas to good policy.
To give one of the most significant examples, in the 1960s to the 1980s it was not in dispute the "polluter pays" principle. Even Milton Friedman taking the pretty extreme "greed is good" position, agreed that the polluter should pay, that if a power station over here is dirtying your shirt over there then the power station should pay to clean your shirt.
There was a general agreement in principle of how society should respond to facts. If a given pollution is factual then certainly the polluter should pay for the clean up. And it's even easy to see why this principle was not even controversial as obviously you can't just dump trash on your neighbours property and have them pay to clean it up (regardless if it was an accident or on purpose or a side-effect of doing some legitimate thing like pruning your tree): you'll need to pay to clean up your trash. Simple and obvious and a widely agreed principle in which social policy can be implemented and updated.
The dispute at that time was on the facts. All while agreeing the polluter should of course pay, Friedman simply didn't agree that things like power stations produced pollution that did any harm: smog was. a natural phenomenon that even the native Americans talked about.
Likewise, even more generally, 50 years ago there was general agreement that we of course due have a duty to care for the earth, and therefore the disagreements on what to do were factual: how best to care for the earth?
The breakdown of these agreements in principle result in society unable to resolve problems and implement long term coherent policy.
The proximate cause of this erosion of "bare minimum social cohesion" is lobbies that go to work leveraging money to prop up a position that is simply intellectually lost. No one today repeats Friedman's theory that smog is a natural phenomenon that simply has nothing to do with coal power generation, but the fossil lobby can just replace one terrible unfounded theory with 3 new ones.
However, the ultimate cause of the situation, what lobbies are able to exploit, is the loss of generally agreed virtues that were previously supported by religion.
And Trump is a pretty good example of this theory playing out, as in the before times where generally agreed virtues were important to society there would be simply no way a person like Trump could compete in the political sphere, but "After Virtue" it is entirely feasible as there is no longer any expectation for anyone to be virtuous; for example if you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money ... well, why wouldn't you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money? We all want sex don't we? We all want to coverup our indiscretions don't we? The empathy of Western society today, at the end of the day, is with Trump being "a boss" and using money to satisfy his desires. Trump is the penultimate consumer: willing and able to consume even the immaterial political prestige that is the foundation of civil society.
Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter?
I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion.
Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it.
Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people.
Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing.
Western Culture would, surely, allow for an adaptation and evolution of society following the, lets say, dismantling of a current paradigm. This seems to have happened several times in the last 500 years or so. Major, major changes in governance and infrastructure seems inevitable. We're in the midst of a Kuhn revolution!
FWIW: my 2024 "election predictions" (based on (A) electoral trends 2017-2023 completely favoring Dems; (B) SCOTUS & MAGA-GOP taking away women's reproductive rights / criminalizing abortions; (C) consistent trend of 20% of GOP primary voters rejecting Loser-1 even after Haley, DeSantis & Christie suspended their campaigns; (D) Criminal Defendant-1 convicted in NY by June/July; (E) benefits of Biden's economy broadly felt by September; (F) etc):
1. Biden-Harris reelected
-gets 5-7 million more votes than Loser-1again (even with lower turnout than 2020)
-gets more (suburban) women voters
-gets more under 35 year old voters
-gets more minorities voters
-gets more independent voters
-wins 4-5 out of 7 "swing states" (plus 1-2 more "red states" (e.g. NC))
2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)
3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain)
update:
Third-party candidates RFK, J. Stein & C. West collectively will be a non-factor in the outcome of the 2024 election.
gets more independent voters
-wins 5-7 out of 13 "swing states" (and 1-2 "red states" (e.g. NC) again like 2020)
2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)
3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain)
In terms of independents, I’m not so sure anymore. But the question is will it be enough, given the goofy electoral college?
I’m thinking he loses NC and Georgia, and probably Arizona. But he wins the blue wall — making swingy states like New Hampshire and even Nevada very important. I’d watch Florida too, although I don’t think there’s a great chance there anymore.
You’re way off with the senate. Looks like the Dems are gonna lose that chamber, unfortunately. Manchin’s seat is an easy flip, and Montana and Ohio it’s very hard to say but looks like Republican edge. Not to mention Arizona. I see republican +2 but if not then democrats 50-50 at best.
The house I agree— I think dems take it. New York being de-gerrymandered alone should do it.
(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.)
I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion.
I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position: that a police officer could plant evidence on you to make his job easier, a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong, they had no duty to do otherwise; of course you may not like any of these things and want them to desist but that would just be your own feelings about the matter which are no better than theirs.
I will make a thread outlining and defending MacIntyre's critique of this sort of emotivist position and we could discuss if further , but if there's some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it.
I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug*
The Western enlightenment project has failed. Again, MacIntyre I think succinctly explains why. And it is no coincidence that he appears in my response here again, as it is basically because of emotivism (do what you feel) that virtues become lost and society falls apart.
I disagree with MacIntyre on a few pedantic points, but that the West has entered a new dark ages he clearly foresaw before I was even born.
I don't now have time to transcribe all I would like, but I'll do so for one passage I think particularly apt for this conversation:
After Virtue, MacIntyre:
The Supreme Court in Bakke, as on occasion in other cases, played the role of a peacemaker or truce-keeping body by negotiating its way through an impasse of conflict, not by invoking our shared moral first principles. For our society as a whole has none.
What this brings out is that modern politics cannot be a matter of genuine moral consensus. And it is not. Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means, and Bakke was an engagement whose antecedents were at Gettysburg and Shiloh. The truth on this matter was set out by Adam Ferguson: 'We are not to expect that the laws of any country are to be framed as so many lessons of morality .... Laws, whether civil or political, are expedients of policy to adjust the pretensions of parties, and to secure the peace of society. The expedient is accommodated to special circumstances ...' (Principles of Moral and Political Science ii, 144). The nature of any society therefore is not to be deciphered from its laws alone, but from those understood as an index of its conflicts. What our laws show is the extent and degree to which conflict has to be suppressed.
Yet if this is so, another virtue too has been displaced. Patriotism cannot be what is was because we lack in the fullest a sense of patria. The point that I am making must not be confused with the commonplace liberal rejection of patriotism. Liberals have often—not always—taken a negative or even hostile attitude to patriotism, partly because their allegiance is to values which they take to be universal and not local and particular, and partly because of a well-justified suspicion that in the modern world patriotism is often a facade behind which chauvinism and imperialism are fostered. But my present point is not that patriotism is good or bad as a sentiment, but that the practice of patriotism as a virtue is in advanced societies no longer possible in the way that it once was. In any society where government does not express or represent the moral community of the citizens, but is instead a set of institutional arrangements for imposing a bureaucratized unity on a society which lacks genuine moral consensus, the nature of political obligation becomes systematically unclear. Patriotism is or was a virtue founded on attachment primarily to a political and moral community and only secondarily to the government of that community; but it is characteristically exercised in discharging responsibility to and in such a government. Where however the relationship of government to the moral community is put in question both by the changed nature of government and the lack of moral consensus in the society, it becomes difficult any longer to have any clear, simple and teachable conception of patriotism. Loyalty to my country, to my community—which remains unalterably a central virtue—becomes detached from obedience to the government which happens to rule me.
Which doesn't contain or summarize all of MacIntyre's criticism of Western society, just particularly topical.
More fundamentally, I do get that Western society allows you to do what you feel like most of the time, even enjoying the pleasure of a sort of general Western enthusiasm or even patriotic warm glow of a sort all while feeling bound by no duties towards it.
When I have more time I shall make a thread dedicated to the topic, but I hope it seems at least evoked from the above passage that a society in which there are no virtues or duties genuinely felt by the majority of the citizenry, is a society that a society that is not going to be able to perpetuate itself (without severe crisis in which duties and virtues sufficient for the maintenance of the institutions of society and the natural habitat reemerge).
For now, it is to me truly remarkable that people manage to pedestalize the West for making relatively few people "feel good" for a relatively short period of time while destroying entire ecosystems and species, not to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism.
Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people.
That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause.
Where we differ is that you seem to feel this is laudable, perhaps even wise, whereas I characterized it as "most damning" of all (as in worse than the people at least engaged on one side or another).
Again, I can completely empathize that as long as the institutions of society are taken for granted, then as soon as politics "sours" it is far more pleasant to simply ignore politics altogether. However, if enough people paying attention and acting in good faith is required for the maintenance of those institutions (not to mention the natural world) and the consequences of their destruction (and the natural world) is quite enormous and unpleasant, I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult (of course excusing who ignore politics for legitimate reasons, such as being wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there).
Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing.
Glad my contribution is appreciated.
However, what you are responding to is but the briefest summary of the problem MacIntyre is addressing, basically his starting point.
MacIntyre also doesn't require virtues to be based on religious sentiment, just that obviously it was for thousands of years. Of course it's a debatable point as such, but MacIntyre's account of the virtues is not religious but a tradition starting historically in heroic society (i.e. those kinds of society's that existed at the start of written history). MacIntyre is explicitly Aristotelian.
Now, what is a virtue and vice, and whether an individual should be virtuous or not, is one debate, but what should be clear is that a society devoid of all duties and virtues cannot possibly last.
For example, let's say there's an invasion and you're feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. If no one in society felt any such duty nor possessed the prerequisite virtues then no matter how many people feel it would be preferable that someone deal with the problem of the invasion, it won't be dealt with.
Point being, even if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare, certainly you can recognize that maintaining such conditions requires honest good faith people performing various duties with sufficient virtues to be successful at them, and once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order.
Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way.
I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position
I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of.
a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong
Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense.
They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation.
That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause.
Which entirely invalidates the claims made above, so I'm unsure where to go from here. Your accepting this premise says to me you can't support your previous claims. Odd feeling, tbh.
This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way.
ot to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism.
I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here.
I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult
Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*. Quoting boethius
feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles.
I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation.
if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare
I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.
I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense.
once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order
I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. The West is not cogent (ideologically) enough for this to matter anyway. The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour.
How we deal with things like Mental Illness is where it gets interesting, imo. We might have something very interesting to discuss there.
Hey mate, thank you for your thorough reply. Some of my utterances below will seem combative. THey are not - we just disagree in ways that look combative. But, your incredulousness at my position should at least allow you to understand that however we disagree, I simply do not care. You're giving me the time of day and I enjoy locking horns in this way.
I don't know about you but I came here for an argument.
Be at ease, you're clearly debating in good faith, which warrants respect.
My disrespect is reserved for people arguing in bad faith, which I define in a philosophical or political context arguing positions they do not actually believe; i.e. not arguing on substance but simply deploying a wide range of propaganda tactics to manipulate perceptions of said substance.
I ask you to clarify your position to both be confident you're arguing in good faith but also to understand your position. Most emotivists or moral relativists, in my experience, generally have moral absolute limits and are just arguing plurality within a limited "nice and acceptable" moral terrain. Which is a perfectly coherent view to have, I am myself an emotivist and moral relativists in this sense, but it is clearly a moral absolutist position in which some plurality and diversity and various internally consistent positions, even if at odds, are perfectly acceptable; as you are clearly aware, it is the moral absolutist framework which is the far more important foundation in such a theory in which adding some compatible plurality can be pretty trivial; such as, in stoicism (my moral point of view), if moral goodness is the effort towards the good then pretty much any expressed moral system in attempting to do so, as either a linguistic / notional system or then simply doing things expressing the moral content, is morally laudable, whatever it is (however wrong it is from some epistemologically omniscient point of view) as long as it's the result of genuine moral effort towards the good (taken as either or revelatory a priori knowledge in stoicism: i.e. once one is ware of there are better and worse decisions, one is duty bound to try to make good decisions resulting in a moral journey throughout the cosmos in which advancing on one's journey, regardless of the starting point of present situation, is what is of moral worth)—to show my cards, as it were, in reciprocity to you showing yours.
I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of.
I ask for clarification just to be sure my understanding of your position is correct.
The best way to clarify a moral position is to consider the social consequences (as morality is mostly, though not entirely, socially contingent).
However, social consequence is only a clarifying and cannot possibly be an evaluative factor of moral positions and theories. For, obviously we cannot evaluate what social consequences are good or bad without first committing to a moral theory to make such an evaluation. To say this moral or political scheme is wrong because it has these or those social consequences is not a complete argument without first establishing the moral scheme required to make such an evaluation, which if we happen to already know is true then it is trivial that anything incompatible with it claimed to be good will be evaluated to be bad.
Of course, it just so happens that the vast majority of people operate this way as they are unconscious of their foundational moral or evaluative framework in which they evaluate any new moral claims. Therefore, if you take a moral scheme for granted the fastest way to resolve the acceptability of any new moral claim is to work out it's social consequences and decide if they are good or bad based on what one already believes.
The reason I ask so much clarification of emotivist and moral relativistic positions is that most people in modern society explicitly believe they have such a theory while implicitly believing in moral absolute limits (in which case those moral absolute limits are far more interesting and the actual heart of the debate in such a case).
Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense.
I think it's pretty clear we'll need a new thread to go deeper here. I should have time this week to transcribe MacIntyre's core objections to emotivism / moral relativism, as I'm sure you'd agree his position is worth considering and it would anyways benefit the forum to gain insight into such a powerful thinker. I do not actually agree with MacIntyre's overall framework, but my own position is only a slight upgrade in strength of several of MacIntyre's statements; basically in some foundational places MacIntyre hesitates to simply make an absolute claim all while denying he's simply made moral relativism more complicated. His sort of "riding the line" and very Buddhist "neither is true but it is true" I think is worth considering (and his whole argument is a brilliant insight into how society works and I am 100% convinced by his epistemological claim that moral content can only develop and make sense within a moral tradition), but at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so.
Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake.
If you mean by mistake using social consequences to evaluate moral positions (i.e. that moral consequences I find unsavoury for exterior reasons is a valid argument against a moral claim, without first establishing my moral theory can be taken to be true to begin with), then I hope that has been clarified above.
If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument. It's only an argument if you also agree that those consequences are unacceptable and you are not assigning equal moral merit to those consequences as compared to others.
They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation.
Well if your invoking some sort of social contract that is to me a moral absolutist position (that people should do what they give their word to do, as a moral duty): i.e. the cop should fulfil his duty of honest impartiality and not plant evidence because he's accepted that duty, the surgeon should finish the surgery because of the hypocritical oath, and serial murderer has (probably) entered into all sorts of explicit or implicit agreements with society to respect the law and not go around murdering people.
If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either. You can give your word because you feel like it and are of equal moral weight in breaking your word because you feel like that too.
Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*.
This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis.
Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence:
I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation.
In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist.
Libertarian oriented emotivists will usually try to solve this problem with hazard pay—fighting a war is dangerous and so soldiers are compensated for it—while ignoring that obviously this wouldn't work in practice for two reasons: first, if every soldier demanded market based hazard pay it would simply be unaffordable to have an army, but second, and more problematic, hazard pay in the market deals with risks in which the plan is not to die (there are no jobs in which the advertisement is "you'll definitely, probably be killed" but we'll compensate you for that), but for a war to be prosecuted successfully almost always involves plans where the risk of death is acute and so a market solution would require increasing the hazard pay as the risk increases. Not only is any actual military far from being hazard pay based, but nearly all states reserve the right of conscription which is as far from compensating soldiers for risk as is possible. If people have no duties then of course they should abandon their posts as soon as the risk to their person warrants it.
This may not be your case, but at least for libertarians "free riding" they view as a bad thing and it usually causes them problems to become aware they are free riding on other people willing to self-sacrifice for their security and comfort all while they claim any self-sacrifice (even in the form of taxation) is not only not a duty but many go so far as to say is evil. In other words, for the market to exist in the first place requires a long list of institutions and whole host of individuals dedicated to refuse economically rational choices (abandon the battlefield as soon as the hazard pay doesn't cover the risk; take a bribe to rule in one party's favour as soon as soon the reward outweighs the risk of being caught by people equally rational and willing to take bribes, and so on).
I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case (libertarians generally have plenty of morally absolute positions such as theft is wrong and contracts are sacred and they are doing "good" by being self interested, and so on, and the cause of the problem above is in relying on soldiers doing in their view "bad" and entering into non-market based labour exchanges and willing to self-sacrificing, paying a life tax, for the benefit of the state and moochers, including people enjoying the fruits of market relations due to the maintenance of the state that makes those market relations possible).
I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here.
We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense".
However, by "sentiment" are you also referring to all the colonialism in the past? Aka. that the current distribution of wealth and power globally has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past?
This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way.
This is MacIntyre's starting thesis, so I will transcribe the key parts hopefully this week.
However, insofar as I've represented MacIntyre's position accurately, it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable. He's received criticism from many different schools and many other well respected philosophers and I have yet to hear the criticism that his arguments are laughably wrong. So we'll see if your claim here holds up.
As for the substance of your rebuttal, it's equally bold to simply assume society will simply muddle on despite ridiculous political stupidity. For example, if there was a general nuclear exchange started by the United States due to ridiculous political stupidity, would you evaluate this as a success?
Now, if your definition of success is just whatever happens (for example a nation is invaded, no one bothers to defend it as no one feels like it, they're all killed and this is successful because it happened), then seems there's no content in success or failure; anything that exists or ceases to exist represents success.
More fundamentally, if you have no moral standard, which seems implied in a position in which there's no duties to do anything, then how are you even judging success? So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful, and my feeling is just as good as yours. Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it.
What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do.
I didn't say anything about forcing.
The alternative to no one defending the interests of society and forcing people to, is a society in which duties are really believed to exist; soldiers feel bound to their duties because they think those duties are morally binding on them, not contingent on insofar as they feel like it or then their hazard pay (insofar as things aren't too hazardous and it makes economic sense). As described above, the moral tensions is if there's expectation soldiers (or anyone taking any risk to protect the interest of society) carry out duties all while denying there are any such duties.
I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.
I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense.
What's childish?
This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism. If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else.
It's easy to argue moral relativism if the only moral positions under consideration are those pre-selected by the society you live in as acceptable. However, that's no the implication of moral relativism. If every position is equally morally valid (or invalid, but result in equality) then implication is that a serial killer has just as valid a moral position as a honest and compassionate doctor.
You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing.
Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals. Pursuing pleasure by skipping a stone on a lake: acceptable, approved. Pursuing pleasure by torturing little children to death: unacceptable, not approved.
The position that there are no duties (as you say, you'd report child sexual abuse only if you felt like it and wouldn't consider it wrong to not-report it if you didn't feel like it; there's no duty to report crimes against children as there are no duties at all).
Now, if you're willing to "pay the cost", as MacIntyre put it, and just flatly say that though you are happy people perform various duties to maintain your situation of comfort that you feel good in but they are simply wrong if they performed those duties because they thought those duties were real and not because they "happened to feel like it", which seems to be what you're saying, then I fail to see how its childish to point out the consequences.
Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in.
Insofar as people "feel compelled" to actually perform duties due to the social consequences it is because of a history of society repeating to itself those duties are real: you should actually do them, you should actually reject a bribe as a judge and tell the truth as a witness. If those duties aren't real and people shouldn't feel compelled by them and people hear your message which clearly you are happy to share and then they see the light, then what's childish is to then simply assume that things would go on as before.
The adult position is to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome. Which in one comment you seem to accept, that no one has a duty to defend the country and so if no one happens to feel like doing that then there's no way to defend the country and so be it, but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish.
If no one has any duties, then it's clearly perfectly morally acceptable to just lazily go about your day and contribute nothing to the general welfare just as it's perfectly morally acceptable for soldiers to abandon their posts as soon as they don't feel like risking their lives any more. The only difference in the soldier case is your invoking the false dichotomy that the only alternative is to force people to serve (the alternative you leave out is people serving their country because they feel a duty to do so, that they believe is very real and if they didn't believe that they wouldn't continue on based on merely happening to feel like it).
If you fall back to social norms (that we expect a judge to refuse bribes and soldiers to follow orders) and so there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect, well the big incentive to conform to social norms that maintain society (not well by any stretch of the imagination, but not yet totally destroyed either) is the belief of others that those norms are real moral precepts. So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real. Which in a long list of cases is a good thing (according to the new norms of society) because it turns out the basis of those norms (slavery, racism, killing homosexuals, wife and child beating, and so on) weren't well supported: feelings changed and so what people felt compelled to do by social pressures also changed (in a process that is far from complete). However, the feelings changed (historically) not because people started to believe there are no moral truths at all but rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are.
I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential.
As I just explained, this is the philosophically naive position.
If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening.
However, there's a lot more fundamentally wrong with your statement here.
First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest. It is in the collective self-interest for a soldier to self-sacrifice (by explicitly jumping on a grenade or then just taking on extreme risk) but it is obviously not in their own self-interest (as their dead now).
This is the core problem of politics, essentially before any other as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice, starting with both facing extreme risk (risking life and safety for the "self-interest" of society) as well as refusing advantages (bribes and favouritism and so on) but is a tension that goes far deeper (for example we not only expect the judge to refuse bribes, we also expect the judge to put in the work required for a fair trial even if that goes against his self-interest to have a pleasant life or is in conflict to important, but not as important, duties to his own family, such as disappointing his spouse or children due to late nights considering the merits of the case at hand).
"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it).
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest. Collective is a bad word in Neo-liberal economics so they just ignored what they're doing: confusing collective-interest with self-interest to solve the problem of self-interest being in conflict with collective-interest in the first place; this problem is not solved by simply stating:
"a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest".
This is just wrong. A critical mass of a population, in pursuing their individual self-interest, can definitely act against their collective interest of both themselves and dependents. That is exactly what are environmental problems are: we have no collective interest to have a system in which pollution can be externalized, but we each have an individual interest to externalize the costs of our pollution in pursuing our own pleasures. We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories).
The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour.
Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected.
When you are perfectly sure, quite absolute, in that people have a duty to not interfere with others against their will.
So ok, "feelings" mean nothing, we have a quite strict absolute moral rule to abide by.
Fortunately, all the criticism above is still completely relevant, as your absolute moral rule doesn't really mean anything unless we (aka. a critical mass) have a duty to violate our own self interest in applying this standard to others on behalf of others violated by it (aka. maintain a government, police, prosecutors, judges or then analogous law-enforcement system), which in order to function require a long list of duties that go far beyond simply avoiding interfering with someone. Indeed, if that was the only rule then police and judges wouldn't interfere with the lives of people interfering with people (and there would be no police and judges).
Anyways, you could just say "I'm a libertarian" and so believe the rules that maintain market conditions are absolutely inviolable, the original acquisition of resources that created market conditions being unjustifiable is a "myth", and I want to free ride on soldiers sacrificing their self-interest without market based hazard pay, praise them to keep going all while knowing I (and others) are cheating them of just market relations by manipulating their naive natures.
We've had plenty of debated on libertarianism already, but it's always refreshing to have another: see how you solve the issue of taxes and democratic participation and corruption and externalities and so on without people having a duty to the collective interest under any circumstances (except of course to stop anyone interfering with you, then of course the entire mechanism of the state must be taken for granted to stop that).
Now, I still think we should discuss MacIntyre, but his argument is with actual emotivists and / or moral-relativists where there is no claim to absolutes whatsoever, they "pay the cost" as I've mentioned and simply accept the Nazis had as good claim to moral goodness as anyone else.
Libertarianism is basically agreeing with MacIntyre's framework, just joining the libertarian tradition instead of MacIntyre's Aristotelian "heroic society" tradition, which has prima-facie equal claim to moral justification in MacIntyre's framework. Where we could evaluate one tradition as "better than another", for example in this case libertarianism with Aristotelian heroic virtuism, would be in demonstrating inconsistency in one or the other position or then being able to solve moral dilemmas in one tradition that are insoluble in the other tradition.
Therefore, it is 100% MacIntyrish to pit MacIntyre's preferred moral tradition to yours (something similar to if not exactly libertarianism), or to mine (stoicism), and see if one seems superior to another and we may switch from or then amend our own tradition, all while avoiding moral relativism (we really did believe our tradition at the start was the best available and if that changes at the end then we really do believe that's an even better moral tradition).
at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so.
As I don't know A.Ms work, I'll take your word for it - but this actually exemplifies exactly what Im talking about. Taking a moral framework pigeon-holes the positions you're allowed to take, and what consittutes a virtue under it. I take no such position so it's somewhat Hard to respond. It all seems incoherent to me without first accepting that Morality is invented and obtains only between the margins of those frameworks.
It has. But the mistake in the previous seems to still be live, despite your acknowledgement. But, as with the bit you quoted, I could just be misunderstanding, so it's not too important.
If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument.
I'm unsure this has to do with my position. I would, in general, agree, but the social consequences have v little to do with my moral position. My intuitive reaction to them is what informs my moral position on any given act. I couldn't predict what I would think morally correct in a novel situation, for example. My intuitive reaction might include some consideration of the social consequences, but that doesn't support my moral, lets say, claim. The claim is just that it makes me uncomfortable, so I wouldn't do it and prefer others didn't. Because It makes me uncomfortable. No other reasons.
Well if your invoking some sort of social contract
I am not. I am invoking the (probably, largely ignored) fact that the surgeon has taken on the patient's emotional position. If they have not, and are a sociopath, your point would be apt for them. In this way, my personal moral position is just don't hire sociopaths as surgeons to avoid this problem. But that's mechanistic, not moral. The problem is moral and only exists in that I, personally think it sucks the surgeon did that.
If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either.
No, there is not. I don't invoke one. There is no duty. There is the fact that, upon hte patient's emotional state, completing the surgery successfully would be preferable. If the surgeon actually didn't go in sharing this state, then fine. Walk away. I don't care.
This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis.
I don't understand this passage, or it's genesis apparently. Suffice to say, I disagree. It might be another discussion, once I get across what you're doing with this part of your response. that society might end. And that might be good.
Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence:
Not at all. The quote you present immediately after this is my denying that it matters, or that there would be a 'crisis'. The society would end. So what?
In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist.
If people choose, collectively to do things, Great. I don't ascribe any duty to it at all. Society is cool. I have no other thoughts on it really.
I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case
I would say so, as all these objections sit well with me. I'm not a Libertarian. Quoting boethius
We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense".
Yep. I also 100% disagree with your framing of the situations you refer to. But, obviously, this is not hte place Apt for it**. I did anticipate this type of disagreement :P
has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past?
This is a bit bad-faithy-sounding. I said nothing of the kind, and intimated nothing of the kind. I spoke about hte emotional undercurrent of the discussions. Obviously it 'has to do' with past colonialism. Heydel-Mankoo covers this from the perspective of a colonised minority (maybe not hte right kind, though ;) ).
it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable.
I disagree ;) Particularly that these issues aren't really philosophical. He's ignoring empirical facts about the political state of most countries - the majority of people take no part, and are not involved. But, as I've not read him, I await your thread/s to discuss that bit further **
Im not sure why you're asking this. I don't think society 'succeeds' or not. It seems odd that your next passage is somehow a reductio to this position. Its not absurd at all. There is no objective measure of success, and I don't have the (socio-political) framework in place to assess the same way you do. Simple :) I could "simply" be wrong about that.
;) You'll need to figure out where I assessed 'success' in moral terms. I can't see it! If i have implied that, please explicitly point it out because I am uncomfortable with that, if it's the case.
So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful
This is wrong in terms of my position. I think it is. It isn't successful or unsuccessful. There is no ultimate goal or aim of Western society. It continues to move (forward, backward, whatever). Maybe you can use that as a yardstick in which case my position holds anyway. But that's not me. That's just a suggestion. I don't think it success or doesnt succeed. It just is, or isn't. I admit, entirely, that my asking your view on this was more a poke-the-bear than anything. Defend it failing. I don't think you did, on your own terms. But, that's because I don't recognise what would constitute success or failure in your account/s thus far.
Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it.
Yep. I've not called you 'wrong'. I think you're making a mistake in moral reasoning. That doesn't make you wrong - and in fact, could only be true if you were convinced of my position - which would negate that conviction :P This is why my position is consistent. It doesn't apply to anything but me and my actions.
If no one is willing, and it's morally right to defend the country and you're not inferring that conscription is morally acceptable there... then... What are you suggesting? That seems a dead end.
I take the rest of that passage to be incoherent in light of the above, so I wont touch it yet. Could entirely be me.
This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism.
What I'm reading as childish, is that it seems your passionate responses presuppose your moral framework. It seems your framework has to take account of your emotional positions. It seems you are enacting the exact same, let's say, discontinuity in your position, that you outlined about moral relativists near the top of the post.
If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else.
This is the childish mistake you are making. Your underlying point, I would reply to with "Yes. That's correct".
But the fact you've entered a value judgement on the part of your interlocutor is worrisome. I don't think it was laudable, or detestable. It happened. Does it make me, personally, extremely uncomfortable? Even repulsed? Yep. Which is probably what you want to know. But that's nothing but an emotional reaction to hearing certain information. For me that is absolute, in the sense that I can't, currently, feel another way. But that is a state of affairs. Not a moral claim.
You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing.
Correct. No issues. It makes me uncomfortable. I have nothing to appeal to in telling them no to do it, other than the potential consequences for them - reason with them. Would I bother? Maybe. If i were uncomfortable enough.
Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals.
I don't. I haven't presented any. You seem to be importing some upper-limit to your conceivable moral behaviour matrix and ascribing those limits to my position. I don't share them. I have limits of my comfort and pursuit of comfort occurs. These are arbitrary, as far as another person is concerned. But, by-and-large people share the same limits of comfort within a society, and so 'getting on with it' can occur without a shared 'moral' framework. This is, probably, what the West does well, compared with many other societies.
there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect
This one is troublesome because, prima facie, there shouldn't be. At least not beyond social consequences - which are pretty much arbitrary - and policy is just this, after collective deliberation. BUT, i would freely let you know that the idea of there being no consequences for certain actions makes me uncomfortable. Again, that's just a state of affairs. Not a moral claim. So, I dislike this, and it makes me uneasy, but I take it wholesale to be the case. Legal and social consequences are arbitrary, other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark.
Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in.
I don't know. It might be. But this has nothing to do witht eh position. It's just another speculative state of affairs. I might not like that society. So what?
The [s]adult position[/s] is to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome.
Please refrain from intimating that not sharing your position is somehow akin to be less developed. NOt becoming.
If that happens, it's perfectly acceptable. I don't think you're right, though. I didn't intimate that a society where no one performed duties would be good, or comfortable for me. I don't think anyone is obliged to do so and noted that we're lucky only humans are moral agents - this being because we appear to share the emotivist basis for our moral claims, being of the same species (I presume - brainstates being similar, or within a certain possible range)
but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish.
I really don't know what you're referring to here. My position is as you stated, and nothing else. If i've intimated some other position, ignore it. I don't see that I have, though.
It isn't a difference at all. It was baked-in to what you had said - I've tried to clarify this earlier in this comment reply, so I shall leave this. But, prior to any addressing my response, this is just plain wrong in terms of my position. Quoting boethius
because they feel a duty to do so
This is perfectly fine, but 'feeling a duty' doesn't mean on exists. That's a self-implication, and not at all a moral claim. I feel the duty not to let my sons die. That motivates me to act. I do not believe such a duty exists outside of what I just said about myself. If I cease to feel that way, the duty doesn't continue to obtain (well, sure, legally it does...)
So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real
Yes, it does. I understand what collective agreements are, and I see the consequences of not adhering to some of them. So I adhere to some of them, because I dont want the consequence. There is no duty to achieve it, it's what i want. But this isn't part of the discussion we're having. If I am right, then I am right. You need to explain cogent societies in my terms, rather than saying that my terms don't work because of a speculated failure.
rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are.
I reject, quite strongly, that incongruent suggestion. I don't think this is historically accurate or even reasonable. We've not really had these conversations without Divine intervention.
If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening.
This is entirely wrong. I am concerned about the consequences, for myself. I don't care if it doesn't affect me. And if all the people involved have the same view I do, great!
Even if I did, I would not be int he free-riding group. That requires, on your own terms, that I hold hold absolute moral limits. I do not.
First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest.
Not at all. If you've conflated them, or I've misspoken sure. I have been very clear - neither issue changes the moral considerations I hold. There is no bait and switch. THe same reasoning holds for both. This may actually be what you're missing: If the collective emotional position on something is X, then policy will be X and that's fine. It's not a moral proclamation other than to say "most people here think this is wrong". Cool man. That's what actually happens in life. What do you think referenda are for?
as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice
That's true, but this is not synonymous with 'society' and says nothing about morality. Its a state of affairs. A small-enough society would not require this. If everyone's moral outlook aligns, no one sacrifices. They are all doing what is right, on their own terms, to protect that society. This is exactly what I am discussing as is the case. This goes directly to the heart of my position: That whicih makes one uncomfortable, one would avoid. If one is comfortable with the duty to defend one's country, at extreme risk, then great. No sacrifice made. You are doing the correct thing, in your own terms, making you comfortable. Your life isn't a sacrifice in this context. It would be for me, because I don't owe that duty (on my terms, that is).
"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it).
Any case I can't think of where this is actually true (rare) yep. That's fine. Don't see the issue. Quoting boethius
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest.
Unless what you're trying to say is that any individual who comprises a collective has no self interest what do you think the Collective interest is? What does it consist in? Purely the survival of the collective? That can't be right. I hear you, and Im not muddling the two 'interests' up here, I just cannot work out how you're getting 'collective' interest abstracted from the interest of the collected individuals. Emergence doesn't seem to me to be apt for that.
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities
Yep ahah agree there. Goes to the above retort about collective interest (what even is that?). Getting a little confused with how some of these responses run in to each other.. .
Is not a collective in this sentence. It is merely a number of individuals pursuing their self-interests . You are arguing against something I did not say. The 'critical mass' is not intended to 'represent' society. It is just more than 50% of the individuals within it (or, whatever the critical mass would be for the moral outlook of the society to change). It doesn't speak about any collective interest. But also, I don't care. Taken in your terms, the rest of the quote defeats the objection anyway. That possibility is so incredibly infintessimal I can't take it seriously. No significant portion of any society will start raping and pillaging because there are no laws. But if they did, fine.
We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories).
This seems to indicate you are now just making things up about my positions? I recognise nothing of myself here. I don't see that hyte problem needs solving. If enough people want it solved, nice. Im in that camp.
Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected.
I read this quote (what you quoted of me) and it made me cringe. I reject that entirely. I think it is the way things are. I do not think it is a requirement. I was wrong to say that and entirely reject it now. Not sure how I came to type that though. It is not my position. I may have been saying that this is what Western Culture requires, absolutely. Idk. But its wrong on my account anyway. The discussion didn't 'come' there, anyway. That's clearly antithetical to everything else i've said.
Correct. That is the end of my direct replies, because the rest rely on the above being my position, which I hope is now clear, it is not. I misspoke and I'm sorry you went to the effort of responding to something that, fairly, would have appeared to be bad-faith. Aside from direct responses...
If it hasn't become obvious by this stage, let me spell one thing out that might be a puzzle piece objectors look for, and can't find:
We have good reason to enact the rules and laws that we do to achieve stated aims. Agreement gives us this reason. Does it oblige us? No. But that doesn't mean that agreement, while i surives, isn't a good reason to act. It states aims. Those aims being arbitrary doesn't negate that we have collectively deliberated and agreed to certain things. We need not consider them 'duties' but 'rules'. Arbitrary, subject to change, but, regardless, they are the rules. I don't see how this isn't 'good enough' to be getting on with. We don't need morally-perfected concepts to get here. Its a hodge-podge. Why's that a problem? We simply do not need morality to do these things 'well' in the sense of achieving stated aims.
I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.
You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.
But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.
I normally expect world leaders to be reasonably reliable. Not perfect or anything, but reasonably reliable, fairly measured, engendering some minimum trust in what they say, at least giving some reasons to respect as a representative. Some measure of decency and bona fide utilization of smarts accordingly can also help. Whereas old Joe isn't the best, there's a baseline that the Clown doesn't meet. Anyway, that's just my vague inconsequential opinion.
Given that over 60% of the electorate (re: 2020 & 2022 elections) are women AND that Criminal Defendant-1 & his MAGA-GOP circus clowns are campaigning on a promise to implement a nationwide "Federal Abortion Ban" (including e.g. The 1873 Comstock Act by presidential executive order) in stark contrast to pro-choice President Biden and the Dems' campaign promise to pass a nationwide "Federal Right to Choose Law", [b]we anti-fascists have to thank ...
SCOTUS[/b] (Catholic right wing, MAGA majority) for overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 and thereby
(1) depriving over half of the US population and electorate Constitutional protections of access to safe, reproductive healthcare that also permits (so far 17) states to ban abortion (even without medical exceptions) and to criminally prosecute both women seeking to terminate pregnancies and their doctors et al
(2) causing GOP to underperform in 2022 midterms losing instead of gaining the US Senate and gaining only 9 out of projected 20-30 House seats to make their "red tsunami" into a "red ripple" ... and
(3) causing MAGA-GOP in 2022 to lose anti-abortion ballot measures in Kansas, Kentucky, & Montana, failed to even get on the ballot in Oklahoma and then, in 2023, failed to stop a pro-choice state constitutional amendment from passing in Ohio – all ruby red states with majorities of trumpers, evangelicals, "poorly educated" rural blue collar white men and women.
thank Arizona (swing state) for total abortion ban
thank Florida (barely red state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks
thank North Carolina (swing state) for pro-"abortion ban" and pro-"repeal women's right to vote" MAGA-extremist candidate for governor
thank Georgia (swing state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks
thank Nevada (barely blue state) for pendingpro-choice ballot measure to amend state constitution
thank Pennsylvania (swing state) for pendinganti-abortion ballot measure to amend state constitution
for mobilizing
Almost All Liberal,
Most Moderate &
also Many Conservative Woman Voters which, IMO, increases the likelihood of a *blowout* worse than 2020 and reelection of Biden-Harris along with the Dems holding the US Senate, regaining the US House and, at least, 1 governorship (re: North Carolina). :clap: :mask: :party:
addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200
We definitely agree on this point so I will try to synthesize the debate so far as well as transcribe some key passages of MacIntyre.
My position is essentially MacIntyre's position except with a Kantian "boost" as it were to upgrade some of his claims to categorical imperatives.
For example, MacIntyre doesn't like manipulative social relationships, I would simply upgrade that not-liking to a categorical imperative: we can disagree, we can be at odds, we can compete in different contexts, we can try to convert each other to our own view, we can fight, we can come to blows, maybe even kill each other to resolve our differences, but I view it as a categorical imperative not to manipulate you; i.e. deceive you into acting against your own objectives by making you believe falsehoods (which is not required for coercion, which I still view as necessary for society to function, but we can be coercive without being manipulative), which of course is Kant's central thesis: treat people as ends in themselves, as echoes in many religions: do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
That being said, MacIntyre's description of contemporary Western society and how we got here and where it's headed, and his own proposed program I fully agree with; it's all quite brilliant so I will try to do my best in finding the best passages to present it.
As I don't know A.Ms work, I'll take your word for it - but this actually exemplifies exactly what Im talking about. Taking a moral framework pigeon-holes the positions you're allowed to take, and what consittutes a virtue under it. I take no such position so it's somewhat Hard to respond. It all seems incoherent to me without first accepting that Morality is invented and obtains only between the margins of those frameworks.
I have not yet really presented MacIntyre's argument, but his starting point is exactly that you need a moral tradition in which moral ideas and decisions even have meaning, and it only from the standpoint of one tradition that it is even possible to comprehend the claims of another tradition; one can not be traditionless. I'm not sure that's exactly compatible with "obtains only between the margins of those frameworks", but we can get into that when I make a thread presenting MacIntyre's After Virtue positions.
I'm unsure this has to do with my position. I would, in general, agree, but the social consequences have v little to do with my moral position. My intuitive reaction to them is what informs my moral position on any given act. I couldn't predict what I would think morally correct in a novel situation, for example. My intuitive reaction might include some consideration of the social consequences, but that doesn't support my moral, let's say, claim. The claim is just that it makes me uncomfortable, so I wouldn't do it and prefer others didn't. Because It makes me uncomfortable. No other reasons.
As mentioned, the purpose of developing the social consequences is claritive.
All these sorts of questions are with the purpose of understanding your position.
As you may appreciate, a significant amount of moral-relativists (whether emotivist or straight nihilists or some other flavour) essentially operate by "grandfathering in" a long list of moral rules and social opinions that they take for granted. The fact that in normal situations it's "off limits" to advocate those positions (such as torturing children) they take to mean it's therefore off limits as criticism (i.e. that they are only defending what is already socially acceptable); however, if someone makes the claim "there are no moral obligations whatsoever" of then "all moral positions are as good as another" what's entailed by that is there is no moral obligation to not torture babies nor interfere with someone so engaged.
Agreed. I largely reject the usefulness of thought experiments for this reason, within moral discussions.
I strongly disagree here; thought experiments are the primary tool of developing a moral theory.
Of course, I understand you would want to avoid that if you're theory is simply based on spontaneous emotional reaction to situations that arise ... but one such situation that arises is someone putting to you a thought experiment in which you'll have an emotional reaction too.
However, the examples I've provided are not even really thought experiments, they are real examples: people really do torture, murder, rape, extort and take bribes.
It has. But the mistake in the previous seems to still be live, despite your acknowledgement. But, as with the bit you quoted, I could just be misunderstanding, so it's not too important.
It is not a mistake if a question is honest and not a criticism.
It is not a gotcha. If you propose no moral claim is better than another and are willing to "pay the cost" as MacIntyre says about people who take this to it's logical conclusion, then the debate would proceed from there.
Of course, in normal society a debate is "won" when a proponent (from their point of view of course) leads a position to a conclusion which society already disagrees with (at least in their opinion), ideally some taboo (such as Nazis and pedophiles and so on). But of course, even if those premises are all correct, it simply begs the question of whether "society" really is correct about that moral position. Maybe Nazis were right after all.
An authentic criticism would thus require an actual justification that society is correct on that particular point to form a sound and valid argument.
Which I have not done yet, as I want to fully understand your position before critiquing it.
I'm unsure this has to do with my position. I would, in general, agree, but the social consequences have v little to do with my moral position. My intuitive reaction to them is what informs my moral position on any given act. I couldn't predict what I would think morally correct in a novel situation, for example. My intuitive reaction might include some consideration of the social consequences, but that doesn't support my moral, lets say, claim. The claim is just that it makes me uncomfortable, so I wouldn't do it and prefer others didn't. Because It makes me uncomfortable. No other reasons.
Well this is quite important to know in order to understand your point of view.
I am not. I am invoking the (probably, largely ignored) fact that the surgeon has taken on the patient's emotional position. If they have not, and are a sociopath, your point would be apt for them. In this way, my personal moral position is just don't hire sociopaths as surgeons to avoid this problem. But that's mechanistic, not moral. The problem is moral and only exists in that I, personally think it sucks the surgeon did that.
We certainly agree it is better to avoid the situation, but the issue is what duty does the surgeon have to the patient.
In a world of no duties, then the surgeon has no duty to perform the surgery to the best of their ability and obviously until completion.
Obviously in our society the surgeon would be convicted of gross negligence and likely murder, but that process is completely predicated on society's existing belief the surgeon has a duty to perform the contractual engagement, perform as best he can, and certainly "do no harm". However, if the truth is there is no duties then there's no foundation upon which society could legitimately demand any of this and no way to maintain a system (with detectives, prosecutors, judges all performing their duties) to enforce accountability to those demands.
No, there is not. I don't invoke one. There is no duty. There is the fact that, upon hte patient's emotional state, completing the surgery successfully would be preferable. If the surgeon actually didn't go in sharing this state, then fine. Walk away. I don't care.
Obviously we both prefer no one to be needlessly harmed, so we agree on what is preferable.
The disagreement is on whether what's preferable can also be morally obligatory.
Your view is quite clear on this topic.
It will take another thread to actually critique your view.
I don't understand this passage, or it's genesis apparently. Suffice to say, I disagree. It might be another discussion, once I get across what you're doing with this part of your response.
that society might end. And that might be good.
Not at all. The quote you present immediately after this is my denying that it matters, or that there would be a 'crisis'. The society would end. So what?
Again, just trying to understand your position.
All the duties I will argue along with MacIntyre are real actual duties ultimately aim to continue humanity.
If you're ambivalent to the continuation of humanity then that is likely the very heart of the difference.
If people choose, collectively to do things, Great. I don't ascribe any duty to it at all. Society is cool. I have no other thoughts on it really.
My points were derived from what many moral relativists do which is to deny there are any moral truths (in one way or another) but then continuously argue that society will continue on being "good", which makes no sense if there is not good and bad.
All points of mine on this theme is not only in relation to what moral relativists usually do, but also people in general in Western society: moral relativists language is used to avoid criticism of one's own actions ("don't criticize my diet I can eat what I want!! It's my life!!"), while moral absolutist language is used to criticize opponents ("I condemn my political opponents!! This is a violation!!").
Now clearly this doesn't apply to you, but I spent some time on this post to be sure of it as well as for the benefit of anyone following our discussion.
Yep. I also 100% disagree with your framing of the situations you refer to. But, obviously, this is not hte place Apt for it**. I did anticipate this type of disagreement :P
We definitely will need to go deeper in another thread, so we can maybe return to this point and contrast framings.
This is a bit bad-faithy-sounding. I said nothing of the kind, and intimated nothing of the kind. I spoke about hte emotional undercurrent of the discussions. Obviously it 'has to do' with past colonialism. Heydel-Mankoo covers this from the perspective of a colonised minority (maybe not hte right kind, though ;) ).
Again, I'm asking a question to better understand.
But as with above, if you're not arguing for some sort of market utopia but we just ignore the initial distribution of wealth, then this isn't too relevant to you.
I've argued a lot with libertarians so all these points are easy to retrieve from memory. However, if you're not a libertarian then markets, today or in the past, isn't really a core issue of contention. However, I have also been thinking of a thread critiquing Western imperialism (as a lot of the differences in other political threads basically come down to "Western imperialism good or bad"), so taking up Heydel-Mankoo would perhaps be more relevant there.
I disagree ;) Particularly that these issues aren't really philosophical. He's ignoring empirical facts about the political state of most countries - the majority of people take no part, and are not involved. But, as I've not read him, I await your thread/s to discuss that bit further **
Yes, you may reevaluate your position on MacIntyre after debating the specifics.
MacIntyres historical account is not one of individual political agency, in which case definitely most people have very little and certainly don't perceive themselves as involved in politics (although I would strongly disagree they are not actually involved); he is more concerned with how the moral frameworks in which the political debate of the day occurs develop and are changed. These more fundamental moral changes are mostly a critical mass issue, often happening against the will of the elites; an example of this sort of major change is the reformation.
From this perspective, normal people under feudalism would perceive themselves and be perceived as having even less political involvement that normal people now in Western society, but then they start to rebel against the Catholic Church and consequences are profound. The reformation was certainly not the Catholic Church's idea, nor would it have worked if it was just "an idea" a few intellectuals and nobles had; normal people getting involved, taking significant risks, was absolutely fundamental. This sort of change is what MacIntyre is more concerned with.
No. This is, exactly, what is actually happening as has happened for the majority of definitely Western Culture - perhaps, all culture.
Certainly has happened until now.
What I am claiming is bold is that ridiculous levels of political stupidity do not now pose an existential risk to humanity. Of course, if you are unconcerned about humanity continuing, as you say above, then seems an irrelevant point to you either way.
Im not sure why you're asking this. I don't think society 'succeeds' or not. It seems odd that your next passage is somehow a reductio to this position. It's not absurd at all. There is no objective measure of success, and I don't have the (socio-political) framework in place to assess the same way you do. Simple :) I could "simply" be wrong about that.
These points are in relation to your criticism of my claim that Western society is failing.
There is definitely an objective measures of social success, such as people having enough to eat and society at least continuing.
Objective and quantifiable.
You may have no problem with society ending, but I don't see why you wouldn't agree that would indeed be society failing in whatever it was trying to do.
;) You'll need to figure out where I assessed 'success' in moral terms. I can't see it! If i have implied that, please explicitly point it out because I am uncomfortable with that, if it's the case.
Then you are using the word success in pretty unusual way.
In its usual meaning, success requires some goal which requires some moral framework to formulate.
Your intuitive-spontaneous moral framework is still a moral framework from which you derive your objectives.
This is wrong in terms of my position. I think it is. It isn't successful or unsuccessful. There is no ultimate goal or aim of Western society. It continues to move (forward, backward, whatever). Maybe you can use that as a yardstick in which case my position holds anyway. But that's not me. That's just a suggestion. I don't think it success or doesnt succeed. It just is, or isn't. I admit, entirely, that my asking your view on this was more a poke-the-bear than anything. Defend it failing. I don't think you did, on your own terms. But, that's because I don't recognise what would constitute success or failure in your account/s thus far.
Seems incongruous to laud Western society in one place and then claim is has no goal or aim in another.
But again, if society destroys itself that is clearly failing.
Your position seems to be that you're fine if it fails as well as humanity as a whole, simply fails and comes to an end.
To argue the more fundamental point that we have a duty to try to avoid humanity failing, will of course take another more dedicated thread to elaborate the argument.
However, my point here is that the assumption that Western society, humanity as a whole, will simply muddle on is a false one; society can end and so cease to muddle.
Yep. I've not called you 'wrong'. I think you're making a mistake in moral reasoning. That doesn't make you wrong - and in fact, could only be true if you were convinced of my position - which would negate that conviction :P This is why my position is consistent. It doesn't apply to anything but me and my actions.
It's good to see you are advanced enough in understanding your own position to realize it is inconsistent.
And this would be the fundamental moral duty I would put forward: a duty to try to be consistent.
Now, if you are committed to an inconsistent position there is not "arguing against you" per se as you can simply be comfortable with any inconsistency, comfort is your guide, and so there is no problem.
So, perhaps at best we can exchange views, but you clearly like to argue so with enough of it perhaps you simply become uncomfortable with inconsistencies and so convert to my avoid-inconsistencies moral code.
If no one is willing, and it's morally right to defend the country and you're not inferring that conscription is morally acceptable there... then... What are you suggesting? That seems a dead end.
I take the rest of that passage to be incoherent in light of the above, so I wont touch it yet. Could entirely be me.
Since we've already established you aren't concerned with social consequences, these considerations aren't so relevant.
However, in your framework people can obviously conscript other people and force them to fight at the end of a gun, if they're comfortable doing that.
My goal here is not to debate conscription (I happen to be also against conscription, though not against taxing people who do not server higher for life, to avoid the free rider problem), but again to simply understand your position.
The underlying purpose of questions on this theme is your view of the state. Seems clear you're ambivalent, and don't really care what happens to the state, which is very much compatible with being ambivalent to what happens to society as such.
What I'm reading as childish, is that it seems your passionate responses presuppose your moral framework. It seems your framework has to take account of your emotional positions. It seems you are enacting the exact same, let's say, discontinuity in your position, that you outlined about moral relativists near the top of the post.
My questions and examples are the logical enquiries.
If someone says they don't view any act as morally better than another, then before debating first principles I want to be sure they really are taking that view.
If you're ambivalent to anyone doing anything at all, just more comfortable with some happenings over others but that's just you're own feeling of comfort and doesn't give rise to any moral claims (including claims about conscription for example), then I want to be sure you really are ambivalent.
As I've mentioned, most people who use moral relativist language are not actually moral relativists, they still want to condemn Hitler and assume that's given to them: but obviously it's not, if no one is right or wrong, Hitler is as right as anyone else.
This is the childish mistake you are making. Your underlying point, I would reply to with "Yes. That's correct".
But the fact you've entered a value judgement on the part of your interlocutor is worrisome. I don't think it was laudable, or detestable. It happened. Does it make me, personally, extremely uncomfortable? Even repulsed? Yep. Which is probably what you want to know. But that's nothing but an emotional reaction to hearing certain information. For me that is absolute, in the sense that I can't, currently, feel another way. But that is a state of affairs. Not a moral claim.
I said "as laudable" to just mean they are equal (which you can say "equally good" or "equally bad").
Which seems very much your position, you have no particular gripe with Hitler and the Nazi project: happened, they were clearly comfortable with what they were doing so doing right by their own comfortableness (certainly comfortable enough to carry out their project).
Again, it's not childish, it's the adult question to ask: when someone says they see no better or worse morality, then clearly the obvious and logical point is make is that entails Nazism is thus no better or worse than any other ism.
Correct. No issues. It makes me uncomfortable. I have nothing to appeal to in telling them no to do it, other than the potential consequences for them - reason with them. Would I bother? Maybe. If i were uncomfortable enough.
This is exactly why I develop the consequences of society changing its view of right and wrong, that "you shouldn't do X because society will hold you accountable and there will be consequences" is not a valid argument.
When you say "consequences for them" clearly the negative consequences to serial killing personally to the serial killer would be getting caught. But why would anyone catch you if no one thinks serial killing is bad?
I don't. I haven't presented any. You seem to be importing some upper-limit to your conceivable moral behaviour matrix and ascribing those limits to my position. I don't share them. I have limits of my comfort and pursuit of comfort occurs. These are arbitrary, as far as another person is concerned. But, by-and-large people share the same limits of comfort within a society, and so 'getting on with it' can occur without a shared 'moral' framework. This is, probably, what the West does well, compared with many other societies.
You just rejected, above, any measure of success or failure in evaluating societies, but say here that Western society does something well. You just said Western society has no goal.
However, it's simply wrong that there is no shared moral framework.
There's a shared core moral framework: such as serial killing is evil and justifies a very large effort in stopping, law enforcement shouldn't take bribes and so on.
It is this core moral framework that is overwhelmingly dominant that allows Western society to function (at least until now and certainly for at least some time further).
Obviously you are well aware of the reaction to serial killing or child torturing of the vast majority of people: that their position is that it's an absolute moral wrong, evil, must be stopped and transgressors put away for some time. Likewise, the reaction to a judge taking a bribe.
This is a shared moral framework.
Of course, even if there's an absolutely dominant consensus on some core values that make civil society possible, there can be visceral disagreements on less-core things, such as abortion. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, society does not simply all apart (such as if murder was made legal).
Where society can afford to muddle is in policy choices that are not existential to the formation of civil society or then any society at all.
I don't, other than to say 'Well, this is what's going on". The norms are the norms and tell me about a collective emotional status of the society.
Your position is getting pretty confusing to me.
In some places you seem to hold a total ambivalence to what happens and are not concerned with the social consequences whatsoever, and not only are you unconcerned for what happens to society but there is no way to measure the success of society as such (you're ambivalent to society succeeding or failing and moreover assert there is no measure of success or failure anyways), and in other places you seem to argue society, in particular Western society, is doing well.
You seem, at least give the vibe, of being pleased with Western social norms.
This one is troublesome because, prima facie, there shouldn't be. At least not beyond social consequences - which are pretty much arbitrary - and policy is just this, after collective deliberation. BUT, i would freely let you know that the idea of there being no consequences for certain actions makes me uncomfortable. Again, that's just a state of affairs. Not a moral claim. So, I dislike this, and it makes me uneasy, but I take it wholesale to be the case. Legal and social consequences are arbitrary, other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark.
Again, arbitrary is a strong word, even your framework is not arbitrary but founded on your spontaneous sense of comfort.
Social consequences are also clearly even less arbitrary. The consequence of going to prison for murder is not arbitrary; if you can just get what you want by killing who you want when you want, then society quickly ceases to function much at all (certainly nothing remotely close to Western society is feasible if murder is permissible).
Likewise, claiming "other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark" is another way of saying they aren't arbitrary.
Now, it will take another thread to develop an alternative position to your view. To broadly describe it, I will be arguing that emotions are not foundational. For example, even in your own system you are clearly making the claim that "you should do what you're comfortable with"; there's a logical moral structure you're ignoring that takes emotions as inputs and is not therefore by definition itself emotional. However, this would be simply a starting point.
There is not enough space here even to finish responding to your points, so I will have to in another comment.
We definitely agree on this point so I will try to synthesize the debate so far as well as transcribe some key passages of MacIntyre.
My position is essentially MacIntyre's position except with a Kantian "boost" as it were to upgrade some of his claims to categorical imperatives.
Yeah, good.. and fair enough. I reject the categorical imperative, which will do some heavy lifting in justifying my responses further down the post. This is not to say that I think employing hte categorical imperative is erroneous. I think it is inadequate and necessarily simplistic - to a level lower than required to cover actual behaviour.
but I view it as a categorical imperative not to manipulate you; i.e. deceive you into acting against your own objectives
I do not. People can have objectives against their own interest, and I do not think any obligations prevents us from acting on our own intuitions around that. I don't think we have any obligation to do so, but if someone who suffers from sexomania (lets assume that's a real thing) is going around 'harming' others, my discomfort with seeing that happen will motivate me to stop them. This is me enacting a private moral opinion publicly.
But, I accept that if humans were on-the-whole less capable of assessing this, viz we had some chaotic, inconsistent system of analysis whether mentally ill people should handle their own affairs, and this resulted in huge amounts of 'harm' in the way noted above, my position might be different. To me, the facts matter. There aren't principles that can be universally applied.
Personally, coercion seems on the whole a worse way to deal with things. At least lying to someone accepts what you're doing on it's face. I can't see how these would be morally different on a Kantian framework. But, he accepted lying is possibly acceptable in some circumstances, but wasn't too direct about it.
his starting point is exactly that you need a moral tradition in which moral ideas and decisions even have meaning, and it only from the standpoint of one tradition that it is even possible to comprehend the claims of another tradition; one can not be traditionless.
This is, to my mind, someone pretending their doing something other than trying to convince others of their own values. One can certainly be traditionless on my view. Assuming the bolded is to me read "It is only from..." I think thats absurb, on its face, and upon reflexion. We can understand the solar system from teh confines of the surface of hte Earth.
As you may appreciate, a significant amount of moral-relativists (whether emotivist or straight nihilists or some other flavour) essentially operate by "grandfathering in" a long list of moral rules and social opinions that they take for granted.
I tend to not see this in anyone who has reviewed their positions, but in the general population, yes, that's pretty common.
what's entailed by that is there is no moral obligation to not torture babies nor interfere with someone so engaged.
absolutely. And, i think the important aspect in the problem you're outlining is a lack of review/reflection. I think it would be hard to miss these complete contradictions upon reflection.
I strongly disagree here; thought experiments are the primary tool of developing a moral theory.
My view is that they are helpful in getting the discussion going, but serve no real purpose in ascertaining the 'real' moral position one might have. One can make whatever claims they like when not faced with the position their advocating for in real life.
However, the examples I've provided are not even really thought experiments, they are real examples: people really do torture, murder, rape, extort and take bribes.
They do. I take those as thought experiments, nonetheless. I accept that they aren't particularly interesting in terms of 'experiment' but giving real-life examples that do not pertain to me is still, I think a thought experiment. I have to think about it, not remember.
are real actual duties ultimately aim to continue humanity.
I'm unsure these two can go together. Duties in pursuit of that aim? IF that's the inference, yes, sure, that's the position I am essentially saying morality comes down to. Choose an aim, and run with it from there. This is the 'one free miracle' i've, other places, spoken of. Choose your aim, and the math works from there.
Obviously we both prefer no one to be needlessly harmed, so we agree on what is preferable.
Yes. I think this agreement is viable as a means for organising society. There's no obligation to do so , but when most people agree on the above, we can come to terms, as they say and write legislation. When everyone agrees, it seems irrational rather than 'wrong' not to do what everyone is agreeing to. It seems natural, not obligatory. I think this is hte real reason for the success of society, in self-survival as it were. To that aim, we're going pretty well by my lights.
But of course, even if those premises are all correct, it simply begs the question of whether "society" really is correct about that moral position. Maybe Nazis were right after all.
In a world of no duties, then the surgeon has no duty to perform the surgery to the best of their ability and obviously until completion.
I agree, and think this is true. However, I am quite happy most people share the same sort of discomfort with neglect as I do. I have no right to will others do so, though, and if this were not the case I do not believe I could change my moral position that people should share that position. But, I like it, as is.
We certainly agree it is better to avoid the situation, but the issue is what duty does the surgeon have to the patient.
Whatever one he has internally assented to. I think you are able to oblige yourself to your own intentions. This doesn't seem to me the same thing as expecting something from someone else. I expect that I will not tap out simply because I'm out of breath in a Jiu jitsu round. I stick to this. It's a obligation i put on myself. If i do not meet this obligation, I deal with it. There's no moral valence imo.
However, if the truth is there is no duties then there's no foundation upon which society could legitimately demand any of this and no way to maintain a system (with detectives, prosecutors, judges all performing their duties) to enforce accountability to those demands.
Agree. And think this is the case. We are mistaking common agreement, for obligation.
If you're ambivalent to the continuation of humanity
ambivalent is probably an unfair framing here. I care. It matters to me (though, in an expected way im sure) - but I don't think anyone else should, or needs to share my opinion (for their sake, it may be better that they dont (this will make sense if you ask what my position is lol)).
What I am claiming is bold is that ridiculous levels of political stupidity do not now pose an existential risk to humanity. Of course, if you are unconcerned about humanity continuing, as you say above, then seems an irrelevant point to you either way.
I may be missing a trick - the underlined seems to imply this issue is irrelevant to any moral outlook? Was there a typo there?
These more fundamental moral changes are mostly a critical mass issue, often happening against the will of the elites; an example of this sort of major change is the reformation.
For sure, and I suppose this would be 'my version of moral progress' in action, in that its purely a mechanism of common agreement. You could, here, employ 'empathy' as the guiding light. But due to trauma, and the way my mind works, I suffered from sociopathy for several years. I could not accept the above, at that time, and it would be very very strange to say that the rest of society had a right to enforce that norm on me. Apart from anything, 'ought' always has to imply ' could' - and I 'couldn't'. I was lucky in that it was transitive. Most sociopaths are not this lucky.
There is definitely an objective measures of social success, such as people having enough to eat and society at least continuing.
Objective and quantifiable.
That (and others, obviously) parameter is measurable, and if the bold is your aim it measures success. But consider a society with an aim that can be completed. To reforest a certain portion of hte Earth's surface. What's the use of society beyond that completion? I think it is irrational to have an aim which is forever changing, unless we're going to accept that morality has nothing to do with it. More below..
You may have no problem with society ending, but I don't see why you wouldn't agree that would indeed be society failing in whatever it was trying to do
Consider, again, a society with a time-restricted aim. The World Lover's Society of 1999. Once it flips over to 2000, the aim is complete, and society no longer has a moral, or practical aim. And it seems to me irrational to claim that a society can have a indeterminate aim, yet be beholden to it. If you're saying merely survival of the society is the aim, how you do deal with evolution of societies? Is British society now inherently different in a way that matters from British society circa 1823? It is the same society, no? But wait... they had entirely different Moral precepts to current British Society. Heck, that's true of 1920s British society vs now. How does this sit? I'm not trying to imply much here. Just curious.
This is why my position is consistent. It doesn't apply to anything but me and my actions.
I believe it is. This, though, In light of the fact I actually reject something I said earlier. Once that's taken into account, no inconsistencies that I can ascertain.
Your position seems to be that you're fine if it fails as well as humanity as a whole, simply fails and comes to an end.
Roughly, but obviously I wont be 'fine'. I'll just 'not be'. No valence, again, to have a moral view on. Things end all the time. Humanity is not special.
Your intuitive-spontaneous moral framework is still a moral framework from which you derive your objectives.
It is quite alright to claim this. I don't think I can argue with it as stated. But it is a non-static framework, if so. This is novel, and so I find it hard to believe it could be consider among other frameworks. It doesn't operate the same way. I reject that there are moral facts, or propositions apt for truth claims.
Now, if you are committed to an inconsistent position there is not "arguing against you" per se as you can simply be comfortable with any inconsistency, comfort is your guide, and so there is no problem.
I am not. In any way. I have no idea where you've come up with that. That comfort is the guide, in all cases, is what the consistency consists in( Hehe. that was a great sentence). To clear, I care about things, and people. I do not, though, think this matters to anyone else. And morally, I don't think it can. I think people, under their framework, insist this is true. But, that is not true. It is a requirement of their framework only. That choice, though, is arbitrary (or, as I posit, and stand by - it is informed by their comfort level with said framework).
but you clearly like to argue so with enough of it perhaps you simply become uncomfortable with inconsistencies and so convert to my avoid-inconsistencies moral code.
I like to discuss. Arguments suck. And I already meet you criteria :)
If you're ambivalent to anyone doing anything at all, just more comfortable with some happenings over others but that's just you're own feeling of comfort and doesn't give rise to any moral claims (including claims about conscription for example), then I want to be sure you really are ambivalent.
This is not quite coherent. Ambivalence has to do with valence, not morality. Ambivalence would indicate i have conflicting feelings about whatever it is. Sometimes, this true. Mostly, it is not. I have a clear feeling and emotional response. This does not give rise to any moral position and they aren't particularly connected, unless you accept that people's emotional response to situations is what, without some intervening reasoning, informs their morals. That is my position, because most people have never even tried to review their moral positions outside of the 'moment'. The 'moment' is clearly an emotional one.
they still want to condemn Hitler and assume that's given to them: but obviously it's not, if no one is right or wrong, Hitler is as right as anyone else.
He's not to me, but I agree. There is no way to understand that anything he did is actually worse in any objective sense, without a particular aim (not killing people, for instance - which it can be very hard to walk back from, when it is such a deeply-held intuition that one ought not do this. But I do).
I said "as laudable" to just mean they are equal (which you can say "equally good" or "equally bad").
If so, fair enough. Laudable infers praise, above ambivalence (hehehe). This is also most often, and most apt applied to aims and desires, not states of affairs. So, I see a number of inconsistencies in your language at this stage.
Which seems very much your position, you have no particular gripe with Hitler and the Nazi project: happened, they were clearly comfortable with what they were doing so doing right by their own comfortableness (certainly comfortable enough to carry out their project).
This is a little bit misleading. I can have opinions on other people's opinions. But they do not relate to anything but my opinion of those opinions. This may be hard to follow, but it is consistent. I can think what I want. That means nothing about whether those other people are right or wrong in their actions, or thoughts. I am extremely uncomfortable with the Nazi project. I do not believe I have the right to insist they are wrong. I can insist, and attempt to reason with them, that their project is ill-conceived. Luckily, they had specific aims to which I could relate these reasons. This is a mechanistic conversation at that stage, not a moral one. If you have aim A, regardless of its morality, you can do 1, 2 or 3 and they will have different outcomes, corresponding to different degrees of success toward your arbitrary aim. This is not inconsistent with my position.
This is exactly why I develop the consequences of society changing its view of right and wrong, that "you shouldn't do X because society will hold you accountable and there will be consequences" is not a valid argument.
I can't quite grasp what you're saying here - the sentences don't quite string together - so apologies if I get something wrong:
This would be the only possible public notion I could appeal to in trying to change anyone's behaviour or views. And I might do this, If i were uncomfortable enough. "Oh dad, please don't kill the dog. You will probably be arrested and charged. That would suckfor you". But that is speculation, unfortunately. 50/50 whether anyone would care what I've got to say. Maybe less.
When you say "consequences for them" clearly the negative consequences to serial killing personally to the serial killer would be getting caught. But why would anyone catch you if no one thinks serial killing is bad?
Because they're uncomfortable, and erroneously think that gives them the right to do stuff to other people. Nothing stopping them either, but this would motivate them to do it.
You just rejected, above, any measure of success or failure in evaluating societies, but say here that Western society does something well. You just said Western society has no goal.
"getting on with it" is no a goal. It is a fact of the society i am observing. We 'get on with it' to degrees of success higher than other societies. We also produce more single-use plastics. Nothing in that suggests a moral valence or social goal. I also didn't reject that the West has a social goal. I'm trying to tease out what your aim is, in instantiating your moral outlook. It seems you're not able to necessarily lay that out.
However, it's simply wrong that there is no shared moral framework.
It is not. The quote directly after this shows why. YOu have confused some facts about people's emotional reactions to events, and 'morality'. You are, slowly, sliding into accepting that people's emotions are their moral framework.
Where society can afford to muddle is in policy choices that are not existential to the formation of civil society or then any society at all.
It can afford it anywhere. It seems this is an indication of where you would become uncomfortable, if society did this. That's fine, and again, exemplifies the above assertion.
In some places you seem to hold a total ambivalence to what happens and are not concerned with the social consequences whatsoever, and not only are you unconcerned for what happens to society but there is no way to measure the success of society as such (you're ambivalent to society succeeding or failing and moreover assert there is no measure of success or failure anyways), and in other places you seem to argue society, in particular Western society, is doing well.
This is entirely wrong, and all the reasons why have been canvassed through the above responses.
You've used ambivalence incorrectly. I am not ambivalent. I have levels of comfort and discomfort which I clearly apprehend - making ambivalence not possible. I will ignore this subsequently.
UNderline: Entirely false. Not sure where that's come from. I've been extremely clear that I, personally, care about what happens to society. I think society is nice. It is what it is, and I like how its going (in the West). This does not give you the correct ammunition for the assertions here. The only thing I have said Western society does well, was pursuant to a specific, arbitrary aim. This is not inconsistent in any way with the rest of what i've said.
For example, even in your own system you are clearly making the claim that "you should do what you're comfortable with"
Absolutely not. I am saying i should do what I am comfortable with. It does not pertain, or have anything to do with anyone else. This seems to be a misapprehension you are making quite often here. It is wrong.
Some of you responses are really confusing, in the sense that you directly contradict things i've said int he quotes you've used. Interesting... Till the next one!!
I have to imagine that some fraction of WWJD evangelical Christians will be asking themselves sooner or later by this Fall:
According to the depiction of Jesus in the NT Gospels, who would it be more reasonable to expect Christ to vote for in the 2024 presidential election: Don Poorleone or Sleepy Joe Biden??
Hint: Who do you think he voted for in 2020? :mask:
I have to imagine that some fraction of WWJD evangelical Christians will be asking themselves sooner or later by this Fall
I don't think they ask WWJD because they think they know what Trump has done, will do, and what has been done to him. While they may not regard him as The Messiah the do believe his is a messiah and like all messiahs persecuted by the enemies of God.
While they may not regard him as The Messiah the do believe his is a messiah and like all messiahs persecuted by the enemies of God.
Or perhaps the only apparent option to remove the Biden cabal. Don't forget, Joe told immigrants to "Surge the Border", and gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban - where recently the supreme Poohbah stated he is bringing back stoning certain women to death.
15April24, Las Vegas, NV:
[quote=Kamala Harris, VPOTUS] All across the country ... These are Trump abortion bans.[/quote]
Do you remember the "red tsumani" that didn't happen in 2022? :mask:
There may be some who feel this way, but this does not obviate the fact that there are Evangelical Christians who see him as a messiah in a battle that is playing out on a cosmic scale of the end times.
the truth is that they have been planning for such a war since at least 2009.
I watched the video, and read the Brookings report. The person in the video grossly misrepresents the report. Brookings does not state a plan, it lists options - and identifies potential negative and positive consequences of each. The author's premise is that there is some secret plan to go to war with Iran, and he interprets points in the Brookings document to in light of this premise. The fact that certain events have unfolded with some of the anticipated consequences is a testament to Brookings' analysis, not an implication that one particularly nefarious path has been chosen by the US, among all the permutations of paths outlined by Brookings.
Don't forget, Joe told immigrants to "Surge the Border"
Whilst Trump only told the Proud Boys to storm the Capital building. Biden is obviously by far the greater miscreant.
It'll be interesting to see how the funding s***fight unspools on Saturday. 'Moscow Marge' is going all in for Putin. If she rolls Johnson there's a possiblity the house will end up with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. That ought to learn 'em. :rofl:
Reply to AmadeusD It comes from the same place as confusing a continent's name with a country with a broken identity. New Zealand is heading there, the brain damage can already be seen in England, Canada, and starting in Australia.
Wonder what that 8,500 crossings/day means? Not enough energy to check it out.
Well, James Lankford, a Republican senator, worked with a bi-partisan committee to come up with a solution to stop the flow, including many of the measures the Republicans had been demanding for years. And Donald Trump ordered that they drop it, before even debating it on the Senate Floor, because if it were implemented, it might work, and it would make Joe Biden look good. And the Republican Party acceeded to his request, of course, meaning the problem isn't solved, so that people, like those on Internet Forums, can go on blaming Joe Biden for it.
because if it were implemented, it might work, and it would make Joe Biden look good.
It's here that the question of democracy becomes muddied. If actions are done not for the people but for the sake of power and winning elections, then there's no true representative democracy anymore, but a pseudo-democracy.
The need to simplify everything down to calling pseudo-democracies real democracies because people seem to be unable to understand what is and what isn't a true democracy makes it impossible to progress past the problems of these kinds of pseudo-democracies.
The US is just a patch work of a democracy, barely on the side of being for the people, mostly just operating under similar ideals as religious fundamentalistic nations around the world; probably the only nation working under Christian fundamentalism in the world, and it infects their democracy and produces demagogues and pseudo-democratic practices.
Resolution 1 – DO PASS – Resolution Supporting our Republic vs. Democracy
WHEREAS a republic and a democracy are two distinct forms of government; and
WHEREAS the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every
state "a republican form of government" and we pledge allegiance to our country's flag
“and to the Republic for which it stands;” and
WHEREAS John Adams stated "Democracy...while it lasts is more bloody than either
aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide;”
and
WHEREAS the Republican Party is the party of limited, Constitutional government, and
the Democratic Party promotes progressivism and socialism; and
WHEREAS every time the word "democracy" is used favorably it serves to promote the
principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Washington State Republican Party, in
convention assembled, acknowledges that our nation is intended to be a republic, not a
democracy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we encourage Republicans to substitute the words
"republic" and "republicanism" where previously they have used the word "democracy;"
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we support legislation that preserves the republican
nature of our government institutions and oppose legislation which makes our nation
more "democratic" in nature, and that, while we favor and encourage liberty in all
nations, we oppose all efforts to use American military might to spread "democracy"
around the world.
Reply to jorndoe Another episode of Yankees misunderstanding and abusing the French loanwords in their language to mean something it does not because they don't have their own language-system. Their fight is with words and "democracy" being associated with a certain party, not, as the article suggests, that they are defending autarchy. Clickbait as I said.
John Adams is quoted but his position if far more subtle than this naked attempt at a power grab.
In John Adams' "Thoughts on Government" he asks:
As good government, is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made?
and answers by:
... a few of the most wise and good.
That is, not by a political party but by those who are wise and good,.
He goes on to say:
The principal difficulty lies, and the greatest care should be employed in constituting this Representative Assembly. It should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them. That it may be the interest of this Assembly to do strict justice at all times, it should be an equal representation, or in other words equal interest among the people should have equal interest in it.
If the people at large favor policies that are progressive and socialists then the Republicans are not representatives of the people.
Adams also says:
Of Republics, there is an inexhaustable variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society, are capable of innumerable variations.
As the greatest leader of the Republican Party said, this nation is a government:
of the people, by the people, for the people.
It is a mixed regime with elements of aristocracy and democracy.
Reply to Fooloso4 I haven't read Adams (likely never will), but it is possible his description (more like definition) of democracy takes from Plato's Republic, where democracy comes after timocracy and oligarchy, meaning pretty much mob rule.
In such a democratic state, everyone is more or less equally free of any responsibility to anyone else, including service to the state. No one is obliged to give orders; no one is obliged to take orders; no justice can be respected or meted out. Rulers will serve at the behest of what Socrates has called the "great beast"; political platforms will become popularity contests. A kind of mob-rule becomes the order of the day.
Democracy, nevertheless must not be disgraced. Democracy must not be despised. Democracy must be respected. Democracy must be honoured. Democracy must be cherished. Democracy must be an essential, an integral part of the Souvereignty, and have a controul over the whole Government, or moral Liberty cannot exist, or any other Liberty. I have been always grieved, by the gross abuses of this respectable Word. One Party speaks of it as the most amiable, venerable, indeed as the sole object of their Adoration: the other as the Sole object of their scorn, abhorrence and Execration. Neither Party, in my Opinion, know what they Say. Some of them care not what they say, provided they can accomplish their own Selfish Purposes. These ought not to be forgiven.
The two parties at that time were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. He was a member of the Federalists. This would raise doubts for the those who wrote and supported the Republican resolution @jorndoe cited above, if only they knew where Adams stood.
According to his wife he was an avid reader of Plato, but I think his views on democracy were shaped in part by his own experience and observations regarding human nature. A Democratic republic differs from the Athenian democracy in important ways.
"[i]Trump leads Biden among young people
Young voters are part of Democrats’ natural base of support, but Biden is actually 11 percentage points behind Trump among young voters 18-34 in a head-to-head match in a CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released over the weekend.[/i]"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html
I always suspected young peoples' commitment to fighting climate change was paper thin. Drill, baby, drill.
Reply to RogueAI Any surveys of polling trends (with explicit margins of error) which sample only Likely Voters in 7 swing states (decided by 3 or less points in 2020) re: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin? This won't be any more predictive six months out from the general election than daily/weekly snapshot cllickbait polls but rather would be more relevantly diagnostic of the respective campaigns' / parties' persistent weaknesses with respect to the electorate. :chin:
If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results. I don’t change on that,” Mr. Trump said, according to The Journal Sentinel. “If it’s not, you have to fight for the right of the country.”
In an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday, he also dismissed questions about political violence in November by suggesting that his victory was inevitable.
When pressed about what might happen should he lose, he said, “if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”
Mr. Trump’s insistent and fraudulent claims that the 2020 election was unfair were at the heart of his efforts to overturn his loss to President Biden, and to the violent storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by a mob of supporters who believed his claims. Mr. Trump now faces dozens of felony charges in connection with those events.
So when he loses a clean election again (2020 was probably the most clean and fair in US history), and comes up with some nonsense reason to reject it — which is a given — despite being able to predict this 6 months out, his supporters will be right there with him and the media will be shocked at the fact that he won’t concede the loss.
It’s likely that he’ll make something up even if he wins, as he did in 2016 regarding the popular vote.
Mexico's elections are far securer than whatever has been happening the past years in Cheeseburgerland. The article is already wrong on the title, or Trump's officials.
Looking into the article, no such thing as "Trump officials" confirmed anything. It was Burgerland's election officials that did so, who happened to be under Trump administration because Trump was the current president.
I am not trying to have a discussion with you by the way, because you literally have no soul/subjectivity. I am just pointing it out in public.
The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
“Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.
“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”
Court filings show that in spite of the president’s claim that millions of people voted illegally, his recently disbanded commission found no evidence of voter fraud.
Back in 2018, when he also claimed there was widespread voter fraud. Which everyone with a brain cell knows is bullshit anyway.
The incidence of voter fraud has been studied numerous times. The consensus from credible research and investigation is that the rate of illegal voting is extremely rare, and the incidence of certain types of fraud – such as impersonating another voter – is virtually nonexistent.
Which is why Trump has lost literally every court case on this. It’s conjured out of thin air to excuse his loss, which he was telegraphing months in advance.
Again, quite shocking that one of our resident clowns is a believer in such stupidity. The general level of a mind that supports Trump, though…
Right. Just lazy, boring bullshit from people who feel obligated to talk when they both know nothing about the subject and have nothing interesting to contribute. But it makes them feel like they’re participating.
True. Comparing Mexico to the Disunited States of Drag Kwain is so comedic that the thought ought to be laughed off and ignored.
Reply to NOS4A2 These people literally have no soul. You think you are talking to a human being like oneself but it is a mindless automaton whose sole purpose is to slightly annoy you.
Where did you see me saying that? It is just that the statement that an election where thousands of tourists and dead people voted being the fairest and cleanest of all time is dumb. But again, his purpose on Earth is to be mildly annoying through stupidity.
After this Palestine thing dies off (like Ukraine did, that thread is very dead), watch him support the new Twitter-approved opinion. 100% guaranteed. It is basically a dumb Python script with an in-built LLM.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said Monday his investigators found just one dead voter after thoroughly reviewing findings from a partisan review of the 2020 election that alleged 282 ballots were cast in the name of someone who had died.
Reply to Benkei I have genuinely no clue how you could possibly grok this from my rejecting an actual source, based on its track record of being a steaming pile of shit with no import for anyone but its captured audience - has anything to do with 'tribalism'.
It used to present some good journalism. It no longer does.
Your response just tells me how tribal you must be at-base.
"Hurpt durpt I looked up the first article that confirms my views therefore I am right". It surprises me you even completed Middle School. But when it came to my attention that your schooling systems teaches sex fluidity before Europe not being a country and writing skills, it is unshocking that you graduated. The perfect cosmopolitan drone to send taxes to Israel and eat grass.
The analysis expressed “high confidence” that just 12 deceased-voter ballots were submitted in Clark county, Nevada; they said the number of possible double voters ranged from 45 to just over 9,000.
The researchers also said they believed the “potential statewide exposure” of dead voters was 23
Voter fraud that is caught is extremely rare, which is a given in your failed State.
:rofl:
Oh I see. So there’s “obvious” widespread voter fraud— but no evidence of it because it’s never caught, despite Trump and his idiotic followers like you screaming about fraud for years and more intense scrutiny on voting than ever before. But we know there is, because Trump says so. So it’s obvious. No need for evidence — we can “feel” it.
No surprise you hold yet another stupid, stupid position. And why you still cannot provide one shred of evidence. Are you a Creationist as well?
But when it came to my attention that your schooling systems teaches sex fluidity before Europe not being a country and writing skills, it is unshocking that you graduated. The perfect cosmopolitan drone to send taxes to Israel and eat grass.
:chin: This was almost coherent. Almost.
Keep taking your English-as-second-language courses though. You’re doing great. :up:
Reply to RogueAI No, for the second time, I didn't say that, as you can verify since I never wrote anything like that. For future reference, I don't have an agenda when it comes to things that don't concern me, I say it how it is.
Fact: the election was the most secure and clean in history.
Morons: “except for the THOUSANDS of dead voters and tourists and immigrants!”
What evidence? None, it’s just “obvious.”
Did it affect the election? No, not saying that.
Apparently some people need a course in probability and statistics.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has been monitoring election fraud cases state by state. Election fraud covers a range of activities — such as registering someone to vote and forging their signature, filling out an absentee ballot for someone who has died or moved away, voting while ineligible, or pretending to be someone else at the polling place and voting. They find that there have been 1,465 proven cases of election fraud — 1,264 of these resulted in criminal prosecutions and the remainder resulted in civil prosecutions, diversion programs, judicial findings, or official findings.
These may sound like big numbers, however, they must be examined in context. The findings encompass more than a decade of data during which, nationally, hundreds of millions of votes have been cast. For instance, in Texas, Heritage found 103 cases of confirmed election fraud. However, those 103 ranged from 2005 to 2022 during which time over 107 million ballots were cast. There were 11 million ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election alone. The fraud in Texas amounted to 0.000096% of all ballots cast — hardly evidence of a fundamentally corrupt system.
I guess 0.000096% is a lot when dealing in feelings. To the rest of the world, it’s not worth mentioning any more than the epidemic of getting stuck by lightning (which is more likely).
No, for the second time, I didn't say that, as you can verify since I never wrote anything like that. For future reference, I don't have an agenda when it comes to things that don't concern me, I say it how it is.
No, you didn't say it, but you're certainly insinuating something. Was Biden the rightful winner or not?
I don't know, I am not all-knowing, off the top of my head I would give 70% chance that he is. Poor guy still has dementia though, so it is not his merit.
I am stating US elections are full of holes, 2020 included.
Let's go with this then. What does "full of holes" mean? Was there also only a 70% chance that Obama was the rightful winner in either of his elections?
Was there also only a 70% chance that Obama was the rightful winner in either of his elections?
Dunno, didn't pay attention to that one. Obama won by a landslide (2008), so any fraud to secure such a win would be impossible not to expose. Were there also vote spikes late into the game in 2008? https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q304/
Were there also vote spikes late into the game in 2008? https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q304/
And then links to an article completely debunking the stupid, stupid claim that “vote spikes” (for both Trump and Biden) are somehow evidence of “fraud.”
What a complete embarrassment. But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant. It goes in line with…literally everything else you post.
But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant. It goes in line with…literally everything else you post.
I wonder whether you are so hysterical with people in real life. The answer obviously is no. TPF is your venting mechanism for having to deal with being 5 foot 5 in your town where the average male height is 6 feet, which is why you are so feminine (imagine using ellipsis!) and volatile when people disagree with you.
But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant.
Speaking of, you sure enjoy talking about the climate with confidence. I take it you'd feel comfortable answering some basic questions about metereology and thermodynamics?
5 foot 5 in your town where the average male height is 6 feet, which is why you are so feminine (imagine using ellipsis!)
:lol:
The 4Chan incel mentality strikes again. Obsessed with goofy ideas of masculinity and their own latent homosexuality. Thank you for displaying your insecurities about your height and manliness. Keep up with those protein shakes.
Anyway— good job deflecting away from your imbecilic claims about voter fraud. Still waiting for the evidence…oh wait, it’s just “obvious.” Nevermind. :ok:
It's almost like those guys make an effort to choose so that you can rely on choosing differently. :D
I guess their livelihoods are somewhat limited, comedic entertainment, run for office, ...
(1) After SCOTUS delay tactic decision to, in effect, kick "absolute immunity" pleading back down to the federal district court at end of June and sentencing drops on July 11 in NYC, Judge Chutkan in DC should revoke Convict-1's pre-trial release for violating its terms with 10 citations of criminal contempt of court and have Felon-1 sit in a Washington DC jail until his "January 6th Conspiracy" trial begins.
(2) "October Surprise": in a prime time televised press conference, POTUS should offer a full pardon to Convicted Felon-1two weeks before the general election IFFConvicted Felon-1 admits his guilt for both sets of federal crimes in Washington DC and South Florida ... "so that the people, not the courts, can decide the election", etc. Of course, Loser-1 won't accept such a pardon – either way he'd lose more support on the margins, especially among Independent voters in several critical "swing states".
55% believe the economy is shrinking, and 56% think the US is experiencing a recession, though the broadest measure of the economy, gross domestic product (GDP), has been growing.
49% believe the S&P 500 stock market index is down for the year, though the index went up about 24% in 2023 and is up more than 12% this year.
49% believe that unemployment is at a 50-year high, though the unemployment rate has been under 4%, a near 50-year low.
It’s prices that matter to people, apparently— the cost of living. Not inflation, despite what’s claimed.
But mostly just media consumption shaping one’s feelings.
— the GOP lie that we’re in a recession (we’re in better shape, in most ways, than any time since the 1960s and inflation last month was zero while Ronald Reagan never got it below 4.1% in his entire eight years);
— Republican lies about crime being up (it’s down dramatically since Trump);
— their lies that “Democrats want elective abortion up to the moment of birth” (none have ever said that);
— Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump by “voter fraud”;
— GOP lies that the southern border is “wide open”;
— the Republican lie that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy and must be saved by privatization or benefits cuts;
— their vicious lie that queer people are pedophiles targeting America’s schoolchildren; and
— their NRA lie that more and more deadly guns will keep our kids safe.
This concern was raised when Trump descended the golden escalator. He is a pathological liar. While it is true that all politicians lie, the extent of his lies is far beyond the norm. Backed by his red tie sycophants this became the new norm. He lies and they either support the lies, deny it said it, or claim that he meant something else. The distinction between true and false has not simply been blurred, it has been destroyed.
An excellent reminder that we must vote and struggle againstthe neofascist, jim crow candidate(s) whom grifted, confederate / insurrection flag-waving racists fanatically subsidize and will vote for in Roevember. :mask:
Lol Biden looks awful. What a stupid decision to let this guy run again. He’s just too old. He may still win, given his opponent is Trump— but so far in this debate he looks frail and borderline incoherent.
Not that this should matter much, but such is the way of things.
I guess the response would have been that she wouldn't accept the election not going her way? Already planned to cry "Rigged" in that case? Go Ferguson. :)
The Clown wins, no need to debate again this fall. He dodged a bullet. Biden campaign over-prepped POTUS to "debate" (pander to the base) rather than to take out The Clown (moving swing state independents toward Dems).
Democrats seem to be in the midst of a post-debate meltdown. It will be interesting to see if they can actually convince Biden to walk away from the nomination.
Reply to Leontiskos People have been trying to convince him for several months but he's too stubborn to get out. The Democrats would easily win if they just ran another generic candidate, but they chose to stick with someone who's arguably just as unpopular as Trump is. I mean maybe this debate would convince him to step aside, that's the one upside I see, but if not then we're really taking a huge gamble on all of our futures for the sake of one really old man's desire for a second term.
Reply to Mr Bee - I don't know that I would say that the Democrats have gambled. I think it has been out of their hands. As you say, there have been efforts to get him out of the 2024 race for some time, but in truth that is a tall task.
Reply to Leontiskos Well I think Biden is the one who's ultimately making this gamble wanting to spend his final years as a two-term president even if he may not live through it, but the people around him seem content in not putting too much pressure on him either.
Reply to Mr Bee - I've been told that Biden would rather go down fighting than walk away. Clearly the better choice from the standpoint of legacy, common good, and personal happiness would be to walk away. But someone who has been in politics for over 50 years may not recognize this. It's like the epitome of getting grandpa to give up his driver's license.
Reply to Leontiskos Well maybe they can convince him now that's he crashed the car. Or maybe we really are screwed.
The one bit of good news is that this debate was really early (perhaps intentionally) and now that we see that Biden can't do it, there is enough time for a change in leadership. Literally anybody else would be better and likely win given how Trump is intensely disliked.
Biden looks awful. What a stupid decision to let this guy run again. He’s just too old. He may still win, given his opponent is Trump— but so far in this debate he looks frail and borderline incoherent.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Trump undoubtedly makes for better television, which is what counts, now that truth no longer matters. :brow:
There were fantasies some time ago for Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer to run on the Democratic ticket, as Mr and Mrs America.
Oh, I wish.....
(Newsom says he's sitting this one out and is anticipated to run in 2028. Except that, if Trump wins in 2024, there probably won't be an election in 2028, as Trump will have declared himself President for Life.)
Reply to Mikie DNC: Yes the planet got destroyed but for a beautiful moment in time we stood by and did nothing as an 82 year old man selfishly tried to seek a second term against the wishes of his constituents.
Even so, Sleepy Joe at his worst is still a better candidate and a better POTUS than The Fascist Clown (aka "Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1").. :mask:
Who is forcing the poor old guy to do this? My grandma has an early-dementia diagnosis and she is awfully more coherent than Biden. He more than surely has something, likely dementia too.
This is elderly abuse and more.
Is it so hard to find a younger and better suited candidate for the democrats? Is there no else who has the ability to act as a better president than a self-appointed dictator-cult-running clown and a demented relic who fled the nursing home?
How is it possible that the dems have no other candidate that can just swoop in and take the reigns in a way that makes people actually hopeful about the future? Where there no other backup plan among the dems if Biden were to fail, go full demented or die?
Everything about US politics is just stupid. It's an entertainment machine. We have more presidents depicted in movies and television that acts better than what actually exists.
The US is a joke trying to act like adults in front of the world. Redo the entire political system, let intelligent philosophers and historians write a new constitution and rebuild a better nation. Right now it's just a patch-work of stupid interpretations of old politics, with a population who's suffering in both education, health and financial stability while at the same time being so indoctrinated into believing that the enlightened ghosts of the founding fathers inhabit the candidates running for president.
:vomit: Fire everyone, ban lobbyists and manipulating narcissists, hire intellectuals who are humble educated experts without any interest in prestige or glory; rebuild everything.
Reply to Mr Bee Someone at the level of cognitive decline is no longer responsible for oneself. Whether that is medically/legally ratified by a professional does not change that.
Reply to Deleted user Well right now the biggest obstacle to them changing leaders is Biden himself. It wasn't that long ago where we got this exchange, which I still look back at every now and then as I wonder why the race is as it is. If he ends up losing and dying the next day, we'll have to deal with the consequences of his stubbornness.
We always knew their candidate was Weekend at Bernie’s, but one has to admire the persistence with which they carried that husk of a human being over the finish line. One question that wasn’t quite answered was whether those who dragged him forward are delusional or liars about their candidate, their president. But there is just no more denying it any longer. The party of democracy and their press apparatchiks are having open discussions about subverting the will of their primary voters, as they are wont to do. It appears they give up precisely when they can no longer maintain the lie.
Who is the real president? Obama? Jill? This is a dangerous moment for the country. There is no one leading it, and now even the true believers have given up denying it. If there was ever to be an attack on the most powerful country on Earth or her allies, now is the time.
Biden could have been sucked into a black hole at any point of his presidency and it would have made close to zero difference in how the country is (mis)led. I am happy the Dems are in turmoil. They fully deserve that and more. But there is no new problem and no new solution.
Yes— and they should again if the choice is between him and Trump. In fact, they should vote for a plastic bag over Trump. To those incapable of thinking outside political parties, I suppose this would mean I’m carrying water for the plastic bag — but who cares what bootlicking hacks think anyway?
Oh sure. Vote for cow manure over Trump, that's easy.
But what an embarrassment. Trump is just garbage, and Biden is senile. Hard to believe that out of so many people, these are the two that are forced on to the voters - though this applies more to Biden than Trump.
In any case, this performance will hurt Biden. Let's hope there's time for a miracle.
In the immediate aftermath the momentum for forcing Biden out felt overwhelming. But now with enough authority figures in the DNC rallying behind their man, it might be faltering a bit.
It would be a horrific mistake to keep Biden after last night. Already, he was one of the few candidates that could lose to Trump. He literally has no chance now, the optics were that bad, and fed right in to the very strong preexisting narrative that he is too old and feeble. My hope is that the next batch of poll numbers will be so bad that there will be no choice.
Shame on the Fucking DNC for cancelling primaries and foisting this "choice" on people.
I am happy the Dems are in turmoil. They fully deserve that and more.
Not their problem. Another 4 years of great donations where they can play "Resistance". They are not and cannot go anywhere, thanks to our totally broken electoral system. No, the problem is entirely ours.
.
Yes— the fact that we have a two party system sucks, and these two candidates suck. But the president doesn’t matter that much — his cabinet does.
Trump doesn’t know anything and his decisions are stupid and based on nothing but his “instincts,” which are dogshit when it comes to policy. Biden is a weak, tired, senile old man who doesn’t have the foggiest idea about what’s happening. But some of his cabinet and administrative appointments have been surprisingly good — at the FTC, EPA, and NLRB in particular. Even Gary Gensler at the SEC has made some admirable attempts at undoing Reaganite destruction.
So administration and policy matter, not the figurehead people vote for because he’s tall or you want to have a beer with him. And honestly, the debate was the worst performance I’ve seen in my life, but in a week no one will really care.
Biden will not be replaced. The DNC won’t do anything and Biden is too egotistical to back down. So they likely lose the election — but they probably would have even without a debate. He simply didn’t do enough and the compromises appealed to no one. Despite plenty of good things coming out of this administration, and a second Trump term likely being a death knell for the environment (and therefore life as we’ve known it), perhaps it’ll wake people up again and get them organizing. Four years of Trump through 2028 will be terrible but hopefully survivable, and may lead to better days. Who knows.
Biden is a weak, tired, senile old man who doesn’t have the foggiest idea about what’s happening. But some of his cabinet and administrative appointments have been surprisingly good ...
I think that the administration is of central importance. We have a good picture of what the Trump administration this time around will look like. It is outlined in the Heritage Foundation "Project 2025". It is a playbook to establish a Christian theocratic authoritarian regime. If enacted it will give the Trump administration powers that circumvent the balance of powers of the government. Its ultimate goal, however, goes far beyond Trump. Trump himself, however, may prove its undoing.
I think not. All Trump's pathological stupidities, outrages, and crimes have apparently slid down the memory hole already. But Repubs remind us incessantly of shit they just make up. This debate was an audio visual GOLD MINE for them. No one will be forgetting any of it before November. Even without their help, it was too emotionally visceral, too memorable, it will stay burned into people's heads. The painful cringe was enough to ensure that, it was downright traumatic watching it live. This was a death blow to an already flawed, faltering campaign.
Here is the "Dean Scream" that doomed Howard Dean's campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0&ab_channel=CNN
2004 Howard Dean, scream and all, would LANDSLIDE Trump. NO CONTEST. Keep the scream, add some wet nasty hot mic'd farts, a commando dropped fly, I don't care. That scream was a M80 firecracker next to Biden's H-BOMB of a performance.
Ceding life as we know it to the incorrigible morons is bad enough. Ceding it to senile bitch Biden? It's too much. Biden has to go.
:roll: Stop being hysterical. Biden's competent, effective administration is not populated by "senile bitches"; however, The Clown's "Project 2025" will be populated by a fanatically loyal horde of "incorrigible morons" just like him. Neofascist autocracy is far far worse than the neoliberal status quo, and whoever can't see that will no doubt F-A-I-L the national IQ test in Roevember. :mask:
Biden's competent, effective administration is not populated by "senile bitches"; however, The Clown's "Project 2025" will be populated by a fanatically loyal horde of "incorrigible morons" just like him.
We know this, but does America? Administrations are largely unseen. What was seen was a doddering old fool, next to which the malignant moron seemed sharp. It is America, not you and me, that is set to fail the national IQ test. Again.
Hysterical? As it stands, Trump's victory is all but guaranteed. Even before this, Bidens polling was terrible, losing every swing state. Now, it's over. The arrogant whim of a single, senile bitch is what is guaranteeing neofascist America, to run or not is his prerogative alone.
good for me and the millions of others who aren’t political hobbyists
Lol, then what do you think you are?
It's not just a silly debate, or the silly impression it made, it's what it indicated. The man is senile, there is no denying it, we cannot count on anything better from him in the rest of the campaign. Cognitive decline goes one way only. Peoples assessment that he is unfit is correct, to lead a campaign, let alone a country.
Reply to hypericin I really don't believe Biden is senile, but he is undoubtedly enfeebled by his age. I'm now rather hoping that he is found medically ineligible to continue in the very near future. Of course I am also outraged that Donald Trump is considered eligible to run for office after what he's done. But, we're still six months out, and many things could happen.
Reply to Mr Bee Regrettably, Trump seemed vigorous and not affected by age in that debate. Sure, he spouted a fire-hydrant of lies, boasts and hyperbole, as always. It's more that it might become apparent even to Biden and his inner circle that his condition is prohibitive - if he's like this now, how is he going to be at the end of a four-year term? I have the fantasy that the ticket will be declared open at the Democratic National Convention and that Biden/Harris will endorse another pair of candidates. I'm 100% certain the American electorate is crying out for an alternative and that if a credible pair was presented then it might precipitate a landslide for them. But I know it's a fantasy.
The way he would become lost, dazedly fumbling between unrelated topics, gazing vacantly, can be explained either by severe anxiety at the enormity of the moment -- what you or I might experience, but not a lifelong politician with his career -- or mental impairment. Given his age and other worrying signs, senility is the most natural and likely explanation.
Given his age and other worrying signs, senility is the most natural and likely explanation.
He's never been a fluent speaker and has often been prone to verbal slips. I presume as the President that he's is subject to regular medical examinations, right? And that if he were displaying symptoms of senile dementia, this is something that these examinations would detect? And that, were it detected, the responsible medical officers would report it and not try to conceal it? So, no, I don't believe he's technically senile, that is another slur that is used by his political opponents. But he is clearly affected by (as I said, enfeebled by) age, so it probably doesn't matter as far as the electorate is concerned. Many will regard him as senile, regardless.
Reply to hypericinReply to MikieReply to Wayfarer I think Biden should have a complete physical and cognitive exams which witll then be released in document form (minimally redacted only for national security) and summarized by his physicians in a public press conference asap. He should also publicly dare The obese, neofascist, criminal Clown to do exactly the same, and let the chips fall where they may with the voters. :mask:
The substance won't matter, though. Perception is everything, especially in this media-driven landscape. If he's perceived to be senile, then no reassurance from doctors will change that view. And Trump's health or mental stability or lack of it also won't matter. He is going to have to be beaten at the ballot box, there's no credible alternative. And I'm now agreeing with many others, that I don't think Joe Biden is the man who's going to do it.
Regrettably, Trump seemed vigorous and not affected by age in that debate.
He's also fat and eats a bunch of junk food which goes great with being 78. If he gets a heart attack or chokes on a BIg Mac that wouldn't surprise me.
Reply to Wayfarer Yes, of course, the ballot box will be the final arbiter but if Biden stays in the race he has to address the "senile, enfeebled" issue with evidence his surrogates and down-ballot Dem candidates can use while campaigning to better inform voters. Biden's duty is to drop out and failing that I think he has a duty to the US electorate to provide medical reasons as well as performative displays which corroborate why he doesn't step aside. And the contrast with The obsese, neofascist, criminal Clown's response to a medical & cognitive exams challenge will not be lost on the still persuadeable +5% of voters in "the swing states" which will decide the election in the Electoral College.
I think Biden should have complete physical and cognitive exams which witll then be released in document form (minimally redacted only for national security) and summarized by his physicians in a public press conference asap.
Doesn't matter since the public perception is that Biden is too old to run. If it's a good report his opponents will claim they falsified it and if it's not then they will run with it.
This is of course putting aside the fact that Trump when he was president released an incredibly dubious health report from his physician, who at the time claimed he could "live to be 200 years old". I don't know where that physician is now, but rumor has it that he is serving in the US congress as a Republican.
Reply to Mr Bee He did. Ronny someone. Got that reward for being a compliant flunky and saying good things about the Orange Emperor. That'll guarantee you a place in the MAGA pantheon.
Reply to Mr Bee Both sets of exams can be independently verified by a third party (audit) if Biden's campaign is serious about getting the maximum effect (no matter how marginal). If not, if the "perception" is so irreparable", then he needs to step aside like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 – of course, VP Harris might also lose (after a brutally divisive convention floor fight) like VP Humphrey lost to Nixon. :brow:
Reply to Wayfarer The disgraced puke (former US Rear Admiral) Dr. Ronny Jackson is a MAGA (morons against great america)-stooge congressman from Texas.
Both sets of exams can be independently verified by a third party (audit) if Biden's campaigb is serious about getting the maximum effect (no matter how marginal).
Doesn't really matter in this post-truth world. We live in an age where Trump can shoot someone on fifth avenue, claim he didn't, and alot of his supporters would take his word.
If not, if the "perception" is so irreparable", then he needs to step aside like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 – of course, VP Harris might also lose (after a brutally divisive convention floor fight) like VP Humphrey lost to Nixon. :brow:
That's my solution honestly, for Biden to step aside like he should've months ago.
I actually don't think the convention floor fight would be as divisive as some may fear. The Democrats have proven they are capable of unifying very quickly when necessary. That's actually how Biden became the nominee in 2020 after all, where in the span of 3 days they managed to get all the moderate candidates to drop out and endorse Biden before Super Tuesday in a desperate attempt to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination.
I feel like if they are gonna go through with a new convention all the leaders should simply agree beforehand to fall in line behind whoever the candidate is given the urgency of the situation. That's where I suspect any potential divisions could come from. As for the voters themselves... honestly I'd imagine most would just be happy that they don't have to vote for either Trump or Biden.
Count Timothy von IcarusJune 30, 2024 at 03:52#9132440 likes
I really find it hard to believe that Biden, Harris, or other party elites/their inner circles actually believe their own dire warnings about what a second Trump term would mean. If they really thought it meant "the end of America," and great suffering or even armed conflict then they'd step down and try to engineer the strongest ticket possible as their replacement.
Just off the top of my head, Beshear won deep red Kentucky as a Democratic governor so handily that the election was called almost as the polls closed, and has long be one of the most popular national level politicians with his own constituency. I am sure there are other good options. You could even get creative and see if Charlie Baker, a Republican who handily won two terms in liberal Massachusetts would take the VP spot as a sort of unity ticket.
But nothing like that is remotely possible from what I understand. One of the key reasons Biden isn't stepping down is because Harris seems even less popular, and Harris seems to have indicated to people in a position to know that she won't let the nomination pass to anyone else without a significant fight. Indeed, if "sources close to Biden" in all the papers are to be believed, Biden is using Harris's commitment to receiving the nomination if he backs out as his main argument for staying.
They clearly can't think it's really that dire, at least not as respects their own futures. From the reporting I saw, the way Biden got everyone to fall in line behind him in 2020 was basically by playing chicken and declaring he'd stay in no matter what, split the vote, and give Bernie the nomination. If that's true, I think there is probably no chance he backs out now.
Unfortunately, I do not think he will win, and even worse for the country, he probably will still carry the popular vote by some small margin.
Is Biden a national security threat? His performance and public meanderings make it clear that the first virtual President of the United States is hardly able to close his mouth or walk off a stage, let alone discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Intelligent people shouldn't be taking the US elections at face value, but try to make sense of it through the acknowledgement that in the West too we are living in corrupt oligarchies.
To make this thread more interesting, here are some questions/statements that should stir up some debate.
- Polarizing figures like Biden and Trump are instrumental to keeping the US public divided (thus weak), bickering over subjects that don't matter to the US elites, so said elites can push their own agendas in the background.
- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split makes it easy for the elites to manipulate the outcome of the election.
- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split significantly increases the influence of lobbies and voting blocs. (In case anyone is wondering where for example Israel's lobbying power comes from)
- That Biden was going to lose the debate was obvious. Therefore, whoever put him up to it must have had this as their goal.
I presume as the President that he's is subject to regular medical examinations, right? And that if he were displaying symptoms of senile dementia, this is something that these examinations would detect?
At Biden's last physical, a cognitive test was not given. The doctors gave him a clean bill of health. It seems to me that the doctors didn't look for what they didn't want to find. If your loved one slurred their words and glitched out and fell down, you'd have the doc give them the test. That's why many think Jill's guilty of elder abuse.
President Biden got his latest physical on Wednesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center — an evaluation that the White House said drew on the expertise of 20 doctors but did not involve a cognitive exam.
And that, were it detected, the responsible medical officers would report it and not try to conceal it?
It follows, therefore, that the doctors were being political, and not responsible. Biden's shown signs of age-related cognitive impairment for five or six years. It's gotten much worse the past two years, and much much worse the past several weeks.
As I watched the debate, I said to myself that Biden is relatively lucid tonight. Because he was no worse than he's been for the past couple of months, and at least he didn't glitch out for a minute at a time, as he did at the Juneteenth event.
I was shocked to find all the Dems and liberals horrified to see his condition, and the very next day to see the New York Times calling for him to step out of the race. It seems that a lot of people on the left have only been watching MSNBC and reading the NY Times, which as recently as June 21 was calling Biden's cognitive decline a right wing conspiracy theory.
A flurry of recent clips, many of them edited or lacking context, laid bare a major challenge for the president as he tries to persuade voters he has the energy for a second term.
It's all a right wing plot according to the Paper of Record. Six days later their editorial board called on him to quit. And when Biden loses the New York Times, it's like LBJ losing Cronkite over the Vietnam war.
When Robert Hur called Biden, "an elderly man with a poor memory," did you think he was just one of Orange Hitler's minions? (Fess up, you probably did). When Joe glitched out at the G7, did you believe KJP when she called the video a cheap fake? It still looked every bit as bad when you saw the version with the parachutist in the frame.
Wayfarer, you and your fellow Dems and liberals have been gaslighted by the media. Those of us who read alternative media and even (gasp) scurrilous right wing media, have been watching Biden glitch out for months. We've noticed that he doesn't do interviews except with the most friendly journalists. That he gets cheat sheets at his infrequent press conferences, telling him who to call on and what questions they're going to ask. We watched him campaign from his basement in 2020, which he got away with due to covid. Even during the 2020 primaries, when he was doing badly before the Clyburn deal (when everyone else dropped out), he was showing early signs of age-related cognitive impairment.
To those of us no longer on the Dem plantation (for the record, I used to be), Biden's sad decline has been blatantly obvious for years. I'm amazed he made it this far.
All I can say to the millions of liberals who saw Biden's infirmity for the first time the other night is, where have you been? The real point is not just that Biden's that far gone. The real point is that Biden's been that far gone for a long time, and the Democrats and media have been lying to you about it all along. Those close to him surely knew. The world leaders he met at G7 surely knew. Everybody knew except for the people who get their news from the New York Times.
Ronny someone. Got that reward for being a compliant flunky and saying good things about the Orange Emperor. That'll guarantee you a place in the MAGA pantheon.
Brother you've got it bad. A smart guy like you getting played by the New York Times and Rachel Maddow for years. How'd that happen? Aren't you even a little angry that everyone around the president knew about Biden's condition, and lied to you about it? Not just the pols, but the media too. "BIden's got a stutter." "Biden's always talked slowly." "Biden's sharp as a tack." And now? Every one of those pols and media jackals is sticking a knife in the man's back.
You mean Ronny Jackson, Obama's physician as well as Trump's. Currently a Congressman from Texas. Former Rear Admiral of the Navy.
Well, what now for the Dems? They could have dealt with the Biden situation last fall, when his infirmity was clear and there was time to have a serious primary contest. Now? Every option looks bad.
According to party rules, the delegates that Biden won during the primaries (no actual primary competition allowed, and how's that decision looking today?) are bound to Biden. They can't vote for anyone else at the convention unless Biden releases them. And Biden says he's staying, and more importantly, Doctor Jill is not going out quietly. She likes the power and Joe does what she says. Did you see her praising him after the debate? "Joe you got all the questions right! You knew all the facts!" Someone said that's how they talk to their cat.
Kamala's unpopular. Newsom's male and pale, can't leap over Kamala. Pritzker, Whitmer? I've heard talk about Pennsylvania governor Shapiro, but it's not a good year for guys named Shapiro in the Democratic party. Not popular with the Hamas wing. And by the way, why does your party even have a Hamas wing? Aren't you embarrassed about that? Queers for Palestine, baby, Up the Revolution!
There is only one Democrat who could leap over Kamala and not split the party in two. You know who I mean. SHE Who Must Not Be Indicted. Yes the Hildebeast herself, Hillary Clinton.
Trump versus Hillary. The inevitable denouement of our long national psychodrama.
You read it hear first. It's Hillary. She's got a brand new book out last week. You think she's not ready to rumble? She could win. God knows Trump's a flawed man.
When Robert Hur called Biden, "an elderly man with a poor memory," did you think he was just one of Orange Hitler's minions? (Fess up, you probably did).
No, but I think it was cherry-picked by many of them. As you probably know, Jim Jordan has tried to take the Justice Department and Attorney General to court to get his hands on the original recordings.
According to party rules, the delegates that Biden won during the primaries (no actual primary competition allowed, and how's that decision looking today?) are bound to Biden. They can't vote for anyone else at the convention unless Biden releases them.
We'll see. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I still reckon there's a possiblity that if a new nominee appeared at the eleventh hour, there could be a huge rush to them, just on account of him/her (probably 'him') being an alternative to the godawful mess that now exists.
I still reckon there's a possiblity that if a new nominee appeared at the eleventh hour, there could be a huge rush to them, just on account of him/her (probably 'him') being an alternative to the godawful mess that now exists.
Reply to 180 Proof I have exactly zero trust in the average intelligence of people. They do not have a historical perspective so don't understand fascism.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus it's only 4 years. Probably that is the main consideration to do fuck all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: US elections are for Democrats to lose or win. The GOP ought to be largely irrelevant due to its dwindling base resulting from demographic changes, but here we are with them goosestepping in line with the orange clown actually having a serious chance to win.
You should probably listen to what the guy has to say first, instead of parroting slogans peddled by political rivals.
This is exactly why you don't get better candidates, you see?
In fact, this whole thread seems to be a microcosm for why that is. Many here seem to deem themselves above all the bullshit, yet are playing the exact same game as the masses.
All of it reads to me like it assumes some modicum of cunning and foresight. I don’t think there is a conspiracy of any sort because most are too dumb to pull it off. What we’re watching is simply the result of the insane and self-interested (and now dementia-ridden) in their natural state when they’ve achieved a little bit of power. The state of the world is the result of their choices, sure, but I don’t think they’re trying to divide people, for instance.
At Biden's last physical, a cognitive test was not given. The doctors gave him a clean bill of health. It seems to me that the doctors didn't look for what they didn't want to find. If your loved one slurred their words and glitched out and fell down, you'd have the doc give them the test. That's why many think Jill's guilty of elder abuse.
It is obvious for every neutral party. The world knows the president of Yankees has pathological cognitive decline. It is only those coping with their political affiliation that must deny it no matter what.
Everybody who has been around dementia patients will see what is going on. The patient's regress to a child-like state is symptomatic of dementia:
The occasional moments of lucidity are not, as some think, proof that Biden is fine. On the contrary. People in the earlier stages of Alzheimer's and dementia oscillate in their cognitive state, have moments of clarity to then relapse.
Wow. It’s quite embarrassing that the president of the United States must be spoken to like a child, but his stupid grin says it all.
It was funny because during the debate someone from the Biden campaign ran to the media and told them he had a cold. They reported it dutifully. His whole presidency has been a blizzard of lies, but this particular one was perfect as it encapsulates how Biden has gotten away with it for so long—plausible deniability.
I don’t think they could coordinate on such a level. It’s just blind and stupid instinct at this point. Lying is easy, but coordinating the division of the entire West is something I don’t think they could execute. That’s to give them too much credit.
At any rate, I haven’t seen much evidence of conspiracy. In the United States, for instance, those who put together crossfire hurricane and duped a swath of true believers into pretending the president coordinated with the Kremlin to subvert the United States were acting like teenagers who just so happened to have a little power and influence. Reading their emails, text messages, testimonies etc. revealed blind emotion and poor reasoning. They believed the most obvious nonsense and were equipped with enough hubris not to question their own susceptibility.
Manufacturing Consent describes a time over 40 years ago, from before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when information wasn’t as prevalent. The freedom to persuade, which Chomsky argued was in the hands of the few, isn’t as possible as it once was. I’m speaking of a generation or two later.
What would you point to as evidence that people are trying to keep other people divided, with malice and not stupidity, so as to push their own agenda in the background?
Reply to NOS4A2 Suitable examples of the US government pulling this trick on its citizenry run all the way into the present. You really believe something changed for the better between then and now?
In terms of proof, obviously I don't have anything that qualifies as actual proof. Though, it seems self-evident to me that US domestic politics is just an inflammatory clownshow to keep people distracted and occupied with things that don't matter.
The malice is self-evident when we view the genocidal levels of mayhem the US wreaks on various parts of the world with the tacit approval of its citizenry.
Lastly, the fact that the US government has been successfully pulling this trick for decades shows that they're not stupid; their citizenry is stupid.
Edit: the press is actually pushing that Biden has a "stutter"? That is braindeadly funny.
Edit 2: Older but recent clip of Biden explaining he doesn't stutter https://x.com/cedrichohnstadt/status/1807232341644837112 he stuttered as a kid from nervousness of speaking publically. Obviously Biden does not have a speech disorder. People have never been around dementia patients, but now they also have never been around people who actually have pathological stuttering. Surprising lack of lived experience.
The 70 year old anti-vax conspiracy theorist who has dealt with literal brain worms... we really have a great slate of candidates this year.
Perhaps the Democrats should have thought of this last fall, when there was a chance to have a robust series of primary contests.
Biden's age-related cognitive impairment has been on display in his public appearances since at least 2019. Why did the Dems go down the path of denial, instead of dealing with the issue far sooner?
It's a valid question. I'm not the only one asking it. The question many Americans are asking themselves is: What did the media know, and when did they know it?
Steven Bannon, en route to prison, today: “Trump’s Thursday (debate) was a Pyrrhic victory. … You’re going to take out a guy you know you can beat and beat badly, and we’re going to have a wild card.”
Reply to fishfry I think you should distinguish the Democrat voters with whoever's running the DNC. The Democrats by and large didn't want Biden to run in 2024 and the DNC as usual didn't listen.
Reply to Benkei I'm pretty sure the whole story that Trump was a Russian asset has been more or less proven to be utter bullshit - a literal fabrication.
Reply to Tzeentch I advise you to read the report and make up your own mind. My take away, there was Russian interference, Trump welcomed it and there were a lot of connections between his team and Russian assets. Lack of evidence (in part due to obstruction) and the limitations of the investigation itself meant not everything could be fully investigated. It's not an open or shut case either way. And at least the obstruction were actual crimes that nobody was ever prosecuted for.
Reply to Tzeentch, the US is already up there. There are others that you keep diverting from, this being another example, despite evidence. No worries, I guess others will have to pick up the slack.
Reply to Benkei The news media have been floating names. Pretty much a bunch of governor names like Newsom and Whitmer. Also, unfortunately, Kamala Harris.
Doesn't really matter though if Biden doesn't want to step aside. If he does, then things will probably move quickly.
Reply to Benkei Maybe but I doubt they'd want to force gramps out when he's kicking and screaming. The Dems crave unity above all else so it's unlikely there will be an independent open revolt or attempt to replace Biden unless he says he is okay with it. Of course, that unity is ironically a great reason why the worries about the chaos of a replacement are unfounded IMO. They'll fall in line behind a new guy if they're allowed to. After all if the consesus was that questioning an octogenarian candidate's capability months ago when they had ample opportunity to pivot was considered "helping Trump", then I don't see anyone complaining about a Whitmer candidacy post convention, even Kamala and her dozen or so diehard supporters.
So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.
But will "King Joseph I" do this?
No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry:
I think you should distinguish the Democrat voters with whoever's running the DNC. The Democrats by and large didn't want Biden to run in 2024 and the DNC as usual didn't listen.
Good point there. The DNC screwed Bernie in 2016 and 2020.
(edit) The least democratic institution in the country is the Democratic national committee.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but trust in US government and media is at very low levels, whereas trust in the EU is at high levels. That's really all I need to know about a stupid citizenry.
As for Russia-gate, I totally agree, and it was proven to be bullshit. The Mueller report, which was transferred from a failed and and highly-criticized investigation called Crossfire Hurricane, was fruit from the same poisonous tree. It turns out they ended up investigating the wrong campaign. Subsequent investigations implicated no one but the Clinton campaign and the FBI. As you can see that debacle is still having its effect on pliant minds.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but trust in US government and media is at very low levels, whereas trust in the EU is at high levels. That's really all I need to know about a stupid citizenry.
I wouldn't say trust in the EU is at high levels. That's why right-wing populism is currently sweeping the EU. But I wouldn't say the EU citizenry is much better than the US, though Europeans are definitely less ignorant.
The difference is that the US government gets up to shit that's several orders of magnitude worse.
Given that Europe is the crucible of the worst wars in history, the breeding ground of communism, fascism, and nazism, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire into the Middle East, I’m curious as to what might be several orders of magnitude worse than what Europe has been up to. Perhaps worse is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, but I cannot think of much else.
Reply to NOS4A2 If you need me to give you examples, you're proving my point. Listing America's misdeeds is pedantry at this point, and I'm not going to waste my time in doing so. Especially since you already seem so eager to start shifting the blame.
I just wanted one example, actually, and for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. It’s common to think of the US as the great Satan, but when it comes from some panty-wasted fief in Europe I’m reminded of the hellish conditions hoisted upon the Earth by many countries there. But if you don’t want to do it, I’ll leave the issue alone.
Sure, you name the timeframe and the example. I’m just curious.
Count Timothy von IcarusJuly 02, 2024 at 16:24#9141400 likes
But inside the White House, Biden’s growing limitations were becoming apparent long before his meltdown in last week’s debate, with the senior team’s management of the president growing more strictly controlled as his term has gone on. During meetings with aides who are putting together formal briefings they’ll deliver to Biden, some senior officials have at times gone to great lengths to curate the information being presented in an effort to avoid provoking a negative reaction.
“It’s like, ‘You can’t include that, that will set him off,’ or ‘Put that in, he likes that,’” said one senior administration official. “It’s a Rorschach test, not a briefing. Because he is not a pleasant person to be around when he’s being briefed. It’s very difficult, and people are scared shitless of him.”
The official said, “He doesn’t take advice from anyone other than those few top aides, and it becomes a perfect storm because he just gets more and more isolated from their efforts to control it.”
Sounds like the sort of dynamic that often leads to autocracies' great blunders. Perhaps it's not as extreme as the "yes-man" problem described vis-á-vis Putin's inner circle, but there seems to be an apt analogy in Biden's decision to run for a second term being his "let's go invade Ukraine," moment. Now there is nothing left but to keep doubling down and everyone with any influence to stop it doesn't want to risk losing their influence by actually trying to stop it.
There was a similar dynamic reported in Trump's cabinet, but there at least many cabinet members did eventually jump ship and begin publicly blasting their old boss (fat lot of good it did lol). But obviously the provocations there were even greater.
Hunter Biden has joined White House meetings as he stays close to the president post-debate
While he is regularly at the White House residence and events, it is unusual for the president's son to be in and around meetings that his father is having with his team.
According to the story Hunter Biden has been helping the elder Biden with his duties, for instance his most recent speech fear-mongering about the Supreme Court decision.
With all this rhetoric about convicted felons, it sounds like a convicted felon and drug addict is advising the president of the United States of America. These sort of ironies make politics fascinating to watch, even hilarious, if the stakes weren’t so high.
Reply to Benkei At this point literally everyone in the party wants him out because they think he'll lose them the House and Senate and will probably speak up in the coming days, the donors are revolting, and the media is unanimously calling for Biden to step down on a daily basis. I don't see him coming back from this but who knows, he's incredibly stubborn.
It’s a lose-lose situation now for the democrats. Even if Biden stays, which I think he will, everyone has come out against him. That damage is already locked in. Whatever effect that has, who knows. I don’t think it’ll have a huge effect.
But if he drops out, it’s another losing scenario: Kamal Harris is the person who will likely get the delegates. She’s about as popular as colonoscopies.
They have no one to blame but themselves. If they happen to pull it off, it’ll be only because Trump is that bad — which he is.
Really you can blame Jim Clyburn for that. He stepped in to save Biden's campaign in the South Carolina primary because he feared Bernie winning the nomination and then insisted on a black woman diversity pick for Biden's running mate, giving us Harris. He essentially gave us the ticket we see today.
That being said it's probably better for the Dems to go with Harris at this point and have her pick an actually talented running mate. Biden's campaign is about as dead as he is but at least with Harris you can see some potential room for improvement and a restart.
If they happen to pull it off, it’ll be only because Trump is that bad — which he is.
Indeed. A generic candidate who is neither Trump nor Biden would win in a landslide against either of these people.
Too bad the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate that isn't as unpopular as Trump. Shouldn't be a low bar to pass but yeah let's just run the 80 year old man who the majority of the country didn't want to run again.
Pot speaks to kettle. It's a democracy and people want some other candidate than Biden, so what's the issue with not having a second term. Act mature for your age and agree with everyone else that once was enough, at least you'll get a pat on the back from both parties and the public.
It should be a walk in the park to stand up against the fascist MAGA movements, authoritarian republicans and Trump, but it's a special level of incompetence that the Democrats weren't able to do this with the mountain of shit that has been piled up against Trump.
Maybe now they will simply put an age limit on their future candidates? And maybe be better at preparing younger party members for future candidate material. Like, get them started in their 30s, really build up their reputation in their 40s and let them run for presidency in their 50s. With enough work they would have 10-20 candidates to put forward and really nail home not only a candidate people like, but also have a number of backups that are also liked. Against the republicans, it would become easy.
But I guess, since Gen Z doesn't seem to care about politics and just want some magical solution to everything, there won't be any young people available to be prepared for future presidency. We're not doomed because we have senile old people running the show, but that we have no young people actually caring for politics. Maybe when the fascist boots step on their throats they might get the memo to actually do something for real and not just continue their slacktivism thinking that accomplishes anything.
Reply to Christoffer 50 is old. Presidents should be 50 at the most. I'm 45 and I read a lot and make music so I can't say my brain isn't regularly used and I can tell my retention rate for information is a fraction of what it used to be. I can barely memorise new pieces and forget them in a few months after I do but will play your anything I learned when I was a teenager.
Reply to Benkei To be honest, there hasn't been a young world leader that has ever made a good impression on me. They appear naive, easily manipulated, sometimes overtly groomed, and they seem to have little real wisdom or understanding of the gravity of the position they are in and the consequences of their actions.
Politics should be conducted by dusty, boring, old people - people from whom there is little to gain from corruption, and people who have children and grandchildren whose futures they care about.
50 is old. Presidents should be 50 at the most. I'm 45 and I read a lot and make music so I can't say my brain isn't regularly used and I can tell my retention rate for information is a fraction of what it used to be. I can barely memorise new pieces and forget them in a few months after I do but will play your anything I learned when I was a teenager.
50 isn't old. 50 is a good age in which the maturity of ideas settle down. And since 40 year old's today act like they're still children, with immature handling of philosophical concepts and ideology, they have to get ten more years of maturing before they have the calm to act on their convictions and ideas.
20-30 is the age in which people explore who they want to be as an adult. 30-40 they explore the validity of such aspirations. 40-50 they manifest the true aspirations, solidified as their true identity. 50+ is when a person has manifested who they really are, a stability matured by years of exploration in which they find wisdom rather than just knowledge.
A presidency requires wisdom and it's something lacking these days.
Of course, all this requires a sane psychology and proper introspection throughout life. Most people can live to their dying days without ever thinking an original thought or questioning themselves properly. But for a president, a leader, someone who's supposed to work for the people, it should be a requirement.
I find democracies today to be pretty lackluster in their defense against those taking advantage of it. Just because democracy demands a representative of the people to be the person who wins an election, shouldn't mean that any dipshit should be able to. I rather think that a representative in a democracy should have demands of competence like any other job in society.
A president do not stand above the staff of representatives for the people, they should be in service of it. They should be the ones taking the raw emotions, wills and wants from the people and fine-tuning it into working policy, law and national practice. They should be in service of the people.
That's not what's going on in the US. The US president is a pseudo-king. It's a plastic kingdom similar to Disneyland. The US does not have a good structure of politics, there's no actual parliament. The congress is just a big funding party for lobbyists rather than a place to evaluate strategies for the nation and international politics.
Democracy is still in need of philosophical progress, it needs further work. The term has become some plaque and adjective to describe a "good nation", but since none of the "good guys" in our world seem to know in what way to actually describe how democracy is producing "good nations", we end up with sham democracies and representatives of the people who can just con everyone into believing these representative are kings and religiously elevated deities. Until people see them as they are and goes for the next plastic king.
Democracy today is in a hyperreal state of what democracy could be. And we lack the framework to produce actual leaders because we haven't thought through what is actually required to end up with stable, good leaders who are competent at their job.
The entertainment industry that is democracy today must end and be replaced by democracy that has evolved past this shallow plastic shell of "a good nation".
One of the more hilarious aspects about the tantrums one finds in American politics is that they are largely self-inflicted. The schemozzle about Biden's absent-mindedness, for instance, is the direct result of them lying to themselves. When a wasteful and fraud investigation didn't turn up Kremlin influence in the presidency, and implicated the opposing campaign, they blamed their victim and not their own lies. The recent Supreme Court rulings would not have happened had they not weaponized the justice system to go after their political opponents. The classified documents case might have occurred before the election had they not bungled it, tampered with evidence, or tried use it to influence the election.
Of course, there is always someone else to blame. Right at the moment when the delusion ought to be replaced with honest self-reflection, a new one takes its place, and the process begins all over again. No doubt, if/when Trump's felony conviction gets overturned for being a travesty of justice, they'll blame the ones who overturned it, and not the ones who brought and judged such a shit case. With this they can always remain in the delusion.
The classified documents case might have occurred before the election had they not bungled it, tampered with evidence, or tried use it to influence the election.
Not sure what you're referring to. Has there been a decision on this or are you just parroting Trump lawyers verbatim?
This is a false representation of the Müller report. Stop lying.
His name is Mueller, not Müller.
Sorry, but “the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.
What Kremlin influence on the presidency are you speaking about?
Not sure what you're referring to. Has there been a decision on this or are you just parroting Trump lawyers verbatim?
Of course you’re not sure. I’m referring to evidence and quotes as recorded in the case files. What are you referring to?
“There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans,” prosecutors wrote, adding in a footnote: “The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court.”
Sorry, but “the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.
What Kremlin influence on the presidency are you speaking about?
It's Müller where I'm from since we actually know how to spell a German name, so tough luck. In any case, Müller has repeatedly refused to exonerate Trump and he did so for a reason. So it's a misrepresentation on your part because you fail to include the fact that while the investigation doesn't prove it, it's because they were frustrated continuously in their investigation. In other words it was neither wasteful or fraudulent and should've been investigated further.
That’s spoliation of evidence or mishandling of classified documents. What do you call it?
Irrelevant. If you think the order of the files in a specific box has any relevance as to the evidence of the content of that box then please make a cogent argument to that effect but on the face of it, it's just another delay.
It's Müller where I'm from since we actually know how to spell a German name, so tough luck. In any case, Müller has repeatedly refused to exonerate Trump and he did so for a reason. So it's a misrepresentation on your part because you fail to include the fact that while the investigation doesn't prove it, it's because they were frustrated continuously in their investigation. In other words it was neither wasteful or fraudulent and should've been investigated further.
That’s right, you can’t name any evidence of Kremlin influence. You might want to stop lying about it.
In fact, it’s a double lie because you refuse to mention (even suspiciously removing it from the sentance you quoted) the failings of that investigation as discovered in subsequent investigations.
Irrelevant. If you think the order of the files in a specific box has any relevance as to the evidence of the content of that box then please make a cogent argument to that effect but on the face of it, it's just another delay.
If the files aren’t as one found there is no way to know the contents are accurate. Not only that but they lied to the court about it. Looks like you’re parrottting Jack Smith verbatim.
If the files aren’t as one found them there is no way to know the contents are accurate. Not only that but they lied to the court about it. Looks like you’re parrottting Jack Smith verbatim.
That's a dumb comment for a variety of reasons. How do they know the order changed? Because the FBI records. So we have a record of what was in it before the contents were shuffled. It's legally an inane point as to establishing what was kept and therefore no more than a delaying tactic. This was all from your link by the way. Maybe you should just learn to read instead of jerking off and getting excited because you think you're onto something everytime you read something critical about the government.
In fact, it’s a double lie because you refuse to mention (even suspiciously removing it from the sentance you quoted) the failings of that investigation as discovered in subsequent investigations.
First of all, I'm only quoting you so far. I assume you remember what you wrote a few hours ago so not sure what you're going on about. Whatever failings the investigation had, none of them gave rise to indictments, and none of them discount the multiple crimes Müller established in his investigation. The lie was yours to pretend the Müller report was fraudulent and didn't establish any crimes. It did. Multiple ones.
That's a dumb comment for a variety of reasons. How do they know the order changed? Because the FBI records. So we have a record of what was in it before the contents were shuffled. It's legally an inane point as to establishing what was kept and therefore no more than a delaying tactic. This was all from your link by the way. Maybe you should just learn to read instead of jerking off and getting excited because you think you're onto something everytime you read something critical about the government.
You’re parroting the government verbatim. You’re a lawyer, apparently, and you think the spoliation of evidence and lying about it to the court in one of the most unprecedented cases in the history of the country is irrelevant.Your readiness to believe everything you read has long been proven, so your characterizations don’t mean much to me. Maybe you shouldn’t feel so duty-bound to defend their actions every single time, for whatever reason.
First of all, I'm only quoting you so far. I assume you remember what you wrote a few hours ago so not sure what you're going on about. Whatever failings the investigation had, none of them gave rise to indictments, and none of them discount the multiple crimes Müller established in his investigation. The lie was yours to pretend the Müller report was fraudulent and didn't establish any crimes. It did. Multiple ones.
You quoted one clause out of an entire sentence, afraid to quote me in full, clearly trying to hide the context for whatever reason. Probably to draw attention away from the fact that you, like your fraudulent investigation, were duped by Clinton-campaign opposition research, which to this day a fact you refuse to mention. You, like Mueller, refuse to mention exculpatory evidence, or anything else that might point to how stupid the whole charade was.
The investigation was fraudulent, as is your continued parroting of it.
Reply to jorndoe
I think the groundwork is forming for a shift in the US toward greater authoritarianism. The trigger for the change would be something like a war. The population is presently split between people who want that to happen (on both the right and left) and people who are apathetic.
Did you see the poll that said Trump is particularly popular among people 18-29? It was reported by The Hill. Like 61% prefer Trump.
The most depressing thing about the ABC/Stephanopolous interview was indeed that final sentence.
“If you stay in, and Trump is elected, and everything you’re warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“I will feel, as long as I gave it my all, and I did the — good a job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about,” Biden replied.
Not nearly good enough. "Trying my best" and "Promise I'll go to bed early". I think it's obvious that the gig is up, let's just hope the man himself comes to realise it.
If the pressure can be sustained, there may yet be a chance he’s replaced — a much better chance than I once thought — but I’d still give the chances 1 in 5 or so. The ABC interview didn’t do much to reverse the tide.
But this has been interesting. They’re really panicking— and for good reason.
Reply to Mikie I'm convinced he will reliquish the candidacy. That's what he must do - it can't be taken from him, he has to pass it on, and I'm sure he will. And as the electorate is crying out for an alternative to Biden-Trump (not counting Kennedy, because he doesn't count), I think it will electrify the landscape. It might instantly attract millions of undecideds and anti-Trumpers. Might.
Reply to Mikie I don't think she's The Candidate, but she's also not as terrible as the media tends to depict her. I said upthread, from where I sit (outside the US but with irons in the fire), a Newsom/Whitmer ticket would look pretty damned impressive.
Newsom/Whitmer ticket would look pretty damned impressive.
I think that could work. Maybe a Josh Shapiro … but it’s really all just fantasy. I think if Biden steps down the natural candidate is Harris, for multiple reasons— including the large amount of money donated to their campaign.
You also have to assume that Kamala Harris would *want* to be the Presidential Nominee. And I don't know if that's gauranteed.
Reading between the lines - and there's lots of lines - it looks as if Biden agrees to transition, it might result in an 'open convention'. It's happened before, and didn't work out well for the Democrats. But this situation is different. Sure, Trumpworld has its rusted-on supporters, but many of those who don't like him really hate him, but think Biden is too old. (I mentioned before, Steve Bannon said just as he was turning himself in, the Trump Campaign is betting on beating Biden - hey nice alliteration there - if someone else is the candidate, it's a wild card, things could shift very quickly.)
it's a wild card, things could shift very quickly.)
What do people in this thread plan to do about Biden? The biggest wildcard is that he's dug in. He is on record as saying, "No one is pushing me out of the race." He's made this perfectly clear. And Jill is fierce. You can talk Kamala and Gavin and Gretchen and Michelle all you like, but Biden's not budging.
Are Democrats ready to either impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment? If not, how are you going to dislodge him?
What do people in this thread plan to do about Biden?
Nothing I can do about it, I’m not even an elector (although my son lives in the US and is a dual citizen.) I’m still holding out hope that Biden will see reason (and rather uncharitably wishing he’d have a mild stroke which would take the matter out of his hands.) But if he stays the candidate, I’m now convinced that Trump will win, and that it will be an unqualified disaster for America and the rest of the world (but that’s not something I’m going to debate outside the Trump thread, of which I’m steering clear.)
Not a good year for Shapiros in the Dem party as long as Michigan's in play.
Michigan is in play in large part because Biden is the nominee and pissing off Arabs with what he's doing in Gaza. That's why I think Whitmer is an ideal candidate since she can take any stance on Israel and win Michigan easily but apart from his age, Biden's foreign policy is a big drag on the ticket.
Are Democrats ready to either impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment? If not, how are you going to dislodge him?
I've heard there's also a "good conscience" rule the DNC can add for delegates to not vote for Biden, but right now the Dems are trying to convince grandpa that he is perhaps not the best driver in the world and relinquish his car keys voluntarily. Next week will probably see the dam breaking.
If you argue with stupid, they'll drag you down and beat you with experience.
Either way, some worthwhile observations/ethics can be found
Shame constrains us. Shamelessness is a liberation.
Learning to be absolutely shameless is easy.
It is our civic duty to make motivated sociopathy costly.
Some (post-rationalizing) individuals gravitate naturally towards conflict, which can empower the demagogue. Anyway, nutn' much new here, jus'sayin.
Reply to frank, you think there's a large number of people in the US that want war (civil or wider)? A US civil war would play straight into the hands of hungry foreign forces, which might just come back to haunt them.
Kamela? Really? From one deeply unpopular candidate to another. I have long given up on the Democrats actually delivering anything meaningful policy wise. All I need from them is to prevent the descent into outright fascism by defeating a totally unqualified sub moronic evil clown. Even that very low bar is too much for them.
The Democratic party has long ago degenerated into complete worthlessness. In a functioning democracy they would have been swept away long ago. It is our winner take all electoral system that makes a third party impossible, and therefore keeps the existing two parties entrenched, no matter how awful they become. This will be America's downfall.
This country is not going to elect a black woman, much less a politically incompetent black woman like Harris. Michelle Obama is the exception to that rule and probably the only person in the country who could rescue the Democrats, but that's not going to happen. Trump is up 3 points in the polling average. 538 has the race as even. Biden is not going to drop out under those conditions, nor should he. The Democrats still have a powerful message: white male vegetable>election stealing prolife felon.
After being embarrassingly outed for feeding the media questions in an effort to save the optics regarding his cognitive abilities, the Biden campaign is now saying it will stop doing so. WHO IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY?
“Biden campaign will no longer feed questions to media after being outed by radio host: source”
Michigan is in play in large part because Biden is the nominee and pissing off Arabs with what he's doing in Gaza. That's why I think Whitmer is an ideal candidate since she can take any stance on Israel and win Michigan easily but apart from his age, Biden's foreign policy is a big drag on the ticket.
Good point, Whitmer is popular in Michigan and can withstand the Palestinian-supporting component of the left. Makes sense. Still tricky to leapfrog Kamala. Do you mean Whitmer for veep or prez? Kamala has a constituency within the party.
I've heard there's also a "good conscience" rule the DNC can add for delegates to not vote for Biden, but right now the Dems are trying to convince grandpa that he is perhaps not the best driver in the world and relinquish his car keys voluntarily. Next week will probably see the dam breaking.
Oh I see I hadn't heard that. Internet says that "DNC rules encourage but don't specifically require delegates to vote for the candidate they're pledged to support. Instead, the rules say, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them ..."
That does seem like an out. I thought the delegates were firmly bound, but evidently not.
My take on this situation is that the Dems are in denial when they say, "Dems are trying to convince grandpa that he is perhaps not the best driver in the world ..." In fact Joe has stated that he's in it to win it, and he has Jill and now Hunter on his side. And he's President of the United States. There's a lot of power in that. The Dems are going to have to force Joe out. And I don't think they'll be up for it. The unseemliness of the Dems trying to destroy their own president.
My take -- my out-on-a-limb prediction -- is that in the end, the Dems will not persuade him to drop out. They will either need to impeach him, or invoke the 25th Amendment. And I predict the Democrats will not have the stones to do that. And besides, if they do move to impeach or invoke 25A, the Republicans will oppose them! Imagine the hilarity that would ensue. The GOP would love to run against Biden. Without GOP support the Dems can't get rid of Joe.
I think the Dems made their bed last year when they decided not to have an open, competitive primary. They are stuck with Biden until Jill says so. And she didn't come this far to give up now.
Nothing I can do about it, I’m not even an elector (although my son lives in the US and is a dual citizen.) I’m still holding out hope that Biden will see reason
This is my thesis again. The Dems are hoping Joe will quit. But Joe has said he's not quitting, and he and Jill and Hunter are circling the wagons. In the end the Dems are going to have to act; by impeaching him, 25A-ing him, or deliberately incapacitating him.
(and rather uncharitably wishing he’d have a mild stroke which would take the matter out of his hands.)
Can you see the irony, dare I say depravity, of hoping fo such a thing? In a candidate you supported five minutes before the debate?
I'm struck by the viciousness of the Dem and left response. All those who had Joe's back five minutes ago, and are now stabbing him in the back. And why is the response so emotionally intense? Because these are all of the people who didn't say anything a year ago, when they could have called for open and competitive Democratic primaries. They didn't say anything in 2020, when Biden was doing badly in the polls and the DNC did the Clyburn deal to install Biden. Along with Kamala, who'd dropped out of the 2020 race in 2019, polling in single-digits in her own home state. She got taken apart by Tulsi Gabbard in a debate, and never recovered. The media are pumping her up this week, but her negatives aren't going away.
Now the bill's come due, and the Dems are hoping Biden strokes out soon. You're not the only one. Perhaps that stroke won't come along by itself, ya know? Slip Joe a little something in his bowl of ice cream. That's what the Dems have come to.
Is that extreme? Just look at what you wrote. You are not the only Dem thinking that way. But a year ago when the DNC decided not to have real primaries, you said nothing. This is a fiasco of the Dems' own making.
But if he stays the candidate, I’m now convinced that Trump will win,
That's been clear a long time, and even from before the general public found out about his tragic age-related cognitive decline. Biden's policies are unpopular. You can't fix that with a younger candidate. Of course I'll stipulate that you disagree with me on policy, and I'm not here to argue that. Many voters are not happy with how things have been in the Biden administration and swapping in a younger candidate with the same policies is not going to change that many votes.
and that it will be an unqualified disaster for America and the rest of the world (but that’s not something I’m going to debate outside the Trump thread, of which I’m steering clear.)
I understand your feelings about that. No need to discuss the respective merits of the candidates. The scandal is what's interesting. This Biden mess is going to be the biggest political scandal in my lifetime, bigger than Watergate. Just swapping in a new candidate is not going to solve the Dems' problems, It's raise a whole host of new ones, starting with fundamental democratic legitimacy. Will voters stand for yet another last-minute DNC back-room deal?
Reply to 180 Proof But why not? If an alternative candidate would stand he/she is allowed to try to persuade the pledged delegates because they aren't strictly held to vote for Biden.
Reply to Benkei DNC party rules and, because he is the incumbent president, Biden (team) controls the Dems convention nominating process. Besides, even if the Dems could "force him out" (they cannot), by law the money the Biden-Harris campaign has raised would still belong to his campaign and he could run for reelection as an independent guaranteeing that The Clown wins the election. So as a practical electoral matter it's a disaster if Biden doesn't voluntarily step aside and endorse his replacement.
if Biden doesn't voluntarily step aside and endorse his replacement.
Yeah, him doing so would be the only possible positive outcome other than taking the chance at him winning, but that feels more far fetched the closer to the election we get.
In fact Joe has stated that he's in it to win it, and he has Jill and now Hunter on his side. And he's President of the United States. There's a lot of power in that.
Sure, but everybody adamantly says they're in it until they aren't. I think it's too late for Biden to stop the dam from breaking within his own party. Too many different groups from the donors to the representatives to the senators are already saying he should step aside and likely this week (as congress reconvenes) this will lead to a large number of public statements for Joe to step aside. At some point such a situation becomes untenable.
But who knows how he'll react. Is Joe selfish enough to stay in anyways even if it means the total collapse of his party? Perhaps but it's clear his attempts to quiet any dissent through a mix of stubbornness and finally getting out there have been completely unsuccessful so far. A normal politician would've taken drastic action immediately after that debate, doing numerous interviews, town halls, and unscripted events in order to assure people that they can do this. Biden instead went back to hiding for a week and later did a 20 minute interview where he still sounded rambling and delusional, and well we can sort of guess why. I think the video I linked to where he said he will be content with losing to Trump and ending democracy because all that matters to him is his reelection attempt will turn his critics off more.
How big of an imbecile does one have to be to really believe the US President “runs the country”?
Preparing the rhetorical environment for "Who cares if the president is a disabled vegetable? There are many people in executive functions besides just the president!!".
AI already surpassed the average person in that it runs on a much more interesting and unpredictable script — the similarity is that both are soulless automatons.
Reply to Christoffer My guess is that, barring a debilitating health event or worse, if Biden doesn't step aside this week (or next at the latest), then he will be on the ballot again. I believe various state deadlines are coming up later this month for printing ballots, etc so the Democratic Party's "final" decision whether to unite behind Biden is imminent. That's critical – not whether or Biden steps aside – the degree to which the coalitions which make up the Dems coalesce again like they did in 2020 to make the election about opposition to The Neofascist Criminal Clown in Roevember.
Is there really any universe in which the events of the last week could transpire if the purpose wasn't expressly for Biden to lose? Is there really any universe in which a senile old man is allowed to hijack the fate of the most powerful country in the world?
So who would you vote for (if you could / will vote in the 2024 election): (A) the old man who (usually) tells truths despite his stutter or (B) the old swine who only squeels (& farts) lies just to keep breathing?
Reply to 180 Proof I think the answer will be: many abstentations, and that this will favour Trump, as his voters are enthusiastic.
It seems clear that Biden can't be forced out of the race - unlike in a parliamentary democracy such as Australia's or Great Britian's, there's no provision for the 'vote of no confidence' of the kind which brought down Boris Johnson. The only two things that can change that is that he changes his mind, or is declared unfit on medical grounds (which seems not altogether impossible.)
Trump is unanimously designated 'the worst US President' by a board of academic historians. If Biden runs and looses, he will be relegated to the place just behind him on that ladder, for having paved the way for the MAGA overthrow of the constitutional order (even despite his policy achievements and accomplishments.)
Reply to Wayfarer No matter who winds up the Democrat's presidential nominee, all that matters now it seems to me is this: Quoting 180 Proof
the degree to which the coalitions which make up the Dems coalesce again like they did in 2020 to make the election about opposition to The Neofascist Criminal Clown in Roevember.
Eh, whether he stays or goes doesn’t matter that much I bet. With Trump as an opponent, people will vote against him. Doesn’t matter what or who that other button is. Maybe it’s a curtain rod. Maybe it’s a can of soup.
With Trump out there, there’s a very good chance Biden wins.
Michigan and Pennsylvania. That’s all you have to focus on, and you win.
Reply to Deleted user Some of the founders wanted the presidency to be a committee job. I figure when I vote for president, I'm voting for a team, not just one person. So I have no problem voting for a vegetable over Trump. The executive would still function. It's not an ideal situation, but doable.
Reply to Wayfarer Biden's rolling the dice. If he wins, even by a narrow margin, the GOP will suffer the worst trouncing a political party has ever had in American politics. How could anyone lose to this guy??? The GOP would immediately go into circular firing squad mode. If Biden loses, Democrats will hate him and his family and his inner circle with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns. There's no middle ground here. It's either glory or infamy.
Reply to Mikie 538 still has the race a toss-up. Betting odds on Trump are about 55%. They could probably run Biden Weekend-at-Bernies style and still have a 1-in-3 chance to win. It would actually be kind of fun to beat Trump with a braindead Biden.
With Trump out there, there’s a very good chance Biden wins.
Fear of a second Trump term and Project 2025 is the only thing keeping the Dems alive at this point. Would've been nice if they just ran some generic 50 year old or somebody that didn't massively turn off voters nationwide.
Biden's rolling the dice. If he wins, even by a narrow margin, the GOP will suffer the worst trouncing a political party has ever had in American politics. How could anyone lose to this guy??? The GOP would immediately go into circular firing squad mode.
Then they'll re-nominate the same guy who lost again 4 years later.
Yeah a Harris/Whitmer ticket would be more realistic. That being said Harris will more likely go for Shapiro because he's a white man.
Like I say. Shapiros are not in style in this year's Democratic party. Which reminds me that in 2020, the Dems had an excellent black female VP candidate, Val Demings. But she was a cop, and cops were not in style in the Democratic party of 2020. Live by identity politics, die by same
Yep, and the delegates are not very eager to nominate him right now. We'll see if it snowballs into something.
I looked this up. Biden has 3896 delegates, and everyone else has 43 combined. Biden is the overwhelming choice of Dem primary voters, and that's one of his advantages.
Just found this, which is just one article and doesn't prove anything, but it's still of interest.
[i]
Democrats urging President Joe Biden to end his campaign and allow the party to select another nominee before – or during – August’s national convention are unlikely to find allies in the ranks of Chicago-bound delegates, who are increasingly closing ranks around Biden.[/i]
In fact now that Biden's dug in, some Dems are coming around. House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries is for Joe. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out for Joe today. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer came out for Joe. And surprisingly Senator John Warner, who the other day said he was gathering a group of anti-Joe Senators, today came out for Joe.
I believe that once Joe said he's staying in, people realize that he's going to be virtually impossible to dislodge. He has the power of the presidency, which is huge. He has Hunter and Jill on his team. And drug and hooker jokes aside, Hunter appears to be a capable ally at the moment. Joe has all those delegates. And the Democrats risk looking very anti-democratic if they swap in a last-minute candidate chosen by the party insiders. Joe looks stronger today than he did a few days ago when everyone thought he was toast.
And a lot of the backstabbers look unseemly, a point I've been making. You love a guy yesterday and knife him in the back today? That says more about the backstabber than it does about Biden. Looking at you, New York Times, Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, etc.
Sure, but everybody adamantly says they're in it until they aren't. I think it's too late for Biden to stop the dam from breaking within his own party.
I'm on record that the Dems are not going to dislodge him as long as Jill and Hunter want him in. The Dems do not have the stones to impeach him or invoke he 25th amendment. My bet's a long shot, I'll give you that. Joe looks like toast. But what are the Dems really going to do if he refuses to step down?
There's a full-on civil war in the Democratic party. The inevitable result of decisions they took in 2020 and 2024. People were saying Biden was cognitively impaired as early as 2019. The Dems could have avoided this. Now they're stuck.
Too many different groups from the donors to the representatives to the senators are already saying he should step aside and likely this week (as congress reconvenes) this will lead to a large number of public statements for Joe to step aside. At some point such a situation becomes untenable.
Like I noted, prominent Dems are also stepping up to support him. They realize that panicking right now could well come out worse than just getting behind Biden.
But who knows how he'll react. Is Joe selfish enough to stay in anyways even if it means the total collapse of his party?
Oh yeah. Biden and his family are out for themselves. The stories about the family corruption are not "right wing propaganda" any more than his cognitive decline was. Biden's for Biden, and his family wants him to have pardon authority as long as possible. That dam might break too, and when it does, the family's going to want Biden in power.
Perhaps but it's clear his attempts to quiet any dissent through a mix of stubbornness and finally getting out there have been completely unsuccessful so far.
Not so. The tide began to turn today (Monday evening US time as I write). Lot of Dems came out for Biden, even some who'd been against him just a day or two ago.
A normal politician would've taken drastic action immediately after that debate, doing numerous interviews, town halls, and unscripted events in order to assure people that they can do this.
Of course Biden is incapable of doing any of that. But we started seeing it in 2019! They hid the guy all during the 2020 campaign. People have been talking about Biden's tragic age-related cognitive impairment for years. Media types have admitted they covered it up so as not to help Trump.
Biden has of course done what he can. He called in to Scarborough's program. He's given some teleprompter speeches. It's all he can do.
But that is not the point. The point is: Who is going to dislodge him, and how?
Biden instead went back to hiding for a week and later did a 20 minute interview where he still sounded rambling and delusional, and well we can sort of guess why. I think the video I linked to where he said he will be content with losing to Trump and ending democracy because all that matters to him is his reelection attempt will turn his critics off
Agreed, of course. But again: Who is going to dislodge him? The parallel's been made with Nixon, when his advisors came to see him and told him it was all over. But he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage to the Dems have over Biden? A strongly worded letter? They have nothing. Let's see if they'll start impeachment or 25A proceedings. Of course they will not do it.
So it's advantage Biden, no matter how compromised his mental state.
This is the greatest political scandal of our lifetimes. This thing is just getting started. A full-on civil war in the Democratic party just four months from a highly consequential election. Anything can happen.
Perhaps Biden will have that stroke @Wayfarer is hoping for. Something to see, actual Biden supporters hoping for that. End stage Trump Derangement Syndrome. If the Dems had just ignored Trump and had a real primary season, Newsom or Whitmer would be beating DeSantis right now.
From a few weeks ago. I was struck by your extreme partisanship back then -- and now you are hoping your own preferred candidate will have a stroke.
What side are YOU on?
Can you not see your own moral corruption brought on by your extreme hatred of one man who was already president for four years and didn't do any of the things you claim he'll now do?
You don't even wish Trump would stroke out. With his diet and lifestyle it could happen. But no. You have worked yourself into such a state of anger and hate that you hope your own guy will have a stroke. And why? Because you are angry at yourself for going along with the lies. You and all the other Dems who are shocked, shocked that Biden's suffering the age-related cognitive impairment that was apparent in 2019. Do you have any self-awareness at all?
Your remarks got to me a few weeks ago. In case you're wondering why I'm addressing you about this.
Whatever side represents the rule of law and upholds the constitution. The side which didn’t attempt the overthrow of the Government and the subversion of the election.
I believe Biden has lost the confidence of many in the electorate and that the Democratic party ought to have selected a younger candidate. That said, though, I’ve never believed that Trump ought to have been allowed to run, considering his obvious malfeasance.
Which reminds me that in 2020, the Dems had an excellent black female VP candidate, Val Demings. But she was a cop, and cops were not in style in the Democratic party of 2020.
I mean Kamala was a prosecutor. I don't think either were gonna be popular with the Democrat base in 2020 due to the BLM riots, but Biden decided on Harris.
In fact now that Biden's dug in, some Dems are coming around. House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries is for Joe. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out for Joe today. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer came out for Joe. And surprisingly Senator John Warner, who the other day said he was gathering a group of anti-Joe Senators, today came out for Joe.
I'll wait until tomorrow since alot of other congressional Dems are kind of staying silent and clearly are not just falling in line like the president wanted. I'm assuming you meant Mark Warner there, and his statements are also very noncommittal. Nobody except one representative came out today against Biden, and my guess is that the dissenters are currently keeping quiet so they can present a united front when they meet later.
From what I can tell the House Dems are planning a meeting in the morning to discuss the matter privately, while the Senate is also doing the same at noon. Whether they'll decide to confront the president and whether any of that will be made public is anyone's guess.
I believe that once Joe said he's staying in, people realize that he's going to be virtually impossible to dislodge. He has the power of the presidency, which is huge. He has Hunter and Jill on his team. And drug and hooker jokes aside, Hunter appears to be a capable ally at the moment. Joe has all those delegates. And the Democrats risk looking very anti-democratic if they swap in a last-minute candidate chosen by the party insiders. Joe looks stronger today than he did a few days ago when everyone thought he was toast.
That's Biden's intended play here, but given that nothing he's done in the past week has assured worried Dems about his reelection prospects, and his complete dismissal of the concerns being thrown his way, I think he's only infuriated and emboldened his critics more. He couldn't convince them that he's not senile so now he's trying to say "don't oppose me or else I'll make it ugly for all of us" to get them to fall in line. Could be a sign he really is hopelessly stubborn or it could be a last ditch attempt at keeping the dam from breaking. Whether the Dems speaking tomorrow will act or not will depend on how they read what he said, but it's clear the president is daring them to oppose him.
And a lot of the backstabbers look unseemly, a point I've been making. You love a guy yesterday and knife him in the back today? That says more about the backstabber than it does about Biden. Looking at you, New York Times, Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, etc.
Biden isn't at all a beloved figure. That was why he was thrown under the bus so easily. He's doesn't command a cult like following like Trump so it's easy for them to do so. He was nominated in 2020 purely for his perceived electability and now in an election where he seems to be losing that by being down against a convicted felon the Dems have largely soured on him. I mean they'll still vote for him to stop Trump but they have no support for Biden himself.
I'm on record that the Dems are not going to dislodge him as long as Jill and Hunter want him in. The Dems do not have the stones to impeach him or invoke he 25th amendment. My bet's a long shot, I'll give you that. Joe looks like toast. But what are the Dems really going to do if he refuses to step down?
What are they gonna do if he stays in? It seems at this point he's dragging the entire party down for his own selfish goals. At this point they might as well try to make it untenable for him and hope he isn't gonna stubbornly let his own party collapse under his hubris.
Like I noted, prominent Dems are also stepping up to support him. They realize that panicking right now could well come out worse than just getting behind Biden.
It's kind of a mixed bag at this point. Alot of them have "concerns" as well. May be a civil war situation but who knows, some of the supporters may believe deep down that Biden isn't the right guy for the job. Reportedly you have folks like Don Beyer saying in private that Biden should resign and let Harris be president while openly supporting him for instance.
Not so. The tide began to turn today (Monday evening US time as I write). Lot of Dems came out for Biden, even some who'd been against him just a day or two ago.
Like I said, I'll wait until Tuesday to see if Biden has weathered the storm. The critics have been silent until they meet and gather. Here's a Politico article from Monday evening suggesting that things aren't necessarily over.
Of course Biden is incapable of doing any of that. But we started seeing it in 2019! They hid the guy all during the 2020 campaign. People have been talking about Biden's tragic age-related cognitive impairment for years. Media types have admitted they covered it up so as not to help Trump.
Yeah I was one of the people who noticed it back then too (comparing it unfavorably to his 2012 debate performance), but it's way worse now. He could at least debate and do a forceful interview in 2020.
Agreed, of course. But again: Who is going to dislodge him? The parallel's been made with Nixon, when his advisors came to see him and told him it was all over. But he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage to the Dems have over Biden? A strongly worded letter? They have nothing. Let's see if they'll start impeachment or 25A proceedings. Of course they will not do it.
Yeah I understand that ultimately it really is on Biden to step aside unless the Dems are brave enough to take stronger measures. The hope I guess is to make the situation as untenable to Biden as possible because clearly he is out of touch with the reality of the situation, and also hope that the supposed good man in Joe will make him realize how destructive his political ambitions are to a party and country that's lost faith in him. Who knows, maybe he will let the party crumble before he steps aside, but even he should realize that he can't win an election if even his team lacks any confidence in him.
Whatever side represents the rule of law and upholds the constitution. The side which didn’t attempt the overthrow of the Government and the subversion of the election.
I ask you to introspect about your sentiments regarding Biden. I'll stipulate that you have your political opinions, which are shared by many and opposed by many. No point in arguing those since as you yourself recently noted, we're not in the Trump thread. I'm more interested in the psychological reaction to Biden, the vicious backstabbing and, in your case, the hope for a terrible physical malady to befall him.
The viciousness toward Biden from his own side -- that's a psychological reaction to years of going along with the lies about his condition. No other explanation fits. Who, honestly, was shocked by his debate performance? I said to myself during the debate, "Biden's reasonably lucid tonight." I actually said that. He was no worse than he's been for months, and actually a little better. He didn't glitch out like at Juneteenth. He didn't wander off like at the G7. He didn't head-butt the Pope. He didn't raise his fist and start insulting people as he frequently did in 2019.
I was literally shocked that so many people were shocked. Biden has been like this for a long time. Dems and the media and those who hate Trump have been lying -- to themselves, mostly -- and covering it all up. And now that it's exploded, are they angry at themselves? No. They're angry at Biden. And you hope he'll stroke out, to save you the cognitive dissonance of your own years of enabling the Democrats' fraud on the American people.
I ask you to introspect about your sentiments regarding Biden
I only made the remark about medical factors causing Biden to retire, because I think he ought to retire. Like a lot of people, I think the public perception of him being 'too old' is a factor which might cause him to loose. If I were an American elector, and Biden was the candidate, I'd vote for him. I'm just concerned that many others won't, and as I've already said, I believe the re-election of Donald Trump would be an unqualified disaster for the United States and the rest of the world. Nobody's been 'covering anything up' about Biden. He's never been an orator, he often had verbal stumbles and gaffes throughout his career. So what? The Washington Post kept a daily tally of Trump's lies in his first term which topped out at some number around [s]38,000[/s] (correction, 30,583) so don't talk about 'deception'. Anyway Im not going to discuss it with you, if you can't see Trump's obvious malfeasance then there's obviously no point.
And let’s not forget the Congressional Oversight Committee which spent, or rather wasted, several years trying to dig dirt on Joe Biden, only to see all their witnesses turn on them on the stand or being charged for lying to the FBI. Nothing, nada, zilch.
Then review The Whitehouse For Sale report which found Trump made $6 million in emoluments from Chinese and Arabian interests while in office.
They hid the guy all during the 2020 campaign....You and all the other Dems who are shocked, shocked that Biden's suffering the age-related cognitive impairment that was apparent in 2019.
There were three pivotal one-on-one debates Biden was in and he won all three. One against Bernie and two against Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-sanders-debate-poll/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/poll-final-presidential-debate-biden-trump-432052
I watched all three of those debates (and the numerous primary debates) and thought Biden did fine. If he was in bad shape, as you claim, he wouldn't have won any of them.
Ouch. The New York Times is waging an all-out assault on Biden.
The Democratic Party Must Speak the Plain Truth to the President
The 2024 presidential election is not a contest between two men, or even between two political parties. It is a battle for who we are as a nation.
President Biden clearly understands the stakes. But he seems to have lost track of his own role in this national drama. As the situation has become more dire, he has come to regard himself as indispensable. He does not seem to understand that he is now the problem — and that the best hope for Democrats to retain the White House is for him to step aside.
The arrogance of the media class is palpable, even more so when colliding against the arrogance of the Biden crime family. The best part is that this is the world they’ve made together. This is their vision, the product of their handiwork. And they can do no better than the dystopian future they imagine everyday in the midst of their moral panic.
It looks to me as if the democratic party has managed to hand the election to Trump on a silver platter.
If opposition to Biden has not managed to coalesce into a united front until now, then it will not. Fear of uncertainty and sheer inertia will keep him in the race.
As far as I am concerned, this is a damning indictment of the democratic party as a vehicle of political action. They allowed the Republicans to run rings around them during Obama. They mishandled Hillary's campaign. They allowed Trump to gain absurdly outsized importance during his term. They then made the most conservatice choice possible by going with Biden, narrowly managing to win. Then instead of immediately planning for his replacement, they decided to just stick it out, simply crossing their fingers that Biden would be well enough 4 years down the line to beat Trump.
And now that it turns out he isn't, they made a panicky and half-assed effort which has practically ruined Biden's chances to win without actually having any chance to replace him.
Really the party (at the federal level) should just be dissolved at this point.
If opposition to Biden has not managed to coalesce into a united front until now, then it will not. Fear of uncertainty and sheer inertia will keep him in the race.
Like the Republicans with Trump, the Democrats in congress are cowards who would rather stay the course then try and do what they know is the right thing.
Really the party (at the federal level) should just be dissolved at this point.
Hopefully to be replaced by a party that actually gives it's base a voice instead of forcing candidates that they prefer on them, like Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2020 and 2024. The voters made it very clear that they didn't want Joe to run again due to his age, and they ran him again.
The voters made it very clear that they didn't want Joe to run again due to his age, and they ran him again.
I don't agree with this. There was no appetite for replacing Biden. He sailed through the primaries and his one credible challenger got almost no votes.
Reply to RogueAI You can look up the polls yourself back then which always had a majority of people saying Biden is too old. Biden ran as an incumbent president against other candidates who got very little to no coverage in the media so the result was pretty obvious. Perhaps they should've done some debates.
Reply to Mr Bee People told pollsters that, yeah, but did anyone put pressure on elected dems or the DNC? Did the liberal talking heads demand a primary? Did the NYTimes editorial board say anything about it? The Democrats sleepwalked into this mess.
This is a good way to put it, but it begs the question: How the hell is it that the republican party despite it's large and obvious fractures is able to put together a brazen but coherent bid for power while the democrats are asleep?
Reply to RogueAI No they didn't, but the DNC should've seen what voters were thinking and not ignored public sentiment like they always seem so eager to do.
I mean Kamala was a prosecutor. I don't think either were gonna be popular with the Democrat base in 2020 due to the BLM riots, but Biden decided on Harris.
Yes good point. I remember that conversation now. I thought Demings was a great choice. As a Californian I never liked Kamala. Well it's a done deal now. And she has the inside track. Nobody's talking about Gavin or Gretchen lately.
I'll wait until tomorrow since alot of other congressional Dems are kind of staying silent and clearly are not just falling in line like the president wanted. I'm assuming you meant Mark Warner there, and his statements are also very noncommittal. Nobody except one representative came out today against Biden, and my guess is that the dissenters are currently keeping quiet so they can present a united front when they meet later.
They had a meeting today. A reporter asked an attendee if they were on the same page, and he said, "We're not even on the same book." Reports that some people were in tears. Lot of misery in the Dem party. Pretty much anything could happen.
Yes John Warner was the one married to Elizabeth Taylor. I always get them confused
From what I can tell the House Dems are planning a meeting in the morning to discuss the matter privately, while the Senate is also doing the same at noon. Whether they'll decide to confront the president and whether any of that will be made public is anyone's guess.
Right. Rumors they're all pretty upset and no solution in sight.
That's Biden's intended play here, but given that nothing he's done in the past week has assured worried Dems about his reelection prospects, and his complete dismissal of the concerns being thrown his way, I think he's only infuriated and emboldened his critics more. He couldn't convince them that he's not senile so now he's trying to say "don't oppose me or else I'll make it ugly for all of us" to get them to fall in line. Could be a sign he really is hopelessly stubborn or it could be a last ditch attempt at keeping the dam from breaking. Whether the Dems speaking tomorrow will act or not will depend on how they read what he said, but it's clear the president is daring them to oppose him.
Right again. Nate Silver has an article out implying that Biden is bluffing. Maybe he is. He was at NATO today, didn't embarrass himself. He's hanging in. A politician who's been running for office for fifty years or more isn't going to go out easily.
Biden isn't at all a beloved figure. That was why he was thrown under the bus so easily. He's doesn't command a cult like following like Trump so it's easy for them to do so. He was nominated in 2020 purely for his perceived electability and now in an election where he seems to be losing that by being down against a convicted felon the Dems have largely soured on him. I mean they'll still vote for him to stop Trump but they have no support for Biden himself.
Yes good point. He was always kind of a joke, then in 2020 he seemed like the best option to beat Trump. But why didn't the Dems do something sooner? If they'd just have had a competitive primary they'd have replaced him already.
Biden's status, or lack thereof, in the Democratic party cuts both ways. They clearly don't have loyalty to him, but he also has no loyalty to them. That's another reason he's hanging in. He's not thinking of the good of the party, he's taken a lot of disrespect from his fellow Dems over the years. It's the Bidens versus the world at this point.
What are they gonna do if he stays in? It seems at this point he's dragging the entire party down for his own selfish goals. At this point they might as well try to make it untenable for him and hope he isn't gonna stubbornly let his own party collapse under his hubris.
Well, he was doing badly in the polls and had a high unpopularity rating even before the debate. Just another reason for them to have dealt with this during the primaries. Dems have no good options.
It's kind of a mixed bag at this point. Alot of them have "concerns" as well. May be a civil war situation but who knows, some of the supporters may believe deep down that Biden isn't the right guy for the job. Reportedly you have folks like Don Beyer saying in private that Biden should resign and let Harris be president while openly supporting him for instance.
Love to be a fly on the wall in the Dem meetings. Kamala's playing it cool, supporting Biden in public. Someone mentioned that of all the Democrats, Kamala is the only one who had a Constitutional duty to notify people that Biden wasn't all there. Especially with the Parkinson's story in play. I wonder if that will come up. A lot of people have been covering up this situation for a long time.
Like I said, I'll wait until Tuesday to see if Biden has weathered the storm. The critics have been silent until they meet and gather. Here's a Politico article from Monday evening suggesting that things aren't necessarily over.
Definitely not over. This thing's just getting started. Even if they swapped in Kamala, it would not be smooth sailing. The public would have a lot of questions about "What did they know, and when did they know it," as they used to say during Watergate.
Yeah I was one of the people who noticed it back then too (comparing it unfavorably to his 2012 debate performance), but it's way worse now. He could at least debate and do a forceful interview in 2020.
He's gotten much worse just in the past few months. It's heartbreaking at a human level. Especially since none of us are immune. I kind of admire his stubbornness. I'd like to see him stay in and stick it to the party. According to the polling he was losing on the issues anyway. Not clear a last-minute swap would help. Not entirely clear that Biden's condition is the only reason he's behind in the polls.
Yeah I understand that ultimately it really is on Biden to step aside unless the Dems are brave enough to take stronger measures.
They'll never impeach or invoke the 25th. They won't do it. And I don't know if pressure will be enough. I don't see Jill giving in "for the good of the party."
When the GOPs came to Nixon, they told him he was certain to be impeached and convicted. The Dems have no such leverage. This really is a day-by-day situation. Next week is the GOP convention, that might take some of the media attention off the Dems.
The hope I guess is to make the situation as untenable to Biden as possible because clearly he is out of touch with the reality of the situation, and also hope that the supposed good man in Joe will make him realize how destructive his political ambitions are to a party and country that's lost faith in him.
BIden is not a good man. His lunchbucket Joe act is just for the public. I've heard he's always been a very nasty guy in private. Of course you're right, if he would gracefully bow out and endorse Kamala, that's the best the Dems can hope for.
Who knows, maybe he will let the party crumble before he steps aside, but even he should realize that he can't win an election if even his team lacks any confidence in him.
I think the Dems should crumble for what they've done. They had three years to deal with this. Instead they've been lying and gaslighting the country. It was all "cheap fakes" and right wing propaganda right up until the debate. By rights, the voters should punish the Dems severely for all this. But of course Trump has his negatives. People who hate Trump are not going to suddenly vote for him.
I think if the Dems coalesced behind Joe that gives them their best chance. Then Kamala can take over shortly after the inauguration if Joe should win. It's going to be a close election either way. It's very unclear if swapping out Joe actually improves the Dems' chances.
And I don’t believe that for a minute. Biden was quite capable of executing his first term, and did so with distinction.
Ok. You and I can agree to disagree on many things, and this is another such.
But don't you know that he's been getting the questions ahead of time at his infrequent press conferences? And making errors and telling falsehoods for the past three years? I guess people see what they want to see.
Are you saying you were genuinely shocked at his condition at the debate? Believed everything else was "cheap fakes?" How can that be? If you say so, I believe you ... but I've seen Biden's cognitive decline since 2019. Even at the Dem primaries in 2020 Cory Booker and others were making fun of his failing memory.
Distinction? Well I am trying to focus on the politics and not the policies because we all know each other's talking points on policy. But the inflation, the direct result of the massive printing and spending? The open borders that are costing LA and Chicago and NYC billions? Two new wars? Trump had none. If you call that distinction, we can agree to disagree on that too. I'll stipulate to all well-known talking points and rebuttals on both sides, not intending to argue policy. But a lot of Americans are quite unhappy with the Biden admin totally apart from Joe's personal condition.
Which by the way, is one reason swapping out Joe for Kamala might not be the panacea the Dems think it is. Same policies with less mental confusion. Not clear that's an electoral winner.
I only made the remark about medical factors causing Biden to retire, because I think he ought to retire. Like a lot of people, I think the public perception of him being 'too old' is a factor which might cause him to loose. If I were an American elector, and Biden was the candidate, I'd vote for him. I'm just concerned that many others won't,
If you are backing off the stroke remark, I'll be glad to give you a pass on that. I did take it as representative of the massive anger that Dem suddenly feel towards Biden, when they'd been supporting him five minutes earlier.
and as I've already said, I believe the re-election of Donald Trump would be an unqualified disaster for the United States and the rest of the world.
I understand that you feel that way. But Trump was already president for four years. He didn't put people in camps. He didn't do any of the bad things the Trump haters are afraid of. In fact he got rolled by the administrative state and most of the people who worked for him. Some dictator.
And no new wars started on his watch. That is something. That is a lot. And it was no accident. Trump was the peace candidate in 2016 and 2020, and he's the peace candidate today. The left used to be for peace. One of the factors in my defection from the left.
That is just not true. He's been bumbling and stumbling in a frankly heartbreaking manner for several years now. It's not possible to have not seen it. The wandering off stages, the mis-statements that had to be cleaned up by aides the next day ... ok I won't go on. If you claim to have first seen Joe's infimity at the debate, I'll believe you. Because you say so; not because such a claim is credible.
When Joe wandered off at the G7, froze up at Juneteenth, and head-butted the Pope, did you believe KJP when she called those "cheap fakes?" Curious to know.
He's never been an orator, he often had verbal stumbles and gaffes throughout his career.
He has always been corrupt and a rather stupid man. But he was always verbal. Nothing like the last few months and the last few years. The slurring of words. After the debate I was shocked that everyone else was shocked. He seemed to me the same as he's been for quite some time.
So what? The Washington Post kept a daily tally of Trump's lies in his first term which topped out at some number around 38,000 (correction, 30,583) so don't talk about 'deception'. Anyway Im not going to discuss it with you, if you can't see Trump's obvious malfeasance then there's obviously no point.
The point is not that Orange Hitler is worse than the cognitively-impaired husk. That's a political judgment and politics is not about purity. But look what you're doing. You are denying Joe's cognitive impairment on the grounds that Trump is a terrible person. How does that even make sense? Trump is Trump, I get you don't like the guy. That has nothing to do with the fact that the Dems have indeed been covering up Biden's increasingly worse cognitive issues.
Do you even see your bad logic? You are saying that Trump is evil THEREFORE the Dems have not been covering up Biden's cognitive issues. Surely you can see the flaw in that argument.
You can't even discuss Biden's sad state of mind because you hate Trump so much. What kind of sense does that make?
You can't discuss Biden's cognitive issues because you hate Trump. This is exactly how the Democratic party got itself into the pickle it's in! Five years of denial, gaslighting, and coverups.
Ok let me say this another way. If I am understanding you, you claim that you cannot discuss the Democrats' current cognitively-impaired Biden pickle with me, because I don't agree with you about how evil Trump is.
Some people see politics purely in partisan terms. I can discuss a pickle whether the pickle is on one side or the other. The current situation is unprecedented in US history. It's nothing like when LBJ dropped out in 1968 over the Vietnam war, or when Truman chose not to run in 1952 due to his unpopularity.
To me, politics is a partisan affair, to be sure. But it is also a spectator sport. I don't have to love Trump or hate Trump to be enjoying the spectacle. But from your point of view, you can't even have a conversation with me about politics if I don't hate Trump the way you do.
In that case I'm sorry I troubled you. I enjoy talking politics. I don't have to love or hate the people involved. You can vote for Biden (if you were a US voter) regardless of his mental state; and in theory, you could have a conversation about politics with someone whose politics are different than yours. I've always been able to do that. Not everyone does that, sadly. Political conversation is polarized these days, but it can be otherwise.
If the GOPs were in a pickle this week I'd discuss that. I've seen GOPs and Dems in plenty of pickles over the years. I love a good political scandal. That's just me.
I watched all three of those debates (and the numerous primary debates) and thought Biden did fine. If he was in bad shape, as you claim, he wouldn't have won any of them.
I recall being amazed that Biden made it alive through those debates. I was not the only one with that expectation. I never thought he'd make it to election day. I saw an unwell man. And you are right, he did surprise me by surviving. Guess it was just me. What do I know, I liked Tulsi. Still do.
Reply to fishfry You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).
I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse.
It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.
You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).
I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.
In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive?
It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.
YouTubers Eric Hunley and Marc Groubert of America's Untold Stories awarded the US eight bananas (out of ten) following Bragg's conviction of Trump. What of it? Some of us don't think this country's had a legitimate government since the deep state killed JFK in 1963. We have a country of, by, and for the military-industrial complex.
$200 billion to Ukraine, and barely $330 million to Maui after their fire. And that was under the Biden administration. Care to defend that? I'd send $200B to Maui and send the corrupt Nazi Zelinsky money-laundering operation straight to hell. But that's just me. Peacenik from way back, like the left used to be.
Trump started no new wars, the only president in my lifetime to have managed that. Yet he's universally hated by the "good people." Why is that? Why do the good people love the warmongers?
What is on your mind about this? Who's the authoritarian and what have they done? Biden has been quite the unitary executive.
They had a meeting today. A reporter asked an attendee if they were on the same page, and he said, "We're not even on the same book." Reports that some people were in tears. Lot of misery in the Dem party. Pretty much anything could happen.
Yeah the dam didn't break for now, but clearly nobody is eager to unite behind Biden just yet. Bennet's comments recently indicate that Biden isn't gonna be able to ignore and move on from the problem as he usually likes to do.
Right. Rumors they're all pretty upset and no solution in sight.
Courage is a rare thing among elected officials which is why Trump wasn't banished from the GOP, despite their occasional concerns about him post Jan 6 and 2022 midterms.
Right again. Nate Silver has an article out implying that Biden is bluffing. Maybe he is. He was at NATO today, didn't embarrass himself. He's hanging in. A politician who's been running for office for fifty years or more isn't going to go out easily.
I'd say call the bluff. Biden isn't exactly a guy who embodies strength as we saw during the debate and how he's been handling the Gaza situation. I mean sure he has alot of angry stubborn grandpa energy but Netanyahu has been crossing his red lines repeatedly and he has not done anything to stop him.
At this point I don't know what the congressional Dems have to lose either so they might as well try to improve their party's situation and place themselves on the right side of history in case Biden stays in, Trump wins, and he ends democracy.
One interesting aspect of Biden's ABC interview was that he never really specified how he would react if the congressional Dems turned on him. He outright refused to answer the question and acted like there's no revolt going on. If he was really delusional you would've thought that he would give a non-assuring answer like, "I would sit down and tell them 'We will win'," or something to that effect. That will probably hang over the Dems minds as they contemplate what to do next.
But why didn't the Dems do something sooner? If they'd just have had a competitive primary they'd have replaced him already.
Arrogance. They thought they could probably roll with Biden into the next election and dismissed people's concerns about his age. I mean they got pretty far before we saw what happened a week ago... putting aside all those viral videos of Biden having senior moments.
Biden's status, or lack thereof, in the Democratic party cuts both ways. They clearly don't have loyalty to him, but he also has no loyalty to them. That's another reason he's hanging in. He's not thinking of the good of the party, he's taken a lot of disrespect from his fellow Dems over the years. It's the Bidens versus the world at this point.
Sounds like great qualities to have in a leader, both for the party and the country.
Definitely not over. This thing's just getting started. Even if they swapped in Kamala, it would not be smooth sailing. The public would have a lot of questions about "What did they know, and when did they know it," as they used to say during Watergate.
Yeah, but that would be much better than well, trying to convince the public to vote for a soon to be 82 year old man who clearly has cognitive issues to serve another 4 years in office.
He's gotten much worse just in the past few months. It's heartbreaking at a human level. Especially since none of us are immune. I kind of admire his stubbornness. I'd like to see him stay in and stick it to the party
Depends on your political affiliation but as someone who doesn't want Trump winning I have no sympathy for an old man who is selfishly staying in and gambling with his party and country simply to try and get a second term in his 80s.
Not clear a last-minute swap would help. Not entirely clear that Biden's condition is the only reason he's behind in the polls.
At this point I can see way more upsides to a new candidate than running with Biden. Biden can't do anything to fix the fact that he's down in the polls but another candidate can.
As Nikki Haley said, in a race between two incredibly unpopular geriatrics, the first party to get rid of their candidate wins the election. Polling seems to back that idea up, showing that a generic Dem or Rep running against either Trump or Biden respectively will easily win. It'll be interesting to see if that theory holds true.
When the GOPs came to Nixon, they told him he was certain to be impeached and convicted. The Dems have no such leverage. This really is a day-by-day situation. Next week is the GOP convention, that might take some of the media attention off the Dems.
Yeah but they can severely harm and embarrass him, which at this point Biden frankly deserves. As a narcissist that's something he probably cares deeply about. Leverage isn't the same as having complete control over someone.
BIden is not a good man. His lunchbucket Joe act is just for the public.
Yeah doesn't seem like it so far. He's become oddly Trumpian in just about every respect since the debate happened. That being said it could all be a bluff and he may fold if his party lost faith in him. Biden's recent attempt at painting his problems as the elites trying to get rid of him as Trump usually does just isn't believable coming from him, a man who has been propped up by the elites all his life.
I think if the Dems coalesced behind Joe that gives them their best chance. Then Kamala can take over shortly after the inauguration if Joe should win. It's going to be a close election either way. It's very unclear if swapping out Joe actually improves the Dems' chances.
They're likely gonna coalesce if Biden lasts until the convention, and the party and the media will never bring up the age or replacement issue again.
Or... maybe they will continue bringing up the issue of replacement if it's possible to swap him out post nomination, though at that point it'd just be Kamala who would be the nominee. Could be possible (apparently there was discussion of Pence taking over the GOP ticket in October of 2016 after the Access Hollywood tapes came out after all). Biden is likely to have a major senior moment in the next 4 months especially during the next debate which may reignite the discussion, or he could just die of old age. He's 81 after all, so it's not a possibility you can definitively rule out.
Reply to Benkei You could argue that the elites foisted Biden on Democrats, but Republicans had no shortage of options when it came time to pick Trump, both in 2015 and 2023. That was a purely democratic exercise and the GOP voters got exactly what they wanted.
Wouldn't she need a sufficiently detailed political program? And present it for all to see? Or is that no longer relevant? :)
Judging by what I've seen of/from her, I can see her as US president. Surely a whole class above the Clown. From memory, she had some qualms about a normal life with/for their kids.
Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian.
What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win. He tried to pressure his own VP to not certify the election (Pence had to call Dan Qualye, of all people, for moral guidance), and he spread and continues to spread lie after lie about the election he lost. You should listen to Bill Barr's testimony about the aftermath of the election. Total banana republic stuff. We dodged a serious bullet. Had Pence not certified, or had Raffensperger gone along with the attempt to steal the election (he says he felt threatened by Trump), it could have gotten a lot uglier than it was. And then there's the fake elector scheme, and of course Jan 6th.
Judging by what I've seen of/from her, I can see her as US president. Surely a whole class above the Clown. From memory, she had some qualms about a normal life with/for their kids.
Honestly I still don't see the obsession people have with Michelle Obama, especially since she doesn't seem to have any political ambitions or policies of her own. Like is it purely because people miss Barack Obama that much?
Honestly I still don't see the obsession people have with her, especially since she doesn't seem to have any political ambitions or policies of her own. Like is it purely because people miss Barack Obama that much?
She comes across as a smart, nice, honest person. Since she was First Lady, she's intimately familiar with the job. She's been the in the public eye for a long time and not even a whiff of a scandal. If her politics is somewhat moderate, she would wipe the floor with Trump. And Barack would be back in the White House. It's a wonderful fantasy, but that's all it is. Although the betting odds have her at 7%...
Reply to RogueAI I mean she may be First Lady but that doesn't at all give you any idea of what being president is like.
That being said if Jgill's prediction about Biden stepping aside (which is more likely now after the debate) and endorsing Michelle Obama that will certainly be Trump's worst nightmare. Plus the optics of passing over Kamala for another black woman wouldn't be as severe. Michelle just needs to last 4 months and the election is in the bag. A wonderful fantasy indeed.
My liking him or not is irrelevant. His danger to democracy is not a matter of opinion. He’s not only a terrible person, he’s a dreadful leader, his only policy is retribution. His speeches are horrific and contain nothing about policy as such, only threats and fear-mongering. How you can fall for his schtick beats me.
Biden is not ‘a husk’. He’s been an effective senator and president, but he needs to pass the torch.
//
I note today that Gavin Newsom is acting as party whip for Biden. I believe he’s totally sincere in so doing, but also that he’s ideally positioned to step up if the torch is passed.
Reply to Mr Bee I think being married to a president would give you a fairly good idea of what the job is like. My wife certainly has a good idea of what my teaching job is like. Obviously, not as a good idea as someone who is a teacher or is president.
Yeah the dam didn't break for now, but clearly nobody is eager to unite behind Biden just yet. Bennet's comments recently indicate that Biden isn't gonna be able to ignore and move on from the problem as he usually likes to do.
I think that even if Biden bowed out gracefully (unlikely) or the Dems forced him out (quite unseemly, also unlikely) and elevated Kamala, whose popularity is below Biden's (I haven't checked that lately) life would NOT suddenly be a bed of roses. A lot of Dem voters would be unhappy and confused. And the policies are no different. Biden had a bad approval rating and was losing the election to Trump even before the debate. Many of the Dems' policy results such as inflation, unchecked immigration causing blue cities to be overrun with a humanitarian and financial disaster; the two wars, etc etc, are quite unpopular. And Kam is to the left of Joe. I don't see how this solves the Dems' electoral problems.
Courage is a rare thing among elected officials which is why Trump wasn't banished from the GOP, despite their occasional concerns about him post Jan 6 and 2022 midterms.
Verily I say unto you, and unto all the fervent Trump haters on this forum:
Trump is 100% the Democrats' fault
Back in early 2022, people were tired of Trump. I was tired of Trump. He has all his negatives, the bluster, the bullshit, the thin skin, the midnight tweeting, the lack of understanding of how the government works. I was ready for a new GOP candidate to challenge the Dem orthodoxy that's not working for a good portion of the people in this country.
If you remember, DeSantis was running neck-and-neck with Trump in the polls. Then Biden, Garland, and Wray raided Mar a Lago. The very next day, DeSantis was obliged to come out in support of Trump. From that moment onward, Trump started rising in the polls and DeSantis sank out of sight.
With every new lawfare case, Trump became more popular. Because the Trump haters see these cases as righteous applications of the law; but the other half of the country sees them as bad faith politicization of the American system of justice, one of the best things we (used to) have going for us.
And so now, Trump is all but unstoppable, and then there was the debate, and here we are.
I say this: If the Dems had done two things: (1) Totally ignored Trump; and (2) Had an open, competitive primary; then at this very moment, Gavin or Gretchen would be beating the stuffing out of DeSantis.
The Democrats created all of this. They made a martyr then a hero out of Trump; and they refused to confront reality about Biden's condition. The Dems did this. Not the GOP. Most of the GOP hate Trump, they'd love an alternative. The Democrats forced the GOP to rally around Trump.
I'd say call the bluff. Biden isn't exactly a guy who embodies strength as we saw during the debate and how he's been handling the Gaza situation. I mean sure he has alot of angry stubborn grandpa energy but Netanyahu has been crossing his red lines repeatedly and he has not done anything to stop him.
At this point I don't know what the congressional Dems have to lose either so they might as well try to improve their party's situation and place themselves on the right side of history in case Biden stays in, Trump wins, and he ends democracy.
I truly do not understand that talking point. Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. On the contrary, he got rolled by the bureaucrats and most of the people who worked for him.
I think what people mean is that Trump is going to do to the Dems exactly what they did to him. And frankly, some of that would be a good thing. Garland and Wray are thugs. The country may never recover from their abuse of the justice system.
But Trump "ending democracy?" Nonsense. Most of that is projection on the part of the Democrats. We're having an election. That's democracy, imperfect as it is.
One interesting aspect of Biden's ABC interview was that he never really specified how he would react if the congressional Dems turned on him. He outright refused to answer the question and acted like there's no revolt going on. If he was really delusional you would've thought that he would give a non-assuring answer like, "I would sit down and tell them 'We will win'," or something to that effect. That will probably hang over the Dems minds as they contemplate what to do next.
He's the president of the United States. He doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. He said something the other day I really liked. He said, "If someone wants to challenge me at the convention, let them." He's a tough old bird. I don't like the guy but this might be his finest hour!
He's the president. He has Jill and Hunter, two pit bulls. He has 3896 Democratic delegates.
What do the Dems have? A strongly worded editorial from the New York Times?
Arrogance. They thought they could probably roll with Biden into the next election and dismissed people's concerns about his age. I mean they got pretty far before we saw what happened a week ago... putting aside all those viral videos of Biden having senior moments.
Cheap fakes. Like I say. The Dems are in a pickle entirely of their own making. Trump didn't make the Democrats ignore the Biden situation for the past three years. Whose bright idea was it to anoint Joe with their non-primary primary? If they'd had a real primary, Gav and Gretch would have been all over it. The 1968 Democrats had a wild primary that ultimately drove LBJ out. They could have and should have done exactly the same thing.
Arrogance, I guess that's as good a word for it as any. Short-sightedness. They tried to keep a lid on it and now it's blown up in their faces.
Yeah, but that would be much better than well, trying to convince the public to vote for a soon to be 82 year old man who clearly has cognitive issues to serve another 4 years in office.
Wouldn't have to. He can run then turn it over to Kam in 2025. Would have made his point. Kam is not any more likely to win the election than Biden. Kam has high unfavorability. She's a lousy politician, the 2020 primaries showed that. She had to drop out in 2019. She is not the Dems' savior.
Depends on your political affiliation but as someone who doesn't want Trump winning I have no sympathy for an old man who is selfishly staying in and gambling with his party and country simply to try and get a second term in his 80s.
I'm making a nonpartisan point. Say you hate Trump. I am making the point that Biden arguably has a better shot than Kamala. The party will look like a clown show if they throw over Joe after telling us he was "sharp as a tack" for three years. People will not like that. They don't have to vote for Trump, but enough of them might just stay home.
The message would be, "We said Joe is sharp as a tack but we were lying, so here, vote for highly unpopular Kamala." I don't think that's a winning message for the Dems. Not a partisan point. Biden has a better shot to win than Kamala. It doesn't matter that his mind is gone. He's not Trump, AND the DNC isn't pulling a last-minute switcheroo.
I don't think the voting public is going to like a switcheroo on top of the fraud they've already seen. Hope I made my point that I'm not talking partisanship. I think Kam's a terrible candidate. Her negatives don't go away if they elevate her.
At this point I can see way more upsides to a new candidate than running with Biden. Biden can't do anything to fix the fact that he's down in the polls but another candidate can.
Ok, so that's a point we disagree on. But not a partisan point for me. If Trump didn't exist, the Dems should still run Joe. The swicheroo factor, I'll call it. People will feel that they've been played.
As Nikki Haley said, in a race between two incredibly unpopular geriatrics, the first party to get rid of their candidate wins the election. Polling seems to back that idea up, showing that a generic Dem or Rep running against either Trump or Biden respectively will easily win. It'll be interesting to see if that theory holds true.
LOL. Well you know, maybe you are convincing me a little. I could be wrong. I give my own theory only about 75% credence. Maybe people are more horrified at Joe's condition than I realize. All the people who were genuinely shocked by the debate.
Yeah but they can severely harm and embarrass him, which at this point Biden frankly deserves. As a narcissist that's something he probably cares deeply about. Leverage isn't the same as having complete control over someone.
I am pretty sure Biden is way beyond embarrassment at this point. And Jill and Hunter surely have no shame. But I see your point. At some point he'll cave to the political pressure of being so unliked. Could happen. Or it could just make him dig in more. He's been in politics over 50 years. Survival is an instinct. We see it all the time. His body knows how to be a politician even if his mind is gone.
Yeah doesn't seem like it so far. He's become oddly Trumpian in just about every respect since the debate happened. That being said it could all be a bluff and he may fold if his party lost faith in him. Biden's recent attempt at painting his problems as the elites trying to get rid of him as Trump usually does just isn't believable coming from him, a man who has been propped up by the elites all his life.
Either way, I'm enjoying the show. I'm one who always enjoys a political show. If the GOP were having a fiasco this week I'd enjoy that just as much.
Or... maybe they will continue bringing up the issue of replacement if it's possible to swap him out post nomination, though at that point it'd just be Kamala who would be the nominee. Could be possible (apparently there was discussion of Pence taking over the GOP ticket in October of 2016 after the Access Hollywood tapes came out after all). Biden is likely to have a major senior moment in the next 4 months especially during the next debate which may reignite the discussion, or he could just die of old age. He's 81 after all, so it's not a possibility you can definitively rule out.
Could happen. And Trump is no spring chicken either. One more Big Mac could do it.
His policy of splitting migrant families resulted with many children being interred away from their families.
I have followed southern border politics for decades. Here's how it works. I am going to explain some things to you now.
An adult shows up at the border with a kid. The adult says, "This is my child." The kid is tired, hungry, scared, and doesn't say a thing. The adult has no documentation.
You are the administration in charge of border policy. What do you do?
If you say, "Ok, you can both come in," then you turn a lot of kids over to traffickers.
So what do you do to avoid turning children over to traffickers? You separate the kids from the adults until you can contact the authorities in their claimed home country, and find out who they are. If they are a legit family, you reunite them and send them on their way. If not, you just stopped a trafficker and saved a child.
Now, what do you do with the kids? If you put them in a big dormitory, they will be assaulted by sexual predators. So you put chain link around the kids to protect them.
In 2014, Obama had a huge refugee crisis. He "put kids in cages." Photos circulated on social media of the kids in chain link enclosures, with each kid wrapped in a space blanked looking like a baked potato in foil. The images shocked people.
So what did Obama do? Well, optics are everything in politics. They started separating fewer families, stopped putting "kids in cages," and turned a hell of a lot of children over to traffickers. The Washington Post wrote a story about Obama's trafficking problem, but mostly the story got no play.
Fast forward to Trump. Trump does not like traffickers. He tried to protect the kids. He did separate families, to determine if they really were families. Photos were circulated on social media -- the same Obama kids in cages photos. Liberals were outraged till they found out those were Obama's kids in Obama's cages. More photos circulated. Again -- Obama's kids, Obama's cages.
Bad optics. "Trump put kids in cages." So fucking ignorant. A lot of liberals -- ok a lot of people in general -- lead with their emotions, especially when they are ignorant of the facts. So "kids in cages" became the attack on Trump, when in fact the whole idea is to separate traffickers from children and keep the children safe from sexual predators until the true family status can be sorted out.
Now Biden comes in, rescinds all of Trump's border policies including Remain in Mexico. Biden now has a massive immigration crisis on his hands. But the optics are the most important thing. So what does Biden do? He just lets all the adults stay with the kids and lets them in to the country.
What is the result? Biden has lost track of 85,000 children. Most likely turned over to traffickers as sex and work slaves, as you and I speak tonight. Here, read this.
The House Oversight Committee’s National Security Subcommittee held a hearing this week on the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. Robin Dunn Marcos, director of the office, appeared, but if you watch that hearing you’ll learn a lot more from the questions than the answers — because there weren’t many answers on key issues, such as the fate of 85,000 children the office has apparently lost contact with. Someone needs to put a up a large “Help Wanted” sign in Washington, because the American people are desperately in need of accountability on migrant children — both in the government and in the media.
I told you a few posts ago, in a post you never replied to, that Joe Biden is running the largest child trafficking operation in the world. It is true. It is a moral outrage. Nobody gives a shit.
Now you know what "separating families" and "kids in cages" are all about. You separate kids from adults until you can determine who's a parent and who's a trafficker. And you keep the kids behind chain link fences to protect them from sexual predators.
But kids in cages makes for bad optics. So Biden just turns the kids over to traffickers, and ignorant liberals know nothing about it, and STILL THEY BITCH ABOUT TRUMP'S CAGES.
Liberals still do not know that those were Obama's cages, Obama's family separation policy, and that once the optics got bad, Obama just said fuck it, and turned the kids over to traffickers. No more bad optics. And that's Biden's policy too. No cages. Just trafficked children.
Get a clue, brother. Get a moral clue. I explained this to you two weeks ago and you never acknowledged the post. Joe Biden is a child trafficker. Because the optics are better than "kids in cages," which upsets ignorant liberals.
My liking him or not is irrelevant. His danger to democracy is not a matter of opinion. He’s not only a terrible person, he’s a dreadful leader, his only policy is retribution. His speeches are horrific and contain nothing about policy as such, only threats and fear-mongering. How you can fall for his schtick beats me.
Ok. I could, for sake of argument, stipulate to all that. I can still talk politics! I can still talk about Joe Biden's mental impairment. I do believe you said to me earlier that you can't even talk about the Biden pickle unless I hate Trump as you do. Some people feel that way. Myself, I'll talk politics to talk politics. I don't have to love or hate Trump to talk about the mess the Dems got themselves into this week.
I would be glad to explain to you "how I can fall for his schtick," but that's more for the Trump forum. In this thread I'm trying to focus on the topic, the 2024 US election. Or as Joe Biden puts it: "I'll beat Donald Trump again in 2020." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, and if old age and sickness didn't eventually catch up with us all.
I'll be happy to argue the merits of Trump with you if you'd like, but it's not really all that productive. I did write you a long-assed post a couple of weeks ago about my journey from dedicated liberal to the politically homeless, reluctant Trumper than I am today. I could write more. It's been decades in the making. It started when Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and the left rallied around him. It was my first sense of a disturbance in the liberal force. There were many other such moments over the years. This Biden fiasco is just the latest.
Biden is not ‘a husk’. He’s been an effective senator and president, but he needs to pass the torch.
Man even the New York Times thinks he's a husk. I don't even have to make the case. Biden's own "friends" are making that case with sharp knives. Julius Caesar never got it so bad on the floor of the Roman senate. George Stephanopoulos said today that he doesn't think Biden can make it another four years. Et tu, George.
I note today that Gavin Newsom is acting as party whip for Biden. I believe he’s totally sincere in so doing, but also that he’s ideally positioned to step up if the torch is passed.
Newsom is too smart and too ambitious to touch the current mess with a ten foot pole. Whitmer too. Any Dem who's viable for 2028 is going to show loyalty to Biden and stay out of 2024. Why go down with this sinking ship, when a brand new ship is arriving in four years?
I appreciate the opportunity to chat. I really did take it to heart a few weeks ago when you expressed disappointment in my political sentiments, in light of my math-related content. I'm always willing to talk politics with people who don't share my opinions. I'm not blind to Trump's many flaws, but IMO he really is not the monster the Dems have made him out to be. I'm always happy to explain myself.
Bottom line: The Dems and the left have deeply lost their way; and Trump is the only alternative. I'm not for Trump. I'm against what the Dems and the left have become. I saw what the Dems had become in 2002, when Hillary made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of the war in Iraq. The Democrats could have stopped that war. They were looking to Hillary for leadership. She chose the path of war. So when 2016 showed up and it was Trump or Hillary, I chose Trump. And why did the Dems nominate a corrupt, warmongering, unlikable, lousy politician like Hillary? As Obama said when he destroyed her in 2008: "You're likable enough, Hillary."
And as I pointed out in my latest reply to @Mr Bee, Trump is a monster of the Dems' own making. If the Dems had (1) Totally ignored Trump starting in 2022: no lawfare, no rhetoric; and (2) run open, competitive primaries; then today, as we speak. Gavin or Gretchen would be handily beating DeSantis.
The Democrats turned Trump in to a martyr. I was sick of the guy myself before the Dems turned the apparatus of the American justice system on him. That Mar a Lago raid put Trump into the White House.
What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win. He tried to pressure his own VP to not certify the election (Pence had to call Dan Qualye, of all people, for moral guidance), and he spread and continues to spread lie after lie about the election he lost. You should listen to Bill Barr's testimony about the aftermath of the election. Total banana republic stuff. We dodged a serious bullet. Had Pence not certified, or had Raffensperger gone along with the attempt to steal the election (he says he felt threatened by Trump), it could have gotten a lot uglier than it was. And then there's the fake elector scheme, and of course Jan 6th.
Ok so it's all J6. Bunch of unarmed people are invited in by the Capitol cops, and Pelosi and the hysterical Dems whip up a national hysteria. In the end, it's J6. A Reichstag fire for our times. I find myself wondering what the left will do if Trump wins in November. I expect the left to riot, as they do whenever they don't get their way. Maybe you missed the George Floyd riots. $1-2B in damages, "the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history" according to Wiki. And who supported a fund to bail out the violent rioters? Kamala Harris.
So if that's all you got, what about the rest of Trump's four years in office? "Republicans are authoritarians," is what you said. I list all the postwar GOP presidents and all you've got is J6. As a matter of logic, can you see that you have not made your point?
Except for 2008 & 2020, I've only voted for progressive alternatives to our governing corporate duopoly ... Quoting Benkei
You don't have a left in the US. You have a slightly left of centre Sanders who is silenced by the Democratic Party which is itself right but not as authoritarian as the Republicans (unitary theory of government Bullshit).
I recall qualifying the 2020 election as a choice between two evils. One of those evils got a lot worse. It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.
I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.
In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive?
You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:
Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
Veto legislation.
Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)
Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.
Reply to RogueAI What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?
Apart from general Democrat programs, she hasn't aired much I know of, though she's associated with her husband and his administration. Yep, she comes across as smart, knowledgeable, strong, present, "heart in the right place", not a serial bullshitter (or liar for that matter), she could stand up to, and be respected by, the world. I don't think that's an obsession, more like a contrast that perhaps many would welcome.
She'd get under the microscope, though, face extreme scrutiny, whether from political opponents, foreign (covert) campaigns, tabloids seeking to make a buck, mudslingers, 1-shot magnification of some issue, heck racists even, ... (From memory, there was one bullshit story about one of their kids narrowly escaping that horrible horrible family; OK, I'm exaggerating, yet that's the kind of thing associated with that crap.) I can see why she wouldn't want to put her and her's through that.
A lot of Dem voters would be unhappy and confused.
Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else".
Biden had a bad approval rating and was losing the election to Trump even before the debate.
Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right?
Many of the Dems' policy results such as inflation, unchecked immigration causing blue cities to be overrun with a humanitarian and financial disaster; the two wars, etc etc, are quite unpopular. And Kam is to the left of Joe. I don't see how this solves the Dems' electoral problems.
I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects. The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy.
I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types). The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term. Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old.
It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next.
The Democrats created all of this. They made a martyr then a hero out of Trump; and they refused to confront reality about Biden's condition. The Dems did this. Not the GOP. Most of the GOP hate Trump, they'd love an alternative. The Democrats forced the GOP to rally around Trump.
I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too.
You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to.
Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward.
Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe.
And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you".
I truly do not understand that talking point. Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. On the contrary, he got rolled by the bureaucrats and most of the people who worked for him.
Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time.
I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now.
He's the president of the United States. He doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. He said something the other day I really liked. He said, "If someone wants to challenge me at the convention, let them." He's a tough old bird. I don't like the guy but this might be his finest hour!
Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny?
Wouldn't have to. He can run then turn it over to Kam in 2025. Would have made his point. Kam is not any more likely to win the election than Biden. Kam has high unfavorability. She's a lousy politician, the 2020 primaries showed that. She had to drop out in 2019. She is not the Dems' savior.
The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85.
The party will look like a clown show if they throw over Joe after telling us he was "sharp as a tack" for three years. People will not like that.They don't have to vote for Trump, but enough of them might just stay home.
The message would be, "We said Joe is sharp as a tack but we were lying, so here, vote for highly unpopular Kamala." I don't think that's a winning message for the Dems. Not a partisan point. Biden has a better shot to win than Kamala. It doesn't matter that his mind is gone. He's not Trump, AND the DNC isn't pulling a last-minute switcheroo.
I don't think the voting public is going to like a switcheroo on top of the fraud they've already seen. Hope I made my point that I'm not talking partisanship. I think Kam's a terrible candidate. Her negatives don't go away if they elevate her.
I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years.
Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own.
Ok, so that's a point we disagree on. But not a partisan point for me. If Trump didn't exist, the Dems should still run Joe. The swicheroo factor, I'll call it. People will feel that they've been played.
My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one. You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon.
I am pretty sure Biden is way beyond embarrassment at this point. And Jill and Hunter surely have no shame. But I see your point. At some point he'll cave to the political pressure of being so unliked. Could happen. Or it could just make him dig in more. He's been in politics over 50 years. Survival is an instinct. We see it all the time. His body knows how to be a politician even if his mind is gone.
Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden?
Could happen. And Trump is no spring chicken either. One more Big Mac could do it.
If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election.
What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win.
Trump pressured Raffensperger to find the illegal votes, that is, he pressured him to find crime, as per his duty and mandate.
We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and congress member and governor that I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.
That’s not how this works. Even though Democrat insouciance regarding democracy is well known, it becomes quite glaring when it is held against their rhetorical defense of it, something they’ve used to great effect in the ears of their base over the last few years.
Is it advisable for elites like Clooney to subvert the will of the voters at the same time they feign to protect us from threats to democracy? Probably not. But that’s the unprincipled and wind-sock mentality of that party in particular. Now that their great dictator isn’t operating at full steam, power escapes their grips, and power is the only thing they’ve wanted this whole time.
So what do you do to avoid turning children over to traffickers? You separate the kids from the adults until you can contact the authorities in their claimed home country, and find out who they are. If they are a legit family, you reunite them and send them on their way. If not, you just stopped a trafficker and saved a child.
The Trump admin separated kids from families as a deterrent. All families were separated. It wasn't for the good of the kids. The policy ended a short time later when the public found out.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-family-separations-deter-illegal-immigration-idUSKCN1MO00C/
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/16/trump-administration-knew-family-separations-harm-migrant-children/
It sounds like you're getting your information from places like Townhall, TheFederalist, Breitbart, and Redstate. Am I correct on that?
What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?
It was a Republican primary. They were all Republicans. Therefore, they all had pretty much the same political views. America runs a primary election before the general election so the people can vote for which candidate will represent their party.
Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy.
Some tend to conveniently forget that. Trump made an attempt to control the border, then when Biden came into office he made that infamous comment, "storm the border". And don't forget the Afghanistan debacle.
Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
Veto legislation.
Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)
Many of these were because of the failed government right after the Revolutionary War. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_(1786)
And then called the more famous Constitutional Convention in 1787 which was held in secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
It looks like Trump's second term will be very different from his first. Although he denies it, the implementation of the game plan, Project 2025, will make all the difference. Trump will, of course, not change, but with his king makers behind him, those who want authoritarian rule will rejoice. Those who just want change may come to rue the day.
Reply to Benkei
The powers and growth of the executive branch over time. This started because a weak executive branch failed on various fronts. Also, arguably, it was Europe and WW1 that pulled America onto the world stage beyond, though a strong case can be made with the Spanish American war and gunboat policy.
Trump will, of course, not change, but with his king makers behind him, those who want authoritarian rule will rejoice
I'm convinced that most of Trump's backers are not in because they like Trump or think that he's any good but because they can use him to pursue their own nefarious ends. And the only way that works is by sucking up to him and telling him how great he is. That's how Putin and Kim Jong Un have played him like a fiddle. Works every time, but only if he thinks you're someone who's opinion counts.
You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:
Rule by executive order (which have included travel bans, torture (Bush's classified "directive"), immigration, listening in on all data (for "security" EO 12333), healthcare reform and environmental policies).
Veto legislation.
Deploy troops in foreign territory without congressional authority (because technically it isn't a war)
Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.
Ok. You started out saying that Republicans are authoritarians. Then you reverted to Trump alone, and only because of the American Reichstag fire that Democrats seized upon to go on yet another of their post-2016 Trump hysterias.
And now you make a very different point. You say that the American executive, as defined by the US Constitution, is inherently authoritarian.
Now this of course is an interesting theses that we could discuss in a forum on political philosophy. Perhaps in a different thread. Quite a bit has been thought and written about the subject since we yanks tossed King George's tea into Boston harbor.
But we are in the thread on the US election. Two men are vying to be president, unitary or not, morally-defined presidency or not.
So I think you've undermined your own point. Although in the end, you came to a very interesting subject. In theory the three branches of the US government are co-equal. But in recent decades the president has become way too powerful. I tend to agree with you. But that's not what we were talking about. It's not even what you were talking about. You wanted to bash Republicans, or Trump; and in the end, it's the role of executive power in theory and practice under the US Constitution.
I sure as hell opposed Bush's torture. And I equally strongly opposed Obama's coming into office and, by not holding the Bush administration accountable for their many abuses, institutionalizing the torture.
That was, by the way, yet another of my many data points along the way to being a disaffected liberal Democrat. Bush was a criminal when he tortured people. But Obama was worse, because when he chose (for good political reasons) not to hold Bush accountable, he turned the US into a torture regime.
I agree with you about all your particulars. The Constitution does not allow the president to start wars without a declaration of war from Congress. But the last time the president got a Congressional declaration was in World War II. Every single war since then has been illegal. I'm quite unhappy about that. But it's a bipartisan affair, hardly limited to one party.
And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. A point totally lost on the "Orange Hitler" brigade. I just don't know what happened to my former fellow liberals. Trump's victory over Saint Hillary drove them quite insane. They now love the national secuity state, the wars, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the lying, the spying. Back in the day they opposed all that. I still do.
And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump.
False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.
And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?
Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else".
Chuckie Schumer is said to be "privately" open to opposing Biden. Pelosi gave an ambiguous statement coded to mean she's sticking in the knife, but very subtly.
But the big news of the day was that the Democrats brought out their big gun. Their nuclear weapon. Their neutron bomb. Yes, I mean George Clooney. A few weeks ago Clooney organized a $30M fundraiser for Biden complete with Julia Roberts and all the other beautiful people. Today, Clooney stabbed Biden in the back with a NYT op-ed. I tell you it's sickening to watch. I hope never to have "friends" like that. And Clooney said that when he saw Biden three weeks ago, Biden was not the same man as he was in 2010 or even 2020. So Clooney knew. And Clooney still raised the thirty mil. And today Clooney jumped on the Judas bus and stabbed his former friend in the back. These people are lower than low.
But in the end, the Dems have no leverage. And as I say, they can swap in Kam and they'll have a whole new set of problems.
Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right?
Right. Some say the Dems deliberately set him up to get him out. But it's not quite working the way they thought it would. I don't think they planned on Joe digging in and daring them to move him out.
I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects.
She's way further left than Biden, and Biden has governed from the left. Are you saying Kamala should turn into Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand? Ain't happenin'. She's a hard core leftist and would be a disaster for the country.
The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy.
No, they'd have Israeli blood on their hands. Kamala is married to a nice Jewish guy but she's a Hamasnik all the way. Just yesterday she said she "understands" the Gaza protesters. That's code for Death to Israel in my book. By the way I stand with Israel, just so you know. And I will say, this issue has split a lot of people. Some of my favorite political commentators have horrified me with some of their rhetoric. Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté. The Gaza war has been a terribly divisive issue. And Kam is way on the wrong side of it IMO. But we can agree to disagree on that. I don't talk about it much, it's just so emotional and so divisive for everyone. The Middle East has been a bloody mess all my life and I don't have any answers.
I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types).
I wish that were true. The TDS brigade would not take any responsibility for the Trumpenstein of their own creation. I wish Bernie and his supporters had been a lot more vocal when the DNC screwed them over in 2016 and again in 2020.
The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term.
It's funny. In 2016 the Dems found the only candidate in the country who could lose to Trump. In 2024 they're about to do it again.
Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old.
They didn't think he was too old when they gave him 3986 delegates. And why not? Because the Dems and the media gaslit the hell out of them. And again -- my ongoing thesis -- Kam would be worse. And nobody can leapfrog Kam. So in the end they stay with Biden. There is no alternative.
It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next.
By then Gavin and Gretchen will be fresh and ready. Kam will be yesterday's news. She's never been very popular and she's a terrible politician.
I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too.
I better take a pass on J6. I regard it as the Democrats' Reichstag fire. Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. What ever happened to, "A riot is the voice of the unheard?" That was the Dem line when the Floyd protesters caused $2B in property damage and killed 20 people. The Pelosi and Cheney J6 psy-op was a fraud. Trump has called for military tribunals. I disagree about that. In this country we use the civilian system of justice. But I do hope Trump gets some revenge on the Dems who have so abused our system of justice. Garland and Wray for two. The impeachments were totally fraudulent. It was Biden who was seen on video extorting the Ukrainians to get rid of the prosecutor investigating his money laundering scheme there. We better not get onto this topic, you know how I feel now.
You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to.
I want Garland and Wray in jail. Let's agree to disagree on that. J6 was a psy-op, a fraud, a Reichstag fire for our time and place. You can't have an insurrection with a bunch of unarmed people peacefully wandering around an office building. Compare and contrast to the Floyd riots. Voice of the unheard and all that. If anyone's unheard in this country it's the rank and file middle Americans. The people Trump has activated and drawn to him.
Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward.
The Democrats have disgraced themselves. Trump is a reaction to that. He has many flaws but he is the only alternative to the corrupt, warmongering status quo that the Democrats (and Republicans!) have turned into. Let's agree to disagree again. We're not doing policy here, only the politics of the Biden dilemma.
Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe.
Jill does not strike me as someone amenable to logic. Or political pressure. She's dug in. The Dems can impeach Joe or 25A him or they can pound sand. George Clooney's not going to do it.
And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you".
Right. Caught that. But she's wrong too. Joe is not "making a decision." He's made his decision. Now the Dems have to make theirs. Impeach, 25A, or stab him to death on the floor of the Senate à la Julius Caesar. Strongly worded editorials and vaguely worded statements on Morning Joe aren't going to cut it.
And George Clooney. That really cracked me up today. What a slime ball. Joe's best friend three weeks ago.
Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time.
I'd hang Mike Pence AND the fly he rode in on. 'Nuff o' J6.
Professionals? Milley is a treasonous bastard who belongs in prison. Mattis, useless. Barr, useless.
The reason the Dems are afraid of Trump is that they realize he's probably learned a few things about how Washington works. I truly hope so.
I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now.
Likewise. I really do try to avoid policy in this thread. But P2025 is not Trump's platform. P2025 is yet another TDS hysteria. Trump's platform is his actual platform. And it's surprisingly centrist, moderate, and popular. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject:
Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny?
Attacks on Biden weaken him if he's the eventual nominee. Some Dems see that. Kamala is no panacea.
LBJ stepped aside and a chaotic primary ensued where RFK was assassinated.
That was a bad bad day. If one is conspiratorial-minded, one would say that they killed Bobby because as president, he was going to get to the bottom of his brother's murder at the hands of the CIA. I'm conspiratorial-minded in that regard. More shots were fired at Bobby than Sirhan's gun held. The coroner said he was shot at close range from behind, but Sirhan was several feet away, in front.
Terrible day. Awful. So many hopes were on Bobby. Making me sad now for what might have been.
The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85.
Yeah you're right. A career politician does not give up power willingly.
I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years.
I don't think they'd say it out loud, but many voters will read it that way. They shut down competitive primaries, foisted Joe on the Dem voters, and now this? What a mess.
Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own.
My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one.
The TDS crowd thinks Trump's a criminal. The other half of the country sees the Bragg prosecution as totally illegitimate. Nelson Mandela spent 28 years in jail but they didn't call him a felon when he became president. They recognized the legal process against him as unjust. Trump same, for half the country.
But I do agree that Trump is old and leads an unhealthy lifestyle. He could keel over too. I wonder what this is like for the young people of this country. They must be appalled.
You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon.
In 2020 a poll showed that 17% of the electorate would have changed their vote if the'd known that the laptop was authentic. And that's another thing. "51 former intelligence officials" said the laptop was Russian disinformation. It wasn't.
Why do people support Trump? Because he is the only alternative to the culture of official corruption that's seized this country. When the CIA and the FBI lie to the public to help a political candidate, that is a very serious problem. Trump stands opposed to that. A lot of people, such as myself, support Trump for what he stands for, not for who he is. He stands in opposition to this massive corruption of our government.
Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden?
Biden campaigned on normalcy, then ran as a corrupt leftist authoritarian. Lot of people see that.
If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election.
I'm kind of enjoying it. Just want to see the Dems get their comeuppance.
It sounds like you're getting your information from places like Townhall, TheFederalist, Breitbart, and Redstate. Am I correct on that?
Decades of interest in Mexico, traveling in Mexico, living in Mexico, paying attention to border politics. If you don't know about Biden's trafficking operation, hardly anyone does. If you don't care now that I've drawn people's attention to it, you should demand more of yourself re this moral atrocity.
I haven't read Townhall in years. Redstate, maybe the occasional article if it's linked from an aggregator. Don't recall last time I read it. Breitbart most definitely never writes about the cages and separation policy the way I've explained it. Don't recall The Federalist writing on immigration. Most of my political orientation these days comes from the disaffected liberals (like I am). Greenwald, Dore, Maté, lot of Substackers. They don't write about border issues either.
In the immigration issues as I explained them -- the cages and the separation policy -- I got that on my own from factual reporting on the subject. I was living in Mexico in 2014 when Obama had a terrible humanitarian crisis down there and built the cages. I followed the issue. I don't recall where it got reported. The MSM barely reported on it till the photos of the kids in cages covered in foil blankets started hitting social media. A lot of information not in the MSM is nonetheless true. That's a problem in itself. You can always say, "Well XXX is a scurrilous right wing rag." And maybe it is. But a lot of alt media covers stories the MSM won't touch.
Such as Biden's senescence. People were calling Jill Biden Edith Wilson in 2020. But in the alt media, not in the New York Times. But the alts were correct, and the MSM were lying. I hope there's a reckoning about that soon. You can't run a decent society without a truly free press.
And if the New York Times doesn't tell the truth about the border (or anything else), why is that? I read very widely, from the left-wing wackos to the right-wing wackos. But my knowledge of the border comes from a very long personal interest and involvement with the subject.
From the Reuters piece you linked: "In June, Trump abandoned his policy of separating immigrant children from their parents on the U.S.-Mexico border after images of youngsters in cages sparked outrage at home and abroad."
Exactly the same reason Obama and Biden decided to stop the caging and just turn the kids over to traffickers. Cages generate bad optics. Nobody sees the trafficked kids. That scandal's waiting to explode.
I'll stipulate that Trump said what the Reuter's piece says. Not a good look, I agree. It doesn't detract from my point. Obama put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Trump put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Biden just let everyone in and is running a massive trafficking operation. He'll be out of office before people come to find out what he's done.
False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.
Threat. He's a negotiator. He lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He used threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Big difference. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. No new wars.
I do not believe he initiated any military interventions. You say that's false. Names and dates please. Trump started no new wars. As far as I know, no new military interventions at all. Did a quick lookup, couldn't find any.
And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?
Unitary executive is a little inside baseball. It doesn't mean "all powerful president." According to Wiki: "The unitary executive theory is a controversial legal theory in United States constitutional law which holds that the president of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch."
It does not say anything about going to war. It says essentially that the prez is in charge of the people who work for him. I think you might be conflating different things. If you're referring to the recent Chevron decision, it's a good thing. The underlying case was a fisherman who had to pay $700 per day to have government inspectors on his boat. If Congress wants to pass a law to make him do it, let them pass a law. The agencies don't have the right, so say the Supes. Tell it to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, she's the one who stayed too long, expecting Hillary to win. Not my fault, not Trump's fault.
Who can argue with who's more authoritarian? The Supreme court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loan debt to the taxpayers. He did it anyway. Obama bragged about ruling "with a pen and phone." He held weekly Kill List meeting where he decided which American citizens to drone-bomb without due process. Going back in time, LBJ lied the country into the Vietnam war. There was no attack on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and that was known at the time. Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund his secret war in Nicaragua. Ok a GOP you got me there. I mean, you look at recent history, it's hard to tell one authoritarian from another. Trump was arguably less authoritarian than any of them, simply because he knew so little about how the government works that he got rolled by the bureaucrats and betrayed by the people who worked for him.
So you'd know the name Senator James Lankford, and why he made news a couple of months back.
— Wayfarer
Had to look that one up, perhaps I missed your point.
Senator James Lankford is a strict conservative GOP member who was on a bipartisan committee tasked with addressing border issues. He drove a very hard bargain and got many more concessions out of the Democrats than anyone had expected, getting them to agree to what many of them thought were overly harsh measures that the GOP had been demanding for years. But then before it went to a vote, Trump got wind of it and said he didn’t want it to go ahead. Why? Because it would take away his talking points about the country being flooded with Mexican rapists. So Lankford was then pressured to vote against his own hard-fought legislation, rather than bring it to the floor - because it might have been a solution. Trump would rather keep his talking points than actually solve the problem. For his trouble, Lankford was then censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party, for the mortal sin of working with Democrats.
Trump was arguably less authoritarian than any of them, simply because he knew so little about how the government works that he got rolled by the bureaucrats and betrayed by the people who worked for him.
That probably also explains why 24 previous aides and allies went on the record saying he was unfit for office and a danger to democracy.
Threat. And he lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He uses threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that.
Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.
I'll stipulate that Trump said what the Reuter's piece says. Not a good look, I agree. It doesn't detract from my point. Obama put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Trump put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Biden just let everyone in and is running a massive trafficking operation. He'll be out of office before people come to find out what he's done.
Motives matter. Separating families for the good of the kids is one thing. A zero tolerance policy separating all families to deter would-be immigrants is evil, unprecedented, and was quickly stopped when the public found out what was going on. And yes, Biden's record on the border is awful. We're not doing people any favors when we make it easy for them to come here illegally and then live in the shadows and be exploited.
I'm convinced that most of Trump's backers are not in because they like Trump or think that he's any good but because they can use him to pursue their own nefarious ends.
I agree. I think they are mistaken however. Trump's own ends begin and end with Trump. They cannot control him. When their ends conflict with his ... Well I hope we will not have to find out.
Senator James Lankford is a strict conservative GOP member who was on a bipartisan committee tasked with addressing border issues. He drove a very hard bargain and got many more concessions out of the Democrats than anyone had expected, getting them to agree to what many of them thought were overly harsh measures that the GOP had been demanding for years. But then before it went to a vote, Trump got wind of it and said he didn’t want it to go ahead. Why? Because it would take away his talking points about the country being flooded with Mexican rapists. So Lankford was then pressured to vote against his own hard-fought legislation, rather than bring it to the floor - because it might have been a solution. Trump would rather keep his talking points than actually solve the problem. For his trouble, Lankford was then censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party, for the mortal sin of working with Democrats.
Thanks for that summary. I apparently missed this story. I did a quick search and evidently the GOP Senators rejected his bill. I looked at a couple of articles and they didn't mention Trump's influence, even though "Trump" was one of my search terms.
If you happen to have a reference to Trump's influence on the GOP abandonment of Lankford's bill I'd appreciate it. Pending that, and taking your word for it, I'll grant you your point. I've never said Trump isn't a flawed man. I've only said that he's the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years.
I agree that the GOP are useless. They get nothing done at all. I'm saddened but not surprised to learn they killed a chance at sensible immigration reform, with or without Trump's pressure.
That probably also explains why 24 previous aides and allies went on the record saying he was unfit for office and a danger to democracy.
The word authoritarian is lacking in your talking point. For sure he's a danger to the status quo in Washington, so it's not difficult to find people to throw rocks at him. I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian. Joe Stalin was an authoritarian. He killed his enemies and friends alike. His critics didn't go to the press, they went to the Gulag.
[quote=Feb 2024] Former President Trump on Monday railed against the bipartisan border agreement and took aim at Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator, for his role in brokering the deal.
In an interview on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump denied endorsing Lankford’s candidacy in 2022 — despite doing so publicly — and did not rule out endorsing a primary opponent when Lankford is up for reelection in 2028. ...
Ahead of the bill text’s release, Trump had attacked the prospect of the legislation, branding it as a political victory for Democrats ahead of the 2024 election — a message he repeated in Monday’s interview.“This is a gift to Democrats, and this, sort of, is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans. That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election, so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history,” Trump said.[/quote]
As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue.
I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian.
And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies. The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions. But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom.
:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays.
Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages.
If I'm understanding you correctly, when Obama separated families and put the kids in cages, he did it for saintly reasons, him being Saint Obama. And when Trump separated families and kept the kids in the very same cages Obama had built for that purpose, he did it for dastardly reasons, because he's Orange Hitler.
That is the only way I can interpret your claim that I am "misinformed" regarding widely known matters of fact. If you didn't know about Obama's cages in 2014 that's understandable, because the story was not widely reported in the MSM. If you claim it's not true today, it's you who are misinformed.
I'm open to your explaining exactly what I am misinformed about regarding this situation.
Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force.
Not cavalier at all. If you can't see the difference between lobbing a few missiles onto an airport tarmac (if I recall the details correctly, didn't bother to look it up) and starting new wars, as every president of both parties since Ike has done; then I just don't know what to say. You draw an equivalence between the tarmac bombing and Biden's two major proxy wars? Or Clinton's bombing of Serbia, a war Clinton's voters ignored because it was a Dem war. It bothered me, and I was a big Clinton fan and voter at the time. Yet another one of the datapoints in my growing estrangement from the Dems. The antiwar left is strangely silent when they're Democratic wars. The left hated Bush's torture program but they didn't mind that Obama institutionalized it by failing to hold the Bush regime accountable (for understandable political reasons, to be sure).
So Trump bombed a tarmac and killed one Iranian. That's a remarkable lack of bloodshed for an American president of any party. I don't see how you can pretend not to understand that point.
This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.
The tarmac and the terrorist. That's it. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between using massive violence, as most president do; and bluster and the threat of violence to avoid violence, as Trump did.
I think you actually do understand; but just want to pretend you don't to make a partisan point.
You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin? That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies? That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately.
Motives matter. Separating families for the good of the kids is one thing. A zero tolerance policy separating all families to deter would-be immigrants is evil, unprecedented, and was quickly stopped when the public found out what was going on.
You made my point for me. In 2014 when Obama was separating families and putting kids in cages, the MSM did not widely report the story. People were not outraged because they didn't know it was happening. When images of kids in cages covered in foil space blankets "like baked potatoes" started circulating on social media, Obama dialed back the cages and loosened the vetting of families. Even the WaPo was forced to report on the kids Obama was losing to traffickers.
I have already conceded to you that if Trump said what you you say he did, that was not a good look. Trump is a very flawed man, but the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years. So if he did bad, I'll grant you the point.
But as I mentioned in another post just now, if your point is that Obama put kids in cages it was good because he's Saint Obama; and when Trump put kids in the exact same cages Obama had built for that exact purpose it was bad, because he's Orange Hitler, you are just being partisan.
How do we know Trump wasn't just being Trump, and saying something inartfully that could be twisted by his opponents? Maybe just trying to send a message to prospective immigrants? As the saying goes, Trump 's opponents take him literally but not seriously. And his supporters take him seriously but not literally. Like when he jokingly asked Putin to find Hillary's emails. I thought that was hilarious. The left went hysterical; and for the most part, disingenuously so.
Also, a little off-topic: Like the taco bowl tweet. I thought that was hilarious too. "Trump is a brilliant performance artist and troll." That was my reaction. The left went hysterical over that too. For whatever reason, Trump's personality doesn't trigger. me. I get the guy. He's Queens, the establishment is Manhattan. They look down on him, and he is alternately insulting them and enviously wishing he could belong, which he never will.
When a Dem says, "Oh Trump put kids in cages," I know I'm talking to someone utterly ignorant of the issue. Which includes pretty much everyone on the left.
Ok, well I'm glad you see that. But I'm not even talking today about Biden's open borders and the massive humanitarian crisis he's dumped on blue cities like NYC, Chicago, and Denver. I'm talking about the lesson Biden's administration learned about the separations and cages. Those are bad optics; turning kids over to traffickers keeps the issue out of the MSM. That's a moral outrage. I do predict this story will eventually become known. Like Biden's cognitive condition became known. Way too late, and only when it became impossible to keep covering up.
We're not doing people any favors when we make it easy for them to come here illegally and then live in the shadows and be exploited.
We leave them to die of thirst in the desert, and then give them driver's licenses, social welfare programs, and jobs if they make it over alive. A bipartisan moral atrocity that got started with FDR's Bracero program in the 1940s. I'd love to see some sensible immigration reform in my lifetime. I'm not holding my breath.
We saw the videos. Unjustly locking people up for three years does not a crime make. It makes an illegitimate DOJ. Shamefully so. Else how explain the leniency to the Floyd rioters who killed 20 people and did two billion dollars in documented, insurance-covered damage, and cheered on by the left? "A riot is the voice of the unheard." Except when the unheard are the deplorables. There's a reason Trump is about to be reelected in the greatest political comeback in American history. Enough people see what's been going on.
Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career
Oh it turns out I DIDN'T miss this story. This was the bogus border bill that would have codified Biden's disastrous border policies, while bringing the Republicans on board so they could no longer criticize Biden over it.
I do remember this completely, did not realize this originated with a Republican, for some reason hadn't registered the name Lankford with it.
So I was with Trump on this. This was the bill that would have allowed in, what was the number, 5000 or something undocumented crossers every day, massively exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border and in the blue cities that have to absorb the newcomers, while giving the Dems the ability to blame it all on the Republicans.
I was massively opposed to this bill at the time. It codified the ongoing disaster and made the Republicans complicit.
So that was the Lankford bill. Somehow I missed that detail, but I definitely followed the story of the bill. Very glad the Dems blocked it. Bad bill as I understand it.
I will grant that if I have been misinformed about the details of this bill, I could be wrong. But the high-level bullet point was that 5000 a day would come in, a massive number that was far more than what Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security secretary, said would lead to humanitarian disaster. So this bill deserved to go down.
Thanks for the update, anyway. I recalled this bill as being a couple of months ago, but it was February. Time flies.
As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue.
I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that I may be misinformed about the badness of this bill. I confess that my media diet is a little skewed to the right these days. I've actually gone back to reading the NYT lately. So it's possible that you are right and I'm wrong on this issue.
But now that you've refreshed my memory about which bill this was, I most definitely remember that I had the impression that it was a bad bill, because it codified a lot of the bad stuff that was already going on, while making it impossible for the GOPs to complain. So AFAIK Trump was right on this issue.
Poor Lankford, though. No good deed goes unpunished, and the GOP are a hopeless and confused lot these days.
And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies.
If only.
It won't happen. You know what I think is going to happen? The massive financial crash that people have been predicting since 2008 is finally going to happen on Trump's watch, and he's going to go down in history as the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Trump is being set up to take the fall for the coming economic crash.
Exact revenge on his enemies, put Pelosi and Cheney and Garland and Wray in prison? I wish. Never going to happen.
Suspend the Constitution? More TDS. Where do you get this stuff?
Again: You confuse suggesting with actually doing. They are not the same. As is typical for the left, you confuse Trump's style of rhetoric with his actions. Watch what the guy does, not what he says. You know the saying: Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally. Liberals overreact to his words and never notice what he actually does.
The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions.
Yeah yeah yeah, Project 2025. Another TDS hysteria. You know Trump put out his ACTUAL platform, and it's extremely middle of the road, basically 1990's Clintonian policies. I posted this link recently. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject.
That's Trump's platform. Project 2025 is yet another leftist hysteria. TDS is a genuine psychological disorder. Trump is not going to suspend the Constitution, he's not going to be a dictator. And if he does get a measure of justice for the wrongs that have been done to him and to the J6 political prisoners, I support him in that.
Here's NPR's take on Trump's platform, along with the platform. Why don't you read it and comment on Trump's ACTUAL platform, not the Project 2025 boogyman the liberals are using to distract from their laughable yet incredibly dangerous for the country Biden fiasco.
But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom.
What happened to "A riot is the voice of the unheard" as the Floyd rioters killed 20 people and caused two billion dollars in documented insurance payouts?
Most of the J6'ers were invited in by the Capitol police and wandered around peacefully, and now they're sitting in prison for three years. It's a shameful incident in American history. If there is any justice in this universe of ours there will someday be justice for the wrongly imprisoned J6'ers.
The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people. Why did they destroy their records? Why are thousands of hours of video still under lock and key?
The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people.
The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.)
Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be.
You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin?
Ah, Russia Russia Russia, another symptom of TDS. Let us take a brief walk through history.
FDR joined up with brutal dictator Stalin to defeat the Nazis in World War II. I do not recall anyone criticizing FDR fo "sucking up" to Stalin. Well actually some people did. I read once that Herbert Hoover said at the time that the US should stay out of the war and whichever of the Nazis or the Soviets were winning, we should help the other one till they both destroyed each other. So I imagine that at the time, there must have been some voices questioning FDR's alliance with the bloody commie dictator Stalin. But it's not the prevailing view of history. It's regarded as a pragmatic decision to beat the Nazis, in retrospect a very good thing.
After the war Truman and the Dulles brothers got the cold war started, no sucking up to Russia there.
Ike had a summit meeting with Khrushchev in 1959. Why not? They were trying not to blow up the world. They were going to meet again in 1960, but Francis Gary Powers got shot down in his U-2 spy plane and the meeting got cancelled. Was Ike "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or negotiating with his geopolitical opponent with the aim of achieving peace? As a soldier of war, he knew the importance of peace.
JFK famously met with Khrushchev; and towards the end they had back-channel communications to establish peace. In his American University speech on June 10, 1963, JFK called for peaceful coexistence with the Soviets, saying:
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Five and a half months later he was dead. Killed, some say, by the CIA on behalf of the very warmongers whose profits were threatened by peace. Or if you prefer the Lone Nut theory, the warmongers just got lucky. Somehow they always do.
Would you say JFK was "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or seeking peace, with deep wisdom?
I could go on. A lot of presidents met with their ideological opponents. Nixon went to China, for gosh sake. The arch anti-communist of the Alger Hiss case, the man who built his entire political reputation on fighting the Godless commies. "Only Nixon could go to China." Sucking up, I guess, is that how you would put it?
And so we come to Trump. He's a businessman. He doesn't have mortal enemies. He has competitors. He negotiates with his competitors. You call that sucking up. I call it international diplomacy, the only alternative to nuclear war. Biden comes in, and we're today closer to WWIII than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
When, exactly, did talking to our geopolitical rivals become sucking up in the leftist worldview? The left used to be for peace. Now they regard geopolitical negotiations as sucking up.
That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies?
Indeed. Not the most politic thing to say in public, but surely true. Reminds me of another story from the JFK days. The JFK assassination and the history and politics of that era are an interest of mine.
When French president Charles de Gaulle survived an assassination attempt by the right wing OSA (see the film The Day of the Jackal), de Gaulle knew that the OSA was closely allied with the CIA. De Gaulle called Kennedy and asked if the US was behind the assassination plot. Kennedy said that he certainly had nothing to do with it; but that he could not vouch for or control his own CIA.
So its hardly news that American presidents can't trust the CIA and don't trust the CIA. The only thing that's new is that Trump said it in public. Probably shouldn't have. You'll note that in the past couple of weeks, Trump has learned to keep his mouth shut. He may be starting to learn how to play the game of politics. If so, that's why the left is frightened. Imagine Trump being Trump, but no longer his own worst enemy.
That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'?
You just don't like the guy's negotiating style. As someone said, as a New York City builder Trump always thinks he's negotiating with the sheet rock union.
Instead of lobbing missiles and starting a war, Trump went over there and buddied up with the leader of one of our country's "enemies." Are the North Korean people really the enemies of you and I? Or are they merely a tool for the military-industrial complex to keep the bucks flowing? Trump is a man of peace. He's a negotiator. No wonder the establishment hates him.The establishment gorges on the profits of war. Trump is dangerous to them.
The only thing I don't understand is why the left, with whom I marched against the war in Vietnam long ago, has now aligned itself with the defense contractors and the intel agencies in the cause of war.
If I had one wish, it would be for every leftist in the world to snap out of their trance and see how they are being played by the war machine. Hate Russia! Hate Russia! Hate Russia! A horde of mindless TDS-addled zombies.
Peace, man, Peace. Ike was a man of war and he worked for peace. JFK worked for peace, you see where that got him. Nixon worked for peace. Every president works for peace.
And when Trump works for peace? The left hates him for it.
I pray to the deities that be, for the liberals to snap out of their warmongering, deep-state loving trance and recognize that malignancy in our government; and that Trump, for all his flaws and faults, is trying to fight that malignancy.
Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately.
Like I say. You just don't like the guy's style. Why don't you look at his results? Only prez in my lifetime not to start any new wars. Look at the dangerous condition of the world with senile Biden and his feckless, incompetent, and neocon-influenced foreign policy team that have us on the brink of nuclear war.
Wake up. Peace is possible. But not by worshipping the neocon deep state that has a stranglehold on the Democratic party.
Reply to fishfry But they don’t cut it mate. I’ve said before, I respect your intelligence, I’ve learned things from you about philosophy of math (mainly, how little I know.) I have to say that you’re completely wrong about Trump, he’s malignant, mendacious, and a threat to the American Republic. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that, we have nothing further to discuss about it.
That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him?
"A riot is the voice of the unheard." Except when the unheard are the deplorables.
Except when it’s about racism and some property is damaged. Then it’s screamed about for years. Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — and after years of spin, we should deny what we all saw that day and tell ourselves it’s no big deal.
Because if it were the Black Lives Matter crowd, I’m sure we’d be saying the same thing. And I’m sure only one insurrectionist would have been shot.
You made my point for me. In 2014 when Obama was separating families and putting kids in cages, the MSM did not widely report the story. People were not outraged because they didn't know it was happening. When images of kids in cages covered in foil space blankets "like baked potatoes" started circulating on social media, Obama dialed back the cages and loosened the vetting of families. Even the WaPo was forced to report on the kids Obama was losing to traffickers.
Sure, it looked bad, but the two cases are not the same. Obama was not separating every family. The Trump Admin was. Obama was not doing it as a deterrent. The Trump admin was. Those are crucial differences, don't you agree?
The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.)
You have swallowed the psyop. The J6 committee was a total fraud.
Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be.
Yes back on topic. The election. I don't see how the Dems have much leverage. Biden is president. Biden is dug in. Biden has 3896 pledged delegates, with only 1,991 needed to win. Biden has Jill and Hunter in his corner; and crack and hooker jokes aside, Hunter is a smart and tough ally.
The Dem civil war is also a race war. All the Dem pols coming out against Joe are whitebreads (except for Obama in the background). Joe has the support of the Congressional Black caucus. AOC and Omar came out for Joe. Tellingly, black NYT columnist Charles Blow just came out with support for Joe. The Strongest Case for Biden Is His Resilience in the Face of the Onslaught. This is noteworthy because the Times editorial board and many of its other (white) opinion writers have called for Joe to "pass the baton" as you say.
Labor is behind Joe. Old people are behind Joe. I read that after the debate, his poll numbers went UP with women. They must have felt sorry for him.
Is the DNC going to screw over all the Biden supporters and primary voters? Dumping Joe is fraught with risk.
Also, Kamala has many negatives. As a former northern Californian I've watched her finger-to-the-wind brand of politics for a couple of decades now. She polls about the same as Biden against Trump. She's been a worthless VP and her approval ratings have been terrible. She is no panacea. And of course nobody else can leapfrog her because of Democratic identity politics.
There are also technical issues. Some states have strict filing rules that limit how long the Dems can wait. The WSJ published a story today saying that Biden can't transfer his campaign account to Kamala until he's formally nominated.
When Nixon was told by the party honchos that he had to resign, he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage have the Dems got? A strongly worded editorial from George Clooney, who just raised $30M for Biden three weeks ago and publicly claimed Biden was fit as a fiddle when he privately saw Biden's infirmity? Well today Rosie O'Donnell called for Biden to "pass the torch." That oughta do it.
I'm on record saying Joe is the nominee. Biden's press conference was not good enough to quell any doubts, but it wasn't bad enough to make his position any worse. He made some flubs but he also made his foreign policy points. He bought himself more time, and time is of the essence for the anti-Joe Dems. They are stuck. Nobody can make Joe leave but Joe. And he is a stubborn, selfish old guy who, despite his sad recent cognitive decline, was always pretty much like this.
The Dems made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
But they don’t cut it mate. I’ve said before, I respect your intelligence, I’ve learned things from you about philosophy of math (mainly, how little I know.) I have to say that you’re completely wrong about Trump, he’s malignant, mendacious, and a threat to the American Republic. Until you’re willing to acknowledge that, we have nothing further to discuss about it.
I was influenced by your kind words and I did my best to at least explain and justify my political feelings. Especially since I'm no Republican nor a conservative, but rather a fallen liberal. Still a registered Democrat. One of the seven to ten million Americans who voted for Obama and then Trump. The Democrats have no interest in who we are, which has been a great frustration these last eight years. The left just stopped listening. Just Russia Russia Russia and then J6. Lawfare and propping up Biden, both of which have failed spectacularly. It's the Dems who are a threat to the American republic, and I did not used to feel that way. They talked me into it over the past couple of decades and especially in the past eight years.
I enjoyed our Trump chat, and as I said, I appreciate your writing prompts so that I could express some of my thoughts. For some reason, Trump just doesn't trigger me the way he does others. And I do believe that if the Dems had totally ignored Trump, skipped the lawfare entirely, and held a competitive primary, Newsom or Whitmer would be beating DeSantis today.
Now it's up to the American people, such as they are, and our electoral system, such as it is.
I am actually confused about what you wrote. I outlined the basic facts about the sepaations and the cages, and you responded by complaining about my reading habits (and getting it wrong. Breitbart yes, RedState and Townhall no). I fail to see how what I read alters the fact that Trump put kids in the cages Obama built for the same purpose. All the rest is partisan rhetoric. You say that when Obama put kids in cages he was noble, and when Trump put kids in the same cages he was Orange Hitler. I fail to understand your point beyond partisanship.
Then it’s screamed about for years. Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — and after years of spin, we should deny what we all saw that day and tell ourselves it’s no big deal.
Maybe you didn't see the videos of them being let in. I did.
Because if it were the Black Lives Matter crowd, I’m sure we’d be saying the same thing. And I’m sure only one insurrectionist would have been shot.
Um ... what? The Floyd riots killed 20 people. A black cop shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt. Reverse the races and the left would still be hysterical about it.
Sure, it looked bad, but the two cases are not the same. Obama was not separating every family. The Trump Admin was. Obama was not doing it as a deterrent. The Trump admin was. Those are crucial differences, don't you agree?
Absolutely. Obama is a saint and a lightbringer. Trump is Orange Hitler. That's the distinction you are making.
I knew about Obama's cages in 2014, so when the left went wild over Trump putting kids in the same cages, I recognized them for the ignorant hysterics that they so often are. Eventually Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security guy, had to explain to reporters that those cages were had indeed been built by Obama. The left literally did not believe it. Willful denial of reality along with hysteria. Not a good look for the side I'd always considered myself to be part of.
As always with Trump, you conflate his often artless rhetoric with reality. The truth is you don't actually know that his motives were different than Obama's. Only that Obama can do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. And that Trump's words often inflame the left. I think he does it on purpose, like the taco bowl tweet. He's a troll. I watched the cage story develop from 2014 to 2018 and it does not reflect well on the left. Ignorance and hysteria. That's their style.
Ask yourself how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
But nevermind— just go on pretending it the insurrection was nothing. Years from now I’m sure it’ll be remembered as a tour — in conservative media anyway.
Federal whistleblowers testify against the Biden regime’s complicity in the exploitation and trafficking of migrant children.
What I discovered was horrifying… Make no mistake – children were not going to their parents they were being trafficked with billions of taxpayer dollars by a contractor failing to to vet sponsors and process children safely with government officials complicit in it.
Children were sent to addresses that were abandoned houses or non-existent in some cases
Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in”
It is okay when we do it. Get the memo, Mikie-chan.
FWIW, my guess is that The Neofascist Criminal Clown will announce he's selected either Kari Lake of Arizona or Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina to be his running mate. :meh:
I imagine Trump’s poll numbers may jump a couple points because of this. If he were smart — which he isn’t — he would be gracious and thank Joe and others who have wished him well and condemned the violence.
But we all know what will really happen. Get ready for conspiracy theories and fundraising, folks.
Watch the spin. They’ve radicalized themselves and their obsequious base into a corner. They’re the authoritarians they’ve been warning us about. Even though one of their fellow panicked brethren committed the act, one way or another this will be Trump’s fault.
Prosecute their political opponents, excise their political opponents from the ballot, attempt to remove their own democratically-elected candidate from the race, violate the bill of rights and constitution from every corner. Assassination was all they had left. They failed even that.
If I was religious, I'd assume god really is on Trump's side. The last couple of weeks were an amazing string of successes for his campaign.
First the SC giving Trump very wide ranging immunity.
Then Biden exposing his mental decline at the debate, followed by a disastrously uncoordinated response in the democratic party. Weeks on the democrats have still not managed to form a united front, but did manage to further damage their (current) candidate.
And now a failed assassination attempt, leaving him hurt but only lightly injured. His reaction to this was also very good. He managed to show some restraint and called for unity, which is an unusually savvy move.
Not to be callous about the assassination attempt (I'm glad he survived) but it's hard to imagine a bigger boon for his campaign than the image of a martyr.
If I was religious, I'd assume god really is on Trump's side.
If I was religious I'd be denouncing my own faith about now to be honest.
Well America good luck with your new king I guess. At this point I'm just trying to find a nice seat for myself to watch as society continues to burn itself to the ground.
They tried censoring him, removing him from the ballot, putting him in jail. They wanted Trump to be assassinated. That much is clear. But now we have to watch their solemn play-acting as they deplore political violence and murder.
Joe Biden said some words, and thus he tried assassinating Trump. I remember someone railing against such logic.
It’s as if there’s no consistency or principle whatsoever. :chin:
Anyway — criminals should be in jail and insurrectionists probably shouldn’t be on the ballot and private companies can censor anyone they want, particularly those who incite an insurrection. But nice Gish gallop.
Reply to NOS4A2
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/11/pence-trump-endangered-my-family-on-jan-6-00086664
"“I had no right to overturn the election. And his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day, and I know history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”"
As usual you confuse what Trump SAYS from what he DOES.
He's a negotiator. He puts up skyscrapers in Manhattan. How do you know he wasn't expecting his statement to go out to prospective migrants, and make them decide to stay home/
You can't prove otherwise. You can't actually cite statistics on what was in Obama or Trump's heart for each of the families separated and kids caged.
Instead you choose to judge Trump on his words, and not on his actions, which were in fact no different than Obamas. He used Obama's cages for God's sake, you can't say with a straight face that they were Lightbringer cages when Obama stuck kids in them and Orange Hitler cages when Trump did it.
You're operating from emotion, choosing to overreact to Trump's words, because you can't cite facts in his actual actions.
You have no credibility when you do this, because the left has been doing this for eight years. Just think taco bowl tweet. The left went ballistic. I took one look at that, cracked up laughing, and said, "Trump is a master troll and a brilliant performance artist!"
That's the deal. I get Trump. If he does something wrong, he did something wrong. I'm just not emotionally trigged by the guy, and many on the left are. And that clouds their, and your, judgment.
Ask yourself how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
You mean when a black cop shot an unarmed young white woman to death? If the races were reversed we'd still be having riots.
But nevermind— just go on pretending it the insurrection was nothing. Years from now I’m sure it’ll be remembered as a tour — in conservative media anyway.
Time will tell. If there's justice in the universe, there will be justice for J6.
Ask yourself how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
— Mikie
You mean when a black cop shot an unarmed young white woman to death?
No, I mean how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
No, I mean how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
So your best argument against me is a hypothetical scenario you just made up. If you had actual facts, or an actual argument, you'd make it.
Well I'm taking the day off from partisanship so thanks for the chat.
Reply to fishfry The link is not about Trump, it's about Jeff Sessions.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Monday that he hopes the administration's new policy that separates children from their parents will serve as a deterrent to other immigrants considering crossing the border illegally."
To recap: the Trump Admin started a new zero-tolerance policy to separate all families as a deterrent. This had never been done before and was ended just a few weeks after the public found out. Do you see how that is different than what Biden and Obama were doing?
Instead you choose to judge Trump on his words, and not on his actions, which were in fact no different than Obamas. He used Obama's cages for God's sake, you can't say with a straight face that they were Lightbringer cages when Obama stuck kids in them and Orange Hitler cages when Trump did it.
False.
Some cages were built by Obama and some children were separated under exceptional circumstances. Trump wrote a blanket policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers which resulted in a blanket separation of kids from their families. A lot more cages were build. There's your "action" to judge.
Time will tell. If there's justice in the universe, there will be justice for J6.
That's not how justice works. You have to actively work for it but I guess if you vote in the US you have to pretend justice is released like manna from the heavens because your political system is currently incapable of protecting it.
:D "They" are out to get'im. Crooks certainly was (he fits in a US pattern). "They" didn't miss John Lennon. :/ (by the way, surely Gore has more wits than Bush)
The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur.
It's utterly bewildering that people as intensely dull as is required to make that type of comment are in fact, capable of operation modern technology. But here we are. 180. Mikie. Benkei. The whole crew! I implore all of you to remember that you can actually speak to other humans without being dimwits.
Anyway — remember when I said this would die down in a week? Well make it’s a few days, because once Trump gets up to talk, we’re right back to normal. Polls are still close.
Trump has everything going his way right now, against a weak opponent— and he’ll still likely lose. Too bad the RNC have no values or principles.
As I said in the Trump thread, the assassination attempt is a big plus for the Trump campaign. Not to suggest for one minute it was planned or staged - it genuinely appears to be the act of an irrational loner - but that it plays right into the hands of 'martyr' and 'deep state conspiracy'. Many of his supporters will see it like that regardless of the facts.
Not because he’s an awful human being and did irreversible harm to the United States and the world— but because he wasn’t stupid enough. Didn’t go along with the fantasies of a stolen election and J6 being a “peaceful tout” and Trump being an innocent man. Booo!!
The Republicans are the party of idiots. But they are the party of creationists and climate deniers, so this should have been known years ago. The transition to the MAGA cult was only natural.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Monday that he hopes the administration's new policy that separates children from their parents will serve as a deterrent to other immigrants considering crossing the border illegally."
Again, you are upset about words, something Sessions said on a right wing talk show. You can't prove he wasn't just saying that to (a) deter immigrants, or (b) suck up to the FOX news base. You are upset about what he SAID and you have once again presented no evidence about what he DID.
You just assume that Obama's heart is pure and Trump's is impure, and that causes you to not even realize that you are not making a substantive argument.
In the 1990's the Dems wanted to look tough on immigration, so they hardened and militarized the border (Hillary was front and center on that), leading to desperate immigrants dying of thirst in the desert. If you seek to paint Trump as lacking in human compassion for immigrants, you will have to come to terms with the Democrats' own cruelty. The Dems forced Mexico to run a war on the cartels in order to receive American economic aid, leading to many tens of thousands of deaths of Mexican citizens. The Democrats have an appalling human rights record regarding Mexico.
To recap: the Trump Admin started a new zero-tolerance policy to separate all families as a deterrent. This had never been done before and was ended just a few weeks after the public found out. Do you see how that is different than what Biden and Obama were doing?
Your proof consists only of verbal statements, no proof as to what was actually done.
The Democrats have an absolutely appalling human rights record in Mexico. And you want to give Joe Biden as an example of human decency in Mexico? Motherf*cker is a child trafficker, I have repeatedly pointed this out. He doesn't waste time separating families, he just turns the kids over to their traffickers at the border.
You are just being a partisan shill, your argument is devoid of logic. "Orange Man say bad thing on television." That's the extent of your argument. While being willfully ignorant of Democratic human rights abuses on the border and within Mexico for decades.
Some cages were built by Obama and some children were separated under exceptional circumstances. Trump wrote a blanket policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers which resulted in a blanket separation of kids from their families. A lot more cages were build. There's your "action" to judge.
I'll see your Trump cages and raise you Clinton and Obama's militarization of the souther border, which has caused untold human misery. The Dems have a terrible human rights record re Mexico.
Again, you are upset about words, something Sessions said on a right wing talk show.
As you know, people go to prison all the time over "words". The words of the Attorney General matter, regardless of where he's talking. The whole country was upset by the zero-tolerance immigration policy (the action behind the words), which is why the policy ended just weeks after people found out. Discussing this with you is pointless. You're beclowning yourself now.
That's not how justice works. You have to actively work for it but I guess if you vote in the US you have to pretend justice is released like manna from the heavens because your political system is currently incapable of protecting it.
We shall see. As Martin Luther King said, The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Of course it can take a long time. Stalin sent a lot of people to the Gulag before the Soviet Union finally collapsed. There was justice, but not in time to help many individuals.
The whole country was upset by the zero-tolerance immigration policy (the action behind the words), which is why the policy ended just weeks after people found out. Discussing this with you is pointless. You're beclowning yourself now.
The country got upset because the MSM hysterically broadcast Trump's border crisis. I personally watched the same MSM be silent during Obama's identical border crisis in 2014.
What you think you are measuring is not national outrage, but media coverage. Protecting Obama in 2014 and attacking Trump in 2018. Pretty much the same humanitarian crisis.
You're quite ignorant about the southern border and the striking difference in media coverage of Democratic versus Republican humanitarian crises on the border. You're ignorant of decades of Democratic militarization of the border leading to so much human misery both on the border and inside Mexico. All you care about is your little talking point. In the end you have no knowledge and no argument so you sling insults.
The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur.
There are also dickheads in the USA who are hoping and actively planning for society burning down.
And whatever one may think about Donald Trump as a person, the trajectory of the republican party as a whole is quite stark. There doesn't seem much of a doubt that the majority of active politicians in the republican party of 2024 is willing to use all legal and legalistic means available to deepen and secure it's power. Moderates have an increasingly hard time in this environment.
I mean they are endorsing a candidate who still refuses to accept the result of the last election. Sure Trump is popular and that's part of the reason. But it's also a conscious choice to engage in power politics without regards to democratic niceties. The outlook is no longer a classical liberal one.
I've seen several comments that our members wish death on Trump
I don't think he's like Hitler. I'm just one of the millions of people who wish that shooter hadn't missed. Or how about just badly injured him so he'd have to be in rehab during the election, and after that, he'd be just fine. :halo:
Reply to frank Wishing death on people out of personal fancy is just poor character.
Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated. What illegal wars did he start? Which countries did he ruin? Which regions of the world did he plunge into chaos?
I doubt you'll get much further than "he said some words I didn't like." Compared to previous US presidents and even the current one, he's a lightweight when it comes to wanton destruction.
Compared to previous US presidents and even the current one, he's a lightweight when it comes to wanton destruction.
Except the irreversible damage to the environment and taking us backwards on climate mitigation — which is already doing innumerable harms. Appointing a fossil fuel lawyer as head of the EPA probably does deserve the death penalty, morally — but I’m not in favor of assassination.
Of course none of that matters to his supporters, who are outright climate deniers. Including you. So I don’t pretend like reality matters to you.
Also take a look at his one legislative achievement: a massive tax break for corporate America, who he’s always slavishly served.
Or letting thousands die of Covid because he didn’t want to deal with it, saying it would be gone by Easter.
I wager that the Democrat’s blue-collar support is bleeding out. I imagine they’re tired of that power hungry cult thieving their money for more boondoggle policies, and all that’s left are panty-wasted and woke soys. That party wants nothing to do with workers anymore unless it comes election time. It’s fun to watch.
Equally as hilarious are stalwart Republicans, like Trump’s would-be assassin, who have to watch as their former party gets invaded by instagram models and union bosses and the lgbt. Trump is reordering American politics, so it’s glorious to watch the party apparatchiks seethe.
Reply to NOS4A2, I didn't want to assassinate Clown McClown, let alone tried to. You have me confused with someone else, and have too many "They"s in your...comments.
Our resident Trump cultist has exactly no principles or values. Just unadulterated party politics. And watered down Ayn Rand. But it’s always there for a laugh!
Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated.
Nothing. He desires to die very slowly in excrutiating agony while fully aware of Sleepy Dark Brandon's 2nd inauguration, then mercifully expire a world-class loser on 21January25. That's what The Clown & his cult of worshipful idiots deserve.
No "fantasizing", just talking about what the orange shit "deserves" as you said.
He probably does deserve to die, given the irreparable harm and deaths he has and will cause. But unlike the Trump cult, there are still principles worth adhering to. Like not assassinating people.
I don't think he deserves to die. Like many, I just wish someone would assassinate him. I never claimed to be a saint.
Not sure that'd improve matters for those opposed to Trumpism oder the republican platform to be honest.
I think a sufficiently ruthless politician armed with the spirit of Trump might end up much more effective at getting their way than Trump will ever be.
Not sure that'd improve matters for those opposed to Trumpism oder the republican platform to be honest.
I think a sufficiently ruthless politician armed with the spirit of Trump might end up much more effective at getting their way than Trump will ever be.
Yea. I just don't want to have to hear his big mouth for the next four years. Either way, I think the US is headed for some kind of political shift.
Reply to Mikie Agreed. I don't advocate assassinating any current/former elected politician or candidate for office. I never have. Even though SCOTUS recently granted "immunity from criminal prosecution" to POTUS for "killing a political rival".
This is a direct attack on democracy, making the removal of ballot bins and the storming of the Capitol look like child's play. They are literally and openly blocking a viable candidate's name from the ballot.
"Vance has embraced aspects of the Dark Enlightenment, a movement that sees mass participatory democracy, particularly liberal democracy, as a threat to or incompatible with freedom.". wikipedia
Dark Enlightenment:
"The ideology generally rejects Whig historiography[2]—the concept that history shows an inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy[2]—in favor of a return to traditional societal constructs and forms of government, including absolute monarchism and other older forms of leadership such as cameralism.[3]". wikipedia2
This is a direct attack on democracy, making the removal of ballot bins and the storming of the Capitol look like child's play.
It’s not good, but putting a conservative spin on it like this is NOS territory. It’s also worth noting that Fox sources always add their slant.
They have missed numerous statutory deadlines, skipped filing fees, submitted the wrong names on the nomination petitions, and some failed to hold conventions," Olasanoye said. "None of these candidates are qualified to be on the Georgia ballot."
But yeah, definitely worse than storming the Capitol to overthrow an election you didn’t like the result of.
It's ot good, but putting a conservative spin on it like this is NOS territory. It’s also worth noting that Fox sources always add their slant.
Just pointing out a double standard. There's nothing conservative about it. If the Republicans tried to block the Libertarians from the ballot because they knew it would consume much needed Republican votes I'd say the same thing.
The right trying to make it hard for Democrats to vote is anti-democratic. If more people want Biden, then Biden should be President.
Comments (2443)
Really? Why do you say that?
She has a much better shot at that than the Presidency.
Oh. I didn't realize that. Who are they backing?
Then America is doomed! A leader is chosen for leadership qualities and there's no correlation between the color of one's skin, gender too for that matter, and how well you can manage a country's affairs. :smile:
Seemingly, the masses go to vote just for trivial aspects rather than asking to the politicians more effectiveness. We live in a period of time where it is more important for a politician to have a good spotlight than a great rethoric.
Précisément!
I've generally never seen it much different than this, it's just that each generation's trivialities seem more grotesque that the last.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm not across this issue - living elsewhere - but this seems on the money. Trump still has a hold of a significant chunk of the GOP. Do you think De Santis will be a bigger problem than Trump - being more disciplined and focused?
We can argue that is our fault and probably one of the most sensible decisions could be not go to vote at all...
In the WH, yes; but I don't think DeSantis will get that far precisely because his reactionary populist – fascistic, racist, mysogynist, public health-denying – policies in Florida amply demonstrate how much scarier he'd be than Individual-1.
I suspect Biden will announce in the fall that he's not running in 2024. Kamala Harris is already DOA (and good riddens). Watch California governor Gavin Newsom for President (with Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer for VP). Now that's a MAGA-killing ticket! Not nearly as far left as I'd like or this country needs but consistently more firmly progressive than Biden-Harris (or Obama-Biden or Clinton-Gore).
Intriguing thought. I could easily get on board with that (from the bleachers, not that I’m a voter.)
But Ann Coulter is an idiot. I think Haley will appeal to swing voters because she seems to have a moral center. DeSantis comes across as a slug after what he did with shipping immigrants all over the place.
Yup, but she reflects what a significant number of MAGA folks think
Quoting frank
That may be so, but apart from Romney and a few isolated others the Republican Party has no moral center. I could be wrong (happens on a regular basis) but I don't see any scenario in which Haley can win in the primaries.
0%
Or "US Election 2024" in case another democracy comes into being in the solar system somewhere.
Famous last words, though. If you're thinking that just because of racism, I think you might be mistaken. I don't think the average Republican is racist.
:up:
Whitmer for President with running-mate Newsom for Veep works just as well for me too – maybe even better!
The first female president will be a Republican. People can't handle liberal and female at the same time. Think Margaret Thatcher.
A joke guys. Just a joke.
Makes sense.
Maybe a Republican woman President, before Sarah Palin helped sink McCain's candidacy, had a good chance but in this post-Tea Party & MAGA-insurrectionist era I expect it will be two or three more Presidential elections before "Republican primary voters" throw up a nominee – man or woman – who will have an even chance to win enough of Independents and former-GOP voters to get back into the WH. My guess is that the fallout from Individual-1 & co's indictments, convictions and consequent civil unrest / political terrorism will have catastrophic electoral consequences for the GOP that will last for at least a generation.
I think it just depends on who looks the best on tv. The reason I'm keeping my eye on Haley is that she managed to be elected governor of SC, but at the same time doesn't show up as a complete sycophant or psycho.
I'll admit that it's also because DeSantis makes my stomach turn, he's such a slug, and Biden definitely looks weak.
How did that movie end?
Four terms? Imagine, he'd be a spry 98 years old at the end of it, our own Mugabe.
More seriously, I don't even think he should run for one more term. Age isn't just a number, and he'll be 82 before his second inauguration. The Democrats have plenty of good candidates to run and I can certainly see it benefiting them to put a new face out there given prevailing economic conditions.
Trump will probably win the GOP primary. Desantis is polling well for the same reason almost every Republican in the huge field in 2016 polled well for short periods. He isn't Trump and people don't know much about him. Trump has already opened up a 14 point lead on him and we haven't even seen Desantis embarrass himself by explaining why he is running against Trump even though he claims to believe Trump won the last election in a landslide.
But Trump-lite doesn't bring the out the enthusiasm like the Orange Augustus himself. The "hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory," crowd isn't going to go for anyone else. Like, are they going to vote for Mike Pence? They were chanting about hanging him in 2021. Plus, it looks like the GOP establishment will sabotage themselves by having too many candidates to split votes between again. MTG will quite likely be the VP.
The more frightening thing is that I can totally see Trump beating Biden, probably while losing the popular vote by 9-10 million votes this time, and his platform of revenge policies, for example, making almost the entire federal civil service political appointees, would be disastrous.
Plus, what a cruel irony it would be to see the first female President and for it to be MTG. That is the type of irony fate seems to like delivering lately.
Trump not getting the candidacy of the GOP and then going third party and making sure that the Dems win would be a very likely, logical way how things would unfold. I agree that this is a genuine possibility.
Let's see in 2024 if you are a fortuneteller, @Maw.
(Page 2 of this thread is allways easy to find, even when it's running in over hundred pages).
Of course, he needs to stay out of prison until November 2024 to do that, which could prove difficult.
This might happen if the Republican populace simply grows tired of the Donald. And that can happen. Otherwise, imagine the life of the judge afterwards who puts Donald Trump into jail.
Perhaps Donald can have a ghostwriter then writing his "My Battles" book while in prison!
See George Carlin on "He happened to be."
The election is roughly 17 months away; Nikky Haley and others ??? may be irrelevant way before then.
I find it difficult to get aroused about 2024. I expect the process and result to leave me underwhelmed, very disappointed, deeply chagrined, highly annoyed, and more!
It isn't just that the existing political process will fail to solve our significant -- even existential -- problems. It IS the case that the existing political process CAN NOT solve our problems.
We still have to have a president, though. If we have no head of government, somebody will invade.
Yes, because The Prez stands at the Gates of America very much like Gandalf stood before the Gates of Minas Tirith, and by his power turned away the servant of Sauron. EVEN Donald Trump was able to thwart invasions from the Bahamas and bird-like aliens from a distant star system, just by standing resolutely in front of the the urinal in the oval room powder room.
Iceland is waiting for a lapse in our powerful presidency, as is Lichtenstein, Morocco, and Sri Lanka.
Can the POTUS by force of his high office turn back ICBMs? Apparently -- otherwise the Soviet Union would have long since buried us, as Nikita Khrushchev foretold. Unfortunately, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was able to slip past the Great Guardian and Guarantor of Freedom.
Well now it appears law enforcement is prepping for an indictment announcement next week. This is a New York indictment, but a Georgia one also seems quite likely.
Maybe he can stretch it out long enough to win and we'll have the crisis of a President with multiple state warrants out for his arrest in felony charges.
This sounds slightly sarcastic.
:smile:
:up:
:gasp:
we'll see, my DeSantis 2024 stock is decreasing week by week although it's also not clear what Trump's future holds.
MAGA nation seems riled up. Lots of Twitter posts, oh no!
All because their criminal hero is throwing a toddler tantrum over (maybe) being held accountable for one of his many crimes -- this one being fairly minor compared to others.
NBC
I guess this is a Soros-DA:
"Bragg is from Harlem, and grew up on Striver's Row.[2] In an interview with The American Prospect, Bragg noted that he had been "deeply affected by the criminal justice system – most directly through three gunpoint stops by the NYPD."[3] He graduated from the Trinity School[4] before attending Harvard College. He graduated from Harvard cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in government in 1995[2][5] and earned his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review.[5][4]"
-wikipedia
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/opinion/trump-feud-ron-desantis.html?unlocked_article_code=SiN4KOS05wzoE-zRiB4tCndC8Y4VT0L-xYpQ4aQmsueCtVMCAHPk-_0sRtLQ4etTj8LuuRUBIn_Ja7u9-KPcfljTX4b4kunJwW0gqeIMfulSiOpxyTZx3bIIMUSjW1OG4zjjWJNpmEV2Du-xuVE3G1sKY9Ff-KvJ3qtspBY_2OX9U4IIgBgvSN5Z2PqFTtZRV_czxs5N41yX6VZi2XTk6LSuEkUaw3B0L1dTTRBJQTt_hdINERMmR25S_t_Bh-48DrusQejDdNmXOqOMbzsrXX_7fxx5P9aCshYJnwkRJtAAHB-Nki4AHXUer6hUgWrEUzZDOJk-tUMB0-QE-1a9QWY&smid=url-share
In the US of Absurdia, this shitstorm might get even more furious in the next few months.
Nice move, Rupert. :shade:
Sort of. They are accused of pushing woke ideology for a variety of reasons, which in turn makes them a target for "cancellation." It is surprising though, given Disney has very much catered to the Evangelical right in its content production over the past decades.
But it is less shocking then the new right wing trend of attacking the US security apparatus (the FBI, the intelligence community) and the military. This would have been unthinkable in the W. Bush Era, but now memes like this are quite common:
It's a very weird thing that the radical far-right, with their proclamations of an immanent "Boog," or "second civil war," has decided to attack the military as insufficiently righteous. Apparently, the new utopia/minority rule will be brought about by legions of amateur, majority senior citizen revolutionaries.
I can't say I recall a single revolt in history with a median age of 55, but if you look at armed protests in the US that would be my low end estimate for age. It's weird, especially since half the nation's budget is transfer payments to seniors. I suppose it is more about social control, not economic factors though.
Maybe it's a red state thing where aging militias aren't being replaced with younger members?
I would like to see some statistics to this effect. That would not be my guess.
Ageism is still considered fair game, while other forms of discrimination may be declining.
I don't think anything like "statistics," for that exists. You'd be hard pressed to get people arming up to protest tyrannical government to fill out surveys for you.
However, armed right wing protests since 2020 have generally been photographed in detail, so you can take a look for yourself. That the crowds are majority male, by a large margin, majority White, by an even larger margin, and skew older seems readily apparent.
And I was making a comparison to other revolutionary movements and the compositions of militaries. The maximum age to enlist or receive a commission is 35 for the Army, 28 for the Marines for example. It's a historical anomaly for such a movement to include more men with grey hair than ones you could mistake for undergraduates. That said, it's not particularly surprising since Donald Trump, still mostly a hero in far-right circles, lost voters under 30 by a landslide 29 points (by contrast, W. Bush split 18-24 voters almost even). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184426/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-age-us/
Not that there is any definite overlap between people who vote for Y candidate and those who bring assault rifles to their governor's front lawn, but I'd have to imagine the recruiting pool is a subset of the larger whole for any set of political radicals.
I don't know, maybe that sort of thing will become more common as society ages overall. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to be ageist. Certainly there have been plenty of older, very successful revolutionaries. It's just strange for the entire cohort to be older. Normally it's the young people who get all hot headed and want to tear institutions down without fully thinking through what that means. I don't think the small subset of people marching around state houses with rifles particularly represents any age bracket as a whole.
That's not even the wild part. Generally if you want to take control, especially as a minority, you want the military on your side. And this has always tended to be more true of right wing groups. The far-right turning on the military is the truly bizarre part.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781912
I had thought Newsom would have a good chance, but news out of CA has not been good lately.
Bernie ran two very important campaigns. His policies are now in the mainstream discussion, and his supporters have helped push Biden farther than he would have otherwise been.
So Biden versus Trump, again. What a pity. An easy choice, though. Vote against Trump again. Prevent him from getting into office. Then keep grinding on with local/state work.
That should be the extent of the mental energy used these next 16 months. But I'm guessing it won't be. Because when it comes to the US, we have to turn it into an overwhelming spectacle. Talk about overcomplicating.
Maybe they could run as a geriatric team. But which one is Gandolf?
Early days yet. I'm sure 2023 has many surprises in store.
One hilarious example shows Biden needs guidance for even the most basic of tasks.
Just like his last campaign the whole presidency is a complete sham. The man is not under control.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/biden-cheat-sheet-shows-he-had-advance-knowledge-of-journalists-question/amp/
Tucker, is that you?
Don Lemon, do you like that your president needs instructions on how to enter a room and say hello?
It’d be fine if it wasn’t coming from a Trump apologist and Ayn Rand cultist. That just makes it hilarious.
I'd think you'd just be indifferent to all the various politicians out there. None of them really represent you, you know? None of them.
The idea that a politician can represent me is an obsequious one, especially if they’ve never met me or considered my concerns. So I don’t look at it as someone representing me as if he was carrying out my will.
Here the leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen cannot even face a reporter’s questions without a cheat sheet and a public relations team. It’s all a scripted show. I prefer reality television.
Most powerful the world has ever seen? Eh, that's more likely the British Empire.
One carrier would destroy the entire Royal Navy at the height of the empire. Anyways, it was besides the point.
And if we had a wayback machine we could go back to 1915 and kick some ass. As it is, we're constrained by other well armed powers.
The idea that any Republican would vote for Trump just to get Republicans into power is a ridiculously desperate need for power. It's like: "Let the world burn, as long as I can have the slightest seat of power".
If that is their ambition, then there's no moral soul left in that party whatsoever. I'd like to see the more functioning, stable, and intellectual Republicans break off from Trump and start their own party or seriously try and take over the Republican party by outing all the stupid morons who infected it. How far does it need to go before Republicans do this for real? Or are there so many morons in the Republican party that it's a doomed case?
It wasn't an answer to that post of yours specifically, I just entered the discussion based on the topic.
The republicans are no longer a political party. Here I agree with Chomsky.
But what they’ve left behind is hardly admirable— the “intellectual” republicans are still neoliberals through and through. All their talk of small government always was a pretext for vicious class warfare and their complete obedience to corporate power. Even more savage than the Wall Street democrats, who at least throw a few crumbs to the 80-90% of the population struggling to keep up once in a while, and believe in things like climate change.
Unfortunately there’s no choice anymore for anyone thinking rationally about the world. The Democratic Party is currently the place to push for changes. We’ve seen that in the old bones of Biden, who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on, but who has been far more progressive than Obama or Clinton, largely due to activist pressures and the strength of the Sanders campaign in ‘16 and especially ‘20. His advisors know that many voting blocks simply won’t accept the policies of his predecessors whole hog.
But that’s national stuff, where we don’t have much impact other than in how we vote. What matters more isn’t really any party, but what we do locally and how we organize— i.e., how we increase our power. There’s a great book on this called Politics is For Power, by Eitan Hirsch. I think this is where our focus should be; the choice for who to vote for in ‘24, in contrast, should take 5 minutes of brain power.
What's up with these mad
Quoting Jan 27, 2023
in the US anyway?
Bernie at least comes through as a better choice of a representative (of course labeled an evil commie), and I'm sure there must be many others, regardless of party, but then those...people rise and the circus comes to town.
EDIT
Wasn't intended to discredit JFK. Englitch being my 2nd language shows.
I thought that type of thing would be looked upon more favorably here.
Okay boys, how much are we wagering?
I’m saying he’ll be the nominee, almost certainly. I’ll give you 5:1 odds.
(1) by the end of 2023, the jury in NYS civil lawsuit will find him responsible for over a decade of state tax fraud, putting him and his children on the hook for damages $500million – $1billion and effectively shutting down the Trump Organization, etc by preventing the family from doing business in NYS – SP-1 will be so broke that campaign mega-donors will completely abandon him (as his buddy Rupert Murdoch already has) as well as Russian Oligarchs & the Saudis ...
(2) by the end of 2023, SP-1 will be indicted for dozens of RICO felonies in Fulton County, Georgia, with a trial set to begin in the summer/fall of 2024 – Senate Minoriry Leader "Moscow Mitch", in order to protect the GOP's slim chances of winning back the US Senate in 2024, will lead GOP senators to begin to openly withdraw their support during the GOP primaries and even openly criticize SP-1 as a serial electoral "LOSER" just as former GOP governor Chris Christie is already doing ...
(3) lastly, also by the end of 2023, a Federal Grand Jury and the DoJ will indict SP-1 for Seditious Conspiracy & Insurrection, among several other charges, and this will trigger legal challenges in State & Federal courts to remove SP-1 from ballots for president (or any federal office) pursuant to the prohibitions specified in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution – without GOP big money or his own financing, without the support of GOP senators and live wall-to-wall 24/7 media chatter about legal challenges to officially disqualify Seditionist-1 from any federal office including the presidency, the GOP will abandon him next spring (or sooner) in order to begin saving itself as a viable party for the 2026 midterms abd 2028 general election.
Out of spite and malignant narcissistic dementia, Seditionist-1 will run as a third party spoiler to punish the GOP for abandoning him siphoning off enough voters to guarantee a Democrat wins the presidency (not Biden) as well as violence by MAGA terrorists leading up to and around the election next fall. And all this in the political context of the collapse of FOX Noise (re: Smartmatic & shareholders' lawsuits plus Tucker Carlson's retaliation) and demise of the right-wing SCOTUS (re: Thomas & wife, et al) as well.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781991
So I'll be happy to take your money, Mikie. :wink: :up:
You’ve laid out a good case. I think some of it is wishful thinking (like how soon there will be a verdict in the NY civil case, and the extent to which donors and senators abandon him), but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
I don’t think it matters to his voters, who will double down as they always do, will send him millions of dollars, and will rally around him as a victim of left wing conspirators. They will also destroy any challenger, as we see already with DeSantis, who was supposed to be the shoo in.
I wouldn’t put it past him to run as an independent or Patriots Party or something like that, but there will be no need: the voters will vote him in as a Republican.
Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
In both cases I wouldn’t mind losing money.
Rubert Murdoch has already abandoned him. I suspect other far less well-known to the public mega-donors already have as well (which is why Loser-1 has veen grifting so hard since his failed coup attempt).
Senators Mo Brooks & Mitt Romney released separate statements today declaring Loser-1 is unfit to be president. More to come, Mikie. Let the avalanche begin ...
Keep in mind, the voters only matter – get a say – once 'the establishment' (mega-donors, party leaders, politicians & pundits) has signed-off on the candidates. Loser-1, while still the front runner today, is hemorraging the establishment support he needs so that his MAGA maniacs can get a chance to vote for him in the primaries. Yeah, I get it, they don't care about his past or pending civil, criminal & financial troubles but, all indications are, the GOP establishment cares about winning / regaining power in Washington DC and Loser-1 looks more and more to them like an obstacle to power. MAGA morons be damned, there aren't enough of them –'without Never Trumpers, suburban GOP women, under 35 years olds and most Independents – for Loser-1 to win a general election. This has been obvious and confirmed since 2018 and confirmed again in 2020 & 2022 (remember the Trumpy "red ripple"?) :smirk:
Lastly, Desantis is sabotaging himself even as he throws red meat at MAGAts. Also, between getting punk'd by Mickey Mouse and being Loser-1's first and easiest rival to attack, Desantis has offered himself up as a tag-team practice dummy.
Quoting Mikie
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: :up:
How? I wish the verdict were today. I'd be very happy to see it. I just have a feeling it'll be protracted, as these things always are.
Quoting 180 Proof
Again, I hope so. But so far every time it looks as though the Republicans are going to get away from Trump -- the apex being the week after January 6th -- he comes back, again and again. And it's obvious why: the voters.
Quoting 180 Proof
But he's beat the establishment, over and over again. The establishment never liked him. They've tolerated him because he still gives tax cuts, deregulates everything, etc. So they put up with almost anything else, as long as he continues to win and give them what they want. Only trouble is, now he's not really winning.
The voters will apparently follow him into a volcano. Take a look at the polls. It's absurd. You have well over half believing the election was "stolen," simply because he says so.
Quoting 180 Proof
True. But again, they're in quite a dilemma, because the voters still love him and he refuses to pass the baton. He's destroying DeSantis before he's even declared himself a candidate. The establishment doesn't like this, of course, but they're stuck with him. The megadonars simply don't matter if he remains the frontrunner in the polls and has a massive campaign war chest largely funded through small donations from the faithful.
I'm not saying any of this is good for the Republican party -- it isn't, as was seen in 2020 and 2022. He is bleeding suburbia and independents. But even at that, it was still very close. In a sane world, all of them should have been blowouts. (Including 2018, which people forget was not a blue wave. Dozens won by shockingly few votes.) But the point stands: he's still the frontrunner, and very likely the Republican nominee.
Quoting 180 Proof
All right then, you're on. I bet $10 at 5:1 odds. So $50 to you if you're right in either case. And yes, I'll be VERY happy to pay it, because I hope you're right on both counts.
[Edit: personal bets are probably looked down on here, so how about this instead: I'll donate $50 to TPF if you're right, and you donate $10 if I'm right. Deal?]
US$10.00 payable to charity of your choice :up:
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
//although should note some exceptions:
[quote=NYTimes]Other Republicans were less merciful, particularly Mr. Santos’s fellow New Yorkers. Representative Anthony D’Esposito, who represents parts of Nassau County, called Mr. Santos a “serial fraudster” who should “resign from office.” Representative Mike Lawler of the Hudson Valley said Mr. Santos’s conduct had been “embarrassing and disgraceful, and he should resign.”[/quote]
:clap:
lol what a dumbass
These two really deserve each other. :lol:
I'm so proud.
Putin's Bitch goes on trial in NYC for 34 felonies (so far) on 25 March 2024 during the middle of the GOP primaries. By then the NYS Attorney General and E Jean Carroll (et al) will have bankrupted Loser-1 with punitive damages fines. His "presidential candidacy" is DOA. :lol:
Addendum.
(Update pending on imminent US Federal indictments for Obstruction of Justice, Espionage, etc.)
Maybe Elon should invite him on a rocket launch next.
(It’s probably that sense of harbouring a grudge that makes him most like Trump. (He would resent that.))
Ny Times
I agree with this. It benefits Trump.
Maybe the RNC takes a page from the DNC playbook and consolidate around one person once it’s clear that the non-Trumps are splitting the votes.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/810514
If you think his campaign is “DOA,” you’re not paying attention. He’ll be the Republican nominee. I’ll wager money on it.
Like taking more filthy lucre from a baby! :smirk:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807026
With Trump it's worse. Nothing can mobilize the Dems better to vote than Trump being the GOP candidate. Anybody else, and the GOP has a good chance to win. Now other candidates can change and thinking of them can change, but this will stay.
If Trump becomes the GOP candidate, again the country will look like it's breaking apart.
A massive dumpster fire then that election. Something that I'm not keenly looking forward to.
Yes. It's going to suck. If the number of people running in the Republican primaries is high, that helps Trump. His base is solid, so the others just split the 70% that's left. If Republicans really don't want Trump representing them, they'd have to get their shit together and stand united behind an alternative. I don't expect that to happen.
So really, if a Republican doesn't want Trump, it would be best to become a swing voter.
"America ... threatened by the scumbaggery of a man and his family...."
update:
Putin's Bitch was indicted by the US DoJ today ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814066
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/minnesota-miracle-democrats-progressive-bills_n_6484afe4e4b025003eddd498
Quoting 180 Proof
No longer "pending" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814066
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814765
It's only a matter of time, @Mikie, before Traitor-1 buckles under the crush of criminal indictments & civil lawsuits. :victory: :smirk:
Then I’ll owe you $10 to the charity of your choice, or whatever we agreed on. Happily.
Sleepy Joe's family:
• Hunter Biden
e.g. 2013 energy industry (China) & 2014 "Burisma" (Ukraine) – more than $10 million (investigated by DoJ special counsel since 2018 that has resulted in guilty plea (pending as of 20Jun2023) to two misdemeanor tax charges plus five years probation on an unrelated firearm charge)
Traitor/Seditionist-1's family:
• Ivanka & Jared Kushner
e.g. $640 million jointly reported "investment" income while both were employed by the WH 2017-2021 (re: deals in China, etc – yet to be investigated)
• Jared Kushner
e.g. $2 billion from Saudi Arabia in 2021 for ??? (yet to be investigated)
• Ivanka Kushner, Donald Trump Jr & Eric Trump
e.g. along with their father, they are principles of the Trump Organization, currently facing civil lawsuit by NYS AG for over 200 documented cases of (state & federal felony) tax fraud, etc from 2011-2015 for at least $250 million (trial begins 2Oct23)
@NOS4A2 – Like Hillary's emails, IDGAF about Hunter Biden's laptop. :victory: :mask:
@Hanover @Wayfarer @Maw @Mikie @frank
Trump's father Fred lived to 93, so it looks like maybe Donald will actually live through all these trials.
You may get to vote for an actual person this time, Americans. Don't disappoint please.
I'm not sure the world can handle another four years of muppets and puppets on the throne.
I think maybe he's going to jail for real this time.
Most of the Republicans running for president say they'll pardon him if elected. :confused:
Complete waste of time, as has no chance of passing the Senate, only serving to illustrate the mendacity and corruption of MAGA Republicans.
Adam Schiff said, for his part, “You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You who are the authors of a big lie about the last election must condemn the truth tellers, and I stand proudly before you.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819011
Not seeing that leftward shift in independents yet.
I like Cornel West very much. I think more serious parties is a good idea and would be an improvement in our two party system.
On the other hand, third party votes in swing states are a waste and, essentially, a de facto vote for one’s least preferred candidate. That’s simple arithmetic, so it’s always puzzled me why some people push for not voting given the importance of the election in a country like the US, where even small differences between parties make a big difference in the world.
However, I’m trying to give the idea more weight. Chris Hedges, a person I admire and have much to learn from, seems to advocate for this position. He’s helping Cornel West. He seems to believe that the only way out of this cycle is to make the Democratic Party afraid, to the point where there’s real reforms.
I need to think more about it, but it still seems to me misguided.
Btw, Putin's Bitch & MAGA GOP candidates have lost in 2018, 2020 & 2022. Despite media hysteria (which is needed apparently to keep the rabble mobilized), MAGA GOP prospects in 2024 are even bleaker in no small part due to SCOTUS' 2022, 2023 (& probably 2024) rulings.
Quoting Mikie
Neither do I. Be patient. Remember "the red tsunami" of 2022? The GOP "sweep" was predicted it had seemed by everybody (except me).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/756539
Thanks, "Independents". :smirk:
True…no doubt it’ll tighten up as time goes by. Always does. Nominating Trump is probably a mistake, but I can’t underestimate the electorate’s ability to do silly things.
I don't remember this. What I do remember is that an incumbent vice-president during a time of (domestic) 'peace & prosperity' lost both the popular incumbent president's home state AND his own home state, which put in play Florida which was controlled at the time by the Bush family. Maybe – as a Green Party activist from the late 80s throughout the 90s and supporter of Nader three times for president – my recall is biased, but nonetheless Gore lost both Arkansas & Tennessee (and had refused to let Bill Clinton – unquestionably the best retail politician of his generation – campaign for him in the weeks before election day) contributed significantly more to him losing the election than a very marginal third party candidacy (IIRC, even Pat Buchanan, the far right Reform party candidate, received more votes than Gore had in some Dem precincts according to Florida election officials ... which even got chuckles from Buchanan on cable news). Blaming Gore's loss in 2000 on Nader is, it seems to me, as deluded and/or disingenuous as blaming HRC's loss in 2016 on "Bernie Bros". In both cases – losing the electors for states which, but for the Dems, wouldn't have been in play while also winning the popular vote (a feat which hadn't happened since the late 19th century) – poorly run campaigns of unlikeable candidates, aided and abetted by the DNC no less, threw away those elections.
Sometimes democracy just doesn't work for the people. Democracy isn't an inherent good. It lasts as long as it provides minimal stability. Once things actually start breaking down, dictatorship is likely the next step since that's the only kind of government that can act swiftly and effectively to re-establish stability.
And fragile.
Jesus…
I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.”
And I bet their other slogan is "We can't reduce our emissions because we'll be reliant on Chinese technology now that they somehow got a head start in the industry"...
...Or some other reason why we shouldn't do anything. I've sort of heard them all at this point.
That’s exactly what was said as well! I think Burnham raised that point— that we get our batteries and EVs from China manufacturing. It’s just a joke.
Haley:
Quoting Mikie
Is that how it was phrased? Like asking, "do you believe in God?" There are other forces at work on the climate. A more delicately composed question, like,"do you think human behavior is as responsible for climate change as natural causes?" might have gotten a few positive responses. Maybe not. Going all in and declaring a non-believer a heretic worthy of belonging to a "basket of deplorables" will win few converts.
What does that say about the American electorate? That they want to vote for an outlaw as President?
Brian Tyler Cohen’s (democrat) take - https://youtu.be/Bqj-Doe_EzU?si=F8GCZ4xFs7nCOQh9
- Vivek Ramaswamy being applauded for calling climate change a hoax
- 6 out of 8 candidates saying they would support Trump (you can see de Santis glancing around to make sure others were doing it first)
When the autopsy on the death of Western democracy is written, these will be mentioned in the pathologists report.
On the plus side, at least Hayley supported Ukraine.
Jesus…
Why are they allowing this man to continue? It’s not like they’ll lose the seat. How bizarre.
— Caitlin Johnstone
More like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. She's got my vote. Well, if it were possible for an Aussie- born to run for office. :smile:
From four months ago, my predictions have been on track and in some ways better than I'd imagined ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807006
New York attorney general sends cease-and-desist letter to group accused of voter intimidation
[sup]— Anthony Izaguirre · AP · Sep 21, 2023[/sup]
Dems crushed MAGA^^ in
• Ohio (reproductive rights & recreational ganja)
• Kentucky (governor)
• Pennsylvania (supreme court justice)
•• Philadelphia (mayor)
• Virginia (senate & house!)
:cool: :up:
^^ making autocracy great again
But certainly politics couldn't be that dumb right? Right? :scream:
The MAGA "base" is a massive hate-cult that comprises only about a third of the electorate; 2024 will be Biden's / Dems' election to lose (much like Hillary in 2016) because Donald (even IF he somehow trundles through the GOP primaries despite by then (1) having lost his business "empire" and (2) being on trial for 'crimes against the United States') can't' win. So far, Benkei, Biden / Dems don't give any indication he is / they are careless enough to buck the trend and throw away next year's election.
My view is that DJT is leading the entire MAGA cult off an electoral cliff, lemming-like, and that his lead in the polls will basically amount to giving them enough rope to hang themselves (scary though it might seem in the meantime :yikes: )
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/trump-colorado-presidential-ballot-disqualified-14th-amendment :victory: :cool:
This ruling will force SCOTUS to decide the issue for all 50 states ... soon after they decide Putin's neoNazi Bitch – Joe Biden, Barack Obama & George W. Bush does not – have "absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution".
For the Trumpist, more proof that the system is rigged against Trump. :razz:
And notice from the article:
On the plus side: Trump "only" has about 50% support among GOP. If the field narrows down to 2 (e.g. Trump vs Haley), early enough, there's a fair chance Trump won't get the nomination. Then, I agree, he'll run as a 3rd party and doom the election for the GOP.
Happy Holidays :sparkle:
The election results say otherwise. Republicans have under-performed in every election since Trump's initial win. Then everyone forgets about that in the meanwhile and Trump leads the media on a wild goose chase into conspiracy theories and grievances. And come the next actual election, the results for the Republicans, as distinct from the fevered fantasy of a Trump presidency, will be abysmal. The real shame of the matter is that there’s a whole lot of really important legislative work that needs doing, there are enormous economic, political, and environmental challenges to deal with, whilst MAGA are totally absorbed in what can charitably be designated a circle jerk.
I predict low voter turnout. I think that will help Trump. GOP voters are old and reliable.
"The Coming Biden Blowout"
by David Frum
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/gop-republicans-2024-election-biden-trump/673856/
I would vote for them.
So, do you think if Trump is convicted in the January 6th Trial, where he's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding etc, and sentenced to prison (pending appeal), that he will nevertheless remain a viable candidate? (The trial is scheduled for 4th March this year.)
The New York Times says yes. Being convicted doesn't automatically disqualify him. If the majority of states wanted to disqualify him they could, but they won't. That means he'll probably be the Republican candidate, whether he's convicted or not.
Do you think that if he is convicted of those crimes there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado Supreme Court judgement of 'disqualification because of insurrection'?
I really don't know. He won't take the popular vote, but as for the electoral college, it comes down to what the swing states do. Biden is the incumbent, and the economy is doing ok. Both of those give him an advantage. The voters turned against Trump in 2020. It's possible that they'll do that again. It will be close, though.
I’m just praying you come out of it still a democracy! Sorry, but I’m just saying what many other people around the world are thinking about, some rubbing their hands together and waiting with smug looks on their faces, thinking that it’s only a matter of time, and others, like me, praying you lot pull together because we could really do with you putting your differences aside and showing a united front right now! Okay, rant over. (I’m still quietly praying though.)
Could you explain why?
Because we would really like you to stay our democratic ally.
I see. :up:
If only ranked choice voting were possible! That would make such a ticket truly viable - no one would fear wasting their vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of winning.
Mike Huckabee - 2008
Rick Santorium - 2012
Ted Cruz - 2016
None of them went on to become the GOP nominee for president. :up:
That’s my plan.
And none had to run for president just to stay out of prison because they had been indicted with 91 felonies, or had been found civilly liable of sexual assault (rape in most other jurisdictions) or had been sued by their home states and found civilly liable for massive tax, bank & insurance fraud either. :mask:
We've reached a new low, where even the few areas of agreement between the parties end up getting wed to hit button domestic issues. Now aid to Ukraine has been made contingent on an immigration deal during an election year (one packed with administrative poison pills as well), making it 50/50 at best if anything gets passed before November. Unfortunately, this is going to have very real consequences on the battlefield, especially as air defense munitions run low.
The adults in the room are going to need to recognize that they have to be willing to pass legislation without their party's most radical members or America's already battered credibility as a partner (or even an adversary) on the world stage is completely ruined.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the country defaults on its debt, sparking a huge crisis. If anything, the GOP losing big over the next 10 years or so will probably only make this more likely, as they lose any share in wanting to see success.
The only consolation is that, given how polarized things are, it seems fair to assume that very few voters are going to switch parties for the Presidential ticket. Demographics being what they are, this probably means Trump loses by 9-11 million votes this time instead of just 7.5 million, although this hardly precludes him taking office again. That's probably the worst case scenario, especially if there are some Florida in 2000 style shenanigans surrounding his victory.
I'm not so sure. No Democrat wants to see a debt default. I would guess most independents don't, either. Same with moderate Republicans. For the foreseeable future, there's going to be enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to avoid a default.
I don't want to believe that. I mean, it is easy to believe, but at the same time, this forthcoming election may well be a circuit-breaker. I'm convinced that Trump will loose, even if he is the nominee, which I think is highly dubious. The 'Red Wave' never materialised at the half-terms. The Republicans now have a majority of only three after Santos' expulsion, it's conceivable that the Democrats might win the House, Senate and White House. And the House Republicans are basically split between moderates and the MAGA fringe, who are detested by a lot of people on both sides.
Despair and cynicism are part of the MAGA narrative - 'everything is broken, only we can fix it'. If I wanted to go and do the research on Biden's legislative and economic wins, I'm sure I could find it, although I don't want to spend the time. And yes, they're doing a very poor job of communicating those wins, but then Trump continues to suck all the oxygen from the room.
Agree the Ukrainian stalemate is disgraceful, and I'm sure there are Republicans who agree with that, but they're over a barrel held by halfwits like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan. The rot really set in with Gingrich and the Tea Party fundamentalists, and they are carrying it forward. But I refuse to give up hope.
Additionally, Biden has been found to have fabricated his educational history in public, among other things. There is absolutely no basis to be pretending Biden is a clean-handsman. He made plenty of utterly absurd votes throughout his career, including opposing desegregation efforts that were working.
https://www.mic.com/impact/the-moments-from-joe-bidens-political-career-that-have-aged-the-worst-22914332
https://macleans.ca/politics/washington/taking-stock-of-those-47-years-of-joe-biden-that-trump-keeps-mentioning/
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-10-worst-things-president-biden-did-in-2023/
I may have to duck out, because you are clearly committed to a certain view, and while i respect that, I don't, overall, respect approaching politics in the way you are. It seems to be counterproductive, and at times outright ridiculous (not you; the approach). My take; that's all. I can conceive of choosing to lionise a politician. If, for whatever reason, you are convinced Biden is not, as a career politician, an absolute crank, I don't know what to say.
Ftr, i think both are precluded from being reasonable candidates. They are both, for different reasons, completely inadequate to be in charge of anything reasonably important.
Don't kill the messenger. I too wish things were different.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah well, I just can't help but seeing things a little differently (or clearly), making me a broken record predicting the coming Biden blowout ...
(June 2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819018
(June 2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/819276
(Nov 2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851623
(Dec 2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/865050
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/820342 (i.e. the way the investor class prefers things)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Not in our lifetime, Count. IMO, the sovereign wealth of the G-20 nations (including the BRICS) and their IMF, World Bank & GATT-affiliated central banks – the investor class (bond market-makers) – won't "allow" a petrodollar-denominated US default. Probably not in our grandchildren's lifetimes either. Bretton Woods still has all of the world's major economic powers by the short-n-curlies. :eyes: :mask:
Octogenarian Politicking at it's finest LOL
Blame the Democrats for running a corpse for President.
To be fair I don't think anybody did that in 2020 either.
I thought the problem was he was asleep at the wheel. :roll:
I do actually think Trump will win.
Not sure if you're following the prosecution of Trump in Atlanta over the Georgia election. The DA hired her lead prosecutor, not by doing a nationwide search for the best and brightest to take on the man who is vying for the most powerful position in the world, but by rolling over in bed and finding the guy that just fucked her and asking him if he'd be interested in the job. She then pays him over $600,000 (which no ADA makes ever, and is more than she makes) and then they use that money to go on trips.
Then she goes in front of her church and tells them the scrutiny over this guy is because he's black and not over the two white guys she appointed also, as if this might have more to do with selecting your secret boyfriend for the job and not much to do with race. And she still hasn't admitted or denied the allegation she's fucking her chief prosecutor.
It's just so disappointing to have these unforced errors and to feed right into the Trump narrative that everyone else is more fucked up than he is. Trump calls the Georgia Secretary of State and asks him to go get him a bunch of votes, and Trump is going to get away with it because the hacks can't keep the train on the rails.
I don't know where I am anymore on any of this. They all live lives so different from me I can't compute any of this. I wouldn't let my wife work in my law firm and I'm a partner here. Can they not compute that a sexual partner will control the entire work environment and will be entirely unmanagable if allowed authority? And can't you be self-aware enough to know that your belief in the brilliance of your boyfriend might not be an objective evaluation? My rule is that if you call someone your boo boo or punkin, you can't hire them to lead your battle against the potential next leader of the free world.
It's so fucking stupid. Trump's going to win and she's going to lose whenever she is up for election. Follow that bullshit: A guy will try to steal an election for the highest position in the world and the prosecutor against him is going to pay the highest political price for it.
Part of me says that the world deserves Trump.
In terms of foreign policy he can hardly do worse than the Biden administration.
An isolationist America might actually produce a peaceful putting asleep of the American empire, rather than a world war which is what the US is coursing straight towards under this clownshow of an administration.
I don't want to vote for Biden, but I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, and I'm not going to throw my vote away on a hopeless third party candidate.
Biden is one health emergency away from being pressured to drop out. All it would take is one McConnell-esque freeze up.
Quoting Hanover
Do we have confirmation on that, though? CNN ran a story on that, but it was skimpy on details.
Sorry, but Trump was looking for illegal votes, which if found would have put him in the lead. He wasn’t telling the governor to fabricate votes or find hidden Trump votes. So Not only are they corrupt, but they’re misinforming you, persecuting innocent people, and making a mockery of the justice system while doing so.
I accept your apology.
This is why it isn't reasonable to get such an arched back over these things. Everything is f'd. LOL
Quoting RogueAI
I respect that position. I would waste my vote though, if I chose to.
Thank you, Mr Surge the Borders President. :roll:
Even Harvey Specter left Specter Litt Wheeler Williams when he got with his secretary :lol:
I'm wondering though, would this be sufficient to vote Clown?
From my spot, nope, but I'm no Denverite.
Quoting Hanover
:smirk:
Quoting Hanover
Whether or not Loser-1, if past elections & special elections (2016-2023) are prologue, Dems, Indies, Never Trumpers & pro-choice suburban GOP women voters will significantly out-vote "anti-women" MAGA-GOP voters all the way down the ballot this fall. Follow the numbers (like I did in 2020), my friend, they don't lie. :mask:
I'm following like a hawk and it looks to me like another sideshow that's only fodder for cable infotainment talking heads. Yeah, "what the hell was she thinking?" Worse case scenario: DA Willis recuses and her office goes on with their slam dunk prosecution of Criminal Defendent-1 & co. What I'm really watching for is Judge McAfee scheduling DA Willis' RICO trial to begin in June after Trumper-stooge Cannon, in March or sooner, postpones the Mar-a-Lago Obstruction & Espionage trial until after the general election. "Wishful thinking?" TBD.
Part of me agrees with you.
If you live in an area where children are removed from school buildings on occasion to make room for illegal immigrants, or hospitals shut down, then perhaps Clown doesn't look so bad.
What was the worst thing he did in his first term, prior to January 6th?
I am prepared for a deluge . . . . . . :scream:
Biden Accedes to Tougher Immigration Policy to Deflect Criticism, Secure Ukraine Aid (Tarini Parti, Michelle Hackman · WSJ · Jan 18, 2024)
I'm admittedly still not seeing it, Clown because Mexican border...? Maybe it's just me.
Seems easy enough: take one minute, see who the worst candidate is, vote against that candidate, and get back to doing actual work.
The rest is sports-like political hobbyism.
[I]Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.[/i]
Why do you think the world deserves Trump?
Yes, why on Earth would you have candidates debating in the first place? :wink:
Wonder if this will continue forward, when it's Biden vs Trump: why even give the respect for the other candidate by debating him face to face?
Perhaps both old men would like it that way.
I think Trump is eager for a debate with Biden. He's much more quick-witted and energetic than Slow Joe. Biden's cabal may keep him from debating.
Every time Trump speaks, he says the same things - the Government is evil/leftist lunatics, I'm victim of a plot/unfair persecution, all the charges against me are lies. He has no policies as such, only talking points which spill out of his constant monologue. And, he lost the election.
I watched him for awhile in the recent town hall meeting in Iowa and he looked quick witted and vibrant. We'll see where all this goes. Curious times. I still think Michelle Obama could be chosen at the convention, with Biden retiring. She would have my vote.
Well, I hope the ticket of either Gavin Newsom & Gretchen Witmer or Gretchen Witmer & Gavin Newsom comes out of the Dem's 2024 convention. They would electrify this dead-ass electorate and blowout Loser-1 or any other MAGA-GOP stooge this fall. :victory: :smirk:
:up:
Quoting jgill
:lol: Come on.
Yeah— so much time is spent on election deniers that this significant little fact is often overlooked. Trump lost, and lost big. 7 million votes or so. Rather than question why, Trump made up fairytales which his cult swallowed and continues to believe/defend. Then the MAGA crowd failed in Georgia, then failed in 2022.
They’ll likely fail again in the fall. But they won’t even scratch their heads about it— because they’ll claim it was rigged. The problem is obvious: even against a weak candidate like Biden, independents and most of the American electorate hate Trump, and for very good reason.
I might be wrong. I had just watched a clip from a Biden press conference.
:smile:
Perhaps compared to Joe Biden, yes. Trump is at least energetic when talking about himself.
And anyway, usually American debates between candidates is just a "Gotcha!"-seeking moment with the candidates simply speaking pest about the other candidate. Policy hardly comes up. Only perhaps in some 5 second memorized quick lines. And Trump of course has the "best": everything will succeed when he's in charge. Just as like, uh... last time.
Quoting Mikie
The big question is how many American will just stay home.
So much as they do and hand Trump a second term it won't be like in 2016 where everyone was assured that Clinton would win. Not only are Democrats and anti-Trump independents (with the exception of Biden apparently) convinced that Trump could win, but they think he's likely to at this point in time. Maybe that will light something under them or maybe not, but it's certainly not an easy decision to make.
Quoting ssu
The more Trump keeps up his ridiculous scare-talk, the bigger the chance of a sizeable protest vote. A lot of the younger electorate hate and fear him, and hate and fear are good antidotes to apathy.
That dumpster fire was billowing a year ago ... my 2 bits from Feb 2023:
Quoting 180 Proof
Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with things you don't - and that's in line with whomever they are seeing as 'leader'?
It seems, when the roles are reversed, the assertion is the same...
You’re dead wrong about this moral equivalence. Only one party is supporting a leader who deliberately and demonstratedly attempted to overthrow the result of the last election, who’s minions brought 60 lawsuits against the result, all of which failed. You don’t understand, or don’t want to know, what is at stake - I can’t discern why. It might be cynicism - that all political parties are corrupt - or wishful thinking - that the Republican Party can’t have become this corrupted by one individual. But in either case, you’re mistaken. But I’m not going to debate it with you further, you can believe whatever you like, life is too short for pointless internet arguments.
Nothing you just said has much at all to do with why I asked, or what i asked you about..
I asked you a simple question, importing zero opinion of my own (which you already know doesn't comport with your comments here). I am interested in your answer - I have no debate to ascend to, or even an oppositional opinion to lay out. There is no 'moral equivalence'. It's a psychological question that I'm interested in your answer to.
Please, for the love of Philosophy, stop importing entire belief systems into my posts to avoid answering a simple question. If it is the case that you cannot speak in a political thread without doing so, please let me know immediately as I wont bother asking for your takes anymore. I sought to explore your thought on the matter, and nothing else. Assume whatever you want, but do not lay your assumptions on me. The plain fact is, I am interested as to why you see that psychological condition as one-sided. The facts don't get me there (which I don't deny).
Quoting AmadeusD
That is asserting 'moral equivalence'. That there are 'two sides', and 'one side' just happens to be the one 'I don't agree with'.
Is that not what you were implying?
What i asked was exactly as you quoted - Are you sure this isn't just that half the country agree with teh things you dont (they may be blatantly wrong - it's not relevant) and that what they believe is in line with whomever they see as a leader (who could be a murderous psychopath - it simply doesn't matter to the question i'm asking).
You: Agree with Biden (i assume) and Disagree with Trump (let's assume you're 100% in the right, there's no debate or 'other side' to be seen. I know you do). Therefore, to live under Trump would be to be required to live under a leader you vehemently disagree with on just about everything - which would feel like a Dictator.
Others: Agree with Trump and disagree with Biden. Same as above, in reverse.
Are you sure that your take here:
Quoting Wayfarer
is not, in fact, the exact same thing the other side claims is the case, but in reverse? The facts of the matter are literally irrelevant. I want to know hwo you frame that opposedl psychologies when they are claiming the same thing. Most Republicans of the kind you're highlighting believe Biden is the Dictator (and, unless you've lost your mind, there's some extremely minor truck to that if you think the COVID measures were out of line - doesn't matter if you're right, it just explains the psychology of it, in that extremely minor way that it can) for the same reasons.
I literally said nothing that could possibly import the notion that I think you're inaccurate in your position on the facts.
The facts are not irrelevant. This is not a hypotherical, like 'the trolley problem' in undergraduate tutorials. Real politics is at stake. Only one side is lead by someone who has tried to subvert the election. It doesn't matter how I or they feel about that. Everyone has a right to their own opinon, but nobody has a right to their own facts. It is a fact that Trump has said he wants to suspend the Constitution, jail his critics and purge the civil service. It is also a fact that neither Joe Biden nor any other Democrat has said any such thing.
Once again: I am not, have not, and will not lay out my opinion on this. I am asking you about yours. You seem to be really, seriously, entirely missing the point of what I'm asking here. The facts are completely irrelevant to my question.
Quoting Wayfarer
Except this is exactly what I'm asking you about. So, yeah, this is literally the only thing that matters. I am not engaging you in a political debate. I am asking you a personal psychological question. If you don't care to answer, that's fine, but is an entirely different response to what you've, so far, jumped headlong into.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes. Those things seem to be clearly true. I never denied any of this, or intimated that I did/would (though, as a matter of curiosity I have heard talk from Dems of doing away with the Electoral College... It's no matter, don't get stuck on it. Just in passing).
Quoting Wayfarer
Not in the question I asked. Not quite sure why you're hell-bent on bringing up the most dire and intense version of this. I haven't asked about any of that.
What the heck is going on my dude? This is so bizarre. Let me rephrase the question in a way that is politically expedient, and will massage your political leanings:
Why you think (some)Republicans feel exactly the same way?
The last year of speculation and hand-wringing was a complete waste of time. This was predictable.
Was that not the vibe in other quarters?
They’re complete lies. These sorts of lies are just another reason people are abandoning the sinking ship that is establishment politics.
But the lies obviously work as we can watch in real time as people repeat them. At this point it’s just a question how well they work.
Well, no, all four are plainly true. Their implication is another thing. But I'd hazard a differing between us there too.
Well, look at the thread title. :roll:
My question comes squarely under 'General Discussion', does it not?
I also find that a really odd retort to my having parsed out exactly what I'm asking, through your emotional response.
Can you just let me know fi you don't care to answer the question please? I have no issue with that, if so. It would've just been easier to have an "I don't care to answer" earlier in this exchange :smile:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Wayfarer
There is no moral equivalence between the two ;)
Quoting Wayfarer
There may well be, but unless you can point me to where I said this, intimated this, or said something that could, without insanity, be interpreted as this, in line with the discreet question i asked, I have to assume you're not really trying to do anything but argue with people. Each time i make it clear you've gotten something well wrong (including pointing out hte thread title) you just move to another tactic to make it seem unreasonable. Hard to work with..
They’re not only plainly false, they’re obvious lies. And they follow the same pattern of propaganda, namely, “contextomy”.
They’re provable lies, I’m afraid, and on a level that makes newspeak look like child’s-play. But that’s the sort of discourse we’re forced to deal with here.
But, as an example - the fact is, Trump quite directly noted that the 'Fraud' of the 2020 election justified the suspension of 'rules' including 'parts of the constitution' via Truth social. This is inarguable. The implication (and motivation, I guess) you could argue - but you wouldn't have much fun I don't think.
This is contextomy. It would be proper to quote in full instead of picking and choose which words you want to include and fill in the blanks with your own. It would be proper to include any clarifications. So there is no fact here.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” ; and
“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
There's your context, and the exact quotes. As noted - inarguable. It is a fact that this was done by Trump. That you do not accept this fact, despite its obtaining, isn't really that interesting.
Massive fraud allowing for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution is a far cry from Trump wanting to suspend the constitution. So thanks for the demonstration.
Talk about Trump derangement syndrome.
P1: Trump believes the 2020 election was a Fraud
P2: Trump believes a fraudulent election justifies suspension of the Constitution *which is the correct reading of "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles...found in the Constitution"
C: Trump doesn't want to suspend the Constitution?
Could you kindly try to make sense of that for me
Your problem is the contextomy.
P2 ought to be: Trump believes “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution“.
Upon any confusion, good faith demands you seek clarification, not assume motives and attribute to him words he never said.
Quoting AmadeusD
Of what type do you think he was referring? Tax fraud? Or could it be, that I am well aware of the context and I am accurately portraying the situation here? because that's the case.
I’m just wondering how one gets from what is quoted to “Trump wants to suspend the constitution” or “Trump calls for the termination of the constitution”. What leads you to take that leap?
P1: Trump believes a Massive Fraud justifies the suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution"
P2: Trump believes the 2020 Election was a Massive Fraud ™
C: Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified (the idea that this doesn't imply he wants it to happen is bogus, and not a real argument).
So again, what type of Fraud do you think he was referring to?? I will take a second brush past this question as a fair estimate that you understand exactly that he's talking about the election, which he believed was a Massive Fraud™
Now, the above is clear any not really amenable to massage. However, lets leave it aside. I know what you're doing. I tend to do the same, when it's actually happening. JPB is a prime example of someone being taken out of context, lied about, interpolated until his entire persona appears to those who know nothing about it, as if a fully-fledge and technicoloured monster. I get it. But...
You would read the same thing that we are out of a Biden statement similar. You would not be so indolently pedantic as to deny the basic and obvious meaning of the statement, as if you didn't get it. So why with Trump?
Of course he’s talking about election fraud. What I’m wondering is how you can get from this quote:
To this assumption regarding his motives:
“Trump wants to suspend the constitution”.
Or his beliefs:
His clarification directly disputes both assumptions. His absence from any position of power directly disputes even the possibility. So how do you get from one to the other, if not by way of the propaganda of his opponents?
That's not a motive.
His own words say this, directly, with absolutely no middle man. Bizarre that you're asking. I didn't need to do anything to 'get there'. It is what he said he believes.
Quoting NOS4A2
My position (the second of your quoted objectionable quotes) is not disputed by anything he has subsequently said that isn't a direct contradiction of what he... said. So, I can accept he misspoke perhaps.
Quoting NOS4A2
I have outlined, twice, how this is a purely logical and sensible conclusion to draw. If you don't see it, that's within you to fix.
Not possible. Trump doesn’t misspeak and doesn’t lose. When he said Obama was the literal founder of ISIS, repeatedly, he both meant it and didn’t mean it. It’s sarcasm.
Concerning the constitution comment:
That comes from Trump, so it has to be true.
Your belief otherwise is just falling for liberal media propaganda. Yada yada “contextomy” and boom, all good. Make America great again.
Ah, I see. LOL.
Tbf, liberal media is absolutely awful. But that has no bearing here - just wanted to give at least one opinion here haha.
Sometimes I wonder who’s crazier— Wokesters or Trumpers. Then I remember the real question… who’s more dangerous? And it becomes pretty obvious.
But, its totally understandable that someone is comfortable in your position. The GOP, and Trumpers more specifically (i.e the Trumpers in their capacities in teh GOP before Trump) have been the same type of dangerous for several decades at the least.
The newer 'woke' problems have been inching on us for only about 15 years, in my estimation. Easy to miss. However, I was chest-deep in it for a time(And i do mean.. DEEP.. I thought I was morally obliged to literally hand a job offer to a female if i got one, as an example of how deranged i was) and must conclude from my experiences they have an equal potential for social destruction unfortunately :(
Eh, I think it’s clear that the Trump crowd are far more dangerous. But in many ways the woke crowd is more obnoxious.
But, that said, I have just heard some lines from a podcast about the Conservative/Republican movement in the USA which are.. to my mind.. utterly bizarre and clearly an interpolation from someone who is extremely biased.
Yet, i know that isn't hte case, in this particular case. So i assume i am underinformed :)
She comes through as "no-nonsense" personality-wize (if that means much). She's given no good indication of stepping up though, or what her programme would be, i.e. why to vote for her. I can see her as US president anyway.
His words explicitly and directly say something else than what you’ve consistently claimed it does, namely, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”.
You said: “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
So why make such sweeping alterations, and pretend he said one and not the other?
So I’m just curious why you feel the need to pick and choose what parts of the quote you want and supply your own words to the rest? Logic and sense?
I've quoted them in full. You are out-right lying. The kind of lying I cannot do anything with but tell you you are lying. Because you can read. So you know you are lying.
Quoting NOS4A2
I've not. I literally quoted him. Directly. No interpolation whatsoever. You are lying. And you know you are lying.
Quoting NOS4A2
They don't. I quoted him, so I know they don't. You are lying. Told you you wouldn't have any fun.
The only possible point you could conceivably make that doesn't require you lying, is that you think 'allow' and 'justify' in this context are somehow materially different, in that they indicate different attitudes or intentions about the objects in question (the rules, articles etc.. of the Constitution).
How you could possibly think that is, I think, not something a sane person could understand.
Did you not say this? “Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
Is this a full direct quote?
“Trump believes suspension of "all rules, regulations and articles... of the constitution" is justified.”
You quoted him at a point of your choosing, filling in the rest with words of your own choosing. I can quote you again if you’d like.
It was what's called a proposition, within a syllogism. I'm unsure you're really understanding what's going on here.
Quoting NOS4A2
No. The direct full quote is. You cannot possibly be this stupid.
Quoting NOS4A2
I can do you one better - I quoted him. Which, you know, anyone who can read (you) can see. This is how i know you're lying. Nothing i can do with it, but point htis out as it happens.
Your snark doesn’t change the fact you removed most of his argument and filled it with your own assumptions. That’s the way propaganda works, and I was only hoping you wouldn’t allow yourself to be misinformed, and worse, to pass it off as unarguable fact. My apologies.
Cool thing is, I didn't. And it's right there as proof positive that you've just lied.
Quoting NOS4A2
that i was an absolute moron. I know. You were wrong.
Fair enough
Trump is ahead, as the polls predicted, but it's hardly a blowout.
Anyway, she better keep going. The Republicans are soon going to require a spare ;-)
Virtual Hatred: How Russia Tried to Start a Race War in the United States
[sup]— William J Aceves · California Western School of Law · 2019[/sup]
Vladimir Putin’s plan to ‘tear the US apart’ during 2024 election exposed
[sup]— Charlie Bradley · Express · Dec 23, 2023[/sup]
Russia’s War on Woke
[sup]— Mikhail Zygar · Foreign Affairs · Jan 2, 2024[/sup]
My only comment is that I think you'd get a huge amount of pushback on Pacifica, as this would be seen as an aggressive appropriation of Pasifika :)
And Canada might build a border wall. :)
EDITED
:up:
I am old and my memory fades, but did we become a Banana Republic during 2016-2020?
Maybe this time around . . . :chin:
Mr Trump will be in middle of a rally or debate, in full harangue, and despite being in excellent physical condition and of serene disposition, will suffer a massive heart attack and/or stroke in front of a huge audience. He falls to the ground, and gawking onlookers hear him say ‘Ivanka is soooo hot…’
Whether or not he survives depends on whether prayers on his behalf are directed toward the correct deity. (There are so many gods these days. They are harder to get a hold of, and even harder to understand, than tech support from India).
I myself am praying fervently to Jupiter that this tragedy may be averted!
If Biden were to declare a war, it would probably improve (isolationist)Trump's chances.
:cool: :cool: :cool:
ROFLMAO!
Ironically, right now Trump seems to be holding up an immigration bill in the Senate that would help address the border that the GOP seems to approve of.
Then again I don't expect people to blame him. After all he got off scot free for the recent spike in oil prices despite pulling out of the Iran deal and cutting their supply off from the rest of the world.
Thanks! Haha, that was an attempt at some subtle irony or British-style dry humour. :nerd:
It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself.
Quoting Mr Bee
The Senate Republicans and the moderate Republicans in Congress are all furious about it.
A fair assessment. I despise the two candidates. I keep hoping a third candidate will materialize.
Do you equally "despise" what Biden & Trump represent? Are their respective parties (coalitions) equally bad for the majority of communities in the US or equally detrimental to US interests vis-à-vis international relations (e.g. trade agreements, political treaties, strategic alliances)? Do you believe, jgill, the adverse difference between them is one of degree or a difference in kind? :chin:
I put more trust in him than any of the usuals, that's for sure -- a better constant than anyone else! :D
Oh I understand very well his intentions. He's also on record saying he wants the economy to crash and the US to default on it's debt if it means he can score political points. The man doesn't care about anything apart from staying out of prison.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm talking about the average American voter.
With all due respect, sir, if you believe Biden in anyway represents "the far left" (i.e. to the left of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader, et al), then you've not been paying attention for the last half century to Biden's political career.
So in your mind, woke corporate welfare-statism IS JUST AS BAD FOR YOUR COUNTRY AS autocratic ethnonational populism? Biden the neoliberal EQUALS Trump the neofascist?
(I guess, jgill, it's reasonable to assume, based on your reply, that in sum your answers to my previous post are: yes, yes, & difference in degree.)
Quoting Tom Storm
:up: :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
Not what I said. Doesn't logically follow. And this is a forum dedicated to logical arguments?
Quoting 180 Proof
When I watch sanctuary regions in our country struggling to absorb, medically treat, educate and bring into our culture vast numbers of illegal immigrants; some if not many of whom who escape capture cartel affiliated, it gives me pause to consider what you have so emotionally described. Is the establishment of cartels that grow so powerful they essentially control governments better than a neofascist who moves to destroy them?
This is all hypothetical. I still hope for a moderate candidate to arise from the quagmire in which we wallow.
Any more "moderate" than Biden would be useless, a complete corporate tool. I'm hoping for (at least) a solid left-liberal like Gov. Newsom or Gov. Witmer if Biden drops out.
... aka "FOX Noise Pollution" :mask:
My wife and I watched Bill Maher interview Newsom last week. She is more conservative than me, but we agreed he was very, very impressive and that we would vote for him under different circumstances.
And now...
Jan 26, 2024: Speaker Mike Johnson calls Ukraine-immigration deal ‘dead on arrival’ in House
"Former president Donald Trump criticised the potential agreement being brokered in the Senate on his Truth Social site. The former president said “we need a Strong, Powerful, and essentially “PERFECT” Border and, unless we get that, we are better off not making a Deal"
It appears to me that Trump wants the "border" problems to persist, because it's to his political benefit.
Spot on.
The republicans in congress have not supported border policy put forth after Trump voiced his opposition to it. Prior to that they were preparing to take action on the border issues. So, what we have is someone who is not an elected official influencing those who are to such a degree as to have them not take action on things they themselves loudly claim needs to be taken.
Why?
Because Trump wants to campaign on the 'border' and if there are bi-partisan actions taken to help correct the problems, then Trump's case is weakened, his plan is short circuited. So, just like Trump wants an economic crash to happen, he also wants the border to be a problem.
The Republican party is deliberately not taking action to correct illegal entry into the United States, because Trump wants it to be as big of a problem as it can be right now. That is to put Trump's political interests in front of what's in the best interest of America.
Are you claiming that if not for an election we would not go to war against Iran?
Is what Iran and its allies doing of no consequence?
This would only be a successful strategy if Congress approves the war. Does this mean that Congress wants to salvage his chances?
If this is a winning strategy wouldn't Trump also advocate for war?
It's no secret that the neocons and Israel want the US to go to war with Iran. The MIC wants war, period - any war will do.
And Joe wants to get re-elected. Or, more accurate, the people who control Joe don't want Trump to be elected.
It's one of those perfect storms of perverse incentives brewing. A shit blizzard, if you will.
Quoting Fooloso4
It might be of consequence, but going to war with Iran is another type of crazy. The US would get stuck in the worst quagmire thinkable, not to mention what it would do to the rest of the Middle-East, and it would dumpster what is left of the US empire in a single swoop.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't know who controls congress. Probably it's a melange of the worst lobbies imaginable, and thus war with Iran to save Biden's campaign is definitely in the cards.
Quoting Fooloso4
Nah, Trump is running squarely against the neocon establishment with his isolationism. It was never really an option for him. Besides, why would they choose wild card Trump over puppet Joe?
You have not answered my questions.
Here is another one: If the primary motivation is to eliminate Trump then why not simply eliminate him?
Are you predicting Biden will go to war with Iran before the election? Are you also predicting this would help his chances of getting elected?
Oh, look - "radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq", directed by and/or supporting the election of Biden, attacked and killed three American soldiers.
I thought this was unlikely, but after today..
What tends to get obscured in such speculation is the question of motive. There is an important difference between declaring war in response to the actions of an Iranian backed militia or other group and declaring war as a means of uniting the country against a common enemy. It may be that the latter is a consequence of the former but that does not mean it would be correct to attribute it as the motivating reason for it.
I agree. I don't think it will help Biden if we get plunged into another MidEast adventure. Quite the opposite.
This isn't rocket science.
War is often divisive. Since Vietnam American wars have not united us. Just the opposite. One reason some cite for their support of Trump is that they think he is responsible for keeping us out of war.
[s]Biden supporters[/s], aka Republicans in Congress, are now saber rattling, calling for attacks on Iran.
Quoting Tzeentch
And yet, still easy enough to get it exactly wrong.
Oh, sweet summer child.
Quoting Fooloso4
(2021)
• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution.
• By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualify Insurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution.
• By 31Jan24, the Trump Org will be effectively dissolved in NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barred for life from the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on all defendents' personal & real properties asap and savage TF out of them like piranha. :wink: :party:
• As of 1Feb24 the "great business man" will be, in effect, cash poor whining squatting & shitting his old man diapers on a pile of fire-sale depreciating assets & compounding civil lawsuit debts ... So suddenly the upcoming GOP primary races are going to look pretty shaky even to the RNC, GOP senators & even a larger share of GOP-MAGA voters who might just stay home allowing Nikki Haley to be competitive in SC, etc.
• Btw, the J6 Conspiracy criminal trial in Wash. DC will conclude with a guilty verdict on all 4 felony counts by the end of August 2024 or sooner. I'm guessing (soon to be) Felon-1 will not be the GOP candidate by the Fall (or even by July).
The fact is: Republicans in Congress are saying we should attack Iran while Biden is looking for a diplomatic solution. Please explain how this is a cynical plot by Biden and/or Israel and neocons to get him elected.
It is not the neocons but the Evangelical Christian Right who are the most influential advocates for Israel. They are also the most influential advocates for Trump. For Christian Zionists Israel's war is all about the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Biden, like the rest of us, can get things wrong. The claim that I am responding to, and it is not one that you made, is that Biben will go to war in order to win the election. For example:
Quoting Tzeentch
Next, you must understand that Trump is anti-establishment, and neither the neocons nor Israel (or the lobby) want him as president because of his isolationism. Of course these parties will happily use Trump to pressure Biden. Especially because the Israel lobby doesn't like Biden to begin with, so Trump isn't completely off the cards. Playing both sides is standard for these interest groups.
But Biden is clearly the easier one to control, and he's a neocon. Trump is a wild card and isolationist.
The Biden administration are the ones who gave Netanyahu cart blanche, and have been pointing fingers at Iran non-stop since the start of the conflict. Further, they've even circumvented congress to continue weapon sales to Israel, making the US complicit in Israel's crimes, which may very well be genocidal.
So it's clear Biden is trying to appease Israel, which may very well be what causes him to start this war - to cement support from the notoriously capricious lobby. If he acts like a stooge, the lobby will play him like a stooge and milk him for what he's worth.
If he refuses, the lobby will pressure him, quite possibly along with other interest groups who desire wider war, like the MIC, etc. And of course then the question is whether he caves or not. I think there's a good chance he does.
If Biden's incentive is to win the election by waging war, the attempt to carry that plan out would be a cynical plot.
Quoting Tzeentch
Trump is anti anything that will not be to his benefit. Support of Israel is to his benefit when it comes to his base.
Quoting Tzeentch
The neocons no longer play a significant role in American politics.
According to Wikipedia:
The footnoted Wikipedia source is Fox News.
If you do not understand the importance of the Religious Right you cannot give a plausible analysis of the part Israel plays. They are pro-Israel Zionists.
With the indiscriminate killing in Gaza Biden is well aware that support for Netanyahu's Israel may be working against him with liberal, moderate, and independent voters.
No, that's too simple. Any American president has to "support" Israel. The question is what that support looks like.
It's not very likely Trump would support Israel in its current actions, simply because it would almost guarantee that the US will get embroiled in various wars in the Middle-East, and thus not serve Trump's isolationist views.
Israel/the lobby know that full well. They might use Trump, but the chance that they'll actually support him over Biden is very slim. But they will use Trump to pressure Biden for sure.
In fact, the Trump phenomenon may give the Biden administration room to get away with a lot, including another war in the Middle-East against Iran and/or its proxies.
Quoting Fooloso4
:brow: Disagreed. What do you think the US is doing in Ukraine?
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. The Israel lobby consists of various uncouth interest groups including Zionist Christians. I'm well-aware.
Quoting Fooloso4
The question is whether that will weigh heavier than the lobby's influence. But yes, Biden is obviously between a rock and a hard place in that regard - that's part of the aforementioned perfect storm.
How do you know his views aren't more aligned with Russia's? There may not be outright "collusion", but it damn sure looks like it on paper.
Quoting Tzeentch
So this is a canard of the Left. Why is it that Leftists support Islamist causes? It's a rhetorical strategy to malign any policy against hostile actors in the region as Israel's bidding. Why wouldn't America want to support an ally, while at the same time support their own interests (shipping/cargo/trade/resources) in the region? It would be foolish to let Iran make mischief unabated. Iran is trying to show people like yourself how powerful they are, and Leftists go weak in the knees rooting for it, but in a "Because Israel is bad" sort of rhetorical ploy. If Israel is bad, then Iran's actions must go unattended, is pretty odd argument as whole, but fits right in with a certain worldview for sure. I call it Lefitst. Call it whatever you want. It's certainly not "Idealist", unless you mean the corrupt UN (which lets countries with human rights violations unironically cry foul).
Quoting Tzeentch
I mean, this could go the other way. If Biden doesn't do anything in the Middle East, Trump will use it as a case that he is the backchannel savior (ala Nixon during Vietnam).
The Biden administration is doing what Israel wants - giving Israel cart blanche, blocking Security Council resolutions and continuing to funnel weapons and ammunition to Israel, even circumventing Congress if it has to, etc.
The "pressure" the administration puts is not actual pressure at all. It's simply what Biden has to do to avoid looking like a complete stooge, and Israel understands this is how it works.
Trump seems to me very much against this type of 'final solution' business in the Middle-East, so I personally find it very hard to believe he would try to profile himself as an even greater Middle-East hawk.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration hasn't stopped pointing fingers at Iran since the Oct. 7th attacks, so there's probably a lot of people wondering why he hasn't gone to war with Iran yet. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Why do you assume the US cares what the Security Council says? Or why do you think it is by default supposed to?
Quoting Tzeentch
The fact is that the US has interests in the region, and support their ally in the region. You don't have to look for old-school conspiracy theories of AIPAC for this. It's a worldview of balances of power. Iran represents something against US interests, especially with their use of proxies. Netanyahu is certainly an asshole, I grant that, but Biden simply doesn't want to make that kind of decision in the midst of this. I will say too that Israel has to get its shit together by finding a new strategy. Biden can only work with who he has got. Other than getting the hostages back, I see no way Israel will want to keep Hamas as a neighbor with their threat, and the US gets this threat.
Quoting Tzeentch
I would bet Trump would do anything he can to win Evangelical support.. So if Biden looks weak, he will just say that he can do better, whatever the case may be. Also, he is besties with Netanyahu. Don't count him out either for using war for his gain. He hasn't done it yet, but I wouldn't count it out. Saying that he is strictly an "isolationist" is believing he is principled or ideological to a fault. He is self-serving to a fault- there is a difference. Nixon went to China when it suited him. Nixon was virulently anti-communist when it served him. Etc. In fact, Nixon was able to stop the North Vietnamese delegation from taking the offer at the Paris Accords in '68 because Nixon wanted to look like the person who stopped the war. Trump isn't Nixon. No, he's worse.
Also, you didn't address any of this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Remember the "Trump Peace Plan"? It was a proposal "negotiated" by Jared Kushner and Netanyahu, that gave Netanyahu what he wanted, and virtually nothing for Palestinians. Further, a large majority of evangelical Christians are Trump supporters, and they are extremely pro-Israel because of their view that God gave them this land.
You are talking about Trump as if he is someone with principles. He is isolationist only to the extent he thinks it benefits him. He has not taken a clear stand on what he would do in the face of escalating conflict.
Quoting Tzeentch
The Religious Right, the most powerful faction of this lobby is guided by revelation not reason. They are actually eagerly looking forward to this final prophesied holy war.
Quoting Tzeentch
What you do not seem to be aware of is just how much power and influence they have over Trump and what is no longer the Republican Party but now the Christian Party of Trump. They have been willing to look the other way when it comes to what Trump says and does, but this may be non-negotiable.
You got this much right: it is not rocket science. Unlike rocket science there are too many variables and indeterminacies to calculate.
And also, while the Right doesn't have a whole lot of fondness for Jews, they really don't like Muslims, so the enemy of their enemy is now their friend.
I haven't figured out if Trump is fully "self-serving" in foreign policy or "Russia-serving". If it is Russia-serving, indeed he may have to tone down against Russia's interests in the Mid East. If he is self-serving, then any strong man (including Netanyahu) is fair game to admire and support.
Nope. I don't know what will happen and do not know what if any role Trump will play.
What I do know is that you have left out some key players that play an important role in determining what will happen.
Perhaps he thinks they are the same.
He says that he likes winners. If it is strong man against strong man he likes whoever he thinks is winning. Unless he thinks this is against his interests.
The whole thing is very peculiar. The Evangelicals have be seduced by power. Apparently, they do not think that the power of God is enough. Not ever their Saviors - both the old one and the new improved version are not enough. They have long desired and plotted to seize power. Israel is nothing more than a means to that end. They have no regard for the Jews. Together with the Muslims and liberals and LGBT and everyone else who is not what they themselves pretend to be will be left behind in the Rapture.
Speaking of ridiculous...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/media/taylor-swift-super-bowl-right-wing-conspiracy/index.html
Unfortunately it doesn't seem as surreal to me these days in the US, as it would have seemed to me before 2016.
"You know, we've got a lot of theories, we just don't have the evidence."
~Rudy Giuliani, Co-Conspirator-1
"You gotta be kidding ... This is the clown show!" ~Rusty Bowers, former Arizona Speaker of the House of Representatives & Trump supporter
How will Trump influence whether Biden goes to war with Iran and its proxies or not?
A non sequitur. Why would you think or think that I think Trump will influence Biden's decision?
You are lost and I am not going to draw a map for you or make the connections from one post to the next.
• SCOTUS will deny a former President has absolute immunity
• Trump will be cash constrained at some point this year (not as early as you say)
I disagree:
• that Engeron will dissolve the Trump Org in NY; I expect only a fine, commensurate with his savings on interest due to receiving interest rates more favorable than his finances warranted. This will contribute to Trump's cash constraints.
• that Trump won't be the GOP nominee. This is because 95% of delegates to the GOP nominating convention are committed to vote based on the primaries. They would be freed only if Trump were to drop out of the race - and that won't happen.
• that the J6 conspiracy trial will have concluded before the election, but even if it is - pending appeals will keep him out of prison. If he's elected, he'll pardon himself and put an end to that.
He can't do that for the Georgia case.
We shall see soon enough. :up:
Suggestion: let's vote against him, so these things don't come to pass.
Would that I could.
Then he will appeal to a higher authority - Donald J Trump.
From a video on Truth Social he posted, "God Made Trump". The narrator begins:
If they do not side with Trump and God the Supreme Court will have revealed that they too are wolves in sheep's clothing. Only those who stand with Trump/God, pledging absolute fielty to him/Him, will have any authority on Earth or in Heaven.
This is said in jest, but only in part. Even if he complies with the Court's decision he will continue his seditious rants. How far is the flock willing to follow in undermining law and order and replacing it with the Law and Order to be engraved on the tablets of Trump? The Word in its new and improved incarnation?
[quote=Washington Post;https://wapo.st/3UgbylB]Democrats... criticized the impeachment proceedings as politically motivated, pointing out that GOP lawmakers were trying to oust Mayorkas for supposedly neglecting to secure the southern border, while at the same time opposing a bipartisan package under negotiation in the Senate that would seek to improve border security.[/quote]
It's astounding, the levels of hypocrisy, doubletalk and duplicitiousness the MAGA will sink to.
In case you haven't been paying attention:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877051
How about grilling the CEOs of the very many major gun manufacturing companies about the horrors wrought by their wares? You know, Remington, Smith and Wesson, and the others? In addition to gun suicides there are also the many thousands of 'young people' shot and wounded or killed, many while attending school. But no, strangely enough- guns don't kill people, but social media kills people. And a much less controversial target, to boot.
It may seem improbable but THIS
may the writing on the wall of what is to come from the Republican Party:
Governor Greg Abbott issued a declaration arguing he has the legal power to overrule federal authorities in case of an “invasion.” What this means in practice is that he is claiming and acting on premise that the state and not the Supreme Court gets to interpret Federal law.
At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"?
Possibly when they cannot be admitted into a hospital for treatment because the medical system is flooded with non-citizens. Or when a mayor or governor asks the population to take these people into their homes. Or when the Tijuana cartel runs a major California city.
Until then, its merely a political issue. Or a humanitarian issue.
At no point. The question of the interpretation of the law is to be left to the courts. Otherwise the law becomes whatever any citizen interprets it to be. What else might an individual or state regard as an invasion? There are many private citizens and in government who believe that this is a white Christian nation. What they might consider "too many" of those who are not white Christians to be an invasion and an existential threat to their God given rightful way of life.
I do agree that there is a serious problem at the border that must be dealt with but it cannot be solved through lawless disregard of the courts.
So, let’s call it what it really is: Racist fear mongers blaming a Democratic administration for an overblown problem.
You misinterpret what I am asking. I'm not speaking of a citizen advancing a legal opinion. Only when does anyone begin thinking of the border problem as an invasion? When does a mother feeding her family a meal hear the latest news report and think, "Wow, sounds like an invasion!".
Quoting Mikie
OK, now I know what it really is. Thanks.
https://www.voanews.com/a/democratic-mayors-renew-pleas-for-federal-help-over-migrant-crisis-/7415519.html
See above.
These is an important difference between someone thinking it sounds like an invasion and acting to secure the border in a way that courts have determined is illegal. If she claims that she is within her rights to act this way because of an invasion she is advancing a legal opinion.
I've spoken with her and she is shocked to hear that people think she is grabbing her shotgun and joining a convoy to the Border. What the court rules, she will follow . . . but reluctantly. Poor thing.
The number of illegal migrants bussed or flown to Denver has reached roughly 6% of the existing population. There was a piece on the news of a busload being driven to Colorado Springs, NOT a sanctuary city. The Springs has enough of a problem housing the homeless already there.
Those few from Venezuela are able to get work permits, but most are not.
Now THAT'S a majority. The kind of majority Trump felt entitled to in New Hampshire and Iowa (but *didn't* get).
I do hear you on the alarm about undocumented arrivals. It's definitely a serious issue, but again, requires bipartisan support as it's bigger than either party. And that support is being jeopardised by Trump and his congressional minions for purely political reasons. He has no interest in solving it, only in exploiting it.
This issue is so muddled with money for Ukraine and Israel - entirely separate concerns.
Yeah and who did that muddling, eh? Who was it, exactly, that tied them together. Hint: it wasn't Joe Biden.
6Feb24: DENIED by Federal Appeals Court, Washington DC Circuit. The order of the Federal District Court is upheld and affirmed. Criminal Defendent-1 has to appeal to SCOTUS by 12Feb24, otherwise the district court can proceed with the "J6 Conspiracy" trial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175
i.e. Affirmed:
[quote=Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington DC Federal District Court]Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.[/quote]
It would help if he chose another VP this time around. Gavin Newsom, perhaps.
:up: Or Gretchen Witmer.
He also brings "not Republican" to the table, which entails (among other things) the expectation he'd block attempts to further restrict women's reproductive rights. It also entails appointment of judges that are more apt to have a more expansive view of civil rights.
Not always going to be a good thing. But hte former is definitely true, and good (in the sense that its worse to have a Republican swaying reproductive legislation).
Quoting 180 Proof
Apparently, an Appellate-proof (restrained) judgment of over $450 million (disgorgement + interest), barred for (only) 3 years from doing business in NYS & borrowing from NYS chartered banks, an (enhanced) independent financial monitor & corporate compliance officer – straitjacket – for 3 years, but no "corporate death penalty" (yet?) ...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-fraud-ruling/index.html
Still a BFD, Frauster/Loser-1 is butthurt. :kiss:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881709 :eyes: :rofl:
Quoting Bill Maher (Feb 17, 2024)
The Trump family doll collection.
https://x.com/Roshan_Rinaldi/status/1759088710627299375?s=20
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68407054
:clap: :mask:
Will Putin bail out Fraudster/Loser-1? Maybe MBS? or Elon Musk? No bank or bond company will ... :rofl:
So he's both a super-successful multi-billionaire, and a person who can't afford 450 million dollars. What a fraud.
Time to sell Trump Tower. Probably can't get much for it though.
Well, I got the date right but the decision wrong: (maga-wingnut) SCOTUS is in the effing tank for (former) SCROTUS aka "Insurrectionist/Criminal Defendant/Fraudster/Rapist/Loser-1" ... making up stoopid ahistorical-ad hoc shit (like they did to overturn Roe v. Wade i.e. to jackboot curbstomp 'stare decisis') in order to further accelerate the bananafication of the US Republic.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/feb/08/14th-amendment-insurrection-disqualify-trump
What?! "States Rights" for forced pregnancy but NOT for ballot qualifications (or e.g. vote recounting re: Bush v. Gore)?!! :shade: :down:
@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw
It seems conservative justices are perfectly willing to be activists when it pleases them.
This isn't to contend that what is (or at least should be) the actual holding of the court, that Colorado cannot disqualify someone from being on the ballot for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, wasn't agreed to by all the Justices. It was. But as the concurring opinions point out, the decision goes beyond what was required to resolve the issue before the court, generally a no-no, and also assets that Congress must adopt legislation before Section 3 is enforceable at all. It hasn't done so, and there's no assurance it ever will. In which case, it seems Section 3 is superfluous until that occurs. Usually, it's also considered a no-no to construe a law in such a manner as to render it ineffective.
We can be thankful that the court didn't hold that there was no insurrection while it was at it.
The striking down of Roe v. Wade had to do with the Court's rejection of the Constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion up to a certain point in her pregnancy. It was not based upon there being a federal statute that guaranteed the right to an abortion that the Court decided violated the individual states' rights to regulate it.
That is, the Supreme Court's striking down Roe v. Wade wasn't based upon a violation of Constitutional federalist principles. It was based upon their reversing their view that the Constitution itself protected a woman's right to an abortion. It wasn't a state's rights decision.
I didn't read the recent Trump elections case, but I fully expected the decision to be supportive of keeping him on the ballot. From a practical perspective, I think the Court did the left a favor. The quickest way to get a hesitant Trump voter to commit to Trump is to make him think the other side has their thumb on the scale. That's actually why Trump's numbers keep rising with every new lawsuit brought against him.
It also doesn't hurt him that the Democrats are running someone who is brain dead and they think if they deny it everyone will think he's sharp as a tack.
The Democrats have yet to master the art of the lying.
The US is a very stupid country, you see. Or, better, extremely ignorant and desperate.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
Commentary by establishment conservative attorney George Conway on 4March24 SCOTUS' tr45h decision ...
@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw
And…?
Nevermind, I’ll make it easy: most people don’t go to universities, and of those who do, few get into the best ones. Of that small group, most are morons.
"Both national and swing state polls show Haley is a dramatically stronger candidate than Trump in the general election. (A new Marquette University poll has Haley beating Joe Biden by 16 percentage points, while Trump and Biden are in a statistical tie.)"
As there is now a murmur that she might consider running as an independent. In the very unlikely event that she was elected as a third-party candidate, which party would she be more likely to be able to negotiate policies with, in light of the dysfunction that characterises the MAGA-GOP? I think she would get no traction with the Republicans, who would be apoplectic at loosing, and that she would, in effect, be forced into a coalition with Democrats to pass any actual policies.
(Trump is even giving a pretence of presenting policies or ideas for governing any more. He's just ranting.)
It's not confined to people that are extremely ignorant, though. Intellectuals may find faults all over (+ focus/magnify), and hence stoke fires all over. Fault-finding isn't that hard anyway.
So, choosing the right battles matter.
(Incidentally another reason that mudslinger-politicians are a turn-off, to me, more so than politicians that focus on what their programs are.)
Anyway, if the US was significantly weakened on the international stage (which could happen by domestic division or foolery), then others would just jump right in. In the present environment, I'm not all that optimistic in case that was to happen, but I guess we'll see (or might).
I'm not entirely sure how the details of these things go, but wouldn't she align with the Lincon Project and draw together the Republicans who don't want to be part of the MAGA cult?
Would it be so bold as to predict that at some point, the Republican party will split and the new faction will be called "New Republicans" or something like "True Republicans" or similar? Gathering momentum among normal people who usually vote Republican. That they would acknowledge that it's problematic to gain traction at this time in history, but that their goal is to build up a sense of trust that voters will get a stable Republican party by voting for them and their internal goal is to clean house and rid themselves of any MAGA supporters. That way, the MAGA cult will probably soon evaporate since they cannot get enough traction by numbers alone and the gullible cult folks who soon get tired of not being represented will move on and just vote for the new republican party while the core MAGA cult will just gather together in some remote location and shoot beer cans or whatever mindless trash they find meaningful.
I don't know either, but I've been following US politics pretty closely - probably too closely - and it seems obvious the current Republican party is incapable of governing. As you will know, two weeks ago they sunk a bill that their own delegates had spent months working on, purely because Trump said it would make Biden look good. They're wasting massive amounts of time on the faux 'impeachment enquiry' on Biden just to help Trump settle imagined scores. Trump, meanwhile, is reduced to near-complete confusion and incoherency - he doesn't know who is President, he keeps confusing all of his many legal cases and simply babbling on stage. He's a complete mess and plainly incapable of governing anything whatever. So if an independent candidate DID win (it's a thought-experiment, not an actual prediction) he or she would have to turn to the Democrats because the Republicans can't manage a piss-up in a brewery.
I don't think any independent candidate would win, but they would split the votes so much if there were three options available that the democrats would win simply by the lack of enough votes on either side of the Republicans.
However, if, by some miracle, a stable Republican outlier wins instead as an independent, I think that she would gather everyone siding with the Lincoln project and build up a proper party through them. And they might even push out many of the MAGA cult members infesting the other halls of power in congress over time.
Regardless, I think the only way out and away from Trumpism is to have an independent option during election. Too many Republicans who hate Trump hate the Democrats more and they would vote for the independent voice and drag all the ones who's opting out entirely. It would divide the Republicans, but the smart ones would know it's their only option forward as the MAGA cult could very well spell the end for the Republican party as a whole. Soon or later the normal Republicans will have to take some home cleaning action. It's like they've been infested by cockroaches and have given up trying to solve the issue, but if they grow into too much of a problem they will have to start stomping them out and call exterminators.
The only possible 'stable Republican outlier' is, in fact, Nikki Haley. From the same source I quoted yesterday:
You can imagine the MAGA group pelting Halley's followers with rotten fruit and excrement. That's about the level that they've sunk to.
In my view, the net effect of Trump's inevitable victory in the Primaries, is to lead the entire party off a cliff, lemming-like. That it will become obvious between now and the Republican Convention in July that, having won the mantle, there's no way he can actually execute, being so mired in legal problems, and so addled in his thinking.
Quoting Mikie
LOL. I have to agree, in the Political arena anyway. It's all a bit of a joke from outside.
Should take 30 seconds: vote Biden. 30 minutes to go vote. 30 minutes and 30 seconds. That’s all the time one needs. In a rational world.
Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice may be gone within the decade.
As an American I believe this observation is only true of less than half of the half of the population who bother to vote. :mask:
'More than a majority' of RNC members want to help pay Trump's legal bills: insiders
[sup]— Travis Gettys · Raw Story · Mar 6, 2024[/sup]
Bloodbath at RNC: Trump team slashes staff at committee
[sup]— Alex Isenstadt · POLITICO · Mar 11, 2024[/sup]
The Clown supporters I've chit-chatted with don't think about or care that their efforts add to efforts beyond their neighborhood against them
Oh well
AI Trump: The Second Campaign Ad (2024 Mar 6 · 1m:29s)
AI Biden: The REAL State Of The Union (2024 Mar 7 · 1m:31s)
Yeah, Putin's Bitch f*cked around and is finding out! :lol:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/trump-464-million-dollar-bond/index.html
F*cking pathetic, gaslighting brokester!
"I'm really rich." :rofl:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889817
*Biden-Harris 2024*
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting 180 Proof
Alrighty boys…ready to pony up that $10 each to TPF?
I’m sad I won that bet. But I’m often right about these things… :razz:
Trump’s candidacy is not official until the Nominating Convention in July in Milwaukee. And a lot could happen between now and then. At the 2016 convention there was a last-minute push by Never Trumpers that almost made it to a floor vote, and if you haven’t noticed, he’s picked up a lot of Republican enemies since then.
So if he comes out of the Convention the nominee, then I pay up.
Have it your way — I can wait a little longer :lol:
Quoting Wayfarer
If he’s convicted before then, this is exactly what will happen. They’ll stick with him.
The chances that he’ll be the nominee are practically 100%, in my view. Barring his death.
I don’t write the rules.
Yeah, but come on. It’s over. He’s secured the nomination. The rest is formality.
But this wasn’t really meant too seriously. I don’t really care about the money or the bet. Just thought it was funny.
I get it. I’m far from a supporter, of course. But I have no faith in the Republican Party, and am beaten down with the facts— which is that his supporters are large enough and loyal enough to push him through almost anything.
The Republican National Committee has been taken over by Trump. Party Chairman Michael Whatley was picked by Trump. Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, will serve as the co-chair and was elected by unanimous vote.
If there has been nothing so far that has distanced the party from Trump I don't know what would. His trials are being treated as an asset. Us against everyone including the whole judicial system that they are claiming has treated him unfairly.
Last few weeks so many legal YouTubers were explaining how Trump's ask to the court of appeal had basis in law whatsoever, never been done etc.
Likely Trump will be able to secure this smaller bond; it is at least claiming he will. Definitely easier than half a billion.
Seems all these legal cases are going to be dragged out until the election, since as long as Trump can post bond then the appeal processes can go on for quite some time.
I think the main thing is that Trump will likely now avoid the embarrassing seizing of his properties. That would have been a near fatal blow, as it would just look "weak" which is not a good look for him as a rich "strong man" type (as far as his base is concerned).
Again, here's an undisputable Conservative, ex-GOP campaign consultant/operative you (& @NOSA2) can learn something from (other than "alternative facts") ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890305
Please do provide a definition of liberal and explain how you aren't a liberal and aren't in a liberal echo chamber at the moment.
You post that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls (maybe it's true) and get back to you that he's in fact gaining support, and then you respond that polls aren't predictive until within 2 months of the election but continue to insist that Trump is losing support due to random pundit hot takes.
That's called being in a echo chamber of only considering what you want to hear.
As for FOX News and MAGA, I'm not American, I don't live in the US. I live in a country that has free health care, free upper education, sends pregnant women a box of essential baby supplies (while paying maternity leave even if you've never worked). I happen to be a citizen by one of my parents, but I choose to live here because it's about as far democratically left as you can get on the planet, and I want to go even further to the left supporting salary caps, nationalization of any monopoly, UBI to replace the patch work of social security, direct democracy and so on.
Although studious of Marx, I wouldn't call myself a Marxist for the simple fact Marx believed industrial capitalism brought some good things, whereas I view industrial capitalism as a grave error from the start that has brought nothing but industrial wars, loss of humanity, loss of community and loss of nature.
So I'm no ally of Trump or the Maga movement.
However, because of the total corruption of the American elites I do see why Trump is appealing to a lot of Americans (appealing enough to win the presidency once and win the latest primary).
It's just objective fact needed to understand US politics, which as a Canadian, it's a national sport to follow and shake our heads at.
I also honestly don't see how the neocons are better than Trump, and I honestly think Trump is better for the world than Biden and the usual suspects (of a long list of war crimes, including participation in this latest literal genocide).
Although I do not believe the dictum that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' holds true in all cases, I do think it's worth entertaining when it comes to Trump. Trump is in a fight with some of the most powerful and evil networks of people the world has seen in arguably over half a century.
I say: let them fight.
And you are entitled to your conspicuously uninformed, spectator's opinion, sir/mam. :victory:
The old fat orange f*cker's latest grift – launched during Holy Week no less – is a $60 "Trump Bible" for gullible, faux-Christian, "Trump sneakers"-wearing MAGA cultists. You can't make this stooopid stuff up. :lol:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-god-bless-usa-bible-greenwood-2713fda3efdfa297d0f024efb1ca3003
*Biden-Harris 2024* :cool:
Again, you state that Trump is losing support, I go check the polls to inform myself whether this is really true or not, and turns out he's not losing support.
Information that you then dismiss in favour of random pundit hot takes because polls aren't predictive.
... Well are random pundit hot takes based on Republican primary voting more predictive?
Feel free to inform us, to use your language.
As for spectator opinion; we all participate in the American empire, so it's hardly spectating. But even if it was a spectators position, you'd still need to justify why it's less worthy to consider. In more than a few cases spectators can far more easily discern what's going on than participants.
:rofl:
Checked the polls again just now.
YouGov has Trump leading by 1.
HarisX has Trump +2 in one poll and even in another.
Leger conducted two polls both with Trump +4.
Beacon Research/Shaw & Company Research has Trump +6, +5 and +5 in three polls.
Quinnipiac University has Trump +1 in one poll and Biden +3 in another concurrent poll.
The numbers could be different, could be exactly as you say that Trump is losing support and I'd go check and see the polls confirm what you say and come back and be all like "yep, Trump is tanking".
However, what the polls actually say, what multiple expert groups in trying to gauge public opinion conclude based on data, is that Trump is gaining support.
I understand you don't like it, but welcome to the real world.
Here's the "real world", kid –
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076
– a historically-informed US voter's perspective on the pending US presidential election of 2024.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892493
You continue to astound.
And you continue to bore.
Take acid. Buy a hooker.
Says the bore who goes around commenting on discussions he’s not involved in to demonstrate his self-righteousness as an empathic communicator. That existence must be a healthy one indeed, I’m sure.
I shall collect the rent next time.
Brilliant observation.
True, I like to respond to banal, sanctimonious bullshit when I see it— occasionally.
Oh look, a sanctimonious Twitter troll giving advice. Cool! :up:
And further, why have you taken Twitter speak "Oh look, ..." and imported it to a comment where you apparently denigrate Twitter trolls? Bizarre.
I'd have takenthe advice.
Riveting.
Pro-PRC DRAGONBRIDGE Influence Campaign Leverages New TTPs to Aggressively Target U.S. Interests, Including Midterm Elections
[sup]— Mandiant · Oct 26, 2022[/sup]
Pro-CCP ‘Spamouflage’ network pivoting to focus on US Presidential Election
[sup]— Elise Thomas · ISD · Feb 15, 2024[/sup]
Much Ado About ‘Somethings’
[sup]— Max Lesser, Ari Ben Am, Margot Fulde-Hardy, Saman Nazari, Paul J Malcomb · FDD · Mar 27, 2024[/sup]
How effective are these campaigns anyway? When I encounter these stories (or effects thereof), it's almost always from US MAGA'ers.
The conversation is:
1. You claim Trump is losing support
2. I go check your claim against the polls
3. Your claim doesn't check out, so you move the goal posts to polling doesn't matter but Trump is still losing support because a large, but still minor, amount of Republicans didn't back Trump in the primaries.
4. I point out you're obviously living in a liberal media bubble where claims.
5. You then deny being in anyway a liberal, but refuse to provide a definition of liberal of which you are not, all while trying to accuse me of being an American conservative (which I'm happy to not only deny the charge but actually explain what I am instead of being an American conservative).
6. Instead of learning something from being totally wrong, you then just move your ad hominem to me being a spectator and that somehow disqualifies my participating on this forum (mostly run and maintained by Europeans, from what I gather); not clear why being not-American is disqualifying, just does for some reasons (aka. random walls you erect to maintain your echo chamber, instead of going out and building a real wall that matters to protect America!! Shame on you.).
7. I point out that your new claims have nothing to do with your first claim; if polls don't matter much until 1-2 months before the election, ok, but what's your evidence that primary votes do matter? Considering Trump won in 2016 with an important faction of Republican #Nevertrumpers. To which your evidence to explain this hodgepodge of inconsistent claims is random YouTubers that represent said liberal media bubble.
So ok, I get it, you want to live in your self-identified not-liberal echo chamber where Trump has no chance of winning and you feel the need to bring your echo chamber into this forum for further validation.
But feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
I initially expected better of this type of forum, but politics gonna politic i guess. Twitter nonsense is inescapable when its political talk.
There are few threads like this one on the Forum. Lots of others concern one very dead philosopher vs another very dead philosopher. Those are milder.
I'm keeping track.
Not out of personal or philosophical interest, but moral and civic duty.
And not because anything said on this forum is of any monumental political consequence, but rather to develop strategies for dealing with bad faith debate.
We are, in my view, repeating the circumstances of the original development of Western philosophy arising out of, and in opposition to, sophistry.
Precisely due to democratization of the public sphere in Greek democratic traditions (though none of them are actually democratic in a modern definition, more just large aristocracies, still far more democratic than top down rule).
This democratization of the public sphere in the Greek context was due to the Agora where all citizens could talk. For us cause of this is the internet. In between similar accrued with the printing press and pamphleteering.
Whenever the public sphere is democratized there is first dominance of bad faith tactics because people haven't learned yet to deal with them. In the greek context philosophy emerges; anyone can say anything but there are methods to separate truth from falsehood, better than no method. In the renaissance journalism emerges; anyone can write anything about what's happening anywhere, so we need people and institutions that build up a reputation to have an a priori set of probable facts (not all true, but at least a starting point to apply the reasoning methods bequeathed to us).
Today, anyone can copy and paste what the reputable journalistic institutions write, destroying their business model and undermining the entire system of public discourse built up since the invention of the printing press. Likewise, anyone can make an audio / visual emotional appeal promoting anything directly to the entire public.
This is a short summary of the history (there's also radio and television), but the point is that we're in a discursive environment where bad faith arguments dominate, exactly as you say everything political is just a snow ball fight.
In the previous philosophy forum, in the "before times" of the internet where television talking heads were still referring to everything on the internet as "blogs" and noting what was on "blogs" simply to post of it's irrelevant whatever it is, I focused on philosophical topics. This was literally 20 years ago and I was in my formative years, so genuinely didn't know if my beliefs held up to scrutiny (and of course they didn't and required a lot of reformulation). I then went off to accomplish my purpose and unfortunately the forum was disappeared from the internet.
This new forum emerged, public discourse degraded due to the above processes, and I just so happened to have gained considerable amount of experience debating with bad faith actors as corporate board director and oft times CEO. People will come up with the craziest shit when they want to under-deliver, underserved money or intellectual property, and managing corporations involves dealing with a considerable amount of bad faith.
Discerning good from bad faith, and how to deal with each, I would go so far as to say nearly entirely summarizes what management is about. Ipsofacto, seemed an additional dutiful purpose to join this forum to further develop and demonstrate methods of debating bad faith actors.
For the strategies appropriate to good faith and bad are not the same. The first thing a bad faith actor will do is take advantage of your ill adapted good faith habits. For example, if you're only accustomed to good faith debate (with friends and family and class mates and colleagues and so on) which is most of the time in real life, you'll likely have all sorts of bad habits when it comes to dealing with bad faith actors. For example, in good faith debate you assume your opponent seeks the truth as much as yourself, has at face value as credible premises as your own, and is speaking what they genuinely believe to be true. In short, in a good faith debate you pay a significant amount of respect to your interlocutor. Once you get into a management position of any significance, you immediately realize that a bad faith actor will take advantage of all of these good faith debate habits to harm you and people you're responsible as well as the entire world. It is not an intellectual debate, it is a conflict in which winning is important.
How do you win against a bad faith actor (often highly paid lawyers in a corporate context)?
First rule: respect is earned. Respect is earned by being good faith. If someone's good faith with me, I'll be good faith with them. If someone's bad faith with me, I will not be bad faith with them but I won't give them the benefits I extend to those of good faith either. Rather, I will, entirely legally and metaphorically, get my thumbs into their eyes and squeeze until they desist from attacking me, and the interests I represent, any further. I won't give them any ground whatsoever (i.e. I'll make them do the work of proving even those things that I know to happen to be actually true), I won't give them any respect (i.e. I won't assume their positions are on face value as credible as my own and continuously call out their bad intentions and deceptive practices), and above all I will make them understand I will never stop (i.e. they can't tire me out and I'll go to what would be, for many, irrational lengths in any quarrel: time, effort, pain, suffering, is of no consequence compared to satisfaction).
In short, if you want to deal with the bad faith actors of the world you must be, to them, a monster from the deep.
Transposing these methods to political public debate is my project here. We are in a time where everyone must become CEO's, unless we are to be ruled by our inferiors.
Quoting boethius
Yeah, but this is a weirdo forum for weirdos.
Been there, done that. :lol:
.
Well, whenever someone denigrates the forum, I am always skeptical of these claims of irrelevancy. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. You're here, I'm here, a bunch of other clever people are here, we can't know who's lurking in the shadows. Honest clever people do seek out analysis that can withstand scrutiny from opposing view points, and I always ask where there is a better forum of such debate and I never get an answer. Of course you have to be peculiar to actually participate in the debate, but maybe less peculiar and more important people, the non-weirdos as you say, come and watch and learn something. Maybe not, who knows.
However, my project isn't simply to engage with bad faith debaters here but to build up examples of the method of dealing with bad faith debaters in the context of political discourse.
I suppose the next step is to write a book or something and try to make the knowledge more accessible. For now, the forum permits creating material for the project in a reasonable amount of time, due to the stewardship of the moderators. And why does the moderators work make these sorts of discussion feasible to begin with? Because they get rid of bad faith actors (without purging their good faith political opponents and so create an echo chamber) that would simply destroy the space of discussion as their next bad faith tactic as a retort to being demonstrated to be and faith. So, the mere example of there being entirely opposed views "allowed to exist" here on the forum and the world doesn't end and actual debate between people who disagree can then take place, is as valuable a lesson as what approach to bad faith tactics are effective within the discursive battle field.
I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world.
Quoting boethius
More power to you. That's a good project!
Quoting boethius
Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier.
"The Wall Street Journal, late last night:
The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.
The one outlier is Wisconsin, where Biden leads by 3 points on the multiple-candidate ballot, and where the two candidates are tied in a head-to-head matchup."
That seemed to me your point: that the forum is populated by weirdos and therefore that undermine my project, either due to a lack of reach or then engaging with weirdos is not representative, and so missing the mark of relevancy due to either or both.
My retort to that is that who knows what relevance the forum in itself has to global society, who visits and where those visitors then go and what they do and butterfly effect and all that. Perhaps it's irrelevant in any direct impact on society and policy makers, perhaps not. And my second point being that the project is anyways intended to have a second phase of writing a book or blog more accessible to the general public in anywise.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then we anyways agree on this second point, and I appreciate the moral support.
Quoting AmadeusD
This wasn't in retort to you, just emphasizing what I presume is common ground.
I also am not claiming my project will have some profound effect on society. It's entirely possible our civilization is completely doomed and talking at this point in history will have little effect on outcomes. Again, I think we'd agree that to what extent that's likely, and regardless of whether we agree at all on how likely it is, that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can.
"After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre is probably the best analysis that I've encountered of the discursive collapse of Western society, and his conclusion is basically the problem is unsolvable. He makes a compelling case but I suppose we should try to solve it anyways; give it a go, at least verify he is in fact correct.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076
Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? Too many ideas?
Certainly could be good to discuss that in another topic. Nevertheless, you'd really hold the position that there is no duty, or then you are uncertain about it, to report evidence of child sexual abuse that you encounter?
There's of course a difference between refuting duties one does not see do any good or then outweighed by other considerations or then one would perform the duty if there was reasonable incentive and disincentive binding everyone to do likewise; there's a difference between these positions and refuting all duties altogether. Usually when duties are discussed we're talking about things that are debatable on these various grounds, but the position of no duties at all is quite extreme: there'd be no duty of any kind to children under any circumstances such as the example above, no duty to stop the Nazis carrying out a genocide, no duty to refrain from serial murder and rape for that matter, and so on for all the most heinous acts that we may list and agree upon.
So, agreed we could continue on this topic on another thread, but I am curious if your position really is doubting all duties of any kind.
Quoting AmadeusD
I do not think the West is succeeding, so again perhaps a discussion for another conversation, but to summarize my view I do not view an unsustainable system as successful. Trading short term performance for long term survival is not a successful strategy, but entirely illusory.
For example, if you take methamphetamines to outperform your peers at work, it may appear you are very successful in the short term by working nearly 24/7, but as soon as the drug takes its toll and let's say you don't quit but just keep increasing the meth dose to keep performing until an overdose resulting in death or permanent disability, no one would consider this a "success"; no one would make a speech at your wake explaining that you were extremely successful and exemplary due to performing at a high level for a short period of time and everyone should do likewise.
The West, in creating and leading industrial civilizaton, is likewise unsuccessful, trading short term performance for long term viability.
Again, a discussion for another thread, but where it relates to Trump (and equally Biden for that matter) is in representing exactly why the West is unable to solve our long term problems; coherence doesn't matter and partisans are irreconcilable and political discourse is simply a short term power struggle and mostly, and most damning, no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance, much less do anything about it.
I'll try to transcribe some key points from "After Virtue" to illuminate this point of view and what the problem is, but the title itself may give some impression of the core thesis.
Quoting AmadeusD
The problem is not too many ideas but rather an inability to convert good ideas to good policy.
To give one of the most significant examples, in the 1960s to the 1980s it was not in dispute the "polluter pays" principle. Even Milton Friedman taking the pretty extreme "greed is good" position, agreed that the polluter should pay, that if a power station over here is dirtying your shirt over there then the power station should pay to clean your shirt.
There was a general agreement in principle of how society should respond to facts. If a given pollution is factual then certainly the polluter should pay for the clean up. And it's even easy to see why this principle was not even controversial as obviously you can't just dump trash on your neighbours property and have them pay to clean it up (regardless if it was an accident or on purpose or a side-effect of doing some legitimate thing like pruning your tree): you'll need to pay to clean up your trash. Simple and obvious and a widely agreed principle in which social policy can be implemented and updated.
The dispute at that time was on the facts. All while agreeing the polluter should of course pay, Friedman simply didn't agree that things like power stations produced pollution that did any harm: smog was. a natural phenomenon that even the native Americans talked about.
Likewise, even more generally, 50 years ago there was general agreement that we of course due have a duty to care for the earth, and therefore the disagreements on what to do were factual: how best to care for the earth?
The breakdown of these agreements in principle result in society unable to resolve problems and implement long term coherent policy.
The proximate cause of this erosion of "bare minimum social cohesion" is lobbies that go to work leveraging money to prop up a position that is simply intellectually lost. No one today repeats Friedman's theory that smog is a natural phenomenon that simply has nothing to do with coal power generation, but the fossil lobby can just replace one terrible unfounded theory with 3 new ones.
However, the ultimate cause of the situation, what lobbies are able to exploit, is the loss of generally agreed virtues that were previously supported by religion.
And Trump is a pretty good example of this theory playing out, as in the before times where generally agreed virtues were important to society there would be simply no way a person like Trump could compete in the political sphere, but "After Virtue" it is entirely feasible as there is no longer any expectation for anyone to be virtuous; for example if you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money ... well, why wouldn't you pay a porn star for sex and then pay for her silence with campaign money? We all want sex don't we? We all want to coverup our indiscretions don't we? The empathy of Western society today, at the end of the day, is with Trump being "a boss" and using money to satisfy his desires. Trump is the penultimate consumer: willing and able to consume even the immaterial political prestige that is the foundation of civil society.
I can confidently say I would report it, but not on moral grounds (assuming, as I think is warranted, that your/our use of obligation here is a moral term). I want it to stop. That's all. If I didn't want it to stop. my moral outlook wouldn't matter anyway. I can't get further than that. I don't have to do it. I don't think claiming I 'have to' or 'ought' to do it makes any sense. Based on? *insert any possible non-supernatural answer* Okay, thank you. Well, I reject that premise. I can't think of response to this which isn't a reiteration of the *insert..* portion.
Quoting boethius
I just cannot understand how one could think this about the West. *shrug*
Quoting boethius
Given I think there isn't a duty, take this with a grain of salt - I think you're making a huge mistake.
The political sideshow, is a really bright shiny sideshow. It simply does not represent most people.
Regarding the balance of your post, firstly, thank you for illustrating a number of those ideas from MacIntyre. Interesting. Partially, i dismiss some of the heat in those passages due to the above (politics=/real life in some sense) but moreover, I don't think this is a bad thing.
Western Culture would, surely, allow for an adaptation and evolution of society following the, lets say, dismantling of a current paradigm. This seems to have happened several times in the last 500 years or so. Major, major changes in governance and infrastructure seems inevitable. We're in the midst of a Kuhn revolution!
FWIW: my 2024 "election predictions" (based on (A) electoral trends 2017-2023 completely favoring Dems; (B) SCOTUS & MAGA-GOP taking away women's reproductive rights / criminalizing abortions; (C) consistent trend of 20% of GOP primary voters rejecting Loser-1 even after Haley, DeSantis & Christie suspended their campaigns; (D) Criminal Defendant-1 convicted in NY by June/July; (E) benefits of Biden's economy broadly felt by September; (F) etc):
1. Biden-Harris reelected
-gets 5-7 million more votes than Loser-1 again (even with lower turnout than 2020)
-gets more (suburban) women voters
-gets more under 35 year old voters
-gets more minorities voters
-gets more independent voters
-wins 4-5 out of 7 "swing states" (plus 1-2 more "red states" (e.g. NC))
2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)
3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain)
update:
Third-party candidates RFK, J. Stein & C. West collectively will be a non-factor in the outcome of the 2024 election.
In terms of independents, I’m not so sure anymore. But the question is will it be enough, given the goofy electoral college?
I’m thinking he loses NC and Georgia, and probably Arizona. But he wins the blue wall — making swingy states like New Hampshire and even Nevada very important. I’d watch Florida too, although I don’t think there’s a great chance there anymore.
You’re way off with the senate. Looks like the Dems are gonna lose that chamber, unfortunately. Manchin’s seat is an easy flip, and Montana and Ohio it’s very hard to say but looks like Republican edge. Not to mention Arizona. I see republican +2 but if not then democrats 50-50 at best.
The house I agree— I think dems take it. New York being de-gerrymandered alone should do it.
(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.)
:smirk: :up:
I'm not quite sure you fully appreciate the implications of your position: that a police officer could plant evidence on you to make his job easier, a surgeon could just walk out mid surgery leaving to slowly wake up in excruciating pain and a slow death, anyone could just randomly torture you death for their amusement, and they have done you no moral wrong, they had no duty to do otherwise; of course you may not like any of these things and want them to desist but that would just be your own feelings about the matter which are no better than theirs.
I will make a thread outlining and defending MacIntyre's critique of this sort of emotivist position and we could discuss if further , but if there's some obvious nuance to your position feel free to briefly clarify it.
Quoting AmadeusD
The Western enlightenment project has failed. Again, MacIntyre I think succinctly explains why. And it is no coincidence that he appears in my response here again, as it is basically because of emotivism (do what you feel) that virtues become lost and society falls apart.
I disagree with MacIntyre on a few pedantic points, but that the West has entered a new dark ages he clearly foresaw before I was even born.
I don't now have time to transcribe all I would like, but I'll do so for one passage I think particularly apt for this conversation:
Which doesn't contain or summarize all of MacIntyre's criticism of Western society, just particularly topical.
More fundamentally, I do get that Western society allows you to do what you feel like most of the time, even enjoying the pleasure of a sort of general Western enthusiasm or even patriotic warm glow of a sort all while feeling bound by no duties towards it.
When I have more time I shall make a thread dedicated to the topic, but I hope it seems at least evoked from the above passage that a society in which there are no virtues or duties genuinely felt by the majority of the citizenry, is a society that a society that is not going to be able to perpetuate itself (without severe crisis in which duties and virtues sufficient for the maintenance of the institutions of society and the natural habitat reemerge).
For now, it is to me truly remarkable that people manage to pedestalize the West for making relatively few people "feel good" for a relatively short period of time while destroying entire ecosystems and species, not to mention both the foundation within and continuing practice of extractive colonialism.
Quoting AmadeusD
That's why I mentioned the larger majority of people of whom "no one cares, seeing no duty to even try to understand any topic of importance", so we definitely agree that most people don't pay much attention to politics and have checked out from any political cause.
Where we differ is that you seem to feel this is laudable, perhaps even wise, whereas I characterized it as "most damning" of all (as in worse than the people at least engaged on one side or another).
Again, I can completely empathize that as long as the institutions of society are taken for granted, then as soon as politics "sours" it is far more pleasant to simply ignore politics altogether. However, if enough people paying attention and acting in good faith is required for the maintenance of those institutions (not to mention the natural world) and the consequences of their destruction (and the natural world) is quite enormous and unpleasant, I hope it's clear that from this point of view ignoring politics altogether is a form of collective suicide as deranged as any cult (of course excusing who ignore politics for legitimate reasons, such as being wage slaves pushed to the extreme they genuinely have not a moment or calorie to spare on considering the institutions that put them there).
Quoting AmadeusD
Glad my contribution is appreciated.
However, what you are responding to is but the briefest summary of the problem MacIntyre is addressing, basically his starting point.
MacIntyre also doesn't require virtues to be based on religious sentiment, just that obviously it was for thousands of years. Of course it's a debatable point as such, but MacIntyre's account of the virtues is not religious but a tradition starting historically in heroic society (i.e. those kinds of society's that existed at the start of written history). MacIntyre is explicitly Aristotelian.
Now, what is a virtue and vice, and whether an individual should be virtuous or not, is one debate, but what should be clear is that a society devoid of all duties and virtues cannot possibly last.
For example, let's say there's an invasion and you're feeling is that best someone deal with that, well that's going to require soldiers who happen to feel bound to their duties as soldiers as well as sufficient discipline, fortitude, craftiness, bravery and self sacrifice necessary to win any battles. If no one in society felt any such duty nor possessed the prerequisite virtues then no matter how many people feel it would be preferable that someone deal with the problem of the invasion, it won't be dealt with.
Point being, even if you don't personally feel bound by any duties, and even view the great achievement of Western society as creating the condition for people so disposed to lazily go about their day contributing nothing to the general welfare, certainly you can recognize that maintaining such conditions requires honest good faith people performing various duties with sufficient virtues to be successful at them, and once there are too few of these people to hold in check the bad-faith and dishonest people with virtues only sufficient enough to execute on their vices, society will collapse in relatively short order.
Quoting boethius
I do. Sincerely apologies if, at any point, I seem a bit short. I have heard just about all of the infantalising responses to my position (despite recognizing they aren't intended that way!!). I have thought about this. I have read a lot on it. I have discussed it with laypeople and philosophers. I have fully embraced the consequences. They don't strike me the way they strike you. That's all. I still have good reasons to act or prevent acts, that I am sure you would, overall, agree with teh results of.
Quoting boethius
Correct. This is not a problem to my mind, other than because It makes me uncomfortable. Not sure how it could be 'wrong' in any other sense.
Quoting boethius
They do, but you've named instances that include the other reasons I've alluded to. Suffice to say at this stage that I formulate in these scenarios (though, I'm not yet at a fine-grained version of this view, so bear with) that hte actor has, in fact, chosen to accept hte subject's emotional position, rather than a moral obligation.
Quoting boethius
Not at all. I just think you're making an obvious mistake.
Quoting boethius
Which entirely invalidates the claims made above, so I'm unsure where to go from here. Your accepting this premise says to me you can't support your previous claims. Odd feeling, tbh.
Suffice to say: Quoting boethius
This is seems laughably wrong, and nothing you've provided seems to move the compass. He's an impassioned writer that seems to ignore two or three fundamentally important aspects of what he's talking about (one, being the above - the vast majority of people (who consittute the culture!!!) simply are not involved in this side-show - it goes on, in spite of hte ridiculous Political stupidity. This seems true in most cultures, and the West is not unique in that way.
Quoting boethius
I would point you toward Heydel-Mankoo for a perspective on this aspect that seems to me inarguable, and exposes the preening nonsense of anti-colonial sentiment in te 21st century. But we are likely to almost violently disagree here.
Quoting boethius
Not at all. It seems clear to me that these lines of yours are somewhat unhinged. *shrug*.
Quoting boethius
I think the bolded in sufficient, but apparently you do not. That said, If no one in the country wants to defend it - Okay. That's the situation.
Quoting boethius
What's hte issue? That's the choice that Nation made. Forcing the populus into a War seems to be a much, much worse thing to do.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
I can only roll my eyes at the baked-in biases here.
I have to be entirely honest in that the type of vibe your views encompass a little bit funny. I'm sorry for that coming through as I know you're good faith and being honest with me. It just seems childish and I have a hard time. This is likely a flaw in me, but wanted to be clear about why some responses might seem flimsy. I think that's what they call for. I mean no offense.
Quoting boethius
I think the idea that a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest, but their own relations in the world is far-fetched enough to simply not care about this potential. The West is not cogent (ideologically) enough for this to matter anyway. The only 'duty' the West actually imposes is to not interfere with others against their will. I'm quite absolute in this regard. People should be allowed to hurt themselves, and contract into self-disinterested behaviour.
How we deal with things like Mental Illness is where it gets interesting, imo. We might have something very interesting to discuss there.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't know about you but I came here for an argument.
Be at ease, you're clearly debating in good faith, which warrants respect.
My disrespect is reserved for people arguing in bad faith, which I define in a philosophical or political context arguing positions they do not actually believe; i.e. not arguing on substance but simply deploying a wide range of propaganda tactics to manipulate perceptions of said substance.
I ask you to clarify your position to both be confident you're arguing in good faith but also to understand your position. Most emotivists or moral relativists, in my experience, generally have moral absolute limits and are just arguing plurality within a limited "nice and acceptable" moral terrain. Which is a perfectly coherent view to have, I am myself an emotivist and moral relativists in this sense, but it is clearly a moral absolutist position in which some plurality and diversity and various internally consistent positions, even if at odds, are perfectly acceptable; as you are clearly aware, it is the moral absolutist framework which is the far more important foundation in such a theory in which adding some compatible plurality can be pretty trivial; such as, in stoicism (my moral point of view), if moral goodness is the effort towards the good then pretty much any expressed moral system in attempting to do so, as either a linguistic / notional system or then simply doing things expressing the moral content, is morally laudable, whatever it is (however wrong it is from some epistemologically omniscient point of view) as long as it's the result of genuine moral effort towards the good (taken as either or revelatory a priori knowledge in stoicism: i.e. once one is ware of there are better and worse decisions, one is duty bound to try to make good decisions resulting in a moral journey throughout the cosmos in which advancing on one's journey, regardless of the starting point of present situation, is what is of moral worth)—to show my cards, as it were, in reciprocity to you showing yours.
Quoting AmadeusD
I ask for clarification just to be sure my understanding of your position is correct.
The best way to clarify a moral position is to consider the social consequences (as morality is mostly, though not entirely, socially contingent).
However, social consequence is only a clarifying and cannot possibly be an evaluative factor of moral positions and theories. For, obviously we cannot evaluate what social consequences are good or bad without first committing to a moral theory to make such an evaluation. To say this moral or political scheme is wrong because it has these or those social consequences is not a complete argument without first establishing the moral scheme required to make such an evaluation, which if we happen to already know is true then it is trivial that anything incompatible with it claimed to be good will be evaluated to be bad.
Of course, it just so happens that the vast majority of people operate this way as they are unconscious of their foundational moral or evaluative framework in which they evaluate any new moral claims. Therefore, if you take a moral scheme for granted the fastest way to resolve the acceptability of any new moral claim is to work out it's social consequences and decide if they are good or bad based on what one already believes.
The reason I ask so much clarification of emotivist and moral relativistic positions is that most people in modern society explicitly believe they have such a theory while implicitly believing in moral absolute limits (in which case those moral absolute limits are far more interesting and the actual heart of the debate in such a case).
Quoting AmadeusD
I think it's pretty clear we'll need a new thread to go deeper here. I should have time this week to transcribe MacIntyre's core objections to emotivism / moral relativism, as I'm sure you'd agree his position is worth considering and it would anyways benefit the forum to gain insight into such a powerful thinker. I do not actually agree with MacIntyre's overall framework, but my own position is only a slight upgrade in strength of several of MacIntyre's statements; basically in some foundational places MacIntyre hesitates to simply make an absolute claim all while denying he's simply made moral relativism more complicated. His sort of "riding the line" and very Buddhist "neither is true but it is true" I think is worth considering (and his whole argument is a brilliant insight into how society works and I am 100% convinced by his epistemological claim that moral content can only develop and make sense within a moral tradition), but at the end of the day I'm simply not convinced it's possible to avoid "we have a duty to the good of society" for the virtues MacIntyre promotes to be actual virtues and even if it is possible as MacIntyre sets out to do that there is any need to do so.
Quoting AmadeusD
If you mean by mistake using social consequences to evaluate moral positions (i.e. that moral consequences I find unsavoury for exterior reasons is a valid argument against a moral claim, without first establishing my moral theory can be taken to be true to begin with), then I hope that has been clarified above.
If the social consequences of a position are accepted (what MacIntyre refers to as "paying the price") then of course that "I don't like those consequences" or "people don't like those consequences" is not an argument. It's only an argument if you also agree that those consequences are unacceptable and you are not assigning equal moral merit to those consequences as compared to others.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well if your invoking some sort of social contract that is to me a moral absolutist position (that people should do what they give their word to do, as a moral duty): i.e. the cop should fulfil his duty of honest impartiality and not plant evidence because he's accepted that duty, the surgeon should finish the surgery because of the hypocritical oath, and serial murderer has (probably) entered into all sorts of explicit or implicit agreements with society to respect the law and not go around murdering people.
If there are no duties, then there are no duties to keep one's word either. You can give your word because you feel like it and are of equal moral weight in breaking your word because you feel like that too.
Quoting AmadeusD
This seems to me nearly a tautology. Even if we could imagine a society that "just so happens to function" even if no one is doing anything that can be described as "political" eventually an existential crisis will arise and the only solution is "doing politics" which if no one is willing to do then society will end, being the definition of existential crisis.
Which you seem to accept in your very next sentence:
Quoting AmadeusD
In my experience, this is the main problem emotivist have to contend with as there's all sorts of institutions requiring duties to be performed to maintain any sort of comfortable life that "feels good". Generally, at least in my experience, emotivists want others to perform social duties so that they can feel good while denying those duties actually exist.
Libertarian oriented emotivists will usually try to solve this problem with hazard pay—fighting a war is dangerous and so soldiers are compensated for it—while ignoring that obviously this wouldn't work in practice for two reasons: first, if every soldier demanded market based hazard pay it would simply be unaffordable to have an army, but second, and more problematic, hazard pay in the market deals with risks in which the plan is not to die (there are no jobs in which the advertisement is "you'll definitely, probably be killed" but we'll compensate you for that), but for a war to be prosecuted successfully almost always involves plans where the risk of death is acute and so a market solution would require increasing the hazard pay as the risk increases. Not only is any actual military far from being hazard pay based, but nearly all states reserve the right of conscription which is as far from compensating soldiers for risk as is possible. If people have no duties then of course they should abandon their posts as soon as the risk to their person warrants it.
This may not be your case, but at least for libertarians "free riding" they view as a bad thing and it usually causes them problems to become aware they are free riding on other people willing to self-sacrifice for their security and comfort all while they claim any self-sacrifice (even in the form of taxation) is not only not a duty but many go so far as to say is evil. In other words, for the market to exist in the first place requires a long list of institutions and whole host of individuals dedicated to refuse economically rational choices (abandon the battlefield as soon as the hazard pay doesn't cover the risk; take a bribe to rule in one party's favour as soon as soon the reward outweighs the risk of being caught by people equally rational and willing to take bribes, and so on).
I'm not sure this sort of criticism applies in your case (libertarians generally have plenty of morally absolute positions such as theft is wrong and contracts are sacred and they are doing "good" by being self interested, and so on, and the cause of the problem above is in relying on soldiers doing in their view "bad" and entering into non-market based labour exchanges and willing to self-sacrificing, paying a life tax, for the benefit of the state and moochers, including people enjoying the fruits of market relations due to the maintenance of the state that makes those market relations possible).
Quoting AmadeusD
We literally have actual settler colonialist genocide happening right now fully supported by Western governments, and you seriously believe that considering that as a moral failure of the West (along with the destruction of the natural world and the habitat we depend on to continue the whole civilization project) is "preening nonsense".
However, by "sentiment" are you also referring to all the colonialism in the past? Aka. that the current distribution of wealth and power globally has nothing to do with colonialism at all, neither now nor in the past?
Quoting AmadeusD
This is MacIntyre's starting thesis, so I will transcribe the key parts hopefully this week.
However, insofar as I've represented MacIntyre's position accurately, it seems bold to dismiss an argument of a pretty well respected philosopher as laughable. He's received criticism from many different schools and many other well respected philosophers and I have yet to hear the criticism that his arguments are laughably wrong. So we'll see if your claim here holds up.
As for the substance of your rebuttal, it's equally bold to simply assume society will simply muddle on despite ridiculous political stupidity. For example, if there was a general nuclear exchange started by the United States due to ridiculous political stupidity, would you evaluate this as a success?
Now, if your definition of success is just whatever happens (for example a nation is invaded, no one bothers to defend it as no one feels like it, they're all killed and this is successful because it happened), then seems there's no content in success or failure; anything that exists or ceases to exist represents success.
More fundamentally, if you have no moral standard, which seems implied in a position in which there's no duties to do anything, then how are you even judging success? So my first charge here is that you seem to be invoking some moral absolutes in critiquing my statements, whereas if we're basing morality on feelings then my position is equally valid to yours as I clearly feel Western society, the enlightenment project, has failed whereas you feel it's successful, and my feeling is just as good as yours. Even if you proved me to be factually wrong based on invoking a shared reality neither of us have a duty to accept is real, I would still have no duty to accept any particular facts about it.
Quoting AmadeusD
I didn't say anything about forcing.
The alternative to no one defending the interests of society and forcing people to, is a society in which duties are really believed to exist; soldiers feel bound to their duties because they think those duties are morally binding on them, not contingent on insofar as they feel like it or then their hazard pay (insofar as things aren't too hazardous and it makes economic sense). As described above, the moral tensions is if there's expectation soldiers (or anyone taking any risk to protect the interest of society) carry out duties all while denying there are any such duties.
Quoting AmadeusD
What's childish?
This is "the debate" when it comes to moral relativism v moral absolutism. If every point of view is valid and there are no absolute moral claims, then the Nazis were and are equally valid and the holocaust is as laudable social project as creating a health care system. Obviously Hitler felt he was doing good and so if no moral feeling is better than another, then Hitler was doing as much good as anyone else.
It's easy to argue moral relativism if the only moral positions under consideration are those pre-selected by the society you live in as acceptable. However, that's no the implication of moral relativism. If every position is equally morally valid (or invalid, but result in equality) then implication is that a serial killer has just as valid a moral position as a honest and compassionate doctor.
You've claimed no one has duties ... Ok, well that clearly means no one has duties to not engage in serial killing nor then stop anyone from doing so. People who "feel like" stopping the serial killer are just as morally justified as the serial killer and anyone who would do likewise, obviously they feel like serial killing.
Where you get pluralism, which to me clearly seems your comfort zone, is when you allow for a wide range of faiths and goals, but place absolute moral limits on what is morally acceptable in pursuit of those goals. Pursuing pleasure by skipping a stone on a lake: acceptable, approved. Pursuing pleasure by torturing little children to death: unacceptable, not approved.
The position that there are no duties (as you say, you'd report child sexual abuse only if you felt like it and wouldn't consider it wrong to not-report it if you didn't feel like it; there's no duty to report crimes against children as there are no duties at all).
Now, if you're willing to "pay the cost", as MacIntyre put it, and just flatly say that though you are happy people perform various duties to maintain your situation of comfort that you feel good in but they are simply wrong if they performed those duties because they thought those duties were real and not because they "happened to feel like it", which seems to be what you're saying, then I fail to see how its childish to point out the consequences.
Obviously a society in which no one performs any duties (no one keeps there word, no one tells the truth, no one protects any social institution required for society to function) wouldn't be comfortable society to live in.
Insofar as people "feel compelled" to actually perform duties due to the social consequences it is because of a history of society repeating to itself those duties are real: you should actually do them, you should actually reject a bribe as a judge and tell the truth as a witness. If those duties aren't real and people shouldn't feel compelled by them and people hear your message which clearly you are happy to share and then they see the light, then what's childish is to then simply assume that things would go on as before.
The adult position is to just accept that indeed society would basically fall apart if no one performed any duties and that's perfectly acceptable to you as an outcome. Which in one comment you seem to accept, that no one has a duty to defend the country and so if no one happens to feel like doing that then there's no way to defend the country and so be it, but then here with similar considerations the retort is it's childish.
If no one has any duties, then it's clearly perfectly morally acceptable to just lazily go about your day and contribute nothing to the general welfare just as it's perfectly morally acceptable for soldiers to abandon their posts as soon as they don't feel like risking their lives any more. The only difference in the soldier case is your invoking the false dichotomy that the only alternative is to force people to serve (the alternative you leave out is people serving their country because they feel a duty to do so, that they believe is very real and if they didn't believe that they wouldn't continue on based on merely happening to feel like it).
If you fall back to social norms (that we expect a judge to refuse bribes and soldiers to follow orders) and so there's negative consequences for failing to do what people expect, well the big incentive to conform to social norms that maintain society (not well by any stretch of the imagination, but not yet totally destroyed either) is the belief of others that those norms are real moral precepts. So, to say those norms aren't actually moral precepts, no one should believe them truly binding in any moral sense, but people act like they are real because other people think they are real and so impose a cost for violating those norms, obviously doesn't work anymore once enough people sees the truth that those norms aren't real. Which in a long list of cases is a good thing (according to the new norms of society) because it turns out the basis of those norms (slavery, racism, killing homosexuals, wife and child beating, and so on) weren't well supported: feelings changed and so what people felt compelled to do by social pressures also changed (in a process that is far from complete). However, the feelings changed (historically) not because people started to believe there are no moral truths at all but rather due to the consequences of debates about what those moral truths are.
Quoting AmadeusD
As I just explained, this is the philosophically naive position.
If you aren't concerned about the consequences of no people believing they have any duties (as, according to you, they should believe because that's the truth) then you're basically in the free riding problem as above. A critical mass of people won't agree with you and so you don't have to worry about that happening.
However, there's a lot more fundamentally wrong with your statement here.
First, you're clearly bait-and-switching individual self-interest with collective self-interest. It is in the collective self-interest for a soldier to self-sacrifice (by explicitly jumping on a grenade or then just taking on extreme risk) but it is obviously not in their own self-interest (as their dead now).
This is the core problem of politics, essentially before any other as maintaining any political system whatsoever requires a significant amount of self sacrifice, starting with both facing extreme risk (risking life and safety for the "self-interest" of society) as well as refusing advantages (bribes and favouritism and so on) but is a tension that goes far deeper (for example we not only expect the judge to refuse bribes, we also expect the judge to put in the work required for a fair trial even if that goes against his self-interest to have a pleasant life or is in conflict to important, but not as important, duties to his own family, such as disappointing his spouse or children due to late nights considering the merits of the case at hand).
"Self-interest" in your statement above is actually referring to collective-interest which may or may not be compatible with self-interest. It maybe in your self-interest and also the collective-interest to get a job, but it's in your self-interest and not the collective-interest to steal from your job, as a general rule (even if you are guaranteed to get away with it).
Economists just randomly invent abstracted entities (families, companies, organizations, government and the like) and then just randomly say those abstracted entities will act in their self interest to describe how society "should work", but any entity that represents a collection of individuals has collective-interest and not self-interest. Collective is a bad word in Neo-liberal economics so they just ignored what they're doing: confusing collective-interest with self-interest to solve the problem of self-interest being in conflict with collective-interest in the first place; this problem is not solved by simply stating:
"a critical mass of a population would act against not only their own self-interest".
This is just wrong. A critical mass of a population, in pursuing their individual self-interest, can definitely act against their collective interest of both themselves and dependents. That is exactly what are environmental problems are: we have no collective interest to have a system in which pollution can be externalized, but we each have an individual interest to externalize the costs of our pollution in pursuing our own pleasures. We could solve the problem but that would require a critical mass of people acting against one's self interest to ignore the political process altogether (something you see as perfectly fine, even morally superior to the many "rediculously stupid people" engaged in politics) because one's effect on outcomes is lower than the cost-benefit of the resources it requires (mostly time and brain calories).
Quoting AmadeusD
Ok, well all this discussion to come to the fact you are a moral absolutist, exactly as a suspected.
Why say things like:
Quoting AmadeusD
When you are perfectly sure, quite absolute, in that people have a duty to not interfere with others against their will.
So ok, "feelings" mean nothing, we have a quite strict absolute moral rule to abide by.
Fortunately, all the criticism above is still completely relevant, as your absolute moral rule doesn't really mean anything unless we (aka. a critical mass) have a duty to violate our own self interest in applying this standard to others on behalf of others violated by it (aka. maintain a government, police, prosecutors, judges or then analogous law-enforcement system), which in order to function require a long list of duties that go far beyond simply avoiding interfering with someone. Indeed, if that was the only rule then police and judges wouldn't interfere with the lives of people interfering with people (and there would be no police and judges).
Anyways, you could just say "I'm a libertarian" and so believe the rules that maintain market conditions are absolutely inviolable, the original acquisition of resources that created market conditions being unjustifiable is a "myth", and I want to free ride on soldiers sacrificing their self-interest without market based hazard pay, praise them to keep going all while knowing I (and others) are cheating them of just market relations by manipulating their naive natures.
We've had plenty of debated on libertarianism already, but it's always refreshing to have another: see how you solve the issue of taxes and democratic participation and corruption and externalities and so on without people having a duty to the collective interest under any circumstances (except of course to stop anyone interfering with you, then of course the entire mechanism of the state must be taken for granted to stop that).
Now, I still think we should discuss MacIntyre, but his argument is with actual emotivists and / or moral-relativists where there is no claim to absolutes whatsoever, they "pay the cost" as I've mentioned and simply accept the Nazis had as good claim to moral goodness as anyone else.
Libertarianism is basically agreeing with MacIntyre's framework, just joining the libertarian tradition instead of MacIntyre's Aristotelian "heroic society" tradition, which has prima-facie equal claim to moral justification in MacIntyre's framework. Where we could evaluate one tradition as "better than another", for example in this case libertarianism with Aristotelian heroic virtuism, would be in demonstrating inconsistency in one or the other position or then being able to solve moral dilemmas in one tradition that are insoluble in the other tradition.
Therefore, it is 100% MacIntyrish to pit MacIntyre's preferred moral tradition to yours (something similar to if not exactly libertarianism), or to mine (stoicism), and see if one seems superior to another and we may switch from or then amend our own tradition, all while avoiding moral relativism (we really did believe our tradition at the start was the best available and if that changes at the end then we really do believe that's an even better moral tradition).
I would think so too.
Quoting boethius
As I don't know A.Ms work, I'll take your word for it - but this actually exemplifies exactly what Im talking about. Taking a moral framework pigeon-holes the positions you're allowed to take, and what consittutes a virtue under it. I take no such position so it's somewhat Hard to respond. It all seems incoherent to me without first accepting that Morality is invented and obtains only between the margins of those frameworks.
Quoting boethius
Agreed. I largely reject the usefulness of thought experiments for this reason, within moral discussions.
Quoting boethius
It has. But the mistake in the previous seems to still be live, despite your acknowledgement. But, as with the bit you quoted, I could just be misunderstanding, so it's not too important.
Quoting boethius
I'm unsure this has to do with my position. I would, in general, agree, but the social consequences have v little to do with my moral position. My intuitive reaction to them is what informs my moral position on any given act. I couldn't predict what I would think morally correct in a novel situation, for example. My intuitive reaction might include some consideration of the social consequences, but that doesn't support my moral, lets say, claim. The claim is just that it makes me uncomfortable, so I wouldn't do it and prefer others didn't. Because It makes me uncomfortable. No other reasons.
Quoting boethius
I am not. I am invoking the (probably, largely ignored) fact that the surgeon has taken on the patient's emotional position. If they have not, and are a sociopath, your point would be apt for them. In this way, my personal moral position is just don't hire sociopaths as surgeons to avoid this problem. But that's mechanistic, not moral. The problem is moral and only exists in that I, personally think it sucks the surgeon did that.
Quoting boethius
No, there is not. I don't invoke one. There is no duty. There is the fact that, upon hte patient's emotional state, completing the surgery successfully would be preferable. If the surgeon actually didn't go in sharing this state, then fine. Walk away. I don't care.
Quoting boethius
I don't understand this passage, or it's genesis apparently. Suffice to say, I disagree. It might be another discussion, once I get across what you're doing with this part of your response.
that society might end. And that might be good.
Quoting boethius
Not at all. The quote you present immediately after this is my denying that it matters, or that there would be a 'crisis'. The society would end. So what?
Quoting boethius
If people choose, collectively to do things, Great. I don't ascribe any duty to it at all. Society is cool. I have no other thoughts on it really.
Quoting boethius
I would say so, as all these objections sit well with me. I'm not a Libertarian. Quoting boethius
Yep. I also 100% disagree with your framing of the situations you refer to. But, obviously, this is not hte place Apt for it**. I did anticipate this type of disagreement :P
Quoting boethius
This is a bit bad-faithy-sounding. I said nothing of the kind, and intimated nothing of the kind. I spoke about hte emotional undercurrent of the discussions. Obviously it 'has to do' with past colonialism. Heydel-Mankoo covers this from the perspective of a colonised minority (maybe not hte right kind, though ;) ).
Quoting boethius
I disagree ;) Particularly that these issues aren't really philosophical. He's ignoring empirical facts about the political state of most countries - the majority of people take no part, and are not involved. But, as I've not read him, I await your thread/s to discuss that bit further **
Quoting boethius
No. This is, exactly, what is actually happening as has happened for the majority of definitely Western Culture - perhaps, all culture.
Quoting boethius
Im not sure why you're asking this. I don't think society 'succeeds' or not. It seems odd that your next passage is somehow a reductio to this position. Its not absurd at all. There is no objective measure of success, and I don't have the (socio-political) framework in place to assess the same way you do. Simple :) I could "simply" be wrong about that.
Quoting boethius
;) You'll need to figure out where I assessed 'success' in moral terms. I can't see it! If i have implied that, please explicitly point it out because I am uncomfortable with that, if it's the case.
Quoting boethius
This is wrong in terms of my position. I think it is. It isn't successful or unsuccessful. There is no ultimate goal or aim of Western society. It continues to move (forward, backward, whatever). Maybe you can use that as a yardstick in which case my position holds anyway. But that's not me. That's just a suggestion. I don't think it success or doesnt succeed. It just is, or isn't. I admit, entirely, that my asking your view on this was more a poke-the-bear than anything. Defend it failing. I don't think you did, on your own terms. But, that's because I don't recognise what would constitute success or failure in your account/s thus far.
Quoting boethius
Yep. I've not called you 'wrong'. I think you're making a mistake in moral reasoning. That doesn't make you wrong - and in fact, could only be true if you were convinced of my position - which would negate that conviction :P This is why my position is consistent. It doesn't apply to anything but me and my actions.
Quoting boethius
If no one is willing, and it's morally right to defend the country and you're not inferring that conscription is morally acceptable there... then... What are you suggesting? That seems a dead end.
I take the rest of that passage to be incoherent in light of the above, so I wont touch it yet. Could entirely be me.
Quoting boethius
What I'm reading as childish, is that it seems your passionate responses presuppose your moral framework. It seems your framework has to take account of your emotional positions. It seems you are enacting the exact same, let's say, discontinuity in your position, that you outlined about moral relativists near the top of the post.
Quoting boethius
This is the childish mistake you are making. Your underlying point, I would reply to with "Yes. That's correct".
But the fact you've entered a value judgement on the part of your interlocutor is worrisome. I don't think it was laudable, or detestable. It happened. Does it make me, personally, extremely uncomfortable? Even repulsed? Yep. Which is probably what you want to know. But that's nothing but an emotional reaction to hearing certain information. For me that is absolute, in the sense that I can't, currently, feel another way. But that is a state of affairs. Not a moral claim.
Quoting boethius
Correct. No issues. It makes me uncomfortable. I have nothing to appeal to in telling them no to do it, other than the potential consequences for them - reason with them. Would I bother? Maybe. If i were uncomfortable enough.
Quoting boethius
I don't. I haven't presented any. You seem to be importing some upper-limit to your conceivable moral behaviour matrix and ascribing those limits to my position. I don't share them. I have limits of my comfort and pursuit of comfort occurs. These are arbitrary, as far as another person is concerned. But, by-and-large people share the same limits of comfort within a society, and so 'getting on with it' can occur without a shared 'moral' framework. This is, probably, what the West does well, compared with many other societies.
Quoting boethius
I don't, other than to say 'Well, this is what's going on". The norms are the norms and tell me about a collective emotional status of the society.
Quoting boethius
This one is troublesome because, prima facie, there shouldn't be. At least not beyond social consequences - which are pretty much arbitrary - and policy is just this, after collective deliberation. BUT, i would freely let you know that the idea of there being no consequences for certain actions makes me uncomfortable. Again, that's just a state of affairs. Not a moral claim. So, I dislike this, and it makes me uneasy, but I take it wholesale to be the case. Legal and social consequences are arbitrary, other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark.
Quoting boethius
I don't know. It might be. But this has nothing to do witht eh position. It's just another speculative state of affairs. I might not like that society. So what?
Quoting boethius
So, arbitrary proclamation served by a historical emotional attitude. Gotcha ;)
Quoting boethius
Please refrain from intimating that not sharing your position is somehow akin to be less developed. NOt becoming.
If that happens, it's perfectly acceptable. I don't think you're right, though. I didn't intimate that a society where no one performed duties would be good, or comfortable for me. I don't think anyone is obliged to do so and noted that we're lucky only humans are moral agents - this being because we appear to share the emotivist basis for our moral claims, being of the same species (I presume - brainstates being similar, or within a certain possible range)
Quoting boethius
I really don't know what you're referring to here. My position is as you stated, and nothing else. If i've intimated some other position, ignore it. I don't see that I have, though.
Quoting boethius
It isn't a difference at all. It was baked-in to what you had said - I've tried to clarify this earlier in this comment reply, so I shall leave this. But, prior to any addressing my response, this is just plain wrong in terms of my position. Quoting boethius
This is perfectly fine, but 'feeling a duty' doesn't mean on exists. That's a self-implication, and not at all a moral claim. I feel the duty not to let my sons die. That motivates me to act. I do not believe such a duty exists outside of what I just said about myself. If I cease to feel that way, the duty doesn't continue to obtain (well, sure, legally it does...)
Quoting boethius
Yes, it does. I understand what collective agreements are, and I see the consequences of not adhering to some of them. So I adhere to some of them, because I dont want the consequence. There is no duty to achieve it, it's what i want. But this isn't part of the discussion we're having. If I am right, then I am right. You need to explain cogent societies in my terms, rather than saying that my terms don't work because of a speculated failure.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
I reject, quite strongly, that incongruent suggestion. I don't think this is historically accurate or even reasonable. We've not really had these conversations without Divine intervention.
Quoting boethius
This is entirely wrong. I am concerned about the consequences, for myself. I don't care if it doesn't affect me. And if all the people involved have the same view I do, great!
Even if I did, I would not be int he free-riding group. That requires, on your own terms, that I hold hold absolute moral limits. I do not.
Quoting boethius
Not at all. If you've conflated them, or I've misspoken sure. I have been very clear - neither issue changes the moral considerations I hold. There is no bait and switch. THe same reasoning holds for both. This may actually be what you're missing: If the collective emotional position on something is X, then policy will be X and that's fine. It's not a moral proclamation other than to say "most people here think this is wrong". Cool man. That's what actually happens in life. What do you think referenda are for?
Quoting boethius
That's true, but this is not synonymous with 'society' and says nothing about morality. Its a state of affairs. A small-enough society would not require this. If everyone's moral outlook aligns, no one sacrifices. They are all doing what is right, on their own terms, to protect that society. This is exactly what I am discussing as is the case. This goes directly to the heart of my position: That whicih makes one uncomfortable, one would avoid. If one is comfortable with the duty to defend one's country, at extreme risk, then great. No sacrifice made. You are doing the correct thing, in your own terms, making you comfortable. Your life isn't a sacrifice in this context. It would be for me, because I don't owe that duty (on my terms, that is).
Quoting boethius
Any case I can't think of where this is actually true (rare) yep. That's fine. Don't see the issue. Quoting boethius
Unless what you're trying to say is that any individual who comprises a collective has no self interest what do you think the Collective interest is? What does it consist in? Purely the survival of the collective? That can't be right. I hear you, and Im not muddling the two 'interests' up here, I just cannot work out how you're getting 'collective' interest abstracted from the interest of the collected individuals. Emergence doesn't seem to me to be apt for that.
Quoting boethius
Yep ahah agree there. Goes to the above retort about collective interest (what even is that?). Getting a little confused with how some of these responses run in to each other.. .
Quoting boethius
Is not a collective in this sentence. It is merely a number of individuals pursuing their self-interests . You are arguing against something I did not say. The 'critical mass' is not intended to 'represent' society. It is just more than 50% of the individuals within it (or, whatever the critical mass would be for the moral outlook of the society to change). It doesn't speak about any collective interest. But also, I don't care. Taken in your terms, the rest of the quote defeats the objection anyway. That possibility is so incredibly infintessimal I can't take it seriously. No significant portion of any society will start raping and pillaging because there are no laws. But if they did, fine.
Quoting boethius
This seems to indicate you are now just making things up about my positions? I recognise nothing of myself here. I don't see that hyte problem needs solving. If enough people want it solved, nice. Im in that camp.
Quoting boethius
I read this quote (what you quoted of me) and it made me cringe. I reject that entirely. I think it is the way things are. I do not think it is a requirement. I was wrong to say that and entirely reject it now. Not sure how I came to type that though. It is not my position. I may have been saying that this is what Western Culture requires, absolutely. Idk. But its wrong on my account anyway. The discussion didn't 'come' there, anyway. That's clearly antithetical to everything else i've said.
Quoting boethius
We don't. But i apologise for the waste of time this last part has been for you.
Quoting boethius
Correct. That is the end of my direct replies, because the rest rely on the above being my position, which I hope is now clear, it is not. I misspoke and I'm sorry you went to the effort of responding to something that, fairly, would have appeared to be bad-faith. Aside from direct responses...
If it hasn't become obvious by this stage, let me spell one thing out that might be a puzzle piece objectors look for, and can't find:
We have good reason to enact the rules and laws that we do to achieve stated aims. Agreement gives us this reason. Does it oblige us? No. But that doesn't mean that agreement, while i surives, isn't a good reason to act. It states aims. Those aims being arbitrary doesn't negate that we have collectively deliberated and agreed to certain things. We need not consider them 'duties' but 'rules'. Arbitrary, subject to change, but, regardless, they are the rules. I don't see how this isn't 'good enough' to be getting on with. We don't need morally-perfected concepts to get here. Its a hodge-podge. Why's that a problem? We simply do not need morality to do these things 'well' in the sense of achieving stated aims.
Quoting Marjorie Taylor Greene · Apr 5, 2024
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1776282144416972941[/tweet]
So they just clinched a Biden win in Arizona. Cool. :up:
Unfortunately.
He won Arizona in 2020.
:ok: A+
I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.
You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.
But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.
Clear enough? Cool.
11April24 ("4-11")
Today in Trumpenfreude:
Given that over 60% of the electorate (re: 2020 & 2022 elections) are women AND that Criminal Defendant-1 & his MAGA-GOP circus clowns are campaigning on a promise to implement a nationwide "Federal Abortion Ban" (including e.g. The 1873 Comstock Act by presidential executive order) in stark contrast to pro-choice President Biden and the Dems' campaign promise to pass a nationwide "Federal Right to Choose Law", [b]we anti-fascists have to thank ...
SCOTUS[/b] (Catholic right wing, MAGA majority) for overturning Roe v Wade in 2022 and thereby
(1) depriving over half of the US population and electorate Constitutional protections of access to safe, reproductive healthcare that also permits (so far 17) states to ban abortion (even without medical exceptions) and to criminally prosecute both women seeking to terminate pregnancies and their doctors et al
(2) causing GOP to underperform in 2022 midterms losing instead of gaining the US Senate and gaining only 9 out of projected 20-30 House seats to make their "red tsunami" into a "red ripple" ... and
(3) causing MAGA-GOP in 2022 to lose anti-abortion ballot measures in Kansas, Kentucky, & Montana, failed to even get on the ballot in Oklahoma and then, in 2023, failed to stop a pro-choice state constitutional amendment from passing in Ohio – all ruby red states with majorities of trumpers, evangelicals, "poorly educated" rural blue collar white men and women.
thank Arizona (swing state) for total abortion ban
thank Florida (barely red state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks
thank North Carolina (swing state) for pro-"abortion ban" and pro-"repeal women's right to vote" MAGA-extremist candidate for governor
thank Georgia (swing state) for total abortion ban after 6 weeks
thank Nevada (barely blue state) for pending pro-choice ballot measure to amend state constitution
thank Pennsylvania (swing state) for pending anti-abortion ballot measure to amend state constitution
for mobilizing
Almost All Liberal,
Most Moderate &
also Many Conservative
Woman Voters which, IMO, increases the likelihood of a *blowout* worse than 2020 and reelection of Biden-Harris along with the Dems holding the US Senate, regaining the US House and, at least, 1 governorship (re: North Carolina). :clap: :mask: :party:
addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894200
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890076
Can a brutha get an AMEN?! :sweat: :up:
@Benkei @jorndoe @Wayfarer @jgill @Fooloso4 @Mikie et al
Quoting Wayfarer
Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion.
Quoting ssu
Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong:
AMEN. But I still ain't placing any bets.
:lol:
Now that's the spirit!!!
I hope you’re right. I’m not so convinced about the senate though.
We definitely agree on this point so I will try to synthesize the debate so far as well as transcribe some key passages of MacIntyre.
My position is essentially MacIntyre's position except with a Kantian "boost" as it were to upgrade some of his claims to categorical imperatives.
For example, MacIntyre doesn't like manipulative social relationships, I would simply upgrade that not-liking to a categorical imperative: we can disagree, we can be at odds, we can compete in different contexts, we can try to convert each other to our own view, we can fight, we can come to blows, maybe even kill each other to resolve our differences, but I view it as a categorical imperative not to manipulate you; i.e. deceive you into acting against your own objectives by making you believe falsehoods (which is not required for coercion, which I still view as necessary for society to function, but we can be coercive without being manipulative), which of course is Kant's central thesis: treat people as ends in themselves, as echoes in many religions: do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
That being said, MacIntyre's description of contemporary Western society and how we got here and where it's headed, and his own proposed program I fully agree with; it's all quite brilliant so I will try to do my best in finding the best passages to present it.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have not yet really presented MacIntyre's argument, but his starting point is exactly that you need a moral tradition in which moral ideas and decisions even have meaning, and it only from the standpoint of one tradition that it is even possible to comprehend the claims of another tradition; one can not be traditionless. I'm not sure that's exactly compatible with "obtains only between the margins of those frameworks", but we can get into that when I make a thread presenting MacIntyre's After Virtue positions.
Quoting AmadeusD
As mentioned, the purpose of developing the social consequences is claritive.
All these sorts of questions are with the purpose of understanding your position.
As you may appreciate, a significant amount of moral-relativists (whether emotivist or straight nihilists or some other flavour) essentially operate by "grandfathering in" a long list of moral rules and social opinions that they take for granted. The fact that in normal situations it's "off limits" to advocate those positions (such as torturing children) they take to mean it's therefore off limits as criticism (i.e. that they are only defending what is already socially acceptable); however, if someone makes the claim "there are no moral obligations whatsoever" of then "all moral positions are as good as another" what's entailed by that is there is no moral obligation to not torture babies nor interfere with someone so engaged.
Quoting AmadeusD
I strongly disagree here; thought experiments are the primary tool of developing a moral theory.
Of course, I understand you would want to avoid that if you're theory is simply based on spontaneous emotional reaction to situations that arise ... but one such situation that arises is someone putting to you a thought experiment in which you'll have an emotional reaction too.
However, the examples I've provided are not even really thought experiments, they are real examples: people really do torture, murder, rape, extort and take bribes.
Quoting AmadeusD
It is not a mistake if a question is honest and not a criticism.
It is not a gotcha. If you propose no moral claim is better than another and are willing to "pay the cost" as MacIntyre says about people who take this to it's logical conclusion, then the debate would proceed from there.
Of course, in normal society a debate is "won" when a proponent (from their point of view of course) leads a position to a conclusion which society already disagrees with (at least in their opinion), ideally some taboo (such as Nazis and pedophiles and so on). But of course, even if those premises are all correct, it simply begs the question of whether "society" really is correct about that moral position. Maybe Nazis were right after all.
An authentic criticism would thus require an actual justification that society is correct on that particular point to form a sound and valid argument.
Which I have not done yet, as I want to fully understand your position before critiquing it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well this is quite important to know in order to understand your point of view.
Quoting AmadeusD
We certainly agree it is better to avoid the situation, but the issue is what duty does the surgeon have to the patient.
In a world of no duties, then the surgeon has no duty to perform the surgery to the best of their ability and obviously until completion.
Obviously in our society the surgeon would be convicted of gross negligence and likely murder, but that process is completely predicated on society's existing belief the surgeon has a duty to perform the contractual engagement, perform as best he can, and certainly "do no harm". However, if the truth is there is no duties then there's no foundation upon which society could legitimately demand any of this and no way to maintain a system (with detectives, prosecutors, judges all performing their duties) to enforce accountability to those demands.
Quoting AmadeusD
Obviously we both prefer no one to be needlessly harmed, so we agree on what is preferable.
The disagreement is on whether what's preferable can also be morally obligatory.
Your view is quite clear on this topic.
It will take another thread to actually critique your view.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Again, just trying to understand your position.
All the duties I will argue along with MacIntyre are real actual duties ultimately aim to continue humanity.
If you're ambivalent to the continuation of humanity then that is likely the very heart of the difference.
Quoting AmadeusD
My points were derived from what many moral relativists do which is to deny there are any moral truths (in one way or another) but then continuously argue that society will continue on being "good", which makes no sense if there is not good and bad.
All points of mine on this theme is not only in relation to what moral relativists usually do, but also people in general in Western society: moral relativists language is used to avoid criticism of one's own actions ("don't criticize my diet I can eat what I want!! It's my life!!"), while moral absolutist language is used to criticize opponents ("I condemn my political opponents!! This is a violation!!").
Now clearly this doesn't apply to you, but I spent some time on this post to be sure of it as well as for the benefit of anyone following our discussion.
Quoting AmadeusD
We definitely agree here.
Quoting AmadeusD
We definitely will need to go deeper in another thread, so we can maybe return to this point and contrast framings.
Quoting AmadeusD
Again, I'm asking a question to better understand.
But as with above, if you're not arguing for some sort of market utopia but we just ignore the initial distribution of wealth, then this isn't too relevant to you.
I've argued a lot with libertarians so all these points are easy to retrieve from memory. However, if you're not a libertarian then markets, today or in the past, isn't really a core issue of contention. However, I have also been thinking of a thread critiquing Western imperialism (as a lot of the differences in other political threads basically come down to "Western imperialism good or bad"), so taking up Heydel-Mankoo would perhaps be more relevant there.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, you may reevaluate your position on MacIntyre after debating the specifics.
MacIntyres historical account is not one of individual political agency, in which case definitely most people have very little and certainly don't perceive themselves as involved in politics (although I would strongly disagree they are not actually involved); he is more concerned with how the moral frameworks in which the political debate of the day occurs develop and are changed. These more fundamental moral changes are mostly a critical mass issue, often happening against the will of the elites; an example of this sort of major change is the reformation.
From this perspective, normal people under feudalism would perceive themselves and be perceived as having even less political involvement that normal people now in Western society, but then they start to rebel against the Catholic Church and consequences are profound. The reformation was certainly not the Catholic Church's idea, nor would it have worked if it was just "an idea" a few intellectuals and nobles had; normal people getting involved, taking significant risks, was absolutely fundamental. This sort of change is what MacIntyre is more concerned with.
Quoting AmadeusD
Certainly has happened until now.
What I am claiming is bold is that ridiculous levels of political stupidity do not now pose an existential risk to humanity. Of course, if you are unconcerned about humanity continuing, as you say above, then seems an irrelevant point to you either way.
Quoting AmadeusD
These points are in relation to your criticism of my claim that Western society is failing.
There is definitely an objective measures of social success, such as people having enough to eat and society at least continuing.
Objective and quantifiable.
You may have no problem with society ending, but I don't see why you wouldn't agree that would indeed be society failing in whatever it was trying to do.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then you are using the word success in pretty unusual way.
In its usual meaning, success requires some goal which requires some moral framework to formulate.
Your intuitive-spontaneous moral framework is still a moral framework from which you derive your objectives.
Quoting AmadeusD
Seems incongruous to laud Western society in one place and then claim is has no goal or aim in another.
But again, if society destroys itself that is clearly failing.
Your position seems to be that you're fine if it fails as well as humanity as a whole, simply fails and comes to an end.
To argue the more fundamental point that we have a duty to try to avoid humanity failing, will of course take another more dedicated thread to elaborate the argument.
However, my point here is that the assumption that Western society, humanity as a whole, will simply muddle on is a false one; society can end and so cease to muddle.
Quoting AmadeusD
It's good to see you are advanced enough in understanding your own position to realize it is inconsistent.
And this would be the fundamental moral duty I would put forward: a duty to try to be consistent.
Now, if you are committed to an inconsistent position there is not "arguing against you" per se as you can simply be comfortable with any inconsistency, comfort is your guide, and so there is no problem.
So, perhaps at best we can exchange views, but you clearly like to argue so with enough of it perhaps you simply become uncomfortable with inconsistencies and so convert to my avoid-inconsistencies moral code.
Quoting AmadeusD
Since we've already established you aren't concerned with social consequences, these considerations aren't so relevant.
However, in your framework people can obviously conscript other people and force them to fight at the end of a gun, if they're comfortable doing that.
My goal here is not to debate conscription (I happen to be also against conscription, though not against taxing people who do not server higher for life, to avoid the free rider problem), but again to simply understand your position.
The underlying purpose of questions on this theme is your view of the state. Seems clear you're ambivalent, and don't really care what happens to the state, which is very much compatible with being ambivalent to what happens to society as such.
Quoting AmadeusD
My questions and examples are the logical enquiries.
If someone says they don't view any act as morally better than another, then before debating first principles I want to be sure they really are taking that view.
If you're ambivalent to anyone doing anything at all, just more comfortable with some happenings over others but that's just you're own feeling of comfort and doesn't give rise to any moral claims (including claims about conscription for example), then I want to be sure you really are ambivalent.
As I've mentioned, most people who use moral relativist language are not actually moral relativists, they still want to condemn Hitler and assume that's given to them: but obviously it's not, if no one is right or wrong, Hitler is as right as anyone else.
Quoting AmadeusD
I said "as laudable" to just mean they are equal (which you can say "equally good" or "equally bad").
Which seems very much your position, you have no particular gripe with Hitler and the Nazi project: happened, they were clearly comfortable with what they were doing so doing right by their own comfortableness (certainly comfortable enough to carry out their project).
Again, it's not childish, it's the adult question to ask: when someone says they see no better or worse morality, then clearly the obvious and logical point is make is that entails Nazism is thus no better or worse than any other ism.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is exactly why I develop the consequences of society changing its view of right and wrong, that "you shouldn't do X because society will hold you accountable and there will be consequences" is not a valid argument.
When you say "consequences for them" clearly the negative consequences to serial killing personally to the serial killer would be getting caught. But why would anyone catch you if no one thinks serial killing is bad?
Quoting AmadeusD
You just rejected, above, any measure of success or failure in evaluating societies, but say here that Western society does something well. You just said Western society has no goal.
However, it's simply wrong that there is no shared moral framework.
There's a shared core moral framework: such as serial killing is evil and justifies a very large effort in stopping, law enforcement shouldn't take bribes and so on.
It is this core moral framework that is overwhelmingly dominant that allows Western society to function (at least until now and certainly for at least some time further).
Obviously you are well aware of the reaction to serial killing or child torturing of the vast majority of people: that their position is that it's an absolute moral wrong, evil, must be stopped and transgressors put away for some time. Likewise, the reaction to a judge taking a bribe.
This is a shared moral framework.
Of course, even if there's an absolutely dominant consensus on some core values that make civil society possible, there can be visceral disagreements on less-core things, such as abortion. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, society does not simply all apart (such as if murder was made legal).
Where society can afford to muddle is in policy choices that are not existential to the formation of civil society or then any society at all.
Quoting AmadeusD
Your position is getting pretty confusing to me.
In some places you seem to hold a total ambivalence to what happens and are not concerned with the social consequences whatsoever, and not only are you unconcerned for what happens to society but there is no way to measure the success of society as such (you're ambivalent to society succeeding or failing and moreover assert there is no measure of success or failure anyways), and in other places you seem to argue society, in particular Western society, is doing well.
You seem, at least give the vibe, of being pleased with Western social norms.
Quoting AmadeusD
Again, arbitrary is a strong word, even your framework is not arbitrary but founded on your spontaneous sense of comfort.
Social consequences are also clearly even less arbitrary. The consequence of going to prison for murder is not arbitrary; if you can just get what you want by killing who you want when you want, then society quickly ceases to function much at all (certainly nothing remotely close to Western society is feasible if murder is permissible).
Likewise, claiming "other than that they meet a collective emotional benchmark" is another way of saying they aren't arbitrary.
Now, it will take another thread to develop an alternative position to your view. To broadly describe it, I will be arguing that emotions are not foundational. For example, even in your own system you are clearly making the claim that "you should do what you're comfortable with"; there's a logical moral structure you're ignoring that takes emotions as inputs and is not therefore by definition itself emotional. However, this would be simply a starting point.
There is not enough space here even to finish responding to your points, so I will have to in another comment.
No amen yet. Still hoping for a different Dem ticket. "Surge the Border Biden" deserves defeat.
Yeah, good.. and fair enough. I reject the categorical imperative, which will do some heavy lifting in justifying my responses further down the post. This is not to say that I think employing hte categorical imperative is erroneous. I think it is inadequate and necessarily simplistic - to a level lower than required to cover actual behaviour.
Quoting boethius
I do not. People can have objectives against their own interest, and I do not think any obligations prevents us from acting on our own intuitions around that. I don't think we have any obligation to do so, but if someone who suffers from sexomania (lets assume that's a real thing) is going around 'harming' others, my discomfort with seeing that happen will motivate me to stop them. This is me enacting a private moral opinion publicly.
But, I accept that if humans were on-the-whole less capable of assessing this, viz we had some chaotic, inconsistent system of analysis whether mentally ill people should handle their own affairs, and this resulted in huge amounts of 'harm' in the way noted above, my position might be different. To me, the facts matter. There aren't principles that can be universally applied.
Quoting boethius
Personally, coercion seems on the whole a worse way to deal with things. At least lying to someone accepts what you're doing on it's face. I can't see how these would be morally different on a Kantian framework. But, he accepted lying is possibly acceptable in some circumstances, but wasn't too direct about it.
Quoting boethius
This is, to my mind, someone pretending their doing something other than trying to convince others of their own values. One can certainly be traditionless on my view. Assuming the bolded is to me read "It is only from..." I think thats absurb, on its face, and upon reflexion. We can understand the solar system from teh confines of the surface of hte Earth.
Quoting boethius
I tend to not see this in anyone who has reviewed their positions, but in the general population, yes, that's pretty common.
Quoting boethius
absolutely. And, i think the important aspect in the problem you're outlining is a lack of review/reflection. I think it would be hard to miss these complete contradictions upon reflection.
Quoting boethius
My view is that they are helpful in getting the discussion going, but serve no real purpose in ascertaining the 'real' moral position one might have. One can make whatever claims they like when not faced with the position their advocating for in real life.
Quoting boethius
They do. I take those as thought experiments, nonetheless. I accept that they aren't particularly interesting in terms of 'experiment' but giving real-life examples that do not pertain to me is still, I think a thought experiment. I have to think about it, not remember.
Quoting boethius
I'm unsure these two can go together. Duties in pursuit of that aim? IF that's the inference, yes, sure, that's the position I am essentially saying morality comes down to. Choose an aim, and run with it from there. This is the 'one free miracle' i've, other places, spoken of. Choose your aim, and the math works from there.
Quoting boethius
Hmm, perhaps i'm not quite getting how you mean mistake. I think you have erred. Dishonesty not required for that. Just, mistake heh.
Quoting boethius
Yes. I think this agreement is viable as a means for organising society. There's no obligation to do so , but when most people agree on the above, we can come to terms, as they say and write legislation. When everyone agrees, it seems irrational rather than 'wrong' not to do what everyone is agreeing to. It seems natural, not obligatory. I think this is hte real reason for the success of society, in self-survival as it were. To that aim, we're going pretty well by my lights.
Quoting boethius
Precisely why I think the above is the case.
Quoting boethius
I agree, and think this is true. However, I am quite happy most people share the same sort of discomfort with neglect as I do. I have no right to will others do so, though, and if this were not the case I do not believe I could change my moral position that people should share that position. But, I like it, as is.
Quoting boethius
Whatever one he has internally assented to. I think you are able to oblige yourself to your own intentions. This doesn't seem to me the same thing as expecting something from someone else. I expect that I will not tap out simply because I'm out of breath in a Jiu jitsu round. I stick to this. It's a obligation i put on myself. If i do not meet this obligation, I deal with it. There's no moral valence imo.
Quoting boethius
Agree. And think this is the case. We are mistaking common agreement, for obligation.
Quoting boethius
ambivalent is probably an unfair framing here. I care. It matters to me (though, in an expected way im sure) - but I don't think anyone else should, or needs to share my opinion (for their sake, it may be better that they dont (this will make sense if you ask what my position is lol)).
Quoting boethius
For sure. That's almost all he's relevant for, publicly speaking.
Quoting boethius
I will forego responding to all of what this relates to, but yes, I think that's the case. Nonetheless, really appreciate your elucidations.
Quoting boethius
I may be missing a trick - the underlined seems to imply this issue is irrelevant to any moral outlook? Was there a typo there?
Quoting boethius
For sure, and I suppose this would be 'my version of moral progress' in action, in that its purely a mechanism of common agreement. You could, here, employ 'empathy' as the guiding light. But due to trauma, and the way my mind works, I suffered from sociopathy for several years. I could not accept the above, at that time, and it would be very very strange to say that the rest of society had a right to enforce that norm on me. Apart from anything, 'ought' always has to imply ' could' - and I 'couldn't'. I was lucky in that it was transitive. Most sociopaths are not this lucky.
Quoting boethius
That (and others, obviously) parameter is measurable, and if the bold is your aim it measures success. But consider a society with an aim that can be completed. To reforest a certain portion of hte Earth's surface. What's the use of society beyond that completion? I think it is irrational to have an aim which is forever changing, unless we're going to accept that morality has nothing to do with it. More below..
Quoting boethius
I havent used it. That's what Im asking you to point out. THis response seems to be senseless in terms of what I've said to you here.
Quoting boethius
Consider, again, a society with a time-restricted aim. The World Lover's Society of 1999. Once it flips over to 2000, the aim is complete, and society no longer has a moral, or practical aim. And it seems to me irrational to claim that a society can have a indeterminate aim, yet be beholden to it. If you're saying merely survival of the society is the aim, how you do deal with evolution of societies? Is British society now inherently different in a way that matters from British society circa 1823? It is the same society, no? But wait... they had entirely different Moral precepts to current British Society. Heck, that's true of 1920s British society vs now. How does this sit? I'm not trying to imply much here. Just curious.
Quoting boethius
This is wrong. And you seem to have misread the quote you have used.
Quoting AmadeusD
I believe it is. This, though, In light of the fact I actually reject something I said earlier. Once that's taken into account, no inconsistencies that I can ascertain.
Quoting boethius
Roughly, but obviously I wont be 'fine'. I'll just 'not be'. No valence, again, to have a moral view on. Things end all the time. Humanity is not special.
Quoting boethius
It is quite alright to claim this. I don't think I can argue with it as stated. But it is a non-static framework, if so. This is novel, and so I find it hard to believe it could be consider among other frameworks. It doesn't operate the same way. I reject that there are moral facts, or propositions apt for truth claims.
Quoting boethius
To me, that's nonsensical. Obviously, I don't accept that there are moral duties. C'est la vie, :)
Quoting boethius
I am not. In any way. I have no idea where you've come up with that. That comfort is the guide, in all cases, is what the consistency consists in( Hehe. that was a great sentence). To clear, I care about things, and people. I do not, though, think this matters to anyone else. And morally, I don't think it can. I think people, under their framework, insist this is true. But, that is not true. It is a requirement of their framework only. That choice, though, is arbitrary (or, as I posit, and stand by - it is informed by their comfort level with said framework).
Quoting boethius
I like to discuss. Arguments suck. And I already meet you criteria :)
Quoting boethius
This is not quite coherent. Ambivalence has to do with valence, not morality. Ambivalence would indicate i have conflicting feelings about whatever it is. Sometimes, this true. Mostly, it is not. I have a clear feeling and emotional response. This does not give rise to any moral position and they aren't particularly connected, unless you accept that people's emotional response to situations is what, without some intervening reasoning, informs their morals. That is my position, because most people have never even tried to review their moral positions outside of the 'moment'. The 'moment' is clearly an emotional one.
Quoting boethius
He's not to me, but I agree. There is no way to understand that anything he did is actually worse in any objective sense, without a particular aim (not killing people, for instance - which it can be very hard to walk back from, when it is such a deeply-held intuition that one ought not do this. But I do).
Quoting boethius
If so, fair enough. Laudable infers praise, above ambivalence (hehehe). This is also most often, and most apt applied to aims and desires, not states of affairs. So, I see a number of inconsistencies in your language at this stage.
Quoting boethius
This is a little bit misleading. I can have opinions on other people's opinions. But they do not relate to anything but my opinion of those opinions. This may be hard to follow, but it is consistent. I can think what I want. That means nothing about whether those other people are right or wrong in their actions, or thoughts. I am extremely uncomfortable with the Nazi project. I do not believe I have the right to insist they are wrong. I can insist, and attempt to reason with them, that their project is ill-conceived. Luckily, they had specific aims to which I could relate these reasons. This is a mechanistic conversation at that stage, not a moral one. If you have aim A, regardless of its morality, you can do 1, 2 or 3 and they will have different outcomes, corresponding to different degrees of success toward your arbitrary aim. This is not inconsistent with my position.
Quoting boethius
I can't quite grasp what you're saying here - the sentences don't quite string together - so apologies if I get something wrong:
This would be the only possible public notion I could appeal to in trying to change anyone's behaviour or views. And I might do this, If i were uncomfortable enough. "Oh dad, please don't kill the dog. You will probably be arrested and charged. That would suckfor you". But that is speculation, unfortunately. 50/50 whether anyone would care what I've got to say. Maybe less.
Quoting boethius
Because they're uncomfortable, and erroneously think that gives them the right to do stuff to other people. Nothing stopping them either, but this would motivate them to do it.
Quoting boethius
"getting on with it" is no a goal. It is a fact of the society i am observing. We 'get on with it' to degrees of success higher than other societies. We also produce more single-use plastics. Nothing in that suggests a moral valence or social goal. I also didn't reject that the West has a social goal. I'm trying to tease out what your aim is, in instantiating your moral outlook. It seems you're not able to necessarily lay that out.
Quoting boethius
It is not. The quote directly after this shows why. YOu have confused some facts about people's emotional reactions to events, and 'morality'. You are, slowly, sliding into accepting that people's emotions are their moral framework.
Quoting boethius
It can afford it anywhere. It seems this is an indication of where you would become uncomfortable, if society did this. That's fine, and again, exemplifies the above assertion.
Quoting boethius
This is entirely wrong, and all the reasons why have been canvassed through the above responses.
You've used ambivalence incorrectly. I am not ambivalent. I have levels of comfort and discomfort which I clearly apprehend - making ambivalence not possible. I will ignore this subsequently.
UNderline: Entirely false. Not sure where that's come from. I've been extremely clear that I, personally, care about what happens to society. I think society is nice. It is what it is, and I like how its going (in the West). This does not give you the correct ammunition for the assertions here. The only thing I have said Western society does well, was pursuant to a specific, arbitrary aim. This is not inconsistent in any way with the rest of what i've said.
Quoting boethius
No, it's not. It's just naming hte arbitrary benchmark used. The benchmark is arbitrary. It's results are just so.
Quoting boethius
Absolutely not. I am saying i should do what I am comfortable with. It does not pertain, or have anything to do with anyone else. This seems to be a misapprehension you are making quite often here. It is wrong.
Some of you responses are really confusing, in the sense that you directly contradict things i've said int he quotes you've used. Interesting... Till the next one!!
:rofl:
Hint: Who do you think he voted for in 2020? :mask:
Haha— never heard that one before. Made me chuckle a little, especially after just watching the Godfather.
I don't think they ask WWJD because they think they know what Trump has done, will do, and what has been done to him. While they may not regard him as The Messiah the do believe his is a messiah and like all messiahs persecuted by the enemies of God.
NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:
26March24 – $57.99 per share :gasp:
15April24 – $26.61 per share :down:
Or perhaps the only apparent option to remove the Biden cabal. Don't forget, Joe told immigrants to "Surge the Border", and gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban - where recently the supreme Poohbah stated he is bringing back stoning certain women to death.
Quoting Tzeentch
Looks like we're still on.
The US may appear reprehensive about a war with Iran on the surface, but the truth is that they have been planning for such a war since at least 2009.
It wouldn't be the first time Israel drags the US into a war, and I can assure you that Israel has a lot more reason to want to do so today than it had back in 2003.
[quote=Kamala Harris, VPOTUS] All across the country ... These are
Trump abortion bans.[/quote]
Do you remember the "red tsumani" that didn't happen in 2022? :mask:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573
There may be some who feel this way, but this does not obviate the fact that there are Evangelical Christians who see him as a messiah in a battle that is playing out on a cosmic scale of the end times.
16April24 – $22.84 per share
I watched the video, and read the Brookings report. The person in the video grossly misrepresents the report. Brookings does not state a plan, it lists options - and identifies potential negative and positive consequences of each. The author's premise is that there is some secret plan to go to war with Iran, and he interprets points in the Brookings document to in light of this premise. The fact that certain events have unfolded with some of the anticipated consequences is a testament to Brookings' analysis, not an implication that one particularly nefarious path has been chosen by the US, among all the permutations of paths outlined by Brookings.
I thought he represented the report splendidly.
Whilst Trump only told the Proud Boys to storm the Capital building. Biden is obviously by far the greater miscreant.
It'll be interesting to see how the funding s***fight unspools on Saturday. 'Moscow Marge' is going all in for Putin. If she rolls Johnson there's a possiblity the house will end up with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. That ought to learn 'em. :rofl:
@jgill
What's starting in Australia?
Well, James Lankford, a Republican senator, worked with a bi-partisan committee to come up with a solution to stop the flow, including many of the measures the Republicans had been demanding for years. And Donald Trump ordered that they drop it, before even debating it on the Senate Floor, because if it were implemented, it might work, and it would make Joe Biden look good. And the Republican Party acceeded to his request, of course, meaning the problem isn't solved, so that people, like those on Internet Forums, can go on blaming Joe Biden for it.
It's here that the question of democracy becomes muddied. If actions are done not for the people but for the sake of power and winning elections, then there's no true representative democracy anymore, but a pseudo-democracy.
The need to simplify everything down to calling pseudo-democracies real democracies because people seem to be unable to understand what is and what isn't a true democracy makes it impossible to progress past the problems of these kinds of pseudo-democracies.
The US is just a patch work of a democracy, barely on the side of being for the people, mostly just operating under similar ideals as religious fundamentalistic nations around the world; probably the only nation working under Christian fundamentalism in the world, and it infects their democracy and produces demagogues and pseudo-democratic practices.
The WA GOP put it in writing that they’re not into democracy
[sup]— Danny Westneat · The Seattle Times · Apr 24, 2024[/sup]
Maybe? I've seen worse. Besides ...
The Seattle Times: mediabiasfactcheck, adfontesmedia, biasly
Not really, those are your words.
For one, some ? all.
For another, they're squabbling over ehh "taboo words". :zip: :lol:
Quoting 2024 WSRP Resolutions Page 2 of 15
John Adams is quoted but his position if far more subtle than this naked attempt at a power grab.
In John Adams' "Thoughts on Government" he asks:
and answers by:
That is, not by a political party but by those who are wise and good,.
He goes on to say:
If the people at large favor policies that are progressive and socialists then the Republicans are not representatives of the people.
Adams also says:
As the greatest leader of the Republican Party said, this nation is a government:
It is a mixed regime with elements of aristocracy and democracy.
Quoting https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/r/republic/summary-and-analysis/book-viii
In a letter to John Taylor he says:
The two parties at that time were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. He was a member of the Federalists. This would raise doubts for the those who wrote and supported the Republican resolution @jorndoe cited above, if only they knew where Adams stood.
According to his wife he was an avid reader of Plato, but I think his views on democracy were shaped in part by his own experience and observations regarding human nature. A Democratic republic differs from the Athenian democracy in important ways.
Young voters are part of Democrats’ natural base of support, but Biden is actually 11 percentage points behind Trump among young voters 18-34 in a head-to-head match in a CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released over the weekend.[/i]"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html
I always suspected young peoples' commitment to fighting climate change was paper thin. Drill, baby, drill.
@Relativist
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/02/us/biden-trump-campaign
So when he loses a clean election again (2020 was probably the most clean and fair in US history), and comes up with some nonsense reason to reject it — which is a given — despite being able to predict this 6 months out, his supporters will be right there with him and the media will be shocked at the fact that he won’t concede the loss.
It’s likely that he’ll make something up even if he wins, as he did in 2016 regarding the popular vote.
:death:
:fear:
So a complete ignoramus about this too. I’m shocked. :scream:
Trump’s own officials say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history
Mexico's elections are far securer than whatever has been happening the past years in Cheeseburgerland. The article is already wrong on the title, or Trump's officials.
Looking into the article, no such thing as "Trump officials" confirmed anything. It was Burgerland's election officials that did so, who happened to be under Trump administration because Trump was the current president.
I am not trying to have a discussion with you by the way, because you literally have no soul/subjectivity. I am just pointing it out in public.
Quoting Benkei
Vox isn't a source. Weren't you the same guy threatening terrorism in some other thread? Go drink your soy latte.
Edit: Yes, you were. Cringe.
Quoting Benkei
Q.e.d.
The rest is a red herring.
Repeating the same mistake again. We can go on infinitely.
Quoting Benkei
Not what that means. Turn off your brain from the debate-bro fallacy-spotter OCD.
No.
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
They were Trump officials.
Also:
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-01-10/trump-commision-on-election-integrity-found-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud
Back in 2018, when he also claimed there was widespread voter fraud. Which everyone with a brain cell knows is bullshit anyway.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/resources-voter-fraud-claims
Which is why Trump has lost literally every court case on this. It’s conjured out of thin air to excuse his loss, which he was telegraphing months in advance.
Again, quite shocking that one of our resident clowns is a believer in such stupidity. The general level of a mind that supports Trump, though…
Right. Just lazy, boring bullshit from people who feel obligated to talk when they both know nothing about the subject and have nothing interesting to contribute. But it makes them feel like they’re participating.
I laughed. A mixture of soy and political dopamine fuels the rage. One thing you won’t find is any principle.
True. Comparing Mexico to the Disunited States of Drag Kwain is so comedic that the thought ought to be laughed off and ignored.
These people literally have no soul. You think you are talking to a human being like oneself but it is a mindless automaton whose sole purpose is to slightly annoy you.
Quoting RogueAI
Where did you see me saying that? It is just that the statement that an election where thousands of tourists and dead people voted being the fairest and cleanest of all time is dumb. But again, his purpose on Earth is to be mildly annoying through stupidity.
After this Palestine thing dies off (like Ukraine did, that thread is very dead), watch him support the new Twitter-approved opinion. 100% guaranteed. It is basically a dumb Python script with an in-built LLM.
:rofl:
Not a shred of evidence; not one reference. But yeah, Vox is the problem.
Your deep mental absence forces you to ask to be spoonfed instead of looking obvious stuff up yourself.
Obvious on 4Chan; delusional in the real world.
https://apnews.com/article/elections-arizona-donald-trump-phoenix-government-and-politics-e11fb4726ee010e4d031a63acff939cd
Same is true in Georgia, Michigan, and nationally. Voter fraud — of any kind — is extremely rare. Despite your idiotic claims.
“Just Google it, it’s so obvious” = not a shred of evidence, not one reference.
You’re embarrassing.
It used to present some good journalism. It no longer does.
Your response just tells me how tribal you must be at-base.
Bringing up 4chinz doesn't make you web-savvy anymore, normie.
Quoting Mikie
"Hurpt durpt I looked up the first article that confirms my views therefore I am right". It surprises me you even completed Middle School. But when it came to my attention that your schooling systems teaches sex fluidity before Europe not being a country and writing skills, it is unshocking that you graduated. The perfect cosmopolitan drone to send taxes to Israel and eat grass.
Yes, just one dead voter lol
Quoting Mikie
Voter fraud that is caught is extremely rare, which is a given in your failed State.
:rofl:
Oh I see. So there’s “obvious” widespread voter fraud— but no evidence of it because it’s never caught, despite Trump and his idiotic followers like you screaming about fraud for years and more intense scrutiny on voting than ever before. But we know there is, because Trump says so. So it’s obvious. No need for evidence — we can “feel” it.
No surprise you hold yet another stupid, stupid position. And why you still cannot provide one shred of evidence. Are you a Creationist as well?
Quoting Deleted user
:chin: This was almost coherent. Almost.
Keep taking your English-as-second-language courses though. You’re doing great. :up:
Quoting Deleted user
“Like it is.”
:rofl:
In other words: “I find this obvious because of a feeling I picked up somewhere from 4Chan about trans kids or something.”
Morons: “except for the THOUSANDS of dead voters and tourists and immigrants!”
What evidence? None, it’s just “obvious.”
Did it affect the election? No, not saying that.
Apparently some people need a course in probability and statistics.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/widespread-election-fraud-claims-by-republicans-dont-match-the-evidence/
I guess 0.000096% is a lot when dealing in feelings. To the rest of the world, it’s not worth mentioning any more than the epidemic of getting stuck by lightning (which is more likely).
No, you didn't say it, but you're certainly insinuating something. Was Biden the rightful winner or not?
I am not insinuating, I am stating US elections are full of holes, 2020 included.
Quoting RogueAI
I don't know, I am not all-knowing, off the top of my head I would give 70% chance that he is. Poor guy still has dementia though, so it is not his merit.
You're stating that there have been a lot of US elections where there's a 30% chance massive fraud was involved in the outcome?
Let's go with this then. What does "full of holes" mean? Was there also only a 70% chance that Obama was the rightful winner in either of his elections?
The possibility of fraud, whether it is caught or not.
Quoting RogueAI
Dunno, didn't pay attention to that one. Obama won by a landslide (2008), so any fraud to secure such a win would be impossible not to expose. Were there also vote spikes late into the game in 2008? https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q304/
Quoting Deleted user
:rofl:
Is Biden actually an alien from Neptune? Don’t know…I’m not all knowing! I give it a 20% chance that he is. Because I read Twitter.
Quoting Deleted user
And then links to an article completely debunking the stupid, stupid claim that “vote spikes” (for both Trump and Biden) are somehow evidence of “fraud.”
What a complete embarrassment. But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant. It goes in line with…literally everything else you post.
That is your domain.
Quoting Mikie
You would have noticed I am aware of that and don't think vote spikes prove fraud if you weren't so quick to have oestrogen-filled hissy fits.
Quoting Mikie
I wonder whether you are so hysterical with people in real life. The answer obviously is no. TPF is your venting mechanism for having to deal with being 5 foot 5 in your town where the average male height is 6 feet, which is why you are so feminine (imagine using ellipsis!) and volatile when people disagree with you.
Speaking of, you sure enjoy talking about the climate with confidence. I take it you'd feel comfortable answering some basic questions about metereology and thermodynamics?
…
Quoting Deleted user
:lol: Not even aware we can go back and find what was said.
Quoting Deleted user
:lol:
The 4Chan incel mentality strikes again. Obsessed with goofy ideas of masculinity and their own latent homosexuality. Thank you for displaying your insecurities about your height and manliness. Keep up with those protein shakes.
Anyway— good job deflecting away from your imbecilic claims about voter fraud. Still waiting for the evidence…oh wait, it’s just “obvious.” Nevermind. :ok:
'MAGA communism' derided as 'deranged fringe movement' – but it's winning converts
[sup]— Travis Gettys · Raw Story · May 24, 2024[/sup]
It's almost like those guys make an effort to choose so that you can rely on choosing differently. :D
I guess their livelihoods are somewhat limited, comedic entertainment, run for office, ...
Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907663
2. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
3. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
4. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
5. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
6. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
7. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
8.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
9.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
10. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
11. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
12. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
13. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
14. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
15. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
16. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
17. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
18.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
19.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
20. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
21. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
22. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
23. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
24. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
25. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
26. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
27. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
28.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
29.Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
30. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
31. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
32. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
33. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1
34. Convicted Whiny Bitch Felon-1[/b]
Not playing on Fox Noise, OAN, RT, Alex Jones or anyother MAGA/Putin propaganda outlet:
:smirk: I'm fever dreaming ...
(1) After SCOTUS delay tactic decision to, in effect, kick "absolute immunity" pleading back down to the federal district court at end of June and sentencing drops on July 11 in NYC, Judge Chutkan in DC should revoke Convict-1's pre-trial release for violating its terms with 10 citations of criminal contempt of court and have Felon-1 sit in a Washington DC jail until his "January 6th Conspiracy" trial begins.
(2) "October Surprise": in a prime time televised press conference, POTUS should offer a full pardon to Convicted Felon-1 two weeks before the general election IFF Convicted Felon-1 admits his guilt for both sets of federal crimes in Washington DC and South Florida ... "so that the people, not the courts, can decide the election", etc. Of course, Loser-1 won't accept such a pardon – either way he'd lose more support on the margins, especially among Independent voters in several critical "swing states".
:victory: :cool:
Another excellent explainer by Vox. Goes to show how silly the US's system is.
It’s prices that matter to people, apparently— the cost of living. Not inflation, despite what’s claimed.
But mostly just media consumption shaping one’s feelings.
Would his SS protection be placed in his cell, also? :cool:
Must all be rigged, judge was a republican, we’re a banana republic, etc.
Oh wait…no one cares. And Joe Biden says he’ll respect the ruling.
Opinion | The shocking truth behind the GOP's MAGA lie machine (via msn)
[sup]— Thom Hartmann · Raw Story · Jun 19, 2024[/sup]
— the GOP lie that we’re in a recession (we’re in better shape, in most ways, than any time since the 1960s and inflation last month was zero while Ronald Reagan never got it below 4.1% in his entire eight years);
— Republican lies about crime being up (it’s down dramatically since Trump);
— their lies that “Democrats want elective abortion up to the moment of birth” (none have ever said that);
— Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump by “voter fraud”;
— GOP lies that the southern border is “wide open”;
— the Republican lie that Social Security is on the verge of bankruptcy and must be saved by privatization or benefits cuts;
— their vicious lie that queer people are pedophiles targeting America’s schoolchildren; and
— their NRA lie that more and more deadly guns will keep our kids safe.
[...]
Are we talking a "post-truth" type thing? (also 2024Apr18) A BS epidemic? :D
This concern was raised when Trump descended the golden escalator. He is a pathological liar. While it is true that all politicians lie, the extent of his lies is far beyond the norm. Backed by his red tie sycophants this became the new norm. He lies and they either support the lies, deny it said it, or claim that he meant something else. The distinction between true and false has not simply been blurred, it has been destroyed.
That certainly is older than Trump. The US has been plunging regions of the world into chaos over fabrications like it is the national pastime.
Opinion | A neuroscientist explains why stupidity is an existential threat to America (via msn)
[sup]— Bobby Azarian · Raw Story · Feb 20, 2023[/sup]
Cognitive neuroscientist explains why stupidity is an existential threat to America
[sup]— Bobby Azarian · Alternet · Feb 21, 2023[/sup]
(? Lauren Boebert is featured in photos :grin:)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/06/20/trump-rages-about-trash-fox-news-survey-showing-biden-winning/ :mask: :up:
https://youtu.be/lV_09uObx0I?si=84CpW1RX4Oq6nnQW
A reminder on the 2nd anniversary of SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573 :fire: :mask:
:cool: Dark Brandon's swing state BLOWOUT is coming in Roevember. "Be there, will be wild!"
Not that this should matter much, but such is the way of things.
[sup]— Lee Moran · HuffPost · Jun 27, 2024[/sup]
I guess the response would have been that she wouldn't accept the election not going her way? Already planned to cry "Rigged" in that case? Go Ferguson. :)
The Clown wins, no need to debate again this fall. He dodged a bullet. Biden campaign over-prepped POTUS to "debate" (pander to the base) rather than to take out The Clown (moving swing state independents toward Dems).
The one bit of good news is that this debate was really early (perhaps intentionally) and now that we see that Biden can't do it, there is enough time for a change in leadership. Literally anybody else would be better and likely win given how Trump is intensely disliked.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. Trump undoubtedly makes for better television, which is what counts, now that truth no longer matters. :brow:
There were fantasies some time ago for Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer to run on the Democratic ticket, as Mr and Mrs America.
Oh, I wish.....
(Newsom says he's sitting this one out and is anticipated to run in 2028. Except that, if Trump wins in 2024, there probably won't be an election in 2028, as Trump will have declared himself President for Life.)
That’s not going to happen. It’s bad enough that he’ll appoint more judges and trash the environment without making things up about what he’ll do.
Watch the 'we defeated Medicare' meme... :lol:
(addendum to )
Yeah, damn Dems fucked up bigly :shade:
Even so, Sleepy Joe at his worst is still a better candidate and a better POTUS than The Fascist Clown (aka "Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1").. :mask:
Sure, as a Californian I would vote for his campaign...
This is elderly abuse and more.
Mostly Joe himself because he's the only person on the planet insisting he's the "best person to beat Trump".
How is it possible that the dems have no other candidate that can just swoop in and take the reigns in a way that makes people actually hopeful about the future? Where there no other backup plan among the dems if Biden were to fail, go full demented or die?
Everything about US politics is just stupid. It's an entertainment machine. We have more presidents depicted in movies and television that acts better than what actually exists.
The US is a joke trying to act like adults in front of the world. Redo the entire political system, let intelligent philosophers and historians write a new constitution and rebuild a better nation. Right now it's just a patch-work of stupid interpretations of old politics, with a population who's suffering in both education, health and financial stability while at the same time being so indoctrinated into believing that the enlightened ghosts of the founding fathers inhabit the candidates running for president.
:vomit: Fire everyone, ban lobbyists and manipulating narcissists, hire intellectuals who are humble educated experts without any interest in prestige or glory; rebuild everything.
Who is the real president? Obama? Jill? This is a dangerous moment for the country. There is no one leading it, and now even the true believers have given up denying it. If there was ever to be an attack on the most powerful country on Earth or her allies, now is the time.
The Earth is under attack! :scream: ...
Jill has gone for a weekend at Bernie's!! :fire: :rage: :death:
Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps the cope is still going hard.
Biden could have been sucked into a black hole at any point of his presidency and it would have made close to zero difference in how the country is (mis)led. I am happy the Dems are in turmoil. They fully deserve that and more. But there is no new problem and no new solution.
:rofl:
If only this weren’t coming from a Trump bootlicker. Then it wouldn’t be so cringey and hilarious.
I admire the ability to see one phenomenon clearly and totally bury one’s head in the sand with another. Way to compartmentalize!
[tweet]https://twitter.com/VincentOshana/status/1806385043620905322[/tweet]
No, it was you. And you continue to do it. Which is why you’re a laughingstock.
But by all means carry on with your totally non-partisan views. :lol:
Oh dear. I’ve never claimed to be non-partisan. Meanwhile, you voted Biden and told people to vote for Biden. No need to pretend.
Yes— and they should again if the choice is between him and Trump. In fact, they should vote for a plastic bag over Trump. To those incapable of thinking outside political parties, I suppose this would mean I’m carrying water for the plastic bag — but who cares what bootlicking hacks think anyway?
The oestrogenic hissy fits are always impressive. How did this respectable xir (xem?) ever become mod?
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty.
:ok: :hearts:
Oh sure. Vote for cow manure over Trump, that's easy.
But what an embarrassment. Trump is just garbage, and Biden is senile. Hard to believe that out of so many people, these are the two that are forced on to the voters - though this applies more to Biden than Trump.
In any case, this performance will hurt Biden. Let's hope there's time for a miracle.
[deleted]
In the immediate aftermath the momentum for forcing Biden out felt overwhelming. But now with enough authority figures in the DNC rallying behind their man, it might be faltering a bit.
It would be a horrific mistake to keep Biden after last night. Already, he was one of the few candidates that could lose to Trump. He literally has no chance now, the optics were that bad, and fed right in to the very strong preexisting narrative that he is too old and feeble. My hope is that the next batch of poll numbers will be so bad that there will be no choice.
Shame on the Fucking DNC for cancelling primaries and foisting this "choice" on people.
Quoting Baden
Not their problem. Another 4 years of great donations where they can play "Resistance". They are not and cannot go anywhere, thanks to our totally broken electoral system. No, the problem is entirely ours.
.
Yes— the fact that we have a two party system sucks, and these two candidates suck. But the president doesn’t matter that much — his cabinet does.
Trump doesn’t know anything and his decisions are stupid and based on nothing but his “instincts,” which are dogshit when it comes to policy. Biden is a weak, tired, senile old man who doesn’t have the foggiest idea about what’s happening. But some of his cabinet and administrative appointments have been surprisingly good — at the FTC, EPA, and NLRB in particular. Even Gary Gensler at the SEC has made some admirable attempts at undoing Reaganite destruction.
So administration and policy matter, not the figurehead people vote for because he’s tall or you want to have a beer with him. And honestly, the debate was the worst performance I’ve seen in my life, but in a week no one will really care.
Biden will not be replaced. The DNC won’t do anything and Biden is too egotistical to back down. So they likely lose the election — but they probably would have even without a debate. He simply didn’t do enough and the compromises appealed to no one. Despite plenty of good things coming out of this administration, and a second Trump term likely being a death knell for the environment (and therefore life as we’ve known it), perhaps it’ll wake people up again and get them organizing. Four years of Trump through 2028 will be terrible but hopefully survivable, and may lead to better days. Who knows.
I think there’s less than a 5% chance that happens. They’re sticking with Biden.
Yeah, what you describe looks to me like the most likely scenario. It's very bad. Insane even.
One is kind of at a loss for words to see these two guys being the candidates. Well, we shall see what happens now...
I think that the administration is of central importance. We have a good picture of what the Trump administration this time around will look like. It is outlined in the Heritage Foundation "Project 2025". It is a playbook to establish a Christian theocratic authoritarian regime. If enacted it will give the Trump administration powers that circumvent the balance of powers of the government. Its ultimate goal, however, goes far beyond Trump. Trump himself, however, may prove its undoing.
Ceding life as we know it to the incorrigible morons is bad enough. Ceding it to senile bitch Biden? It's too much. Biden has to go.
Quoting Mikie
I think not. All Trump's pathological stupidities, outrages, and crimes have apparently slid down the memory hole already. But Repubs remind us incessantly of shit they just make up. This debate was an audio visual GOLD MINE for them. No one will be forgetting any of it before November. Even without their help, it was too emotionally visceral, too memorable, it will stay burned into people's heads. The painful cringe was enough to ensure that, it was downright traumatic watching it live. This was a death blow to an already flawed, faltering campaign.
Here is the "Dean Scream" that doomed Howard Dean's campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0&ab_channel=CNN
2004 Howard Dean, scream and all, would LANDSLIDE Trump. NO CONTEST. Keep the scream, add some wet nasty hot mic'd farts, a commando dropped fly, I don't care. That scream was a M80 firecracker next to Biden's H-BOMB of a performance.
I’ve already largely forgotten it. Although it was funny and cringey and sad at the time.
:roll: Stop being hysterical. Biden's competent, effective administration is not populated by "senile bitches"; however, The Clown's "Project 2025" will be populated by a fanatically loyal horde of "incorrigible morons" just like him. Neofascist autocracy is far far worse than the neoliberal status quo, and whoever can't see that will no doubt F-A-I-L the national IQ test in Roevember. :mask:
We know this, but does America? Administrations are largely unseen. What was seen was a doddering old fool, next to which the malignant moron seemed sharp. It is America, not you and me, that is set to fail the national IQ test. Again.
Hysterical? As it stands, Trump's victory is all but guaranteed. Even before this, Bidens polling was terrible, losing every swing state. Now, it's over. The arrogant whim of a single, senile bitch is what is guaranteeing neofascist America, to run or not is his prerogative alone.
Yeah, good for me and the millions of others who aren’t political hobbyists that think a silly debate will be decisive and memorable.
I did find out that the name ‘Nosferatu’ is Romanian for ‘the insufferable one.’
Lol, then what do you think you are?
It's not just a silly debate, or the silly impression it made, it's what it indicated. The man is senile, there is no denying it, we cannot count on anything better from him in the rest of the campaign. Cognitive decline goes one way only. Peoples assessment that he is unfit is correct, to lead a campaign, let alone a country.
Quoting Wayfarer
Lol, it's true
Same goes for the other guy. I mean both are really old after all.
The way he would become lost, dazedly fumbling between unrelated topics, gazing vacantly, can be explained either by severe anxiety at the enormity of the moment -- what you or I might experience, but not a lifelong politician with his career -- or mental impairment. Given his age and other worrying signs, senility is the most natural and likely explanation.
He's never been a fluent speaker and has often been prone to verbal slips. I presume as the President that he's is subject to regular medical examinations, right? And that if he were displaying symptoms of senile dementia, this is something that these examinations would detect? And that, were it detected, the responsible medical officers would report it and not try to conceal it? So, no, I don't believe he's technically senile, that is another slur that is used by his political opponents. But he is clearly affected by (as I said, enfeebled by) age, so it probably doesn't matter as far as the electorate is concerned. Many will regard him as senile, regardless.
The substance won't matter, though. Perception is everything, especially in this media-driven landscape. If he's perceived to be senile, then no reassurance from doctors will change that view. And Trump's health or mental stability or lack of it also won't matter. He is going to have to be beaten at the ballot box, there's no credible alternative. And I'm now agreeing with many others, that I don't think Joe Biden is the man who's going to do it.
He's also fat and eats a bunch of junk food which goes great with being 78. If he gets a heart attack or chokes on a BIg Mac that wouldn't surprise me.
Doesn't matter since the public perception is that Biden is too old to run. If it's a good report his opponents will claim they falsified it and if it's not then they will run with it.
This is of course putting aside the fact that Trump when he was president released an incredibly dubious health report from his physician, who at the time claimed he could "live to be 200 years old". I don't know where that physician is now, but rumor has it that he is serving in the US congress as a Republican.
Again - hope you're right :pray:
The disgraced puke (former US Rear Admiral) Dr. Ronny Jackson is a MAGA (morons against great america)-stooge congressman from Texas.
Doesn't really matter in this post-truth world. We live in an age where Trump can shoot someone on fifth avenue, claim he didn't, and alot of his supporters would take his word.
Quoting 180 Proof
That's my solution honestly, for Biden to step aside like he should've months ago.
I actually don't think the convention floor fight would be as divisive as some may fear. The Democrats have proven they are capable of unifying very quickly when necessary. That's actually how Biden became the nominee in 2020 after all, where in the span of 3 days they managed to get all the moderate candidates to drop out and endorse Biden before Super Tuesday in a desperate attempt to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination.
I feel like if they are gonna go through with a new convention all the leaders should simply agree beforehand to fall in line behind whoever the candidate is given the urgency of the situation. That's where I suspect any potential divisions could come from. As for the voters themselves... honestly I'd imagine most would just be happy that they don't have to vote for either Trump or Biden.
Just off the top of my head, Beshear won deep red Kentucky as a Democratic governor so handily that the election was called almost as the polls closed, and has long be one of the most popular national level politicians with his own constituency. I am sure there are other good options. You could even get creative and see if Charlie Baker, a Republican who handily won two terms in liberal Massachusetts would take the VP spot as a sort of unity ticket.
But nothing like that is remotely possible from what I understand. One of the key reasons Biden isn't stepping down is because Harris seems even less popular, and Harris seems to have indicated to people in a position to know that she won't let the nomination pass to anyone else without a significant fight. Indeed, if "sources close to Biden" in all the papers are to be believed, Biden is using Harris's commitment to receiving the nomination if he backs out as his main argument for staying.
They clearly can't think it's really that dire, at least not as respects their own futures. From the reporting I saw, the way Biden got everyone to fall in line behind him in 2020 was basically by playing chicken and declaring he'd stay in no matter what, split the vote, and give Bernie the nomination. If that's true, I think there is probably no chance he backs out now.
Unfortunately, I do not think he will win, and even worse for the country, he probably will still carry the popular vote by some small margin.
To make this thread more interesting, here are some questions/statements that should stir up some debate.
- Polarizing figures like Biden and Trump are instrumental to keeping the US public divided (thus weak), bickering over subjects that don't matter to the US elites, so said elites can push their own agendas in the background.
- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split makes it easy for the elites to manipulate the outcome of the election.
- Maintaining a roughly 50/50 split significantly increases the influence of lobbies and voting blocs. (In case anyone is wondering where for example Israel's lobbying power comes from)
- That Biden was going to lose the debate was obvious. Therefore, whoever put him up to it must have had this as their goal.
Let's hear what you have to say.
At Biden's last physical, a cognitive test was not given. The doctors gave him a clean bill of health. It seems to me that the doctors didn't look for what they didn't want to find. If your loved one slurred their words and glitched out and fell down, you'd have the doc give them the test. That's why many think Jill's guilty of elder abuse.
From NPR:
Biden just got a physical. But a cognitive test was not part of the assessment
President Biden got his latest physical on Wednesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center — an evaluation that the White House said drew on the expertise of 20 doctors but did not involve a cognitive exam.
Quoting Wayfarer
It follows, therefore, that the doctors were being political, and not responsible. Biden's shown signs of age-related cognitive impairment for five or six years. It's gotten much worse the past two years, and much much worse the past several weeks.
As I watched the debate, I said to myself that Biden is relatively lucid tonight. Because he was no worse than he's been for the past couple of months, and at least he didn't glitch out for a minute at a time, as he did at the Juneteenth event.
I was shocked to find all the Dems and liberals horrified to see his condition, and the very next day to see the New York Times calling for him to step out of the race. It seems that a lot of people on the left have only been watching MSNBC and reading the NY Times, which as recently as June 21 was calling Biden's cognitive decline a right wing conspiracy theory.
How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden as He Battles Age Doubts
A flurry of recent clips, many of them edited or lacking context, laid bare a major challenge for the president as he tries to persuade voters he has the energy for a second term.
It's all a right wing plot according to the Paper of Record. Six days later their editorial board called on him to quit. And when Biden loses the New York Times, it's like LBJ losing Cronkite over the Vietnam war.
When Robert Hur called Biden, "an elderly man with a poor memory," did you think he was just one of Orange Hitler's minions? (Fess up, you probably did). When Joe glitched out at the G7, did you believe KJP when she called the video a cheap fake? It still looked every bit as bad when you saw the version with the parachutist in the frame.
Wayfarer, you and your fellow Dems and liberals have been gaslighted by the media. Those of us who read alternative media and even (gasp) scurrilous right wing media, have been watching Biden glitch out for months. We've noticed that he doesn't do interviews except with the most friendly journalists. That he gets cheat sheets at his infrequent press conferences, telling him who to call on and what questions they're going to ask. We watched him campaign from his basement in 2020, which he got away with due to covid. Even during the 2020 primaries, when he was doing badly before the Clyburn deal (when everyone else dropped out), he was showing early signs of age-related cognitive impairment.
To those of us no longer on the Dem plantation (for the record, I used to be), Biden's sad decline has been blatantly obvious for years. I'm amazed he made it this far.
All I can say to the millions of liberals who saw Biden's infirmity for the first time the other night is, where have you been? The real point is not just that Biden's that far gone. The real point is that Biden's been that far gone for a long time, and the Democrats and media have been lying to you about it all along. Those close to him surely knew. The world leaders he met at G7 surely knew. Everybody knew except for the people who get their news from the New York Times.
Quoting Wayfarer
Brother you've got it bad. A smart guy like you getting played by the New York Times and Rachel Maddow for years. How'd that happen? Aren't you even a little angry that everyone around the president knew about Biden's condition, and lied to you about it? Not just the pols, but the media too. "BIden's got a stutter." "Biden's always talked slowly." "Biden's sharp as a tack." And now? Every one of those pols and media jackals is sticking a knife in the man's back.
You mean Ronny Jackson, Obama's physician as well as Trump's. Currently a Congressman from Texas. Former Rear Admiral of the Navy.
Well, what now for the Dems? They could have dealt with the Biden situation last fall, when his infirmity was clear and there was time to have a serious primary contest. Now? Every option looks bad.
According to party rules, the delegates that Biden won during the primaries (no actual primary competition allowed, and how's that decision looking today?) are bound to Biden. They can't vote for anyone else at the convention unless Biden releases them. And Biden says he's staying, and more importantly, Doctor Jill is not going out quietly. She likes the power and Joe does what she says. Did you see her praising him after the debate? "Joe you got all the questions right! You knew all the facts!" Someone said that's how they talk to their cat.
Kamala's unpopular. Newsom's male and pale, can't leap over Kamala. Pritzker, Whitmer? I've heard talk about Pennsylvania governor Shapiro, but it's not a good year for guys named Shapiro in the Democratic party. Not popular with the Hamas wing. And by the way, why does your party even have a Hamas wing? Aren't you embarrassed about that? Queers for Palestine, baby, Up the Revolution!
There is only one Democrat who could leap over Kamala and not split the party in two. You know who I mean. SHE Who Must Not Be Indicted. Yes the Hildebeast herself, Hillary Clinton.
Trump versus Hillary. The inevitable denouement of our long national psychodrama.
You read it hear first. It's Hillary. She's got a brand new book out last week. You think she's not ready to rumble? She could win. God knows Trump's a flawed man.
No, but I think it was cherry-picked by many of them. As you probably know, Jim Jordan has tried to take the Justice Department and Attorney General to court to get his hands on the original recordings.
Quoting fishfry
We'll see. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Agree with you there, long way to November.
Bobby Jr! Another long shot idea.
Plato couldn’t have said it better.
:up:
The 70 year old anti-vax conspiracy theorist who has dealt with literal brain worms... we really have a great slate of candidates this year.
You should probably listen to what the guy has to say first, instead of parroting slogans peddled by political rivals.
This is exactly why you don't get better candidates, you see?
In fact, this whole thread seems to be a microcosm for why that is. Many here seem to deem themselves above all the bullshit, yet are playing the exact same game as the masses.
Look at this point I just want somebody who's not insane, not a criminal, and below the expected retirement age. Is that too much to ask?
All of it reads to me like it assumes some modicum of cunning and foresight. I don’t think there is a conspiracy of any sort because most are too dumb to pull it off. What we’re watching is simply the result of the insane and self-interested (and now dementia-ridden) in their natural state when they’ve achieved a little bit of power. The state of the world is the result of their choices, sure, but I don’t think they’re trying to divide people, for instance.
It is obvious for every neutral party. The world knows the president of Yankees has pathological cognitive decline. It is only those coping with their political affiliation that must deny it no matter what.
Everybody who has been around dementia patients will see what is going on. The patient's regress to a child-like state is symptomatic of dementia:
The occasional moments of lucidity are not, as some think, proof that Biden is fine. On the contrary. People in the earlier stages of Alzheimer's and dementia oscillate in their cognitive state, have moments of clarity to then relapse.
Dumb and no conspiracy, yet they keep managing to send people's children off to wars no one asked for.
Wow. It’s quite embarrassing that the president of the United States must be spoken to like a child, but his stupid grin says it all.
It was funny because during the debate someone from the Biden campaign ran to the media and told them he had a cold. They reported it dutifully. His whole presidency has been a blizzard of lies, but this particular one was perfect as it encapsulates how Biden has gotten away with it for so long—plausible deniability.
And droning innocent families and lying about it. Remember ISIS-K?
But doesn't that imply ruthless cunning and a double agenda, though?
I don’t think they could coordinate on such a level. It’s just blind and stupid instinct at this point. Lying is easy, but coordinating the division of the entire West is something I don’t think they could execute. That’s to give them too much credit.
At any rate, I haven’t seen much evidence of conspiracy. In the United States, for instance, those who put together crossfire hurricane and duped a swath of true believers into pretending the president coordinated with the Kremlin to subvert the United States were acting like teenagers who just so happened to have a little power and influence. Reading their emails, text messages, testimonies etc. revealed blind emotion and poor reasoning. They believed the most obvious nonsense and were equipped with enough hubris not to question their own susceptibility.
Are the things being described the product of non-conspiratorial dummies?
Manufacturing Consent describes a time over 40 years ago, from before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when information wasn’t as prevalent. The freedom to persuade, which Chomsky argued was in the hands of the few, isn’t as possible as it once was. I’m speaking of a generation or two later.
What would you point to as evidence that people are trying to keep other people divided, with malice and not stupidity, so as to push their own agenda in the background?
In terms of proof, obviously I don't have anything that qualifies as actual proof. Though, it seems self-evident to me that US domestic politics is just an inflammatory clownshow to keep people distracted and occupied with things that don't matter.
The malice is self-evident when we view the genocidal levels of mayhem the US wreaks on various parts of the world with the tacit approval of its citizenry.
Lastly, the fact that the US government has been successfully pulling this trick for decades shows that they're not stupid; their citizenry is stupid.
... playing into the hands of hungry foreign powers? There's evidence to contend with. [sup](2019Sep11, 2020Oct15, 2022Oct26, 2023Nov6, 2024Jan2, 2024Feb9, 2024Feb15, 2024Mar27, 2024Mar27, 2024May2)[/sup]
The rise of dumb is real enough. [sup](2024Apr8, 2024Apr26, 2024Jun20)[/sup] :D
Evidently, some of this crap isn't just the US, by the way.
Yeah, he has dementia.
Edit: the press is actually pushing that Biden has a "stutter"? That is braindeadly funny.
Edit 2: Older but recent clip of Biden explaining he doesn't stutter https://x.com/cedrichohnstadt/status/1807232341644837112 he stuttered as a kid from nervousness of speaking publically. Obviously Biden does not have a speech disorder. People have never been around dementia patients, but now they also have never been around people who actually have pathological stuttering. Surprising lack of lived experience.
Perhaps the Democrats should have thought of this last fall, when there was a chance to have a robust series of primary contests.
Biden's age-related cognitive impairment has been on display in his public appearances since at least 2019. Why did the Dems go down the path of denial, instead of dealing with the issue far sooner?
It's a valid question. I'm not the only one asking it. The question many Americans are asking themselves is: What did the media know, and when did they know it?
That clip is heartbreaking. Jill is a monster.
The US is the quintessential hungry foreign power.
Also, wasn't the whole Russia-gate thing proven to be bullshit, just like 99.9% of everything that's written in the media?
Time to wisen up folks.
If you mean the Müller enquiry then no, it wasn't Bullshit.
Doesn't really matter though if Biden doesn't want to step aside. If he does, then things will probably move quickly.
SCOTUS rules, in effect, that POTUS is a "King" with Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for Official Acts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-immunity-1.7251423
So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.
But will "King Joseph I" do this?
No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry:
Absolute immunity for constitutional acts and the presumption of immunity on other official acts, and non on non-official acts.
Seemed fairly obvious they would do this. The real decision was already known: delay as much as possible so there’s no trial before the election.
Good point there. The DNC screwed Bernie in 2016 and 2020.
(edit) The least democratic institution in the country is the Democratic national committee.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but trust in US government and media is at very low levels, whereas trust in the EU is at high levels. That's really all I need to know about a stupid citizenry.
As for Russia-gate, I totally agree, and it was proven to be bullshit. The Mueller report, which was transferred from a failed and and highly-criticized investigation called Crossfire Hurricane, was fruit from the same poisonous tree. It turns out they ended up investigating the wrong campaign. Subsequent investigations implicated no one but the Clinton campaign and the FBI. As you can see that debacle is still having its effect on pliant minds.
:fire: :mask:
I wouldn't say trust in the EU is at high levels. That's why right-wing populism is currently sweeping the EU. But I wouldn't say the EU citizenry is much better than the US, though Europeans are definitely less ignorant.
The difference is that the US government gets up to shit that's several orders of magnitude worse.
Given that Europe is the crucible of the worst wars in history, the breeding ground of communism, fascism, and nazism, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire into the Middle East, I’m curious as to what might be several orders of magnitude worse than what Europe has been up to. Perhaps worse is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan, but I cannot think of much else.
Sure, specify a time frame and give an example.
Yeah, because there are few misdeeds that Europe was not involved in.
If there is the involvement of other states, why would you not mention their misdeeds as well?
The part where you have yet to give an example.
I just wanted one example, actually, and for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. It’s common to think of the US as the great Satan, but when it comes from some panty-wasted fief in Europe I’m reminded of the hellish conditions hoisted upon the Earth by many countries there. But if you don’t want to do it, I’ll leave the issue alone.
Sure, you name the timeframe and the example. I’m just curious.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/biden-campaign-debate-inner-circle-00166160
Sounds like the sort of dynamic that often leads to autocracies' great blunders. Perhaps it's not as extreme as the "yes-man" problem described vis-á-vis Putin's inner circle, but there seems to be an apt analogy in Biden's decision to run for a second term being his "let's go invade Ukraine," moment. Now there is nothing left but to keep doubling down and everyone with any influence to stop it doesn't want to risk losing their influence by actually trying to stop it.
There was a similar dynamic reported in Trump's cabinet, but there at least many cabinet members did eventually jump ship and begin publicly blasting their old boss (fat lot of good it did lol). But obviously the provocations there were even greater.
Hunter Biden has joined White House meetings as he stays close to the president post-debate
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/hunter-biden-white-house-meetings-president-debate-rcna159975
According to the story Hunter Biden has been helping the elder Biden with his duties, for instance his most recent speech fear-mongering about the Supreme Court decision.
With all this rhetoric about convicted felons, it sounds like a convicted felon and drug addict is advising the president of the United States of America. These sort of ironies make politics fascinating to watch, even hilarious, if the stakes weren’t so high.
https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/pelosi-biden-s-mental-fitness-is-legitimate-question-recommends-interviews-with-serious-journalists-214089797740
I'm much more confident now that he'll be replaced before the election.
So much for democracy. Why do editorial boards believe they can speak for the voters?
But if he drops out, it’s another losing scenario: Kamal Harris is the person who will likely get the delegates. She’s about as popular as colonoscopies.
They have no one to blame but themselves. If they happen to pull it off, it’ll be only because Trump is that bad — which he is.
Really you can blame Jim Clyburn for that. He stepped in to save Biden's campaign in the South Carolina primary because he feared Bernie winning the nomination and then insisted on a black woman diversity pick for Biden's running mate, giving us Harris. He essentially gave us the ticket we see today.
That being said it's probably better for the Dems to go with Harris at this point and have her pick an actually talented running mate. Biden's campaign is about as dead as he is but at least with Harris you can see some potential room for improvement and a restart.
Quoting Mikie
Indeed. A generic candidate who is neither Trump nor Biden would win in a landslide against either of these people.
Too bad the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate that isn't as unpopular as Trump. Shouldn't be a low bar to pass but yeah let's just run the 80 year old man who the majority of the country didn't want to run again.
It strikes me as sheer egotism at this point.
It should be a walk in the park to stand up against the fascist MAGA movements, authoritarian republicans and Trump, but it's a special level of incompetence that the Democrats weren't able to do this with the mountain of shit that has been piled up against Trump.
Maybe now they will simply put an age limit on their future candidates? And maybe be better at preparing younger party members for future candidate material. Like, get them started in their 30s, really build up their reputation in their 40s and let them run for presidency in their 50s. With enough work they would have 10-20 candidates to put forward and really nail home not only a candidate people like, but also have a number of backups that are also liked. Against the republicans, it would become easy.
But I guess, since Gen Z doesn't seem to care about politics and just want some magical solution to everything, there won't be any young people available to be prepared for future presidency. We're not doomed because we have senile old people running the show, but that we have no young people actually caring for politics. Maybe when the fascist boots step on their throats they might get the memo to actually do something for real and not just continue their slacktivism thinking that accomplishes anything.
Politics should be conducted by dusty, boring, old people - people from whom there is little to gain from corruption, and people who have children and grandchildren whose futures they care about.
50 isn't old. 50 is a good age in which the maturity of ideas settle down. And since 40 year old's today act like they're still children, with immature handling of philosophical concepts and ideology, they have to get ten more years of maturing before they have the calm to act on their convictions and ideas.
20-30 is the age in which people explore who they want to be as an adult. 30-40 they explore the validity of such aspirations. 40-50 they manifest the true aspirations, solidified as their true identity. 50+ is when a person has manifested who they really are, a stability matured by years of exploration in which they find wisdom rather than just knowledge.
A presidency requires wisdom and it's something lacking these days.
Of course, all this requires a sane psychology and proper introspection throughout life. Most people can live to their dying days without ever thinking an original thought or questioning themselves properly. But for a president, a leader, someone who's supposed to work for the people, it should be a requirement.
I find democracies today to be pretty lackluster in their defense against those taking advantage of it. Just because democracy demands a representative of the people to be the person who wins an election, shouldn't mean that any dipshit should be able to. I rather think that a representative in a democracy should have demands of competence like any other job in society.
A president do not stand above the staff of representatives for the people, they should be in service of it. They should be the ones taking the raw emotions, wills and wants from the people and fine-tuning it into working policy, law and national practice. They should be in service of the people.
That's not what's going on in the US. The US president is a pseudo-king. It's a plastic kingdom similar to Disneyland. The US does not have a good structure of politics, there's no actual parliament. The congress is just a big funding party for lobbyists rather than a place to evaluate strategies for the nation and international politics.
Democracy is still in need of philosophical progress, it needs further work. The term has become some plaque and adjective to describe a "good nation", but since none of the "good guys" in our world seem to know in what way to actually describe how democracy is producing "good nations", we end up with sham democracies and representatives of the people who can just con everyone into believing these representative are kings and religiously elevated deities. Until people see them as they are and goes for the next plastic king.
Democracy today is in a hyperreal state of what democracy could be. And we lack the framework to produce actual leaders because we haven't thought through what is actually required to end up with stable, good leaders who are competent at their job.
The entertainment industry that is democracy today must end and be replaced by democracy that has evolved past this shallow plastic shell of "a good nation".
One of the more hilarious aspects about the tantrums one finds in American politics is that they are largely self-inflicted. The schemozzle about Biden's absent-mindedness, for instance, is the direct result of them lying to themselves. When a wasteful and fraud investigation didn't turn up Kremlin influence in the presidency, and implicated the opposing campaign, they blamed their victim and not their own lies. The recent Supreme Court rulings would not have happened had they not weaponized the justice system to go after their political opponents. The classified documents case might have occurred before the election had they not bungled it, tampered with evidence, or tried use it to influence the election.
Of course, there is always someone else to blame. Right at the moment when the delusion ought to be replaced with honest self-reflection, a new one takes its place, and the process begins all over again. No doubt, if/when Trump's felony conviction gets overturned for being a travesty of justice, they'll blame the ones who overturned it, and not the ones who brought and judged such a shit case. With this they can always remain in the delusion.
This is a false representation of the Müller report. Stop lying.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not sure what you're referring to. Has there been a decision on this or are you just parroting Trump lawyers verbatim?
His name is Mueller, not Müller.
Sorry, but “the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.
What Kremlin influence on the presidency are you speaking about?
Of course you’re not sure. I’m referring to evidence and quotes as recorded in the case files. What are you referring to?
“There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans,” prosecutors wrote, adding in a footnote: “The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/mar-a-lago-trump-classified-documents-00156124
That’s spoliation of evidence or mishandling of classified documents. What do you call it?
It's Müller where I'm from since we actually know how to spell a German name, so tough luck. In any case, Müller has repeatedly refused to exonerate Trump and he did so for a reason. So it's a misrepresentation on your part because you fail to include the fact that while the investigation doesn't prove it, it's because they were frustrated continuously in their investigation. In other words it was neither wasteful or fraudulent and should've been investigated further.
Quoting NOS4A2
Irrelevant. If you think the order of the files in a specific box has any relevance as to the evidence of the content of that box then please make a cogent argument to that effect but on the face of it, it's just another delay.
That’s right, you can’t name any evidence of Kremlin influence. You might want to stop lying about it.
In fact, it’s a double lie because you refuse to mention (even suspiciously removing it from the sentance you quoted) the failings of that investigation as discovered in subsequent investigations.
If the files aren’t as one found there is no way to know the contents are accurate. Not only that but they lied to the court about it. Looks like you’re parrottting Jack Smith verbatim.
That's a dumb comment for a variety of reasons. How do they know the order changed? Because the FBI records. So we have a record of what was in it before the contents were shuffled. It's legally an inane point as to establishing what was kept and therefore no more than a delaying tactic. This was all from your link by the way. Maybe you should just learn to read instead of jerking off and getting excited because you think you're onto something everytime you read something critical about the government.
Quoting NOS4A2
First of all, I'm only quoting you so far. I assume you remember what you wrote a few hours ago so not sure what you're going on about. Whatever failings the investigation had, none of them gave rise to indictments, and none of them discount the multiple crimes Müller established in his investigation. The lie was yours to pretend the Müller report was fraudulent and didn't establish any crimes. It did. Multiple ones.
You’re parroting the government verbatim. You’re a lawyer, apparently, and you think the spoliation of evidence and lying about it to the court in one of the most unprecedented cases in the history of the country is irrelevant.Your readiness to believe everything you read has long been proven, so your characterizations don’t mean much to me. Maybe you shouldn’t feel so duty-bound to defend their actions every single time, for whatever reason.
You quoted one clause out of an entire sentence, afraid to quote me in full, clearly trying to hide the context for whatever reason. Probably to draw attention away from the fact that you, like your fraudulent investigation, were duped by Clinton-campaign opposition research, which to this day a fact you refuse to mention. You, like Mueller, refuse to mention exculpatory evidence, or anything else that might point to how stupid the whole charade was.
The investigation was fraudulent, as is your continued parroting of it.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/trumpdailyposts/status/1809249601595318585?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
They forgot that his agenda is called “Agenda 47”.
Another Trump LIE, more than half the Authors of project2025 worked in his administration. (Karma is coming · Jul 5, 2024)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/subvertquo/status/1809265356491661542[/tweet]
Here is Trump Senior Advisor and former appointee John McEntee, who helped draft Project 2025, explaining to Steve Bannon last July how Trump plans to implement the plan immediately after taking office. But Trump doesn’t know these people or anything about it. (Ron Filipkowski · Jul 5, 2024 · 2m:26s)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1809274690239603031[/tweet]
I think the groundwork is forming for a shift in the US toward greater authoritarianism. The trigger for the change would be something like a war. The population is presently split between people who want that to happen (on both the right and left) and people who are apathetic.
Did you see the poll that said Trump is particularly popular among people 18-29? It was reported by The Hill. Like 61% prefer Trump.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DarrenWheels/status/1809532107829457045/video/1[/tweet]
Not nearly good enough. "Trying my best" and "Promise I'll go to bed early". I think it's obvious that the gig is up, let's just hope the man himself comes to realise it.
If the pressure can be sustained, there may yet be a chance he’s replaced — a much better chance than I once thought — but I’d still give the chances 1 in 5 or so. The ABC interview didn’t do much to reverse the tide.
But this has been interesting. They’re really panicking— and for good reason.
Axelrod on Biden, CNN.
Well I hope you’re right, because the situation is sad. But who wants Kamal Harris? Oof…
I think that could work. Maybe a Josh Shapiro … but it’s really all just fantasy. I think if Biden steps down the natural candidate is Harris, for multiple reasons— including the large amount of money donated to their campaign.
Reading between the lines - and there's lots of lines - it looks as if Biden agrees to transition, it might result in an 'open convention'. It's happened before, and didn't work out well for the Democrats. But this situation is different. Sure, Trumpworld has its rusted-on supporters, but many of those who don't like him really hate him, but think Biden is too old. (I mentioned before, Steve Bannon said just as he was turning himself in, the Trump Campaign is betting on beating Biden - hey nice alliteration there - if someone else is the candidate, it's a wild card, things could shift very quickly.)
True. All the polls up to that point mean very little. The whole environment changes.
Quoting Mr Bee
Not a good year for Shapiros in the Dem party as long as Michigan's in play.
Quoting Wayfarer
What do people in this thread plan to do about Biden? The biggest wildcard is that he's dug in. He is on record as saying, "No one is pushing me out of the race." He's made this perfectly clear. And Jill is fierce. You can talk Kamala and Gavin and Gretchen and Michelle all you like, but Biden's not budging.
Are Democrats ready to either impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment? If not, how are you going to dislodge him?
Nothing I can do about it, I’m not even an elector (although my son lives in the US and is a dual citizen.) I’m still holding out hope that Biden will see reason (and rather uncharitably wishing he’d have a mild stroke which would take the matter out of his hands.) But if he stays the candidate, I’m now convinced that Trump will win, and that it will be an unqualified disaster for America and the rest of the world (but that’s not something I’m going to debate outside the Trump thread, of which I’m steering clear.)
Michigan is in play in large part because Biden is the nominee and pissing off Arabs with what he's doing in Gaza. That's why I think Whitmer is an ideal candidate since she can take any stance on Israel and win Michigan easily but apart from his age, Biden's foreign policy is a big drag on the ticket.
Quoting fishfry
I've heard there's also a "good conscience" rule the DNC can add for delegates to not vote for Biden, but right now the Dems are trying to convince grandpa that he is perhaps not the best driver in the world and relinquish his car keys voluntarily. Next week will probably see the dam breaking.
Opinion | Why the sociopaths are winning — and the obvious thing we’re not doing about it (— Jeremy Sherman · AlterNet · Jul 6, 2024)
Quoting whoever
Either way, some worthwhile observations/ethics can be found
Some (post-rationalizing) individuals gravitate naturally towards conflict, which can empower the demagogue. Anyway, nutn' much new here, jus'sayin.
, you think there's a large number of people in the US that want war (civil or wider)? A US civil war would play straight into the hands of hungry foreign forces, which might just come back to haunt them.
The Democratic party has long ago degenerated into complete worthlessness. In a functioning democracy they would have been swept away long ago. It is our winner take all electoral system that makes a third party impossible, and therefore keeps the existing two parties entrenched, no matter how awful they become. This will be America's downfall.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/axios/status/1809934405181333571?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
“Biden campaign will no longer feed questions to media after being outed by radio host: source”
https://nypost.com/2024/07/06/us-news/biden-campaign-will-no-longer-feed-questions-to-media-after-being-outed-by-radio-host-source/
I’d say pretty big.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch
Good point, Whitmer is popular in Michigan and can withstand the Palestinian-supporting component of the left. Makes sense. Still tricky to leapfrog Kamala. Do you mean Whitmer for veep or prez? Kamala has a constituency within the party.
Quoting Mr Bee
Oh I see I hadn't heard that. Internet says that "DNC rules encourage but don't specifically require delegates to vote for the candidate they're pledged to support. Instead, the rules say, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them ..."
That does seem like an out. I thought the delegates were firmly bound, but evidently not.
My take on this situation is that the Dems are in denial when they say, "Dems are trying to convince grandpa that he is perhaps not the best driver in the world ..." In fact Joe has stated that he's in it to win it, and he has Jill and now Hunter on his side. And he's President of the United States. There's a lot of power in that. The Dems are going to have to force Joe out. And I don't think they'll be up for it. The unseemliness of the Dems trying to destroy their own president.
My take -- my out-on-a-limb prediction -- is that in the end, the Dems will not persuade him to drop out. They will either need to impeach him, or invoke the 25th Amendment. And I predict the Democrats will not have the stones to do that. And besides, if they do move to impeach or invoke 25A, the Republicans will oppose them! Imagine the hilarity that would ensue. The GOP would love to run against Biden. Without GOP support the Dems can't get rid of Joe.
I think the Dems made their bed last year when they decided not to have an open, competitive primary. They are stuck with Biden until Jill says so. And she didn't come this far to give up now.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is my thesis again. The Dems are hoping Joe will quit. But Joe has said he's not quitting, and he and Jill and Hunter are circling the wagons. In the end the Dems are going to have to act; by impeaching him, 25A-ing him, or deliberately incapacitating him.
Quoting Wayfarer
Can you see the irony, dare I say depravity, of hoping fo such a thing? In a candidate you supported five minutes before the debate?
I'm struck by the viciousness of the Dem and left response. All those who had Joe's back five minutes ago, and are now stabbing him in the back. And why is the response so emotionally intense? Because these are all of the people who didn't say anything a year ago, when they could have called for open and competitive Democratic primaries. They didn't say anything in 2020, when Biden was doing badly in the polls and the DNC did the Clyburn deal to install Biden. Along with Kamala, who'd dropped out of the 2020 race in 2019, polling in single-digits in her own home state. She got taken apart by Tulsi Gabbard in a debate, and never recovered. The media are pumping her up this week, but her negatives aren't going away.
Now the bill's come due, and the Dems are hoping Biden strokes out soon. You're not the only one. Perhaps that stroke won't come along by itself, ya know? Slip Joe a little something in his bowl of ice cream. That's what the Dems have come to.
Is that extreme? Just look at what you wrote. You are not the only Dem thinking that way. But a year ago when the DNC decided not to have real primaries, you said nothing. This is a fiasco of the Dems' own making.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's been clear a long time, and even from before the general public found out about his tragic age-related cognitive decline. Biden's policies are unpopular. You can't fix that with a younger candidate. Of course I'll stipulate that you disagree with me on policy, and I'm not here to argue that. Many voters are not happy with how things have been in the Biden administration and swapping in a younger candidate with the same policies is not going to change that many votes.
Quoting Wayfarer
I understand your feelings about that. No need to discuss the respective merits of the candidates. The scandal is what's interesting. This Biden mess is going to be the biggest political scandal in my lifetime, bigger than Watergate. Just swapping in a new candidate is not going to solve the Dems' problems, It's raise a whole host of new ones, starting with fundamental democratic legitimacy. Will voters stand for yet another last-minute DNC back-room deal?
People keep saying this but contested conventions have happened. Isn't that a process where it can be taken from him?
Yeah, him doing so would be the only possible positive outcome other than taking the chance at him winning, but that feels more far fetched the closer to the election we get.
Yeah a Harris/Whitmer ticket would be more realistic. That being said Harris will more likely go for Shapiro because he's a white man.
Quoting fishfry
Yep, and the delegates are not very eager to nominate him right now. We'll see if it snowballs into something.
Quoting fishfry
Sure, but everybody adamantly says they're in it until they aren't. I think it's too late for Biden to stop the dam from breaking within his own party. Too many different groups from the donors to the representatives to the senators are already saying he should step aside and likely this week (as congress reconvenes) this will lead to a large number of public statements for Joe to step aside. At some point such a situation becomes untenable.
But who knows how he'll react. Is Joe selfish enough to stay in anyways even if it means the total collapse of his party? Perhaps but it's clear his attempts to quiet any dissent through a mix of stubbornness and finally getting out there have been completely unsuccessful so far. A normal politician would've taken drastic action immediately after that debate, doing numerous interviews, town halls, and unscripted events in order to assure people that they can do this. Biden instead went back to hiding for a week and later did a 20 minute interview where he still sounded rambling and delusional, and well we can sort of guess why. I think the video I linked to where he said he will be content with losing to Trump and ending democracy because all that matters to him is his reelection attempt will turn his critics off more.
Preparing the rhetorical environment for "Who cares if the president is a disabled vegetable? There are many people in executive functions besides just the president!!".
AI already surpassed the average person in that it runs on a much more interesting and unpredictable script — the similarity is that both are soulless automatons.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1810301614965604827?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Is there really any universe in which the events of the last week could transpire if the purpose wasn't expressly for Biden to lose? Is there really any universe in which a senile old man is allowed to hijack the fate of the most powerful country in the world?
Personally, I don't think so.
Day seven of the American Monarchy (7 AM)
So who would you vote for (if you could / will vote in the 2024 election): (A) the old man who (usually) tells truths despite his stutter or (B) the old swine who only squeels (& farts) lies just to keep breathing?
It seems clear that Biden can't be forced out of the race - unlike in a parliamentary democracy such as Australia's or Great Britian's, there's no provision for the 'vote of no confidence' of the kind which brought down Boris Johnson. The only two things that can change that is that he changes his mind, or is declared unfit on medical grounds (which seems not altogether impossible.)
Trump is unanimously designated 'the worst US President' by a board of academic historians. If Biden runs and looses, he will be relegated to the place just behind him on that ladder, for having paved the way for the MAGA overthrow of the constitutional order (even despite his policy achievements and accomplishments.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/parkinsons-expert-white-house.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/08/biden-physician-oconnor-family-business-00166934
They installed a corrupt vegetable to save us from the figments of their own fever dreams.
Quoting 180 Proof
With Trump out there, there’s a very good chance Biden wins.
Michigan and Pennsylvania. That’s all you have to focus on, and you win.
Fear of a second Trump term and Project 2025 is the only thing keeping the Dems alive at this point. Would've been nice if they just ran some generic 50 year old or somebody that didn't massively turn off voters nationwide.
Quoting RogueAI
Then they'll re-nominate the same guy who lost again 4 years later.
Like I say. Shapiros are not in style in this year's Democratic party. Which reminds me that in 2020, the Dems had an excellent black female VP candidate, Val Demings. But she was a cop, and cops were not in style in the Democratic party of 2020. Live by identity politics, die by same
Quoting Mr Bee
I looked this up. Biden has 3896 delegates, and everyone else has 43 combined. Biden is the overwhelming choice of Dem primary voters, and that's one of his advantages.
Just found this, which is just one article and doesn't prove anything, but it's still of interest.
Democratic convention delegates say they’re loyal to Biden and balk at other options
[i]
Democrats urging President Joe Biden to end his campaign and allow the party to select another nominee before – or during – August’s national convention are unlikely to find allies in the ranks of Chicago-bound delegates, who are increasingly closing ranks around Biden.[/i]
In fact now that Biden's dug in, some Dems are coming around. House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries is for Joe. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out for Joe today. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer came out for Joe. And surprisingly Senator John Warner, who the other day said he was gathering a group of anti-Joe Senators, today came out for Joe.
I believe that once Joe said he's staying in, people realize that he's going to be virtually impossible to dislodge. He has the power of the presidency, which is huge. He has Hunter and Jill on his team. And drug and hooker jokes aside, Hunter appears to be a capable ally at the moment. Joe has all those delegates. And the Democrats risk looking very anti-democratic if they swap in a last-minute candidate chosen by the party insiders. Joe looks stronger today than he did a few days ago when everyone thought he was toast.
And a lot of the backstabbers look unseemly, a point I've been making. You love a guy yesterday and knife him in the back today? That says more about the backstabber than it does about Biden. Looking at you, New York Times, Washington Post, Joe Scarborough, etc.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm on record that the Dems are not going to dislodge him as long as Jill and Hunter want him in. The Dems do not have the stones to impeach him or invoke he 25th amendment. My bet's a long shot, I'll give you that. Joe looks like toast. But what are the Dems really going to do if he refuses to step down?
There's a full-on civil war in the Democratic party. The inevitable result of decisions they took in 2020 and 2024. People were saying Biden was cognitively impaired as early as 2019. The Dems could have avoided this. Now they're stuck.
Quoting Mr Bee
Like I noted, prominent Dems are also stepping up to support him. They realize that panicking right now could well come out worse than just getting behind Biden.
Quoting Mr Bee
Oh yeah. Biden and his family are out for themselves. The stories about the family corruption are not "right wing propaganda" any more than his cognitive decline was. Biden's for Biden, and his family wants him to have pardon authority as long as possible. That dam might break too, and when it does, the family's going to want Biden in power.
Quoting Mr Bee
Not so. The tide began to turn today (Monday evening US time as I write). Lot of Dems came out for Biden, even some who'd been against him just a day or two ago.
Quoting Mr Bee
Of course Biden is incapable of doing any of that. But we started seeing it in 2019! They hid the guy all during the 2020 campaign. People have been talking about Biden's tragic age-related cognitive impairment for years. Media types have admitted they covered it up so as not to help Trump.
Biden has of course done what he can. He called in to Scarborough's program. He's given some teleprompter speeches. It's all he can do.
But that is not the point. The point is: Who is going to dislodge him, and how?
Quoting Mr Bee
Agreed, of course. But again: Who is going to dislodge him? The parallel's been made with Nixon, when his advisors came to see him and told him it was all over. But he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage to the Dems have over Biden? A strongly worded letter? They have nothing. Let's see if they'll start impeachment or 25A proceedings. Of course they will not do it.
So it's advantage Biden, no matter how compromised his mental state.
This is the greatest political scandal of our lifetimes. This thing is just getting started. A full-on civil war in the Democratic party just four months from a highly consequential election. Anything can happen.
Perhaps Biden will have that stroke @Wayfarer is hoping for. Something to see, actual Biden supporters hoping for that. End stage Trump Derangement Syndrome. If the Dems had just ignored Trump and had a real primary season, Newsom or Whitmer would be beating DeSantis right now.
Quoting Wayfarer
From a few weeks ago. I was struck by your extreme partisanship back then -- and now you are hoping your own preferred candidate will have a stroke.
What side are YOU on?
Can you not see your own moral corruption brought on by your extreme hatred of one man who was already president for four years and didn't do any of the things you claim he'll now do?
You don't even wish Trump would stroke out. With his diet and lifestyle it could happen. But no. You have worked yourself into such a state of anger and hate that you hope your own guy will have a stroke. And why? Because you are angry at yourself for going along with the lies. You and all the other Dems who are shocked, shocked that Biden's suffering the age-related cognitive impairment that was apparent in 2019. Do you have any self-awareness at all?
Your remarks got to me a few weeks ago. In case you're wondering why I'm addressing you about this.
Whatever side represents the rule of law and upholds the constitution. The side which didn’t attempt the overthrow of the Government and the subversion of the election.
I believe Biden has lost the confidence of many in the electorate and that the Democratic party ought to have selected a younger candidate. That said, though, I’ve never believed that Trump ought to have been allowed to run, considering his obvious malfeasance.
I mean Kamala was a prosecutor. I don't think either were gonna be popular with the Democrat base in 2020 due to the BLM riots, but Biden decided on Harris.
Quoting fishfry
I'll wait until tomorrow since alot of other congressional Dems are kind of staying silent and clearly are not just falling in line like the president wanted. I'm assuming you meant Mark Warner there, and his statements are also very noncommittal. Nobody except one representative came out today against Biden, and my guess is that the dissenters are currently keeping quiet so they can present a united front when they meet later.
From what I can tell the House Dems are planning a meeting in the morning to discuss the matter privately, while the Senate is also doing the same at noon. Whether they'll decide to confront the president and whether any of that will be made public is anyone's guess.
Quoting fishfry
That's Biden's intended play here, but given that nothing he's done in the past week has assured worried Dems about his reelection prospects, and his complete dismissal of the concerns being thrown his way, I think he's only infuriated and emboldened his critics more. He couldn't convince them that he's not senile so now he's trying to say "don't oppose me or else I'll make it ugly for all of us" to get them to fall in line. Could be a sign he really is hopelessly stubborn or it could be a last ditch attempt at keeping the dam from breaking. Whether the Dems speaking tomorrow will act or not will depend on how they read what he said, but it's clear the president is daring them to oppose him.
Quoting fishfry
Biden isn't at all a beloved figure. That was why he was thrown under the bus so easily. He's doesn't command a cult like following like Trump so it's easy for them to do so. He was nominated in 2020 purely for his perceived electability and now in an election where he seems to be losing that by being down against a convicted felon the Dems have largely soured on him. I mean they'll still vote for him to stop Trump but they have no support for Biden himself.
Quoting fishfry
What are they gonna do if he stays in? It seems at this point he's dragging the entire party down for his own selfish goals. At this point they might as well try to make it untenable for him and hope he isn't gonna stubbornly let his own party collapse under his hubris.
Quoting fishfry
It's kind of a mixed bag at this point. Alot of them have "concerns" as well. May be a civil war situation but who knows, some of the supporters may believe deep down that Biden isn't the right guy for the job. Reportedly you have folks like Don Beyer saying in private that Biden should resign and let Harris be president while openly supporting him for instance.
Quoting fishfry
Like I said, I'll wait until Tuesday to see if Biden has weathered the storm. The critics have been silent until they meet and gather. Here's a Politico article from Monday evening suggesting that things aren't necessarily over.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah I was one of the people who noticed it back then too (comparing it unfavorably to his 2012 debate performance), but it's way worse now. He could at least debate and do a forceful interview in 2020.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah I understand that ultimately it really is on Biden to step aside unless the Dems are brave enough to take stronger measures. The hope I guess is to make the situation as untenable to Biden as possible because clearly he is out of touch with the reality of the situation, and also hope that the supposed good man in Joe will make him realize how destructive his political ambitions are to a party and country that's lost faith in him. Who knows, maybe he will let the party crumble before he steps aside, but even he should realize that he can't win an election if even his team lacks any confidence in him.
And I don’t believe that for a minute. Biden was quite capable of executing his first term, and did so with distinction.
I ask you to introspect about your sentiments regarding Biden. I'll stipulate that you have your political opinions, which are shared by many and opposed by many. No point in arguing those since as you yourself recently noted, we're not in the Trump thread. I'm more interested in the psychological reaction to Biden, the vicious backstabbing and, in your case, the hope for a terrible physical malady to befall him.
The viciousness toward Biden from his own side -- that's a psychological reaction to years of going along with the lies about his condition. No other explanation fits. Who, honestly, was shocked by his debate performance? I said to myself during the debate, "Biden's reasonably lucid tonight." I actually said that. He was no worse than he's been for months, and actually a little better. He didn't glitch out like at Juneteenth. He didn't wander off like at the G7. He didn't head-butt the Pope. He didn't raise his fist and start insulting people as he frequently did in 2019.
I was literally shocked that so many people were shocked. Biden has been like this for a long time. Dems and the media and those who hate Trump have been lying -- to themselves, mostly -- and covering it all up. And now that it's exploded, are they angry at themselves? No. They're angry at Biden. And you hope he'll stroke out, to save you the cognitive dissonance of your own years of enabling the Democrats' fraud on the American people.
It's something to behold.
I only made the remark about medical factors causing Biden to retire, because I think he ought to retire. Like a lot of people, I think the public perception of him being 'too old' is a factor which might cause him to loose. If I were an American elector, and Biden was the candidate, I'd vote for him. I'm just concerned that many others won't, and as I've already said, I believe the re-election of Donald Trump would be an unqualified disaster for the United States and the rest of the world. Nobody's been 'covering anything up' about Biden. He's never been an orator, he often had verbal stumbles and gaffes throughout his career. So what? The Washington Post kept a daily tally of Trump's lies in his first term which topped out at some number around [s]38,000[/s] (correction, 30,583) so don't talk about 'deception'. Anyway Im not going to discuss it with you, if you can't see Trump's obvious malfeasance then there's obviously no point.
Quoting fishfry
:lol:
"I just need 11,686 votes".....
Then review The Whitehouse For Sale report which found Trump made $6 million in emoluments from Chinese and Arabian interests while in office.
There were three pivotal one-on-one debates Biden was in and he won all three. One against Bernie and two against Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-sanders-debate-poll/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/poll-final-presidential-debate-biden-trump-432052
I watched all three of those debates (and the numerous primary debates) and thought Biden did fine. If he was in bad shape, as you claim, he wouldn't have won any of them.
The Democratic Party Must Speak the Plain Truth to the President
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opinion/editorials/democrats-biden-truth.html
The arrogance of the media class is palpable, even more so when colliding against the arrogance of the Biden crime family. The best part is that this is the world they’ve made together. This is their vision, the product of their handiwork. And they can do no better than the dystopian future they imagine everyday in the midst of their moral panic.
Actual tears.
If opposition to Biden has not managed to coalesce into a united front until now, then it will not. Fear of uncertainty and sheer inertia will keep him in the race.
As far as I am concerned, this is a damning indictment of the democratic party as a vehicle of political action. They allowed the Republicans to run rings around them during Obama. They mishandled Hillary's campaign. They allowed Trump to gain absurdly outsized importance during his term. They then made the most conservatice choice possible by going with Biden, narrowly managing to win. Then instead of immediately planning for his replacement, they decided to just stick it out, simply crossing their fingers that Biden would be well enough 4 years down the line to beat Trump.
And now that it turns out he isn't, they made a panicky and half-assed effort which has practically ruined Biden's chances to win without actually having any chance to replace him.
Really the party (at the federal level) should just be dissolved at this point.
Like the Republicans with Trump, the Democrats in congress are cowards who would rather stay the course then try and do what they know is the right thing.
Quoting Echarmion
Hopefully to be replaced by a party that actually gives it's base a voice instead of forcing candidates that they prefer on them, like Hilary in 2016 and Biden in 2020 and 2024. The voters made it very clear that they didn't want Joe to run again due to his age, and they ran him again.
I don't agree with this. There was no appetite for replacing Biden. He sailed through the primaries and his one credible challenger got almost no votes.
This is a good way to put it, but it begs the question: How the hell is it that the republican party despite it's large and obvious fractures is able to put together a brazen but coherent bid for power while the democrats are asleep?
Yes good point. I remember that conversation now. I thought Demings was a great choice. As a Californian I never liked Kamala. Well it's a done deal now. And she has the inside track. Nobody's talking about Gavin or Gretchen lately.
Quoting Mr Bee
They had a meeting today. A reporter asked an attendee if they were on the same page, and he said, "We're not even on the same book." Reports that some people were in tears. Lot of misery in the Dem party. Pretty much anything could happen.
Yes John Warner was the one married to Elizabeth Taylor. I always get them confused
Quoting Mr Bee
Right. Rumors they're all pretty upset and no solution in sight.
Quoting Mr Bee
Right again. Nate Silver has an article out implying that Biden is bluffing. Maybe he is. He was at NATO today, didn't embarrass himself. He's hanging in. A politician who's been running for office for fifty years or more isn't going to go out easily.
Quoting Mr Bee
Yes good point. He was always kind of a joke, then in 2020 he seemed like the best option to beat Trump. But why didn't the Dems do something sooner? If they'd just have had a competitive primary they'd have replaced him already.
Biden's status, or lack thereof, in the Democratic party cuts both ways. They clearly don't have loyalty to him, but he also has no loyalty to them. That's another reason he's hanging in. He's not thinking of the good of the party, he's taken a lot of disrespect from his fellow Dems over the years. It's the Bidens versus the world at this point.
Quoting Mr Bee
Well, he was doing badly in the polls and had a high unpopularity rating even before the debate. Just another reason for them to have dealt with this during the primaries. Dems have no good options.
Quoting Mr Bee
Love to be a fly on the wall in the Dem meetings. Kamala's playing it cool, supporting Biden in public. Someone mentioned that of all the Democrats, Kamala is the only one who had a Constitutional duty to notify people that Biden wasn't all there. Especially with the Parkinson's story in play. I wonder if that will come up. A lot of people have been covering up this situation for a long time.
Quoting Mr Bee
Definitely not over. This thing's just getting started. Even if they swapped in Kamala, it would not be smooth sailing. The public would have a lot of questions about "What did they know, and when did they know it," as they used to say during Watergate.
Quoting Mr Bee
He's gotten much worse just in the past few months. It's heartbreaking at a human level. Especially since none of us are immune. I kind of admire his stubbornness. I'd like to see him stay in and stick it to the party. According to the polling he was losing on the issues anyway. Not clear a last-minute swap would help. Not entirely clear that Biden's condition is the only reason he's behind in the polls.
Quoting Mr Bee
They'll never impeach or invoke the 25th. They won't do it. And I don't know if pressure will be enough. I don't see Jill giving in "for the good of the party."
When the GOPs came to Nixon, they told him he was certain to be impeached and convicted. The Dems have no such leverage. This really is a day-by-day situation. Next week is the GOP convention, that might take some of the media attention off the Dems.
Quoting Mr Bee
BIden is not a good man. His lunchbucket Joe act is just for the public. I've heard he's always been a very nasty guy in private. Of course you're right, if he would gracefully bow out and endorse Kamala, that's the best the Dems can hope for.
Quoting Mr Bee
I think the Dems should crumble for what they've done. They had three years to deal with this. Instead they've been lying and gaslighting the country. It was all "cheap fakes" and right wing propaganda right up until the debate. By rights, the voters should punish the Dems severely for all this. But of course Trump has his negatives. People who hate Trump are not going to suddenly vote for him.
I think if the Dems coalesced behind Joe that gives them their best chance. Then Kamala can take over shortly after the inauguration if Joe should win. It's going to be a close election either way. It's very unclear if swapping out Joe actually improves the Dems' chances.
Ok. You and I can agree to disagree on many things, and this is another such.
But don't you know that he's been getting the questions ahead of time at his infrequent press conferences? And making errors and telling falsehoods for the past three years? I guess people see what they want to see.
Are you saying you were genuinely shocked at his condition at the debate? Believed everything else was "cheap fakes?" How can that be? If you say so, I believe you ... but I've seen Biden's cognitive decline since 2019. Even at the Dem primaries in 2020 Cory Booker and others were making fun of his failing memory.
Distinction? Well I am trying to focus on the politics and not the policies because we all know each other's talking points on policy. But the inflation, the direct result of the massive printing and spending? The open borders that are costing LA and Chicago and NYC billions? Two new wars? Trump had none. If you call that distinction, we can agree to disagree on that too. I'll stipulate to all well-known talking points and rebuttals on both sides, not intending to argue policy. But a lot of Americans are quite unhappy with the Biden admin totally apart from Joe's personal condition.
Which by the way, is one reason swapping out Joe for Kamala might not be the panacea the Dems think it is. Same policies with less mental confusion. Not clear that's an electoral winner.
If you are backing off the stroke remark, I'll be glad to give you a pass on that. I did take it as representative of the massive anger that Dem suddenly feel towards Biden, when they'd been supporting him five minutes earlier.
Quoting Wayfarer
I understand that you feel that way. But Trump was already president for four years. He didn't put people in camps. He didn't do any of the bad things the Trump haters are afraid of. In fact he got rolled by the administrative state and most of the people who worked for him. Some dictator.
And no new wars started on his watch. That is something. That is a lot. And it was no accident. Trump was the peace candidate in 2016 and 2020, and he's the peace candidate today. The left used to be for peace. One of the factors in my defection from the left.
Quoting Wayfarer
That is just not true. He's been bumbling and stumbling in a frankly heartbreaking manner for several years now. It's not possible to have not seen it. The wandering off stages, the mis-statements that had to be cleaned up by aides the next day ... ok I won't go on. If you claim to have first seen Joe's infimity at the debate, I'll believe you. Because you say so; not because such a claim is credible.
When Joe wandered off at the G7, froze up at Juneteenth, and head-butted the Pope, did you believe KJP when she called those "cheap fakes?" Curious to know.
Quoting Wayfarer
He has always been corrupt and a rather stupid man. But he was always verbal. Nothing like the last few months and the last few years. The slurring of words. After the debate I was shocked that everyone else was shocked. He seemed to me the same as he's been for quite some time.
Quoting Wayfarer
The point is not that Orange Hitler is worse than the cognitively-impaired husk. That's a political judgment and politics is not about purity. But look what you're doing. You are denying Joe's cognitive impairment on the grounds that Trump is a terrible person. How does that even make sense? Trump is Trump, I get you don't like the guy. That has nothing to do with the fact that the Dems have indeed been covering up Biden's increasingly worse cognitive issues.
Do you even see your bad logic? You are saying that Trump is evil THEREFORE the Dems have not been covering up Biden's cognitive issues. Surely you can see the flaw in that argument.
You can't even discuss Biden's sad state of mind because you hate Trump so much. What kind of sense does that make?
Quoting Wayfarer
You can't discuss Biden's cognitive issues because you hate Trump. This is exactly how the Democratic party got itself into the pickle it's in! Five years of denial, gaslighting, and coverups.
Ok let me say this another way. If I am understanding you, you claim that you cannot discuss the Democrats' current cognitively-impaired Biden pickle with me, because I don't agree with you about how evil Trump is.
Some people see politics purely in partisan terms. I can discuss a pickle whether the pickle is on one side or the other. The current situation is unprecedented in US history. It's nothing like when LBJ dropped out in 1968 over the Vietnam war, or when Truman chose not to run in 1952 due to his unpopularity.
To me, politics is a partisan affair, to be sure. But it is also a spectator sport. I don't have to love Trump or hate Trump to be enjoying the spectacle. But from your point of view, you can't even have a conversation with me about politics if I don't hate Trump the way you do.
In that case I'm sorry I troubled you. I enjoy talking politics. I don't have to love or hate the people involved. You can vote for Biden (if you were a US voter) regardless of his mental state; and in theory, you could have a conversation about politics with someone whose politics are different than yours. I've always been able to do that. Not everyone does that, sadly. Political conversation is polarized these days, but it can be otherwise.
If the GOPs were in a pickle this week I'd discuss that. I've seen GOPs and Dems in plenty of pickles over the years. I love a good political scandal. That's just me.
I recall being amazed that Biden made it alive through those debates. I was not the only one with that expectation. I never thought he'd make it to election day. I saw an unwell man. And you are right, he did surprise me by surviving. Guess it was just me. What do I know, I liked Tulsi. Still do.
It clarifies once again that the USA doesn't qualify as a democracy. If the political system cannot produce choices beyond a vegetable and a criminal then quite obviously other people are in control what you get to vote on. We call that banana republics.
I hardly see the GOP as authoritarian. Going back a ways, which of these postwar GOP presidents were authoritarians? Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump. Feel free to explain to me what these folks did that was authoritarian. I opposed the hell out of 43's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars never could have happened without the enthusiastic consent of the top Dems such as Hillary, Schumer, Biden, et. al.
In theory, the GOPs should be for free enterprise. Not that they really are, but that's more of libertarian sensibility. But I'm open to understanding you observation. When Obama ruled "with a pen and phone," was that the unitary executive? Or when the Supreme Court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loans to the taxpayers and he did it anyway, was that the unitary executive?
Quoting Benkei
Every election I can remember has been that way. Bush (I'll do two wars) vs Kerry (I'll just do them better). What kind of choice was that?
Quoting Benkei
YouTubers Eric Hunley and Marc Groubert of America's Untold Stories awarded the US eight bananas (out of ten) following Bragg's conviction of Trump. What of it? Some of us don't think this country's had a legitimate government since the deep state killed JFK in 1963. We have a country of, by, and for the military-industrial complex.
$200 billion to Ukraine, and barely $330 million to Maui after their fire. And that was under the Biden administration. Care to defend that? I'd send $200B to Maui and send the corrupt Nazi Zelinsky money-laundering operation straight to hell. But that's just me. Peacenik from way back, like the left used to be.
Trump started no new wars, the only president in my lifetime to have managed that. Yet he's universally hated by the "good people." Why is that? Why do the good people love the warmongers?
What is on your mind about this? Who's the authoritarian and what have they done? Biden has been quite the unitary executive.
Yeah the dam didn't break for now, but clearly nobody is eager to unite behind Biden just yet. Bennet's comments recently indicate that Biden isn't gonna be able to ignore and move on from the problem as he usually likes to do.
Quoting fishfry
Courage is a rare thing among elected officials which is why Trump wasn't banished from the GOP, despite their occasional concerns about him post Jan 6 and 2022 midterms.
Quoting fishfry
I'd say call the bluff. Biden isn't exactly a guy who embodies strength as we saw during the debate and how he's been handling the Gaza situation. I mean sure he has alot of angry stubborn grandpa energy but Netanyahu has been crossing his red lines repeatedly and he has not done anything to stop him.
At this point I don't know what the congressional Dems have to lose either so they might as well try to improve their party's situation and place themselves on the right side of history in case Biden stays in, Trump wins, and he ends democracy.
One interesting aspect of Biden's ABC interview was that he never really specified how he would react if the congressional Dems turned on him. He outright refused to answer the question and acted like there's no revolt going on. If he was really delusional you would've thought that he would give a non-assuring answer like, "I would sit down and tell them 'We will win'," or something to that effect. That will probably hang over the Dems minds as they contemplate what to do next.
Quoting fishfry
Arrogance. They thought they could probably roll with Biden into the next election and dismissed people's concerns about his age. I mean they got pretty far before we saw what happened a week ago... putting aside all those viral videos of Biden having senior moments.
Quoting fishfry
Sounds like great qualities to have in a leader, both for the party and the country.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah, but that would be much better than well, trying to convince the public to vote for a soon to be 82 year old man who clearly has cognitive issues to serve another 4 years in office.
Quoting fishfry
Depends on your political affiliation but as someone who doesn't want Trump winning I have no sympathy for an old man who is selfishly staying in and gambling with his party and country simply to try and get a second term in his 80s.
Quoting fishfry
At this point I can see way more upsides to a new candidate than running with Biden. Biden can't do anything to fix the fact that he's down in the polls but another candidate can.
As Nikki Haley said, in a race between two incredibly unpopular geriatrics, the first party to get rid of their candidate wins the election. Polling seems to back that idea up, showing that a generic Dem or Rep running against either Trump or Biden respectively will easily win. It'll be interesting to see if that theory holds true.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah but they can severely harm and embarrass him, which at this point Biden frankly deserves. As a narcissist that's something he probably cares deeply about. Leverage isn't the same as having complete control over someone.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah doesn't seem like it so far. He's become oddly Trumpian in just about every respect since the debate happened. That being said it could all be a bluff and he may fold if his party lost faith in him. Biden's recent attempt at painting his problems as the elites trying to get rid of him as Trump usually does just isn't believable coming from him, a man who has been propped up by the elites all his life.
Quoting fishfry
They're likely gonna coalesce if Biden lasts until the convention, and the party and the media will never bring up the age or replacement issue again.
Or... maybe they will continue bringing up the issue of replacement if it's possible to swap him out post nomination, though at that point it'd just be Kamala who would be the nominee. Could be possible (apparently there was discussion of Pence taking over the GOP ticket in October of 2016 after the Access Hollywood tapes came out after all). Biden is likely to have a major senior moment in the next 4 months especially during the next debate which may reignite the discussion, or he could just die of old age. He's 81 after all, so it's not a possibility you can definitively rule out.
Seems like you're not the only one:
Only Michelle Obama bests Trump as an alternative to Biden in 2024 (Chris Jackson, Annaleise Azevedo Lohr, Charlie Rollason · Reuters/Ipsos · Jul 2, 2024)
One in three Democrats think Biden should quit the race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds (Jason Lange, Scott Malone, Howard Goller · Reuters · Jul 2, 2024)
Wouldn't she need a sufficiently detailed political program? And present it for all to see? Or is that no longer relevant? :)
Judging by what I've seen of/from her, I can see her as US president. Surely a whole class above the Clown. From memory, she had some qualms about a normal life with/for their kids.
What did Trump do that was authoritarian? Seriously? He tried to pressure the Republican Georgia secretary of state to "find" exactly the number of votes he needed to win. He tried to pressure his own VP to not certify the election (Pence had to call Dan Qualye, of all people, for moral guidance), and he spread and continues to spread lie after lie about the election he lost. You should listen to Bill Barr's testimony about the aftermath of the election. Total banana republic stuff. We dodged a serious bullet. Had Pence not certified, or had Raffensperger gone along with the attempt to steal the election (he says he felt threatened by Trump), it could have gotten a lot uglier than it was. And then there's the fake elector scheme, and of course Jan 6th.
I think we've long since past that this election cycle.
Quoting jorndoe
Honestly I still don't see the obsession people have with Michelle Obama, especially since she doesn't seem to have any political ambitions or policies of her own. Like is it purely because people miss Barack Obama that much?
She comes across as a smart, nice, honest person. Since she was First Lady, she's intimately familiar with the job. She's been the in the public eye for a long time and not even a whiff of a scandal. If her politics is somewhat moderate, she would wipe the floor with Trump. And Barack would be back in the White House. It's a wonderful fantasy, but that's all it is. Although the betting odds have her at 7%...
That being said if Jgill's prediction about Biden stepping aside (which is more likely now after the debate) and endorsing Michelle Obama that will certainly be Trump's worst nightmare. Plus the optics of passing over Kamala for another black woman wouldn't be as severe. Michelle just needs to last 4 months and the election is in the bag. A wonderful fantasy indeed.
His policy of splitting migrant families resulted with many children being interred away from their families.
Quoting fishfry
My liking him or not is irrelevant. His danger to democracy is not a matter of opinion. He’s not only a terrible person, he’s a dreadful leader, his only policy is retribution. His speeches are horrific and contain nothing about policy as such, only threats and fear-mongering. How you can fall for his schtick beats me.
Biden is not ‘a husk’. He’s been an effective senator and president, but he needs to pass the torch.
//
I note today that Gavin Newsom is acting as party whip for Biden. I believe he’s totally sincere in so doing, but also that he’s ideally positioned to step up if the torch is passed.
Nostalgia for Barrack.
I think that even if Biden bowed out gracefully (unlikely) or the Dems forced him out (quite unseemly, also unlikely) and elevated Kamala, whose popularity is below Biden's (I haven't checked that lately) life would NOT suddenly be a bed of roses. A lot of Dem voters would be unhappy and confused. And the policies are no different. Biden had a bad approval rating and was losing the election to Trump even before the debate. Many of the Dems' policy results such as inflation, unchecked immigration causing blue cities to be overrun with a humanitarian and financial disaster; the two wars, etc etc, are quite unpopular. And Kam is to the left of Joe. I don't see how this solves the Dems' electoral problems.
Quoting Mr Bee
Verily I say unto you, and unto all the fervent Trump haters on this forum:
Trump is 100% the Democrats' fault
Back in early 2022, people were tired of Trump. I was tired of Trump. He has all his negatives, the bluster, the bullshit, the thin skin, the midnight tweeting, the lack of understanding of how the government works. I was ready for a new GOP candidate to challenge the Dem orthodoxy that's not working for a good portion of the people in this country.
If you remember, DeSantis was running neck-and-neck with Trump in the polls. Then Biden, Garland, and Wray raided Mar a Lago. The very next day, DeSantis was obliged to come out in support of Trump. From that moment onward, Trump started rising in the polls and DeSantis sank out of sight.
With every new lawfare case, Trump became more popular. Because the Trump haters see these cases as righteous applications of the law; but the other half of the country sees them as bad faith politicization of the American system of justice, one of the best things we (used to) have going for us.
And so now, Trump is all but unstoppable, and then there was the debate, and here we are.
I say this: If the Dems had done two things: (1) Totally ignored Trump; and (2) Had an open, competitive primary; then at this very moment, Gavin or Gretchen would be beating the stuffing out of DeSantis.
The Democrats created all of this. They made a martyr then a hero out of Trump; and they refused to confront reality about Biden's condition. The Dems did this. Not the GOP. Most of the GOP hate Trump, they'd love an alternative. The Democrats forced the GOP to rally around Trump.
Quoting Mr Bee
I wouldn't mess with Jill and Hunter.
Quoting Mr Bee
I truly do not understand that talking point. Trump was already president for four years and he didn't end democracy. On the contrary, he got rolled by the bureaucrats and most of the people who worked for him.
I think what people mean is that Trump is going to do to the Dems exactly what they did to him. And frankly, some of that would be a good thing. Garland and Wray are thugs. The country may never recover from their abuse of the justice system.
But Trump "ending democracy?" Nonsense. Most of that is projection on the part of the Democrats. We're having an election. That's democracy, imperfect as it is.
Quoting Mr Bee
He's the president of the United States. He doesn't have to do or say a damn thing. He said something the other day I really liked. He said, "If someone wants to challenge me at the convention, let them." He's a tough old bird. I don't like the guy but this might be his finest hour!
He's the president. He has Jill and Hunter, two pit bulls. He has 3896 Democratic delegates.
What do the Dems have? A strongly worded editorial from the New York Times?
The Dems have no hand to play.
Quoting Mr Bee
Cheap fakes. Like I say. The Dems are in a pickle entirely of their own making. Trump didn't make the Democrats ignore the Biden situation for the past three years. Whose bright idea was it to anoint Joe with their non-primary primary? If they'd had a real primary, Gav and Gretch would have been all over it. The 1968 Democrats had a wild primary that ultimately drove LBJ out. They could have and should have done exactly the same thing.
Arrogance, I guess that's as good a word for it as any. Short-sightedness. They tried to keep a lid on it and now it's blown up in their faces.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm likin' Biden more this week than I ever have in my life. I like this stubborn old coot telling the DNC and the New York Times to stuff it.
Quoting Mr Bee
Wouldn't have to. He can run then turn it over to Kam in 2025. Would have made his point. Kam is not any more likely to win the election than Biden. Kam has high unfavorability. She's a lousy politician, the 2020 primaries showed that. She had to drop out in 2019. She is not the Dems' savior.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm making a nonpartisan point. Say you hate Trump. I am making the point that Biden arguably has a better shot than Kamala. The party will look like a clown show if they throw over Joe after telling us he was "sharp as a tack" for three years. People will not like that. They don't have to vote for Trump, but enough of them might just stay home.
The message would be, "We said Joe is sharp as a tack but we were lying, so here, vote for highly unpopular Kamala." I don't think that's a winning message for the Dems. Not a partisan point. Biden has a better shot to win than Kamala. It doesn't matter that his mind is gone. He's not Trump, AND the DNC isn't pulling a last-minute switcheroo.
I don't think the voting public is going to like a switcheroo on top of the fraud they've already seen. Hope I made my point that I'm not talking partisanship. I think Kam's a terrible candidate. Her negatives don't go away if they elevate her.
Quoting Mr Bee
Ok, so that's a point we disagree on. But not a partisan point for me. If Trump didn't exist, the Dems should still run Joe. The swicheroo factor, I'll call it. People will feel that they've been played.
Quoting Mr Bee
LOL. Well you know, maybe you are convincing me a little. I could be wrong. I give my own theory only about 75% credence. Maybe people are more horrified at Joe's condition than I realize. All the people who were genuinely shocked by the debate.
Quoting Mr Bee
I am pretty sure Biden is way beyond embarrassment at this point. And Jill and Hunter surely have no shame. But I see your point. At some point he'll cave to the political pressure of being so unliked. Could happen. Or it could just make him dig in more. He's been in politics over 50 years. Survival is an instinct. We see it all the time. His body knows how to be a politician even if his mind is gone.
Quoting Mr Bee
Either way, I'm enjoying the show. I'm one who always enjoys a political show. If the GOP were having a fiasco this week I'd enjoy that just as much.
Quoting Mr Bee
Chicago! The Palestinian wing of the party riots. "The whole world's watching!" 1968 here we come!
Quoting Mr Bee
Could happen. And Trump is no spring chicken either. One more Big Mac could do it.
I have followed southern border politics for decades. Here's how it works. I am going to explain some things to you now.
An adult shows up at the border with a kid. The adult says, "This is my child." The kid is tired, hungry, scared, and doesn't say a thing. The adult has no documentation.
You are the administration in charge of border policy. What do you do?
If you say, "Ok, you can both come in," then you turn a lot of kids over to traffickers.
So what do you do to avoid turning children over to traffickers? You separate the kids from the adults until you can contact the authorities in their claimed home country, and find out who they are. If they are a legit family, you reunite them and send them on their way. If not, you just stopped a trafficker and saved a child.
Now, what do you do with the kids? If you put them in a big dormitory, they will be assaulted by sexual predators. So you put chain link around the kids to protect them.
In 2014, Obama had a huge refugee crisis. He "put kids in cages." Photos circulated on social media of the kids in chain link enclosures, with each kid wrapped in a space blanked looking like a baked potato in foil. The images shocked people.
So what did Obama do? Well, optics are everything in politics. They started separating fewer families, stopped putting "kids in cages," and turned a hell of a lot of children over to traffickers. The Washington Post wrote a story about Obama's trafficking problem, but mostly the story got no play.
Fast forward to Trump. Trump does not like traffickers. He tried to protect the kids. He did separate families, to determine if they really were families. Photos were circulated on social media -- the same Obama kids in cages photos. Liberals were outraged till they found out those were Obama's kids in Obama's cages. More photos circulated. Again -- Obama's kids, Obama's cages.
Bad optics. "Trump put kids in cages." So fucking ignorant. A lot of liberals -- ok a lot of people in general -- lead with their emotions, especially when they are ignorant of the facts. So "kids in cages" became the attack on Trump, when in fact the whole idea is to separate traffickers from children and keep the children safe from sexual predators until the true family status can be sorted out.
Now Biden comes in, rescinds all of Trump's border policies including Remain in Mexico. Biden now has a massive immigration crisis on his hands. But the optics are the most important thing. So what does Biden do? He just lets all the adults stay with the kids and lets them in to the country.
What is the result? Biden has lost track of 85,000 children. Most likely turned over to traffickers as sex and work slaves, as you and I speak tonight. Here, read this.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Did-Joe-Biden-Lose-85000-Migrant-Kids
The House Oversight Committee’s National Security Subcommittee held a hearing this week on the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. Robin Dunn Marcos, director of the office, appeared, but if you watch that hearing you’ll learn a lot more from the questions than the answers — because there weren’t many answers on key issues, such as the fate of 85,000 children the office has apparently lost contact with. Someone needs to put a up a large “Help Wanted” sign in Washington, because the American people are desperately in need of accountability on migrant children — both in the government and in the media.
I told you a few posts ago, in a post you never replied to, that Joe Biden is running the largest child trafficking operation in the world. It is true. It is a moral outrage. Nobody gives a shit.
Now you know what "separating families" and "kids in cages" are all about. You separate kids from adults until you can determine who's a parent and who's a trafficker. And you keep the kids behind chain link fences to protect them from sexual predators.
But kids in cages makes for bad optics. So Biden just turns the kids over to traffickers, and ignorant liberals know nothing about it, and STILL THEY BITCH ABOUT TRUMP'S CAGES.
Liberals still do not know that those were Obama's cages, Obama's family separation policy, and that once the optics got bad, Obama just said fuck it, and turned the kids over to traffickers. No more bad optics. And that's Biden's policy too. No cages. Just trafficked children.
Get a clue, brother. Get a moral clue. I explained this to you two weeks ago and you never acknowledged the post. Joe Biden is a child trafficker. Because the optics are better than "kids in cages," which upsets ignorant liberals.
Quoting Wayfarer
Ok. I could, for sake of argument, stipulate to all that. I can still talk politics! I can still talk about Joe Biden's mental impairment. I do believe you said to me earlier that you can't even talk about the Biden pickle unless I hate Trump as you do. Some people feel that way. Myself, I'll talk politics to talk politics. I don't have to love or hate Trump to talk about the mess the Dems got themselves into this week.
I would be glad to explain to you "how I can fall for his schtick," but that's more for the Trump forum. In this thread I'm trying to focus on the topic, the 2024 US election. Or as Joe Biden puts it: "I'll beat Donald Trump again in 2020." It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, and if old age and sickness didn't eventually catch up with us all.
I'll be happy to argue the merits of Trump with you if you'd like, but it's not really all that productive. I did write you a long-assed post a couple of weeks ago about my journey from dedicated liberal to the politically homeless, reluctant Trumper than I am today. I could write more. It's been decades in the making. It started when Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and the left rallied around him. It was my first sense of a disturbance in the liberal force. There were many other such moments over the years. This Biden fiasco is just the latest.
Quoting Wayfarer
Man even the New York Times thinks he's a husk. I don't even have to make the case. Biden's own "friends" are making that case with sharp knives. Julius Caesar never got it so bad on the floor of the Roman senate. George Stephanopoulos said today that he doesn't think Biden can make it another four years. Et tu, George.
Quoting Wayfarer
Newsom is too smart and too ambitious to touch the current mess with a ten foot pole. Whitmer too. Any Dem who's viable for 2028 is going to show loyalty to Biden and stay out of 2024. Why go down with this sinking ship, when a brand new ship is arriving in four years?
I appreciate the opportunity to chat. I really did take it to heart a few weeks ago when you expressed disappointment in my political sentiments, in light of my math-related content. I'm always willing to talk politics with people who don't share my opinions. I'm not blind to Trump's many flaws, but IMO he really is not the monster the Dems have made him out to be. I'm always happy to explain myself.
Bottom line: The Dems and the left have deeply lost their way; and Trump is the only alternative. I'm not for Trump. I'm against what the Dems and the left have become. I saw what the Dems had become in 2002, when Hillary made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of the war in Iraq. The Democrats could have stopped that war. They were looking to Hillary for leadership. She chose the path of war. So when 2016 showed up and it was Trump or Hillary, I chose Trump. And why did the Dems nominate a corrupt, warmongering, unlikable, lousy politician like Hillary? As Obama said when he destroyed her in 2008: "You're likable enough, Hillary."
And as I pointed out in my latest reply to @Mr Bee, Trump is a monster of the Dems' own making. If the Dems had (1) Totally ignored Trump starting in 2022: no lawfare, no rhetoric; and (2) run open, competitive primaries; then today, as we speak. Gavin or Gretchen would be handily beating DeSantis.
The Democrats turned Trump in to a martyr. I was sick of the guy myself before the Dems turned the apparatus of the American justice system on him. That Mar a Lago raid put Trump into the White House.
Ok so it's all J6. Bunch of unarmed people are invited in by the Capitol cops, and Pelosi and the hysterical Dems whip up a national hysteria. In the end, it's J6. A Reichstag fire for our times. I find myself wondering what the left will do if Trump wins in November. I expect the left to riot, as they do whenever they don't get their way. Maybe you missed the George Floyd riots. $1-2B in damages, "the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history" according to Wiki. And who supported a fund to bail out the violent rioters? Kamala Harris.
So if that's all you got, what about the rest of Trump's four years in office? "Republicans are authoritarians," is what you said. I list all the postwar GOP presidents and all you've got is J6. As a matter of logic, can you see that you have not made your point?
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
:100: :up:
You hardly see because it's a feature not a bug. But some things that have me grimace in distaste are the ability of US Presidents to:
Yes, this is absolutely authoritarian from the view of a European democracy. Unitary executive theory would take this even further.
What are and were the substantial policy differences between other GOP candidates and Trump? What exactly was the choice there?
Apart from general Democrat programs, she hasn't aired much I know of, though she's associated with her husband and his administration. Yep, she comes across as smart, knowledgeable, strong, present, "heart in the right place", not a serial bullshitter (or liar for that matter), she could stand up to, and be respected by, the world. I don't think that's an obsession, more like a contrast that perhaps many would welcome.
She'd get under the microscope, though, face extreme scrutiny, whether from political opponents, foreign (covert) campaigns, tabloids seeking to make a buck, mudslingers, 1-shot magnification of some issue, heck racists even, ... (From memory, there was one bullshit story about one of their kids narrowly escaping that horrible horrible family; OK, I'm exaggerating, yet that's the kind of thing associated with that crap.) I can see why she wouldn't want to put her and her's through that.
Actually I'd say alot of them would be relieved if Biden were replaced right now. Like I said alot of Dem voters didn't want Biden to run again and the debate has been spread around so much that people know what's going on with Biden. Most of the in person takes from Democrats I've seen seem to be "yeah I'll vote for Joe over Trump because Trump, but honestly I think I will prefer anything else".
Quoting fishfry
Part of what makes me see the debate as a blessing in disguise. I thought Biden's campaign was a dying campaign that was gonna lose before anyways so a disastrous debate performance was just the sort of jolt needed in desperate times. I mean Biden may still stay in but if things were going in a bad direction already then hey gotta take a chance right?
Quoting fishfry
I'm not gonna argue policy but politically Kamala would be wise to try to distance herself from the unpopular policies of Biden's administration and tie herself to the more popular aspects. The Gaza issue for instance is something that is splitting the base right now for Biden, so another candidate who isn't as tied to Biden's actions would be better, if simply for the fact that they won't be seen as having Palestinian blood on their hands as the chief director of an administration's foreign policy.
Quoting fishfry
I don't think alot of Democrats would disagree with that, particularly on the progressive left (the "Bernie would've won" types). The Dems utter incompetence in running an effective candidate against an easily beatable buffoon like Trump is what got us here and may get us to another Trump term. Hilary was unpopular but the DNC decided it was her turn and she was the nominee. Biden was also uninspiring but the DNC decided it was his turn and pulled alot of strings to get more popular candidates like Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him before Super Tuesday, winning him the nomination. And now the DNC is again ignoring the will of it's voters by putting up a man the majority of the country think is too old.
It's funny how apart from Biden the two candidates who won the general elections since 2008 were dark horse candidates in Obama and Trump who genuinely built up a base of support from the ground up. Maybe the Democrat party should take some lessons from that or maybe they'll try to force Kamala down our throats in 2028 since it's her turn next.
Quoting fishfry
I'd say the GOP also bears some of the blame too for what happened post Jan 6. They condemned Trump and what he did, rightly so. They could've impeached and gotten rid of him forever but they chickened out, perhaps because they thought that he was gonna go away on his own. The Dems thought the same and also did nothing too.
You may have your own ideas on why it took Garland so long to start an investigation into Trump but I think it's just because they had the same mindset as the GOP: That Trump would simply go away and disappear because there's no way the people would flock back to a loser who tried to pull off that, right? There was no need to start a politically charged investigation into a highly controversial figure which would probably just anger the people at Jan 6. It was just pure incompetence and trust in the public to move on when they clearly seem unable to.
Like I said before, courage is a rare thing for elected officials, and nobody has the guts to actually go after Trump effectively and snuff him out for good, causing him to come back as he always has. It's not that Trump is invincible but everyone else is a coward.
Quoting fishfry
Well at this point they have to talk as much sense into Jill as they do to Joe.
And just now we have Pelosi coming on to Biden's favorite show Morning Joe and laying out that this issue is clearly not over right to Joe's face. She is still saying Biden "needs to make a decision" after he decided to stay on, which is essentially code for "we'll let you do it on your own terms, but get the hell out or else more people will lose confidence in you".
Quoting fishfry
Well that's the idea. He clearly has a tendency for dangerous ideas given Jan 6, but was stopped by some of the people who were working for him like Mike Pence. I guarantee you whoever he picks for his running mate and his administration won't be professionals who would keep him in check like last time.
I assume we probably are gonna disagree here but I'll just leave things there. I'm not looking to debate Trump's policies or Project 2025 right now.
Quoting fishfry
Similarly nobody in the Biden White House can truly stop the congressional Dems from coming out and distancing themselves from the president, which is clearly something Biden is working hard to avoid. Both sides are lobbing threats at each other and Biden according to one article is promising mutually assured destruction if he is attacked. Of course if the Dems are in a sinking ship anyways then why not pull a mutiny?
Quoting fishfry
LBJ stepped aside and a chaotic primary ensued where RFK was assassinated.
Quoting fishfry
The average voter just cares about who is at the top of the ticket and a bit about who is running with them. They're not gonna think that far ahead like you are. In fact I imagine alot of them are ignorant of how succession works. Plus it's very unlikely a narcissist like Biden would just hand over the presidency to Kamala as soon as he is inaugurated. He will be in the office most likely until he dies partway through the term at 85.
Quoting fishfry
I don't think the party will spin it that way. Biden won't make a speech saying "Yeah I've been lying about having dementia for 2 years now so I'm stepping aside", but probably saying something along the lines of "I believe I can serve another 4 months, but not another 4 years, so I'm renouncing my candidacy". The GOP will probably continue with the narrative but as far as the Dems are concerned, they didn't lie and they Biden is just making a personal decision about his next 4 years.
Also more would stay home if given the choice between Biden and Trump. Sure people hate Trump but the DNC is essentially making them walk through glass to vote against him by making the alternative just as despised and with crippling flaws of his own.
Quoting fishfry
My perception is people would just be relieved that they won't have to vote for a criminal geriatric and a senile one. You can say the scandal and the coverup is a bad look and the right wing circles will certainly go wild with that, but in an election full of conspiracies and scandals about laptops and documents that people seem to care very little about, at the end of the day the inattentive swing voter will just care about who they're voting for at the top of the ticket. Kamala isn't great, but she's not a corpse or a convicted felon.
Quoting fishfry
Yeah Biden has been in politics for 50 years but that has made him an institutionalist. Unlike Trump, he is a man who highly values norms, running on "restoring normalcy" as his 2020 pitch. The idea of running without the full support of your party is certainly breaking one of those norms and sure he may continue to soldier on as the donor network and congressional support dries up, but that is not easy for someone who's been a lifelong Dem. Trump certainly would since he never was a traditional politician, but as much as he tries to imitate him would Biden?
Quoting fishfry
If the lord almighty visited Biden and Trump the same day that would be the greatest day in American history where we're saved from this nightmare of an election.
Trump pressured Raffensperger to find the illegal votes, that is, he pressured him to find crime, as per his duty and mandate.
Imagine that.
George Clooney: I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/joe-biden-democratic-nominee.html
That’s not how this works. Even though Democrat insouciance regarding democracy is well known, it becomes quite glaring when it is held against their rhetorical defense of it, something they’ve used to great effect in the ears of their base over the last few years.
Is it advisable for elites like Clooney to subvert the will of the voters at the same time they feign to protect us from threats to democracy? Probably not. But that’s the unprincipled and wind-sock mentality of that party in particular. Now that their great dictator isn’t operating at full steam, power escapes their grips, and power is the only thing they’ve wanted this whole time.
The Trump admin separated kids from families as a deterrent. All families were separated. It wasn't for the good of the kids. The policy ended a short time later when the public found out.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump/trump-says-family-separations-deter-illegal-immigration-idUSKCN1MO00C/
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/16/trump-administration-knew-family-separations-harm-migrant-children/
It sounds like you're getting your information from places like Townhall, TheFederalist, Breitbart, and Redstate. Am I correct on that?
It was a Republican primary. They were all Republicans. Therefore, they all had pretty much the same political views. America runs a primary election before the general election so the people can vote for which candidate will represent their party.
Some tend to conveniently forget that. Trump made an attempt to control the border, then when Biden came into office he made that infamous comment, "storm the border". And don't forget the Afghanistan debacle.
Many of these were because of the failed government right after the Revolutionary War. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_(1786)
And then called the more famous Constitutional Convention in 1787 which was held in secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
The powers and growth of the executive branch over time. This started because a weak executive branch failed on various fronts. Also, arguably, it was Europe and WW1 that pulled America onto the world stage beyond, though a strong case can be made with the Spanish American war and gunboat policy.
So you'd know the name Senator James Lankford, and why he made news a couple of months back.
Quoting fishfry
So you think Mike Pence should have hung?
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm convinced that most of Trump's backers are not in because they like Trump or think that he's any good but because they can use him to pursue their own nefarious ends. And the only way that works is by sucking up to him and telling him how great he is. That's how Putin and Kim Jong Un have played him like a fiddle. Works every time, but only if he thinks you're someone who's opinion counts.
Ok. You started out saying that Republicans are authoritarians. Then you reverted to Trump alone, and only because of the American Reichstag fire that Democrats seized upon to go on yet another of their post-2016 Trump hysterias.
And now you make a very different point. You say that the American executive, as defined by the US Constitution, is inherently authoritarian.
Now this of course is an interesting theses that we could discuss in a forum on political philosophy. Perhaps in a different thread. Quite a bit has been thought and written about the subject since we yanks tossed King George's tea into Boston harbor.
But we are in the thread on the US election. Two men are vying to be president, unitary or not, morally-defined presidency or not.
So I think you've undermined your own point. Although in the end, you came to a very interesting subject. In theory the three branches of the US government are co-equal. But in recent decades the president has become way too powerful. I tend to agree with you. But that's not what we were talking about. It's not even what you were talking about. You wanted to bash Republicans, or Trump; and in the end, it's the role of executive power in theory and practice under the US Constitution.
I sure as hell opposed Bush's torture. And I equally strongly opposed Obama's coming into office and, by not holding the Bush administration accountable for their many abuses, institutionalizing the torture.
That was, by the way, yet another of my many data points along the way to being a disaffected liberal Democrat. Bush was a criminal when he tortured people. But Obama was worse, because when he chose (for good political reasons) not to hold Bush accountable, he turned the US into a torture regime.
I agree with you about all your particulars. The Constitution does not allow the president to start wars without a declaration of war from Congress. But the last time the president got a Congressional declaration was in World War II. Every single war since then has been illegal. I'm quite unhappy about that. But it's a bipartisan affair, hardly limited to one party.
And in our lifetimes, what president started no new wars? It was Trump. A point totally lost on the "Orange Hitler" brigade. I just don't know what happened to my former fellow liberals. Trump's victory over Saint Hillary drove them quite insane. They now love the national secuity state, the wars, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the lying, the spying. Back in the day they opposed all that. I still do.
False. Look it up. Military intervention and threat was his primary foreign policy tool.
And yes, Republicans are more authoritarian than Democrats even if they both are. Only Republicans have had sitting presidents and advisors argue in favour of it and the unitary executive theory. Most recently in court. Or did you miss that?
Chuckie Schumer is said to be "privately" open to opposing Biden. Pelosi gave an ambiguous statement coded to mean she's sticking in the knife, but very subtly.
But the big news of the day was that the Democrats brought out their big gun. Their nuclear weapon. Their neutron bomb. Yes, I mean George Clooney. A few weeks ago Clooney organized a $30M fundraiser for Biden complete with Julia Roberts and all the other beautiful people. Today, Clooney stabbed Biden in the back with a NYT op-ed. I tell you it's sickening to watch. I hope never to have "friends" like that. And Clooney said that when he saw Biden three weeks ago, Biden was not the same man as he was in 2010 or even 2020. So Clooney knew. And Clooney still raised the thirty mil. And today Clooney jumped on the Judas bus and stabbed his former friend in the back. These people are lower than low.
But in the end, the Dems have no leverage. And as I say, they can swap in Kam and they'll have a whole new set of problems.
Quoting Mr Bee
Right. Some say the Dems deliberately set him up to get him out. But it's not quite working the way they thought it would. I don't think they planned on Joe digging in and daring them to move him out.
Quoting Mr Bee
She's way further left than Biden, and Biden has governed from the left. Are you saying Kamala should turn into Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand? Ain't happenin'. She's a hard core leftist and would be a disaster for the country.
Quoting Mr Bee
No, they'd have Israeli blood on their hands. Kamala is married to a nice Jewish guy but she's a Hamasnik all the way. Just yesterday she said she "understands" the Gaza protesters. That's code for Death to Israel in my book. By the way I stand with Israel, just so you know. And I will say, this issue has split a lot of people. Some of my favorite political commentators have horrified me with some of their rhetoric. Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté. The Gaza war has been a terribly divisive issue. And Kam is way on the wrong side of it IMO. But we can agree to disagree on that. I don't talk about it much, it's just so emotional and so divisive for everyone. The Middle East has been a bloody mess all my life and I don't have any answers.
Quoting Mr Bee
I wish that were true. The TDS brigade would not take any responsibility for the Trumpenstein of their own creation. I wish Bernie and his supporters had been a lot more vocal when the DNC screwed them over in 2016 and again in 2020.
Quoting Mr Bee
It's funny. In 2016 the Dems found the only candidate in the country who could lose to Trump. In 2024 they're about to do it again.
Quoting Mr Bee
They didn't think he was too old when they gave him 3986 delegates. And why not? Because the Dems and the media gaslit the hell out of them. And again -- my ongoing thesis -- Kam would be worse. And nobody can leapfrog Kam. So in the end they stay with Biden. There is no alternative.
Quoting Mr Bee
By then Gavin and Gretchen will be fresh and ready. Kam will be yesterday's news. She's never been very popular and she's a terrible politician.
Quoting Mr Bee
I better take a pass on J6. I regard it as the Democrats' Reichstag fire. Bunch of unarmed, peaceful protesters were invited in by the Capitol police, things got out of hand and a riot ensued. What ever happened to, "A riot is the voice of the unheard?" That was the Dem line when the Floyd protesters caused $2B in property damage and killed 20 people. The Pelosi and Cheney J6 psy-op was a fraud. Trump has called for military tribunals. I disagree about that. In this country we use the civilian system of justice. But I do hope Trump gets some revenge on the Dems who have so abused our system of justice. Garland and Wray for two. The impeachments were totally fraudulent. It was Biden who was seen on video extorting the Ukrainians to get rid of the prosecutor investigating his money laundering scheme there. We better not get onto this topic, you know how I feel now.
Quoting Mr Bee
I want Garland and Wray in jail. Let's agree to disagree on that. J6 was a psy-op, a fraud, a Reichstag fire for our time and place. You can't have an insurrection with a bunch of unarmed people peacefully wandering around an office building. Compare and contrast to the Floyd riots. Voice of the unheard and all that. If anyone's unheard in this country it's the rank and file middle Americans. The people Trump has activated and drawn to him.
Quoting Mr Bee
The Democrats have disgraced themselves. Trump is a reaction to that. He has many flaws but he is the only alternative to the corrupt, warmongering status quo that the Democrats (and Republicans!) have turned into. Let's agree to disagree again. We're not doing policy here, only the politics of the Biden dilemma.
Quoting Mr Bee
Jill does not strike me as someone amenable to logic. Or political pressure. She's dug in. The Dems can impeach Joe or 25A him or they can pound sand. George Clooney's not going to do it.
Quoting Mr Bee
Right. Caught that. But she's wrong too. Joe is not "making a decision." He's made his decision. Now the Dems have to make theirs. Impeach, 25A, or stab him to death on the floor of the Senate à la Julius Caesar. Strongly worded editorials and vaguely worded statements on Morning Joe aren't going to cut it.
And George Clooney. That really cracked me up today. What a slime ball. Joe's best friend three weeks ago.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'd hang Mike Pence AND the fly he rode in on. 'Nuff o' J6.
Professionals? Milley is a treasonous bastard who belongs in prison. Mattis, useless. Barr, useless.
The reason the Dems are afraid of Trump is that they realize he's probably learned a few things about how Washington works. I truly hope so.
Quoting Mr Bee
Likewise. I really do try to avoid policy in this thread. But P2025 is not Trump's platform. P2025 is yet another TDS hysteria. Trump's platform is his actual platform. And it's surprisingly centrist, moderate, and popular. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject:
The truth about Trump? He’s a moderate
And here's The Guardian making the same point.
The Republicans’ new party platform is scary – because it can win
They made the point that Trump's platform is very 1990's Democrat centrist in nature. Jobs. Border control. Peace.
P2025 is another left wing hysteria. It's not Trump's platform at all.
Quoting Mr Bee
Attacks on Biden weaken him if he's the eventual nominee. Some Dems see that. Kamala is no panacea.
Quoting Mr Bee
That was a bad bad day. If one is conspiratorial-minded, one would say that they killed Bobby because as president, he was going to get to the bottom of his brother's murder at the hands of the CIA. I'm conspiratorial-minded in that regard. More shots were fired at Bobby than Sirhan's gun held. The coroner said he was shot at close range from behind, but Sirhan was several feet away, in front.
Terrible day. Awful. So many hopes were on Bobby. Making me sad now for what might have been.
Quoting Mr Bee
Yeah you're right. A career politician does not give up power willingly.
Quoting Mr Bee
I don't think they'd say it out loud, but many voters will read it that way. They shut down competitive primaries, foisted Joe on the Dem voters, and now this? What a mess.
Quoting Mr Bee
Anything can happen.
Quoting Mr Bee
The TDS crowd thinks Trump's a criminal. The other half of the country sees the Bragg prosecution as totally illegitimate. Nelson Mandela spent 28 years in jail but they didn't call him a felon when he became president. They recognized the legal process against him as unjust. Trump same, for half the country.
But I do agree that Trump is old and leads an unhealthy lifestyle. He could keel over too. I wonder what this is like for the young people of this country. They must be appalled.
Quoting Mr Bee
In 2020 a poll showed that 17% of the electorate would have changed their vote if the'd known that the laptop was authentic. And that's another thing. "51 former intelligence officials" said the laptop was Russian disinformation. It wasn't.
Why do people support Trump? Because he is the only alternative to the culture of official corruption that's seized this country. When the CIA and the FBI lie to the public to help a political candidate, that is a very serious problem. Trump stands opposed to that. A lot of people, such as myself, support Trump for what he stands for, not for who he is. He stands in opposition to this massive corruption of our government.
Quoting Mr Bee
Biden campaigned on normalcy, then ran as a corrupt leftist authoritarian. Lot of people see that.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm kind of enjoying it. Just want to see the Dems get their comeuppance.
Decades of interest in Mexico, traveling in Mexico, living in Mexico, paying attention to border politics. If you don't know about Biden's trafficking operation, hardly anyone does. If you don't care now that I've drawn people's attention to it, you should demand more of yourself re this moral atrocity.
I haven't read Townhall in years. Redstate, maybe the occasional article if it's linked from an aggregator. Don't recall last time I read it. Breitbart most definitely never writes about the cages and separation policy the way I've explained it. Don't recall The Federalist writing on immigration. Most of my political orientation these days comes from the disaffected liberals (like I am). Greenwald, Dore, Maté, lot of Substackers. They don't write about border issues either.
In the immigration issues as I explained them -- the cages and the separation policy -- I got that on my own from factual reporting on the subject. I was living in Mexico in 2014 when Obama had a terrible humanitarian crisis down there and built the cages. I followed the issue. I don't recall where it got reported. The MSM barely reported on it till the photos of the kids in cages covered in foil blankets started hitting social media. A lot of information not in the MSM is nonetheless true. That's a problem in itself. You can always say, "Well XXX is a scurrilous right wing rag." And maybe it is. But a lot of alt media covers stories the MSM won't touch.
Such as Biden's senescence. People were calling Jill Biden Edith Wilson in 2020. But in the alt media, not in the New York Times. But the alts were correct, and the MSM were lying. I hope there's a reckoning about that soon. You can't run a decent society without a truly free press.
And if the New York Times doesn't tell the truth about the border (or anything else), why is that? I read very widely, from the left-wing wackos to the right-wing wackos. But my knowledge of the border comes from a very long personal interest and involvement with the subject.
From the Reuters piece you linked: "In June, Trump abandoned his policy of separating immigrant children from their parents on the U.S.-Mexico border after images of youngsters in cages sparked outrage at home and abroad."
Exactly the same reason Obama and Biden decided to stop the caging and just turn the kids over to traffickers. Cages generate bad optics. Nobody sees the trafficked kids. That scandal's waiting to explode.
I'll stipulate that Trump said what the Reuter's piece says. Not a good look, I agree. It doesn't detract from my point. Obama put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Trump put kids in cages till the optics got bad. Biden just let everyone in and is running a massive trafficking operation. He'll be out of office before people come to find out what he's done.
Had to look that one up, perhaps I missed your point.
Quoting Wayfarer
Along with the fly.
Threat. He's a negotiator. He lobbed a few missiles at Syria. Drone strike against Soleimani. No new wars. He used threats to keep the peace. I didn't call him a milquetoast. I called him a peacemaker. Big difference. Based on results. No new wars. First prez in my lifetime who can say that. No new wars.
I do not believe he initiated any military interventions. You say that's false. Names and dates please. Trump started no new wars. As far as I know, no new military interventions at all. Did a quick lookup, couldn't find any.
Quoting Benkei
Unitary executive is a little inside baseball. It doesn't mean "all powerful president." According to Wiki: "The unitary executive theory is a controversial legal theory in United States constitutional law which holds that the president of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch."
It does not say anything about going to war. It says essentially that the prez is in charge of the people who work for him. I think you might be conflating different things. If you're referring to the recent Chevron decision, it's a good thing. The underlying case was a fisherman who had to pay $700 per day to have government inspectors on his boat. If Congress wants to pass a law to make him do it, let them pass a law. The agencies don't have the right, so say the Supes. Tell it to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, she's the one who stayed too long, expecting Hillary to win. Not my fault, not Trump's fault.
Who can argue with who's more authoritarian? The Supreme court told Biden he couldn't transfer student loan debt to the taxpayers. He did it anyway. Obama bragged about ruling "with a pen and phone." He held weekly Kill List meeting where he decided which American citizens to drone-bomb without due process. Going back in time, LBJ lied the country into the Vietnam war. There was no attack on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and that was known at the time. Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund his secret war in Nicaragua. Ok a GOP you got me there. I mean, you look at recent history, it's hard to tell one authoritarian from another. Trump was arguably less authoritarian than any of them, simply because he knew so little about how the government works that he got rolled by the bureaucrats and betrayed by the people who worked for him.
Senator James Lankford is a strict conservative GOP member who was on a bipartisan committee tasked with addressing border issues. He drove a very hard bargain and got many more concessions out of the Democrats than anyone had expected, getting them to agree to what many of them thought were overly harsh measures that the GOP had been demanding for years. But then before it went to a vote, Trump got wind of it and said he didn’t want it to go ahead. Why? Because it would take away his talking points about the country being flooded with Mexican rapists. So Lankford was then pressured to vote against his own hard-fought legislation, rather than bring it to the floor - because it might have been a solution. Trump would rather keep his talking points than actually solve the problem. For his trouble, Lankford was then censured by the Oklahoma Republican Party, for the mortal sin of working with Democrats.
Quoting fishfry
That probably also explains why 24 previous aides and allies went on the record saying he was unfit for office and a danger to democracy.
:rofl: I see you're thoroughly misinformed nowadays.
Quoting fishfry
Love the cavalier attitude to the use of armed force. This really underlines my point. Let's pretend it's not a war and then it's ok. No matter that "war" isn't the appropriate legal term any more. No matter that the President can unilaterally decide to put soldiers, e.g. US citizens, into harm's way because "technically" it isn't a war. No matter that it's still armed aggression, which is prohibited under the UN Charter so the President is unilaterally deciding to breach treaties Congress signed up to. It's authoritarian and it was his primary M.O. with respect to international relations. Of course, other US Presidents have done the same thing but presenting Trump as a peace candidate is silly and not borne out by the facts.
Motives matter. Separating families for the good of the kids is one thing. A zero tolerance policy separating all families to deter would-be immigrants is evil, unprecedented, and was quickly stopped when the public found out what was going on. And yes, Biden's record on the border is awful. We're not doing people any favors when we make it easy for them to come here illegally and then live in the shadows and be exploited.
I agree. I think they are mistaken however. Trump's own ends begin and end with Trump. They cannot control him. When their ends conflict with his ... Well I hope we will not have to find out.
:lol:
You really do come up with amazing twaddle.
Thanks for that summary. I apparently missed this story. I did a quick search and evidently the GOP Senators rejected his bill. I looked at a couple of articles and they didn't mention Trump's influence, even though "Trump" was one of my search terms.
If you happen to have a reference to Trump's influence on the GOP abandonment of Lankford's bill I'd appreciate it. Pending that, and taking your word for it, I'll grant you your point. I've never said Trump isn't a flawed man. I've only said that he's the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years.
I agree that the GOP are useless. They get nothing done at all. I'm saddened but not surprised to learn they killed a chance at sensible immigration reform, with or without Trump's pressure.
Quoting Wayfarer
The word authoritarian is lacking in your talking point. For sure he's a danger to the status quo in Washington, so it's not difficult to find people to throw rocks at him. I just don't see how a guy who got so easily subverted by his underlings could be an authoritarian. Joe Stalin was an authoritarian. He killed his enemies and friends alike. His critics didn't go to the press, they went to the Gulag.
Trump says border bill ‘very bad’ for Lankford’s career
[quote=Feb 2024] Former President Trump on Monday railed against the bipartisan border agreement and took aim at Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator, for his role in brokering the deal.
In an interview on “The Dan Bongino Show,” Trump denied endorsing Lankford’s candidacy in 2022 — despite doing so publicly — and did not rule out endorsing a primary opponent when Lankford is up for reelection in 2028. ...
Ahead of the bill text’s release, Trump had attacked the prospect of the legislation, branding it as a political victory for Democrats ahead of the 2024 election — a message he repeated in Monday’s interview.“This is a gift to Democrats, and this, sort of, is a shifting of the worst border in history onto the shoulders of Republicans. That’s really what they want. They want this for the presidential election, so they can now blame the Republicans for the worst border in history,” Trump said.[/quote]
As mentioned, Lankford was then censured by his own party. This for a straight up-and-down Republican who has toed the party line on every single issue.
Quoting fishfry
And I just don't know how you can say that. He's on the record suggesting, for instance, that the constitution ought to be suspended, that he plans to purge the civil service and stock it with his operatives, and intends to use the Department of Justice against his enemies. The last few weeks, there's been a lot of press over Project 2025, which likewise plans to implement plainly authoritarian policies - Trump has been trying to disassociate himself from it, but it is almost entirely composed of ex-Trump aides and staffers, and he's spoken at the Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions. But then, you know, but seem to downplay or rationalise, that Trump sicked his mob on the Capital Building, leading to multiple deaths and hundreds of arrests and jail sentences, one of the darkest days in American history. Why you're OK with that I can't fathom.
Perhaps you can explain what I'm misinformed about re the family separations and cages.
If I'm understanding you correctly, when Obama separated families and put the kids in cages, he did it for saintly reasons, him being Saint Obama. And when Trump separated families and kept the kids in the very same cages Obama had built for that purpose, he did it for dastardly reasons, because he's Orange Hitler.
That is the only way I can interpret your claim that I am "misinformed" regarding widely known matters of fact. If you didn't know about Obama's cages in 2014 that's understandable, because the story was not widely reported in the MSM. If you claim it's not true today, it's you who are misinformed.
I'm open to your explaining exactly what I am misinformed about regarding this situation.
Quoting Benkei
Not cavalier at all. If you can't see the difference between lobbing a few missiles onto an airport tarmac (if I recall the details correctly, didn't bother to look it up) and starting new wars, as every president of both parties since Ike has done; then I just don't know what to say. You draw an equivalence between the tarmac bombing and Biden's two major proxy wars? Or Clinton's bombing of Serbia, a war Clinton's voters ignored because it was a Dem war. It bothered me, and I was a big Clinton fan and voter at the time. Yet another one of the datapoints in my growing estrangement from the Dems. The antiwar left is strangely silent when they're Democratic wars. The left hated Bush's torture program but they didn't mind that Obama institutionalized it by failing to hold the Bush regime accountable (for understandable political reasons, to be sure).
So Trump bombed a tarmac and killed one Iranian. That's a remarkable lack of bloodshed for an American president of any party. I don't see how you can pretend not to understand that point.
Quoting Benkei
The tarmac and the terrorist. That's it. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between using massive violence, as most president do; and bluster and the threat of violence to avoid violence, as Trump did.
I think you actually do understand; but just want to pretend you don't to make a partisan point.
You know that Trump on multiple occasions has sucked up to Putin? That he stood on the world stage with him and said he trusted Putin above his own intelligence agencies? That he thinks Kim Jong Un is a really neat guy, even saying once that they were 'in love'? Why is it that the only political leaders he's ever expressed admiration for, if not because they're role models for him? Not that he's got anywhere near the guts or the guile to actually pull it off. Fortunately.
You made my point for me. In 2014 when Obama was separating families and putting kids in cages, the MSM did not widely report the story. People were not outraged because they didn't know it was happening. When images of kids in cages covered in foil space blankets "like baked potatoes" started circulating on social media, Obama dialed back the cages and loosened the vetting of families. Even the WaPo was forced to report on the kids Obama was losing to traffickers.
I have already conceded to you that if Trump said what you you say he did, that was not a good look. Trump is a very flawed man, but the only alternative to the wrong turn the Dems have taken the past couple of decades and especially the past eight years. So if he did bad, I'll grant you the point.
But as I mentioned in another post just now, if your point is that Obama put kids in cages it was good because he's Saint Obama; and when Trump put kids in the exact same cages Obama had built for that exact purpose it was bad, because he's Orange Hitler, you are just being partisan.
How do we know Trump wasn't just being Trump, and saying something inartfully that could be twisted by his opponents? Maybe just trying to send a message to prospective immigrants? As the saying goes, Trump 's opponents take him literally but not seriously. And his supporters take him seriously but not literally. Like when he jokingly asked Putin to find Hillary's emails. I thought that was hilarious. The left went hysterical; and for the most part, disingenuously so.
Also, a little off-topic: Like the taco bowl tweet. I thought that was hilarious too. "Trump is a brilliant performance artist and troll." That was my reaction. The left went hysterical over that too. For whatever reason, Trump's personality doesn't trigger. me. I get the guy. He's Queens, the establishment is Manhattan. They look down on him, and he is alternately insulting them and enviously wishing he could belong, which he never will.
When a Dem says, "Oh Trump put kids in cages," I know I'm talking to someone utterly ignorant of the issue. Which includes pretty much everyone on the left.
Quoting RogueAI
Ok, well I'm glad you see that. But I'm not even talking today about Biden's open borders and the massive humanitarian crisis he's dumped on blue cities like NYC, Chicago, and Denver. I'm talking about the lesson Biden's administration learned about the separations and cages. Those are bad optics; turning kids over to traffickers keeps the issue out of the MSM. That's a moral outrage. I do predict this story will eventually become known. Like Biden's cognitive condition became known. Way too late, and only when it became impossible to keep covering up.
Quoting RogueAI
We leave them to die of thirst in the desert, and then give them driver's licenses, social welfare programs, and jobs if they make it over alive. A bipartisan moral atrocity that got started with FDR's Bracero program in the 1940s. I'd love to see some sensible immigration reform in my lifetime. I'm not holding my breath.
We saw the videos. Unjustly locking people up for three years does not a crime make. It makes an illegitimate DOJ. Shamefully so. Else how explain the leniency to the Floyd rioters who killed 20 people and did two billion dollars in documented, insurance-covered damage, and cheered on by the left? "A riot is the voice of the unheard." Except when the unheard are the deplorables. There's a reason Trump is about to be reelected in the greatest political comeback in American history. Enough people see what's been going on.
Oh it turns out I DIDN'T miss this story. This was the bogus border bill that would have codified Biden's disastrous border policies, while bringing the Republicans on board so they could no longer criticize Biden over it.
I do remember this completely, did not realize this originated with a Republican, for some reason hadn't registered the name Lankford with it.
So I was with Trump on this. This was the bill that would have allowed in, what was the number, 5000 or something undocumented crossers every day, massively exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border and in the blue cities that have to absorb the newcomers, while giving the Dems the ability to blame it all on the Republicans.
I was massively opposed to this bill at the time. It codified the ongoing disaster and made the Republicans complicit.
So that was the Lankford bill. Somehow I missed that detail, but I definitely followed the story of the bill. Very glad the Dems blocked it. Bad bill as I understand it.
I will grant that if I have been misinformed about the details of this bill, I could be wrong. But the high-level bullet point was that 5000 a day would come in, a massive number that was far more than what Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security secretary, said would lead to humanitarian disaster. So this bill deserved to go down.
Thanks for the update, anyway. I recalled this bill as being a couple of months ago, but it was February. Time flies.
Quoting Wayfarer
I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that I may be misinformed about the badness of this bill. I confess that my media diet is a little skewed to the right these days. I've actually gone back to reading the NYT lately. So it's possible that you are right and I'm wrong on this issue.
But now that you've refreshed my memory about which bill this was, I most definitely remember that I had the impression that it was a bad bill, because it codified a lot of the bad stuff that was already going on, while making it impossible for the GOPs to complain. So AFAIK Trump was right on this issue.
Poor Lankford, though. No good deed goes unpunished, and the GOP are a hopeless and confused lot these days.
Quoting Wayfarer
If only.
It won't happen. You know what I think is going to happen? The massive financial crash that people have been predicting since 2008 is finally going to happen on Trump's watch, and he's going to go down in history as the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Trump is being set up to take the fall for the coming economic crash.
Exact revenge on his enemies, put Pelosi and Cheney and Garland and Wray in prison? I wish. Never going to happen.
Suspend the Constitution? More TDS. Where do you get this stuff?
Again: You confuse suggesting with actually doing. They are not the same. As is typical for the left, you confuse Trump's style of rhetoric with his actions. Watch what the guy does, not what he says. You know the saying: Trump's opponents take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally. Liberals overreact to his words and never notice what he actually does.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah yeah yeah, Project 2025. Another TDS hysteria. You know Trump put out his ACTUAL platform, and it's extremely middle of the road, basically 1990's Clintonian policies. I posted this link recently. Here's Brit right-of-center website Spiked on the subject.
The truth about Trump? He's a moderate
That's Trump's platform. Project 2025 is yet another leftist hysteria. TDS is a genuine psychological disorder. Trump is not going to suspend the Constitution, he's not going to be a dictator. And if he does get a measure of justice for the wrongs that have been done to him and to the J6 political prisoners, I support him in that.
Here's NPR's take on Trump's platform, along with the platform. Why don't you read it and comment on Trump's ACTUAL platform, not the Project 2025 boogyman the liberals are using to distract from their laughable yet incredibly dangerous for the country Biden fiasco.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/nx-s1-5033015/rnc-republican-party-platform-2024
Quoting Wayfarer
What happened to "A riot is the voice of the unheard" as the Floyd rioters killed 20 people and caused two billion dollars in documented insurance payouts?
Most of the J6'ers were invited in by the Capitol police and wandered around peacefully, and now they're sitting in prison for three years. It's a shameful incident in American history. If there is any justice in this universe of ours there will someday be justice for the wrongly imprisoned J6'ers.
The J6 committee was a fraud on the American people. Why did they destroy their records? Why are thousands of hours of video still under lock and key?
And
Quoting fishfry
The first statement explains the second. And, it’s more than ‘a little’. But there’s no way to make someone see what he or she doesn’t want to see, so let’s leave it for now. (Although how a forensic retelling of an attack on the American people could be a fraud on the American people beggars logic.)
Although as this is the Election thread, not the Trump thread, I’ll add I still don’t believe Biden will be the eventual Democratic nominee. I just wish folks would say that he should ‘pass the baton’. It sounds a lot less hostile than that he should resign or quit. It is really what he must be persuaded to do, and, I believe, will be.
Ah, Russia Russia Russia, another symptom of TDS. Let us take a brief walk through history.
FDR joined up with brutal dictator Stalin to defeat the Nazis in World War II. I do not recall anyone criticizing FDR fo "sucking up" to Stalin. Well actually some people did. I read once that Herbert Hoover said at the time that the US should stay out of the war and whichever of the Nazis or the Soviets were winning, we should help the other one till they both destroyed each other. So I imagine that at the time, there must have been some voices questioning FDR's alliance with the bloody commie dictator Stalin. But it's not the prevailing view of history. It's regarded as a pragmatic decision to beat the Nazis, in retrospect a very good thing.
After the war Truman and the Dulles brothers got the cold war started, no sucking up to Russia there.
Ike had a summit meeting with Khrushchev in 1959. Why not? They were trying not to blow up the world. They were going to meet again in 1960, but Francis Gary Powers got shot down in his U-2 spy plane and the meeting got cancelled. Was Ike "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or negotiating with his geopolitical opponent with the aim of achieving peace? As a soldier of war, he knew the importance of peace.
JFK famously met with Khrushchev; and towards the end they had back-channel communications to establish peace. In his American University speech on June 10, 1963, JFK called for peaceful coexistence with the Soviets, saying:
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Five and a half months later he was dead. Killed, some say, by the CIA on behalf of the very warmongers whose profits were threatened by peace. Or if you prefer the Lone Nut theory, the warmongers just got lucky. Somehow they always do.
Would you say JFK was "sucking up" to the Soviets? Or seeking peace, with deep wisdom?
I could go on. A lot of presidents met with their ideological opponents. Nixon went to China, for gosh sake. The arch anti-communist of the Alger Hiss case, the man who built his entire political reputation on fighting the Godless commies. "Only Nixon could go to China." Sucking up, I guess, is that how you would put it?
And so we come to Trump. He's a businessman. He doesn't have mortal enemies. He has competitors. He negotiates with his competitors. You call that sucking up. I call it international diplomacy, the only alternative to nuclear war. Biden comes in, and we're today closer to WWIII than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
When, exactly, did talking to our geopolitical rivals become sucking up in the leftist worldview? The left used to be for peace. Now they regard geopolitical negotiations as sucking up.
Quoting Wayfarer
Indeed. Not the most politic thing to say in public, but surely true. Reminds me of another story from the JFK days. The JFK assassination and the history and politics of that era are an interest of mine.
When French president Charles de Gaulle survived an assassination attempt by the right wing OSA (see the film The Day of the Jackal), de Gaulle knew that the OSA was closely allied with the CIA. De Gaulle called Kennedy and asked if the US was behind the assassination plot. Kennedy said that he certainly had nothing to do with it; but that he could not vouch for or control his own CIA.
So its hardly news that American presidents can't trust the CIA and don't trust the CIA. The only thing that's new is that Trump said it in public. Probably shouldn't have. You'll note that in the past couple of weeks, Trump has learned to keep his mouth shut. He may be starting to learn how to play the game of politics. If so, that's why the left is frightened. Imagine Trump being Trump, but no longer his own worst enemy.
Quoting Wayfarer
You just don't like the guy's negotiating style. As someone said, as a New York City builder Trump always thinks he's negotiating with the sheet rock union.
Instead of lobbing missiles and starting a war, Trump went over there and buddied up with the leader of one of our country's "enemies." Are the North Korean people really the enemies of you and I? Or are they merely a tool for the military-industrial complex to keep the bucks flowing? Trump is a man of peace. He's a negotiator. No wonder the establishment hates him.The establishment gorges on the profits of war. Trump is dangerous to them.
The only thing I don't understand is why the left, with whom I marched against the war in Vietnam long ago, has now aligned itself with the defense contractors and the intel agencies in the cause of war.
If I had one wish, it would be for every leftist in the world to snap out of their trance and see how they are being played by the war machine. Hate Russia! Hate Russia! Hate Russia! A horde of mindless TDS-addled zombies.
Peace, man, Peace. Ike was a man of war and he worked for peace. JFK worked for peace, you see where that got him. Nixon worked for peace. Every president works for peace.
And when Trump works for peace? The left hates him for it.
I pray to the deities that be, for the liberals to snap out of their warmongering, deep-state loving trance and recognize that malignancy in our government; and that Trump, for all his flaws and faults, is trying to fight that malignancy.
Quoting Wayfarer
Like I say. You just don't like the guy's style. Why don't you look at his results? Only prez in my lifetime not to start any new wars. Look at the dangerous condition of the world with senile Biden and his feckless, incompetent, and neocon-influenced foreign policy team that have us on the brink of nuclear war.
Wake up. Peace is possible. But not by worshipping the neocon deep state that has a stranglehold on the Democratic party.
You do.
You should read what I wrote. And take it to heart.
And I do thank you for the writing prompts. I've had these thoughts in mind for a long time. You wondered how I could be for Trump. I'm explaining.
Perhaps you should stick to the part I quoted?
Well, actually, Donald Trump called Kim Jong-Un "little rocket man" in more than one occasion. Why is it that the only political leaders he mocked, if not because he really despises what they stand for?
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/11/biden-zelensky-president-putin-nato
[tweet]https://twitter.com/cspanjeremy/status/1811522008741519673?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Glorious.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1811460525077016947?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
Except when it’s about racism and some property is damaged. Then it’s screamed about for years. Meanwhile, a few months later a bunch of white people storm the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the electoral college vote, and they were “let in” — and after years of spin, we should deny what we all saw that day and tell ourselves it’s no big deal.
Because if it were the Black Lives Matter crowd, I’m sure we’d be saying the same thing. And I’m sure only one insurrectionist would have been shot.
The hypocrisy is laughable.
Sure, it looked bad, but the two cases are not the same. Obama was not separating every family. The Trump Admin was. Obama was not doing it as a deterrent. The Trump admin was. Those are crucial differences, don't you agree?
You have swallowed the psyop. The J6 committee was a total fraud.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes back on topic. The election. I don't see how the Dems have much leverage. Biden is president. Biden is dug in. Biden has 3896 pledged delegates, with only 1,991 needed to win. Biden has Jill and Hunter in his corner; and crack and hooker jokes aside, Hunter is a smart and tough ally.
The Dem civil war is also a race war. All the Dem pols coming out against Joe are whitebreads (except for Obama in the background). Joe has the support of the Congressional Black caucus. AOC and Omar came out for Joe. Tellingly, black NYT columnist Charles Blow just came out with support for Joe. The Strongest Case for Biden Is His Resilience in the Face of the Onslaught. This is noteworthy because the Times editorial board and many of its other (white) opinion writers have called for Joe to "pass the baton" as you say.
Labor is behind Joe. Old people are behind Joe. I read that after the debate, his poll numbers went UP with women. They must have felt sorry for him.
Is the DNC going to screw over all the Biden supporters and primary voters? Dumping Joe is fraught with risk.
Also, Kamala has many negatives. As a former northern Californian I've watched her finger-to-the-wind brand of politics for a couple of decades now. She polls about the same as Biden against Trump. She's been a worthless VP and her approval ratings have been terrible. She is no panacea. And of course nobody else can leapfrog her because of Democratic identity politics.
There are also technical issues. Some states have strict filing rules that limit how long the Dems can wait. The WSJ published a story today saying that Biden can't transfer his campaign account to Kamala until he's formally nominated.
When Nixon was told by the party honchos that he had to resign, he was facing certain impeachment and conviction. What leverage have the Dems got? A strongly worded editorial from George Clooney, who just raised $30M for Biden three weeks ago and publicly claimed Biden was fit as a fiddle when he privately saw Biden's infirmity? Well today Rosie O'Donnell called for Biden to "pass the torch." That oughta do it.
I'm on record saying Joe is the nominee. Biden's press conference was not good enough to quell any doubts, but it wasn't bad enough to make his position any worse. He made some flubs but he also made his foreign policy points. He bought himself more time, and time is of the essence for the anti-Joe Dems. They are stuck. Nobody can make Joe leave but Joe. And he is a stubborn, selfish old guy who, despite his sad recent cognitive decline, was always pretty much like this.
The Dems made their bed and now they have to lie in it.
I was influenced by your kind words and I did my best to at least explain and justify my political feelings. Especially since I'm no Republican nor a conservative, but rather a fallen liberal. Still a registered Democrat. One of the seven to ten million Americans who voted for Obama and then Trump. The Democrats have no interest in who we are, which has been a great frustration these last eight years. The left just stopped listening. Just Russia Russia Russia and then J6. Lawfare and propping up Biden, both of which have failed spectacularly. It's the Dems who are a threat to the American republic, and I did not used to feel that way. They talked me into it over the past couple of decades and especially in the past eight years.
I enjoyed our Trump chat, and as I said, I appreciate your writing prompts so that I could express some of my thoughts. For some reason, Trump just doesn't trigger me the way he does others. And I do believe that if the Dems had totally ignored Trump, skipped the lawfare entirely, and held a competitive primary, Newsom or Whitmer would be beating DeSantis today.
Now it's up to the American people, such as they are, and our electoral system, such as it is.
I am actually confused about what you wrote. I outlined the basic facts about the sepaations and the cages, and you responded by complaining about my reading habits (and getting it wrong. Breitbart yes, RedState and Townhall no). I fail to see how what I read alters the fact that Trump put kids in the cages Obama built for the same purpose. All the rest is partisan rhetoric. You say that when Obama put kids in cages he was noble, and when Trump put kids in the same cages he was Orange Hitler. I fail to understand your point beyond partisanship.
If am missing your point, feel free to clarify.
Racism? Not catching the reference. The Floyd riots? J6? Something else.
Quoting Mikie
Maybe you didn't see the videos of them being let in. I did.
Quoting Mikie
Um ... what? The Floyd riots killed 20 people. A black cop shot unarmed Ashli Babbitt. Reverse the races and the left would still be hysterical about it.
Quoting Mikie
On your side, most certainly.
Absolutely. Obama is a saint and a lightbringer. Trump is Orange Hitler. That's the distinction you are making.
I knew about Obama's cages in 2014, so when the left went wild over Trump putting kids in the same cages, I recognized them for the ignorant hysterics that they so often are. Eventually Jeh Johnson, Obama's Homeland Security guy, had to explain to reporters that those cages were had indeed been built by Obama. The left literally did not believe it. Willful denial of reality along with hysteria. Not a good look for the side I'd always considered myself to be part of.
As always with Trump, you conflate his often artless rhetoric with reality. The truth is you don't actually know that his motives were different than Obama's. Only that Obama can do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. And that Trump's words often inflame the left. I think he does it on purpose, like the taco bowl tweet. He's a troll. I watched the cage story develop from 2014 to 2018 and it does not reflect well on the left. Ignorance and hysteria. That's their style.
I have no clue why you started talking about cages. Maybe you have more in common with Biden than you think? :wink:
Did I get my convos crossed? My bad. No matter. It's all the same, really. Whatever it was, I can let it go.
https://www.axios.com/2018/06/19/sessions-says-he-hopes-child-separation-policy-will-serve-as-a-deterrent
Isn't it time you folks got off the clown car?
Yeah, maybe watch less Sean Hannity.
Quoting fishfry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
Ask yourself how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
But nevermind— just go on pretending it the insurrection was nothing. Years from now I’m sure it’ll be remembered as a tour — in conservative media anyway.
It is okay when we do it. Get the memo, Mikie-chan.
(Day 13 of the American Monarchy)
FWIW, my guess is that The Neofascist Criminal Clown will announce he's selected either Kari Lake of Arizona or Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina to be his running mate. :meh:
But we all know what will really happen. Get ready for conspiracy theories and fundraising, folks.
Prosecute their political opponents, excise their political opponents from the ballot, attempt to remove their own democratically-elected candidate from the race, violate the bill of rights and constitution from every corner. Assassination was all they had left. They failed even that.
The hysterics are amazing.
Surely the only person whose fault it is is the shooter?
And who do you even mean by “they”?
Not the guy who thinks the world will end because of combustions engine cars.
Apparently, so did a registered Republican nutjob (allowed to be?) on a rooftop with an AR-15. :mask:
First the SC giving Trump very wide ranging immunity.
Then Biden exposing his mental decline at the debate, followed by a disastrously uncoordinated response in the democratic party. Weeks on the democrats have still not managed to form a united front, but did manage to further damage their (current) candidate.
And now a failed assassination attempt, leaving him hurt but only lightly injured. His reaction to this was also very good. He managed to show some restraint and called for unity, which is an unusually savvy move.
Not to be callous about the assassination attempt (I'm glad he survived) but it's hard to imagine a bigger boon for his campaign than the image of a martyr.
If I was religious I'd be denouncing my own faith about now to be honest.
Well America good luck with your new king I guess. At this point I'm just trying to find a nice seat for myself to watch as society continues to burn itself to the ground.
Or Luck of the Devil?
They tried censoring him, removing him from the ballot, putting him in jail. They wanted Trump to be assassinated. That much is clear. But now we have to watch their solemn play-acting as they deplore political violence and murder.
It’s as if there’s no consistency or principle whatsoever. :chin:
Anyway — criminals should be in jail and insurrectionists probably shouldn’t be on the ballot and private companies can censor anyone they want, particularly those who incite an insurrection. But nice Gish gallop.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/11/pence-trump-endangered-my-family-on-jan-6-00086664
"“I had no right to overturn the election. And his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day, and I know history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”"
Everyone has a right to contest or doubt an election, unless it was Biden, of course.
As usual you confuse what Trump SAYS from what he DOES.
He's a negotiator. He puts up skyscrapers in Manhattan. How do you know he wasn't expecting his statement to go out to prospective migrants, and make them decide to stay home/
You can't prove otherwise. You can't actually cite statistics on what was in Obama or Trump's heart for each of the families separated and kids caged.
Instead you choose to judge Trump on his words, and not on his actions, which were in fact no different than Obamas. He used Obama's cages for God's sake, you can't say with a straight face that they were Lightbringer cages when Obama stuck kids in them and Orange Hitler cages when Trump did it.
You're operating from emotion, choosing to overreact to Trump's words, because you can't cite facts in his actual actions.
You have no credibility when you do this, because the left has been doing this for eight years. Just think taco bowl tweet. The left went ballistic. I took one look at that, cracked up laughing, and said, "Trump is a master troll and a brilliant performance artist!"
That's the deal. I get Trump. If he does something wrong, he did something wrong. I'm just not emotionally trigged by the guy, and many on the left are. And that clouds their, and your, judgment.
You mean when a black cop shot an unarmed young white woman to death? If the races were reversed we'd still be having riots.
Quoting Mikie
Time will tell. If there's justice in the universe, there will be justice for J6.
:lol:
Why anyone bothers talking to Trumpers is puzzling. But I puzzle myself— as I keep doing it.
Quoting fishfry
No, I mean how the Capitol police would respond to black or brown people. I doubt very much they’d be “letting them in,” to the extent that that even happened (you know, apart from breaking windows and ramming down doors).
So your best argument against me is a hypothetical scenario you just made up. If you had actual facts, or an actual argument, you'd make it.
Well I'm taking the day off from partisanship so thanks for the chat.
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Fox News' Laura Ingraham on Monday that he hopes the administration's new policy that separates children from their parents will serve as a deterrent to other immigrants considering crossing the border illegally."
To recap: the Trump Admin started a new zero-tolerance policy to separate all families as a deterrent. This had never been done before and was ended just a few weeks after the public found out. Do you see how that is different than what Biden and Obama were doing?
False.
Some cages were built by Obama and some children were separated under exceptional circumstances. Trump wrote a blanket policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers which resulted in a blanket separation of kids from their families. A lot more cages were build. There's your "action" to judge.
That's not how justice works. You have to actively work for it but I guess if you vote in the US you have to pretend justice is released like manna from the heavens because your political system is currently incapable of protecting it.
:D I wonder how Gore would have fared.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
:D
Oh, and they’re criminals.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case
Saw this graph. Not sure if it is true
:D "They" are out to get'im. Crooks certainly was (he fits in a US pattern). "They" didn't miss John Lennon. :/ (by the way, surely Gore has more wits than Bush)
(Day 15 of the American Monarchy)
Roevember 2024:
POTUS Biden & VP Harris
(plutocratic neoliberals) :zip:
versus
The Criminal Clown DJT & MAGA-bitch J.D. Vance
(autocratic neofascists) :down:
Oh well.
The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur.
It's utterly bewildering that people as intensely dull as is required to make that type of comment are in fact, capable of operation modern technology. But here we are. 180. Mikie. Benkei. The whole crew! I implore all of you to remember that you can actually speak to other humans without being dimwits.
(2020Jul11)
JD Vance. Goofy choice.
Anyway — remember when I said this would die down in a week? Well make it’s a few days, because once Trump gets up to talk, we’re right back to normal. Polls are still close.
Trump has everything going his way right now, against a weak opponent— and he’ll still likely lose. Too bad the RNC have no values or principles.
I don't know about them, but I sure did.
Still hoping Biden passes the torch.
Not because he’s an awful human being and did irreversible harm to the United States and the world— but because he wasn’t stupid enough. Didn’t go along with the fantasies of a stolen election and J6 being a “peaceful tout” and Trump being an innocent man. Booo!!
The Republicans are the party of idiots. But they are the party of creationists and climate deniers, so this should have been known years ago. The transition to the MAGA cult was only natural.
Again, you are upset about words, something Sessions said on a right wing talk show. You can't prove he wasn't just saying that to (a) deter immigrants, or (b) suck up to the FOX news base. You are upset about what he SAID and you have once again presented no evidence about what he DID.
You just assume that Obama's heart is pure and Trump's is impure, and that causes you to not even realize that you are not making a substantive argument.
In the 1990's the Dems wanted to look tough on immigration, so they hardened and militarized the border (Hillary was front and center on that), leading to desperate immigrants dying of thirst in the desert. If you seek to paint Trump as lacking in human compassion for immigrants, you will have to come to terms with the Democrats' own cruelty. The Dems forced Mexico to run a war on the cartels in order to receive American economic aid, leading to many tens of thousands of deaths of Mexican citizens. The Democrats have an appalling human rights record regarding Mexico.
Quoting RogueAI
Your proof consists only of verbal statements, no proof as to what was actually done.
The Democrats have an absolutely appalling human rights record in Mexico. And you want to give Joe Biden as an example of human decency in Mexico? Motherf*cker is a child trafficker, I have repeatedly pointed this out. He doesn't waste time separating families, he just turns the kids over to their traffickers at the border.
You are just being a partisan shill, your argument is devoid of logic. "Orange Man say bad thing on television." That's the extent of your argument. While being willfully ignorant of Democratic human rights abuses on the border and within Mexico for decades.
Can be 100% sure, without a shadow of a doubt this is not a politically savvy group.
That said, NOS is still being a supreme weirdo too.
I'll see your Trump cages and raise you Clinton and Obama's militarization of the souther border, which has caused untold human misery. The Dems have a terrible human rights record re Mexico.
As you know, people go to prison all the time over "words". The words of the Attorney General matter, regardless of where he's talking. The whole country was upset by the zero-tolerance immigration policy (the action behind the words), which is why the policy ended just weeks after people found out. Discussing this with you is pointless. You're beclowning yourself now.
We shall see. As Martin Luther King said, The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Of course it can take a long time. Stalin sent a lot of people to the Gulag before the Soviet Union finally collapsed. There was justice, but not in time to help many individuals.
What did the guy do, other than being personally disliked by you, that makes him deserve to be assassinated?
The country got upset because the MSM hysterically broadcast Trump's border crisis. I personally watched the same MSM be silent during Obama's identical border crisis in 2014.
What you think you are measuring is not national outrage, but media coverage. Protecting Obama in 2014 and attacking Trump in 2018. Pretty much the same humanitarian crisis.
Quoting RogueAI
You're quite ignorant about the southern border and the striking difference in media coverage of Democratic versus Republican humanitarian crises on the border. You're ignorant of decades of Democratic militarization of the border leading to so much human misery both on the border and inside Mexico. All you care about is your little talking point. In the end you have no knowledge and no argument so you sling insults.
Nice chatting with you. All the best.
Even Fox Noise ... :sweat:
I ain't worried about the MAGA Circus (or "Project 2025") ... just the next assassination attempt. :zip:
What's hilarious is that JD Vance, Trump's choice for Vice President, once likened Trump to Hitler.
There are also dickheads in the USA who are hoping and actively planning for society burning down.
And whatever one may think about Donald Trump as a person, the trajectory of the republican party as a whole is quite stark. There doesn't seem much of a doubt that the majority of active politicians in the republican party of 2024 is willing to use all legal and legalistic means available to deepen and secure it's power. Moderates have an increasingly hard time in this environment.
I mean they are endorsing a candidate who still refuses to accept the result of the last election. Sure Trump is popular and that's part of the reason. But it's also a conscious choice to engage in power politics without regards to democratic niceties. The outlook is no longer a classical liberal one.
I don't think he's like Hitler. I'm just one of the millions of people who wish that shooter hadn't missed. Or how about just badly injured him so he'd have to be in rehab during the election, and after that, he'd be just fine. :halo:
Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated. What illegal wars did he start? Which countries did he ruin? Which regions of the world did he plunge into chaos?
I doubt you'll get much further than "he said some words I didn't like." Compared to previous US presidents and even the current one, he's a lightweight when it comes to wanton destruction.
I don't think he deserves to die. Like many, I just wish someone would assassinate him. I never claimed to be a saint.
Except the irreversible damage to the environment and taking us backwards on climate mitigation — which is already doing innumerable harms. Appointing a fossil fuel lawyer as head of the EPA probably does deserve the death penalty, morally — but I’m not in favor of assassination.
Of course none of that matters to his supporters, who are outright climate deniers. Including you. So I don’t pretend like reality matters to you.
Also take a look at his one legislative achievement: a massive tax break for corporate America, who he’s always slavishly served.
Or letting thousands die of Covid because he didn’t want to deal with it, saying it would be gone by Easter.
But other than that he was great.
“Sean O’Brien thanks ex-president for ‘opening RNC’s doors’, breaking with most major unions who have backed Biden”
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/teamsters-union-president-sean-obrien-rnc-trump-speech
I wager that the Democrat’s blue-collar support is bleeding out. I imagine they’re tired of that power hungry cult thieving their money for more boondoggle policies, and all that’s left are panty-wasted and woke soys. That party wants nothing to do with workers anymore unless it comes election time. It’s fun to watch.
Equally as hilarious are stalwart Republicans, like Trump’s would-be assassin, who have to watch as their former party gets invaded by instagram models and union bosses and the lgbt. Trump is reordering American politics, so it’s glorious to watch the party apparatchiks seethe.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
President Joe Biden says it was a ‘mistake’ to say he wanted to put a ‘bull’s-eye’ on Donald Trump (— Seung Min Kim, Mary Clare Jalonick, Aamer Madhani, Lisa Mascaro, Zeke Miller · AP · Jul 15, 2024)
Depending on who "They" are (again), it's not "clear".
Quoting Mikie
It's a bit ironic, having been put forth as the Messiah for "the little man". Well, the Clown cult operates differently.
“They” is people like you, except plural.
The Trump cult, and most of the right wing, are obsessed with gender. “Woke soys” lol. I had to google what “soy” means in this context.
Obsession with whatever goofy ideas of masculinity they have — almost always a sign of latent homosexuality and subsequent fear. So it goes.
Our resident Trump cultist has exactly no principles or values. Just unadulterated party politics. And watered down Ayn Rand. But it’s always there for a laugh!
Nothing. He desires to die very slowly in excrutiating agony while fully aware of Sleepy Dark Brandon's 2nd inauguration, then mercifully expire a world-class loser on 21January25. That's what The Clown & his cult of worshipful idiots deserve.
Sorry, I don’t believe you. Perhaps you should post more links.
"If you point how I am oestrogenated it means you are obsessed with masculinity!"
Awful argument as always, Mikie-chan.
Strange though, is that supposed to be a bad thing?
He probably does deserve to die, given the irreparable harm and deaths he has and will cause. But unlike the Trump cult, there are still principles worth adhering to. Like not assassinating people.
For a religious conservative? Yes.
Not sure that'd improve matters for those opposed to Trumpism oder the republican platform to be honest.
I think a sufficiently ruthless politician armed with the spirit of Trump might end up much more effective at getting their way than Trump will ever be.
Odd, Mikey doesn't come across as one.
Yea. I just don't want to have to hear his big mouth for the next four years. Either way, I think the US is headed for some kind of political shift.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-democrats-kennedy-jill-stein-presidential-ballot-election
Dark Enlightenment:
"The ideology generally rejects Whig historiography[2]—the concept that history shows an inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy[2]—in favor of a return to traditional societal constructs and forms of government, including absolute monarchism and other older forms of leadership such as cameralism.[3]". wikipedia2
This is the shift I was talking about.
It’s not good, but putting a conservative spin on it like this is NOS territory. It’s also worth noting that Fox sources always add their slant.
But yeah, definitely worse than storming the Capitol to overthrow an election you didn’t like the result of.
What a fucking joke.
re: MAGA Freak Show (American idiocracy)
Just pointing out a double standard. There's nothing conservative about it. If the Republicans tried to block the Libertarians from the ballot because they knew it would consume much needed Republican votes I'd say the same thing.
The right trying to make it hard for Democrats to vote is anti-democratic. If more people want Biden, then Biden should be President.
Yeah, so saying it makes January 6th look like “child’s play” is simply pointing out a double standard.
Fair and balanced.