Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
No, I just don’t think your fears (derived from the anti-Trump propaganda) are anything beyond the typical hysteria. I think it was cool he greeted supporters. It is a situation unworthy of a cost/benefit analysis. It has nothing to do with my mental health, which is just fine.
You mean the guy claiming he was set up?
Sad he's not a carcass at this point though. Did enjoy the video of him grimacing to breathe.
This story right here, can't miss it.
He was pumped up with oxygen until erect. It appears that this campaign stunt against all medical advice may have finally backfired. The polls now give Biden a 14-16 point lead.
Right, the guy who claimed he was bribed. I’ll reserve judgement until he offers some evidence.
Aah yes, the polls. I’m under no delusion that Trump might lose, but relying on polls is a fool’s errand these days.
Lmao
You’ve already lied by saying I assured everyone the video was true. But here we are with your blind trust in the man’s claims. The issue is under investigation by Minnesota police, so we’ll just have to wait.
:joke:
This article says more about the man who was making the allegations:
And this:
Quite the source Project Veritas was depending on.
I hope none of you are struggling right now.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/EMPosts/status/1313553619447410688[/tweet]
* I don't generally like name calling, but he called my niece scum a while back. She's an FBI agent.
Then again, if the Dems manage to stall the SCOTUS nomination to the lame duck session as it may possibly be and impeach Trump when he inevitably goes crazy I kind of wonder if that would be enough to completely stop Barrett. That would be a wonderful way to end 2020.
Watch closely and prior to recording his 'speech' he exits view for a time period long enough for him to be administered enough oxygen to catch his breath.
That move will be used against him, and rightly so. Continue aggressively moving forward with Supreme Court nomination. End relief talk. There's not enough time before the election to do both. I think he knows he is going to lose, and is trying to secure safety for himself afterwards.
There's not enough time to do both, proceed with the Supreme Court nomination and come to agreeable terms and conditions with relief. The strategy is that only one of these will succeed after the election.
Good point.
The suffering of the American people due to covid is sobering despicable prima facie evidence that the government is not working on behalf of the best interest of all Americans. The people can see that much. Some know that. Hence, the actions to suppress the vote of very very actively engaged voters is being taken by the same elected officials that have sorely neglected their duty to Americans.
I suspect that there are enough people working to reduce the effects/affects of the abundant disinformation that Biden will win. That's just a start though. He is still highly unlikely to do what needs to be done in order to increase the livelihood and well-being of everyday normal working class American citizens in any significantly different way than the status quo prior to and since Trump.
I've said all along that Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom thereof.
Medication impairing his judgement?
He was tweeting non-stop from 7:30-9:30 yesterday. He's going even crazier than usual.
That's certainly one explanation. It doesn't seem to be a move to boost his chances at re-election, quite the opposite.
So it's either unrelated to the election (impaired judgement falls under that heading) or preparation for some future move pre or post election.
Like, what judgement did he have to impair to begin with?
Your country is a lost cause.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/golden-dawn-leader-and-ex-mps-found-guilty-in-landmark-trial
"A Greek court has delivered an overwhelming conviction against Golden Dawn, finding the neo-fascist party guilty of operating a criminal gang that brutally targeted opponents under the guise of being a political group. At the end of a trial launched more than five years ago, the three-member tribunal headed by presiding judge Maria Lepenioti, announced that seven of Golden Dawn’s leaders were culpable of directing the deadly organisation. Others were found guilty of the lesser charge of participating in the criminal gang. The judgement was met with jubilation by thousands who had gathered around the heavily guarded court complex ahead of the verdict chanting “Nazis belong to prison.”
Wonder which liberal or 'libertarian' will come to their defence and whine about fascist 'rights'.
--
This is pretty wild btw.
Round and round we go.
And Princess Leia goes looking for a Jedi to help the resistance. It's going to be great.
His supporters will no doubt express delight that he's done this. If they're in Trump's vicinity when he farts, they rush to get close and enjoy the bouquet.
He has spearheaded the Trump administration's racist immigration policies including the concentration camps.
Yes we love committing crimes against humanity in this country we honestly can't help ourselves.
And then immediately backpedals... ish:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kills-stimulus-talks-tweets-no-deal-until-after-i-n1242312
At least Europol seems to agree with you:
(See Europol says all terrorist attacks in Greece last year were by anarchists)
Stats from 2018:
From the actual report Europol 2020 terrorism report:
For those interested, the Europol report covers naturally also right-wing, jihadist and separatist terrorism.
I think that Trump is finally losing it. The election, I mean.
Halting the stimulus talks and taking up (again) the idea of "it's just as the flu" on the pandemic may have been the last straw. Even if the polls may be incorrect, they aren't totally incorrect. Otherwise he is just the same inept himself as he has been all the time.
Don't count him out just yet. What I see on your map representing Arizona is inaccurate as far as I can tell. There are a sea of Trump flags down the street but then again, as I have expressed in the past, we take our rights seriously and Beto O'rourke is what keeps people around here awake at night.
There might be a shred of truth to the silent supporters that will rise up on election day.
But who knows, Trump can get re-hospitalized and Joe Biden can get a stroke next week or something.
Trump ranting crazily about China and irresponsibly claiming the drug he took is both new and some kind of cure for the virus (because he's desperate at being so far behind in the polls) is indeed peak Trump. Sad and pathetic to watch.
I already have a couple of bets on this and may put more on. Trump supporters think bumper stickers and yard signs predict the election better than polls. It's easy money.
Well I'm living in Massachusetts so a Trump yard sign or bumper sticker is a rare sight here. I actually bet on Trump with a friend last election and I was able to get 10:1 on it which worked out nicely. No one expected him to win but if someone's giving me those kind of odds who am I refuse?
I recommend drug tests.
Greece knows how to treat fascists - you cave their fucking heads in and you destroy any organizational power they have.
[s]Terr[/s]Hero[s]r[/s]ism
(Greek right wing =
I think in order for Trump to win, he cannot win by just a narrow margin, but decisively, or else they are going to contest the election, demand recounts etc.
In other words expect a shit-show worse than 2000.
If there are silent supporters then they wouldn't be putting up flags or putting bumper stickers on their cars like that, no? In fact, if anything that may suggest silent democrat voters if the community is very vocally right. The "silent voter" phenomenon if that is a thing goes both ways and varies on a case by case basis. Honestly, given how well "silent" and "peaceful" Trump supporters can be, I can imagine not wanting to put up a sign next to them.
:lol:
I've taken shits with more integrity than Pence.
Watching or even just listening to either of them is inexplicably grating.
Both of them are spineless attention-seeking homunculi who will do, say, and dance through any feces-based ritual in pursuit of popularity with the gaping masses...
:cry:
The fly apparently agrees with me. :lol:
Thank god the cavalry finally arrived
Quoting Baden
:rofl:
Hallelujah!
Make America Great again!
Quoting ssu
No evidence of a significant group of "shy Trump supporters" was ever produced.
Quoting ssu
The operative question now isn't whether Trump will win the popular vote (his chances are in the single digits). It's how state electors will be appointed and how they will vote.
Close enough... (Casandra approved message, but who cares...)
Let's see how well the polls predict the election results. We'll see then.
And China's going to pay for it!
Shots will be fired (figuratively and possibly literally) before that will be known with any certainty.
Quoting Benkei
According to fivethirtyeight, polling errors have been fairly stable, there is no indication of some huge systemic flaw.
:clap:
Quoting NOS4A2
I think if Trump were to win decisively it would be very suspicious and we'd hear calls of Russian interference/some type of voting fraud. It's already unlikely that he wins, but if he were to win by a large margin I would be quite suspicious. For him to win decisively he'd have to win states like Wisconsin which have around a 6-7% gap in favor of Biden.
Let's see now, Trump has been crying "fraud" since 2016, calls polls "fake" if they don't show him on top, has never acknowledged an efforts by Russia to influence the election, and refuses to even say that he'll accept the results if he doesn't win. Sure....it makes perfect sense to think it is the Democrats who will cry foul.
The Democrats have been nearly unanimous in stating that the last elections was illegitimate—something something Putin, something something Russia. They didn’t accept the last election and I doubt they will accept this one.
Affidavit
Wild.
"Something something Russia" = stealing emails from the DNC, coordinating with the Trump campaign on their release, and Trump denying that Russia did anything wrong and even joking about it with Putin. How much this (and Russian advertising and misinformation campaign) influenced the election is anyone's guess, but it's legitimate to complain about it. That doesn't imply Trump didn't win, and most Democrats accept that he won and is the legitimate president. If you have a study or poll that proves me wrong, point me at it. But don't just toss out right-wing hyperbole to counter left-wing hypberbole.
I agree there's some hyperbole among Democrats, but at least there's a factual basis to their complaints. Contrast this with Trump's hyperbole (hyperbole that goes off the charts). You may have forgotten that commission he put together to investigate 2016 election fraud because he didn't believe he lost the popular vote. Now he talks about fraud in the current election nearly every day without evidence to support it, and says he won't accept the results if he loses. Perhaps that's hyperbole, but it's pretty extreme.
In a way, it's nice that Trump keeps the holiday spirit in his heart 365 days of the year. It's too bad the holiday in his heart is Festivus.
Is it a coincidence that Michigan is one state where the republican legislature might appoint it's own electors?
Why are you talking to the propaganda machine?
And one of only two such states with Democratic governors.
Complain away. The DNC had a lawsuit based on your premise, but it was roundly panned and subsequently dismissed.
Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies and used it to influence the election and any subsequent investigation, thereby putting a democratic election in doubt for years to come. They eschewed the peaceful transfer of power, unmasking members of the Trump campaign well into January. Susan Rice and her strange email to herself on Inauguration Day about a meeting with Obama on Jan. 5th regarding unmasking suggests to me a covering of tracks. But we’ve gone over this numerous times already.
He didn’t say he won’t accept the result if he loses. As the whitehouse stated, he will accept the results of a free and fair election, unlike the democrats, who have done nothing but disrupt the president. Today Pelosi was talking about evoking the 25th amendment.
Right-wing hyperbole:
Hillary Clinton: Trump is an illegitimate president
Majority of young Americans view Trump as illegitimate
Former President Jimmy Carter says Donald Trump is an illegitimate president
A very good point.
Although many states have their last days to register coming up just now. But when such a very large percentage don't vote, it is hard for the pollsters, that is for sure.
So the Democrats have learned how to play the game like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton?
What's new?
Divide et impera, I say.
It works, you know.
(even if you, me, and other annoying people here aren't voting American citizens.)
It may work and it may have been done before, but that doesn’t mean it is right.
I’ve already voted, friend.
NOS is here for comic relief, not to tell the truth.
A woman.
Oh yea, that'll do it.
His mission is to bring a little levity into our dismal lives.
Here's the quote from John Ratcliffe's letter:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegaton or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
So, although the IC doesn't know the accuracy of this allegation, you treat this as a confirmed fact. If there were additional evidence, I'm pretty sure the Senate Intelligence committee would have told us.
But what is the problem if it is true? It has been established (not just alleged) that the Russians actually DID hack the DNC email system, they supplied it to Wikileaks, and Roger Stone worked with Wikileaks on the strategic leaking of that information, lied about doing so (while Trump was signalling a pardon), was convicted of it, and Trump fulfilled his commitment by pardoning him. This is stronger circumstantial evidence of Trump's involvement in a crime than the paragraph in Ratcliffe's letter is about Clinton committing a crime.
I don't care how much like Trump, you should stop and think about how idiotic it is to suggest the more important story is that Clinton wanted to use some of this factual information for her political benefit. Now the Republicans are using the unsupported allegation for THEIR political benefit. Have you no shame?
[b]*EDIT*
I just noticed that Trump has asked Barr to indict Biden for "greatest political crime in the history of our country" - referring to the allegation against Clinton, and apparently his clairvoyance about Biden's criminal involvement.[/b]
I’m not sure whether it was the Clinton campaign’s intention to approach Russian spies for dirt on Donald trump in order to influence the election, but nonetheless that’s what occurred. The point of Ratcliffe’s letter is that Russia knew of the campaign’s effort and might have used the opportunity to insert disinfo. I’m not saying they committed any crime, but that the country was nearly paralyzed by their efforts and the media’s complicity in it.
Steele sourced much of his info from Russian intelligence. This intelligence found its way to the highest echelons of the FBI. The FBI was warned of the disinfo threat but ignored it. The FBI ignored Steele’s ties to Russian oligarchs. According to a declassified footnote in the Horowitz report:
I don’t care how much you hate Trump, but if you want to condemn his campaign for wanting wikileaks to release emails, you should show equal concern for the propaganda efforts of the Clinton campaign, who actually did share false, Russian-sourced info in order to find political dirt on their opponent.
If there were comparable evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton, I would absolutely condemn her. It's pretty standard for a campaign to hire a company to do opposition research and to use that information. That company hired Steele, an experienced MI6 analyst with extensive experience with Russia. Irrespective of any other facts that have since come to light, what was know at the time doesn't sound nefarious.
Tell me: do you really think it's fine for the President to call on Barr to indict Biden based on that paragraph in Ratcliffe's letter that I quoted?
I’m not saying Hilary Clinton was guilty of anything. What I will say, definitively, is that Trump was treated unfairly. It appears the Clinton campaign is guilty of the exact same thing they accused Trump of for numerous years, and the reticence on the subject is suspect, but expected.
I think Trump is right to criticize the lack of justice on the matter. I do not think it amounts to “calling on Barr to indict Biden”, or however they try to spin it. We’re talking about the American government spying on an opponent’s political campaign, a democratically-elected president, and weaponizing the state apparatus to hinder the presidency. All this “Trump said...” sniffing is to me the death throes of a dying orthodoxy.
What are you basing that on? The only thing I'm aware of is the quote I gave from the Ratcliffe letter, and that obviously doesn't imply she did what Trump did. Seems to me you're just echoing Trump's claim that the investigation (the one he obstructed) was a witch hunt.
IMO, the worst provable thing Trump did was to encourage perjury by dangling pardons and following through on the pardon. That was criminal and prosecutable. What did Clinton do that is comparable? If you're simply going on hunches from sketchy evidence against Clinton, then we can open the floodgates on possible acts by Trump.
Second, nosfart is equating opposition research with hacking. Only one of those is a crime.
Cool, we're getting the unredacted Mueller report.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1314367289295331329[/tweet]
Think on the positive side. The FBI still works well fighting against domestic terrorism.
Again, I’m not saying Hilary Clinton is guilty of anything.
Don’t listen to Bunkey and just think about it. Do you think the American government should use the intelligence apparatus to spy on opposing political campaigns?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/steve-scully-twitter-hack-claim-debate-commission-scaramucci
Omg, he said 'Should I respond to Trump?'. Call Bill Barr, arrest him! :lol:
You Trump trolls really are desperate.
The commander in chief calls his own soldiers suckers and losers and lies about a pandemic he knew was deadly from the start, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. But what's important is that a debate moderator asked if he should respond to Trump. That's the real scandal.
Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how compeletely worthless these posts are?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Quoting frank
Your entire take on this is almost nauseating.
Yes, sit back and do nothing. Enjoy life. Nothing else to see here. You'll certainly be admired by future generations.
In the meantime, I'll stick with what climatologists say over an internet poster.
“Trump said...”.
Sorry, but every time you guys wring your hands about the words coming out Trump’s mouth I know you have nothing.
At some point, things come to be a belief system and comparable to a religion. Trying to reason with others issues of faith isn't fruitful.
Quoting NOS4A2
In a way, yes. Which actually tells precisely just how we ought to take everything coming out of Trump's mouth.
Or his tweets.
No, but it's reasonable to conduct surveillance on suspicious individuals irrespective of whether or not they are working on a campaign. Campaigns should vet their staff, and establish rules that require disclosing all past and current contacts with foreign nationals.
What if it’s based on fake info sourced from Russian intelligence and payed for by the opposing political campaign? If the FBI using Russian propaganda, lying, concealing evidence, and manipulating documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign isn’t a problem, then what is?
The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear.
Do you?
I see no problem with that. Trump has routinely condemned white supremacists and Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would ask them to stand down.
Trump obliged.
Thankfully unaware, I might add.
Quoting NOS4A2
I have a habit of looking at both left and right leaning news headlines and they cover pretty much the same material but with their own spins on it. For instance, if Trump says that virtually nobody is effected by the coronavirus, both sides will report on it, but the right-leaning media will try to put a positive spin on it. So it basically amounts to crumb bashing and anti crumb bashing. Same crumbs, different recipes that cater to their respective audiences' appetites. They're in the game to make money, you understand.
Big deal. He condemned white supremacists many times. I don’t see why he needs to do it to appease some false narrative.
I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media.
If you don't think telling white supremacists to 'stand by' for you is a big deal, you're a bigger racist than I thought. Then again, most Trump trolls turn out to be in the end.
Same pattern every time, the racist shows his true colours in the moment then tries to clean up afterwards for political reasons. (Just like his sycophants).
This is the level we're dealing with.
I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.
As a hypothetical, information that was known to be fake would be an inappropriate basis for an investigation. The problem is that you are jumping to politically biased conclusions based on partisan interpretations of sketchy facts and cries from Trump (in the record books for prevarication) that he's been treated unfairly.
Of course not. The truth hurts, so might was well pretend, without evidence, that “stand back, stand by” is some secret white supremacist bat signal.
The reasonable thing to do is judge reporting on its merits, not on where it comes from.
That’s false. The information was suspected of being Russian disinformation. They knew it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/footnotes-in-watchdog-report-indicate-fbi-knew-of-risk-of-russian-disinformation-in-the-steele-dossier/
No one is claiming it was a bat signal, it was what it means in English. Like if Biden said ANTIFA should 'stand by' for him, your tiny little troll head would explode and you'd be all over this thread like a disease. Keep squirming and lying though. It's fun to watch.
No I wouldn’t, no matter what your little fantasies tell you. Worse, Biden refused to condemn antifa, saying it’s just an idea.
He did, clearly and unambiguously, many times. He even said he was going to label the KKK (and antifa) as terrorist organizations. But these facts don’t exist in the false, hysterical anti-Trump worldview.
Again, debating the 'ratio' is ridiculous.
Good for him. ANTIFA kick the shit out of Nazis and racists. Can't think of a nobler calling.
And you perpetuate a political lie. Fair enough.
You sensationalize the significance, taking cues from you-know-who, but end up chewing on another nothing-burger.
The thrust of your comment is that most don't have access to anything besides 'crumbs'.
I know your dumb but I didn't take you to be dumber than a Proud Boy.
"Il Duce" Cheeto Trumpolini is attacking his own self-appointed "hunters" for not finding any WITCHES in three MAGA-Infowars conspiracy theory "witch hunts":
• Attorney General Bill Barr for not arresting & prosecuting Obama or Biden, and the so-called "Durham Report" won't be ready until sometime after the election (if ever).
• FBI Director Christopher Wray for not trumping-up any fraudulent ballot shenanigans in any Democratic Party-controlled "Blue State" (and daring to contradict official WH lies by testifying to congress that the clear and present danger to next month's General Election comes from Trump dog-whistled, Infowars deluded, MAGA-supporting White Supremacy DOMESTIC TERRORISTS like e.g. Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, White Separatist/Nationalist "Militias" (like e.g. the gang of 13 thugs who plotted to, at least, kidnap Michigan's Democratic Governor), KKK-infiltrated law enforcement, self-appointed "2nd Amendment" lone gunmen racist vigilantes (e.g. Kyle Rittenauer, Patrick Crusius, Robert Gregory Bowers, Santino William Legan, Nikolas Jacob Cruz), et al).
• Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not finding any of HRC's "missing 33k emails" in the State Department servers or archives.
Biggest loser is as biggest loser does.
Can we fucking ban the racist scumbag still defending this shit?
I don't know but I need a shower after that interaction. :vomit:
I mainly try to judge any administration on what it actually does and how it deals the various issues and crises that it handle's. Even if a President or a Prime Minister is an important player, still he is part of the team that makes an administration and surely not an autocrat.
So for example, if Trump has always kissed Putin's ass in bizarre way (especially when they met here in Helsinki), it's obvious that the Trump administration was never influenced by the Kremlin in any way. Even now and especially with the Marine generals that Trump had around, obviously the course is kept steady, even if Trump sometimes makes gaffes like purposing a joint US-Russian task force to prevent cyber attacks. And I guess now they have learnt how to deal with Trump: never say anything against him publicly, perhaps only correct the most outrageous things that Trump just throws out there..as those are forgotten next month.
But I get it, for example Bush too was in his own way likeable for Republicans and Obama was a very good speaker. However it's the actual policies that count not the tweets or comments.
As far as I can tell the plotters of the kidnapping were just anti-government extremists. I haven't found any evidence that they were either far right or far left, and according to the Detroit Free Press the Whitmer kidnapping was part of a wider plot to attack cops and try to start a civil war:
"The Wolverine Watchmen militia group didn't just plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but they were on a mission to attack the state Capitol and target police officers at their homes as part of a broader mission to instigate a civil war, authorities said Thursday in announcing felony charges against 13 militia members accused in a sensational case of domestic terrorism."
As far as I can tell these guys were just violent anti-government radicals and while its fine for law enforcement to keep tabs on these groups I don't really know what else can be done because the right to a well regulated militia is a guaranteed in the Constitution.
Mike Lee comes out against democracy. Do Republicans have to start tattooing swastikas on themselves before the turn towards fascism is recognized?
+
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/republicans-are-suddenly-afraid-of-democracy/ar-BB19S0B9
To be completely fair, Trump was asking "what do you want me to call them? Who do you want me to..." and Biden suggested "Proud Boys". It is hard to make out in the audio because everyone is talking over each other, but Trump didn't pick the Proud Boys to name himself.
And as I said earlier, it seems to me like a coin toss whether Trump was just too stupid to know the difference between "stand down", "stand back", and "stand by", or whether he was using obfuscating stupidity to send a coded message. It is plausible, but maybe a little too convenient, that he was trying to do as he was asked, and just fucked it up royally. In any case, the Proud Boys themselves took it with the worst possible interpretation, so whatever Trump's intentions, the effects were the same.
They were probably Bernie supporters who just wanted to give her free health care. No idea either why anyone would associate gun-toting Dem-hating liberty freak militias with the right wing.
There's a couple things wrong with this question. First, the government agency has no allegiance to one party or another, so it's wrong to say that it is investigating, "spying", or whatever you want to call it, an "opposing" campaign. The agency does not have a side, regardless of who produces information against whom. Remember, Clinton was investigated concerning the emails, so the agency goes both ways. Second, if the agency has reason to believe a crime was committed, an investigation is in order, regardless of the political affiliation.
Quoting Baden
They're gun-toting government hating liberty freak militias. At least one of them posted anti-Trump content. Would you consider Timothy McVeigh a right wing extremist?
He is generally considered one.
Pretty much all domestic terrorists in the US have been.
Maybe we have a different conception of what McVeigh believed and why did what he did? My understanding of McVeigh was that he was motivated by his hatred of the US government and what he saw as its encroaching, expanding power. Given this account, he just seems like an extreme, violent libertarian - or at least in that camp ideologically. I don't think he was a follower or admirer of an authoritarian right wing regime. I've never heard him say anything positive about capitalism or socialism for that matter. It seems weird for me to call him "right." I usually associate the right with conservativism or a belief in traditionalism.
The way I see it the libertarians and the right (conservatives) often vote along the same lines, but they are definitely not the same. Atheistic capitalist libertarians and conservative, traditionalist republicans (often communitarian) might vote for the same party but these are two substantially different camps with very different core values.
I did a bit more research on McVeigh though and it does seem that he's on the right so I recant a little of what I said earlier. I do think he's more libertarian than he is right though so.... in any case it's just interesting and kind of strange to me that all libertarians and christian conservatives just get thrown under the same umbrella (that it "the right".) I still do consider left-libertarians a version of libertarianism though and even if it's not so popular in the US (I'd be interested to see the numbers) it must have support elsewhere in the world.
If Trump's "condemnation" leads to an uptick in racist shits joining the Proud Boys then we have 2 options : 1. he didn't condemn then but encouraged them, 2.Trump is such a threat to white supremacists they feel a need to rise up.
Whether he did 1 accidently still leaves no room to defend it.
The two terms can be used interchangeably without loss.
This includes libertarians who all ought to swallow poison and die before they cause further harm to anyone else.
Trump, of course, has been an hyper-catalyst and petri-dish for it.
You have heard him speak, right? He can barely get through a single sentence without fucking it up one way or another.
I'm not saying that his idiocy is any excuse for his actions, but he is clearly either a genuine idiot or else really good at pretending to be one. I'm not at all optimistic about Trump's character, but it's genuinely hard to tell sometimes whether something awful he says is due to maliciousness or stupidity.
Sometimes he even says good things, apparently being too stupid to realize that that's contrary to his party platform; promising universal health care in 2016, for example, or suggesting a gun-control-first-ask-questions-later approach shortly after his election.
I think his utter amorality stems from an inability to know (or care enough to figure out) what is genuinely good or bad. Instead he just goes with whatever gets him praise, thus being easily manipulated by whoever will allow him to feel good about himself. Which, to be clear, is a bad way of conducting oneself, not a moral thing to do.
But it's behavior I see in people like my own parents, and I imagine is behind a lot of the people who vote for Trump too; the kind of people who believe whatever crazy thing they read on Facebook, if it allows them to feel like they're the good people and that good people like them are going to win over the bad people, who by definition aren't like them, because they're the good people.
It's a horrible way of thinking and living that's done horrible things when elevated to the highest office, but it's an all-too-common way of thinking and living that I can understand and pity as much as it may disgust me.
If Trump is encouraging white supremacists he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't really support white supremacists but he's just so like himself, gets carried away and sometimes people interpret him that way - white supremacists too - even though he didn't mean it that way - then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump is sending 'dog whistles' then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't know what standby means or otherwise behaves in such a way that elicits debates among folks over whether Trump knows what 'standby' means or in any case what he really meant to say then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
The fact that it's been fours years and people are still having debates like this makes Trump a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If I can only see the inner truth of Trump by doing another 4 years of research and debate over this, maybe watching 4 more years of Breitbart to get the real story, then Trump is a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
That is actually true. If you're citing Trump, you got nothing.
Well, there are certainly ominous signs.
A republican governor saying that democracy might be suspended in favor of "stability and prosperity".
A party official of the democrats has concluded that the threat of secession might be employed to stop an all out attempt by the GOP to have Trump elected by the electoral college.
I think the only situation where the US might avoid violence in the streets is if Trump is behind after election night and the republicans loose the senate. They might then drop Trump and bide their time.
In all other situations, I fully expect violent clashes. The level and degree of organisation of the violence is hard to predict.
When - as has been happening - fascism comes to America, it will do so by way of its storied institutions. Its courts, its legislature, its public services, its media. Fascism will arrive by officialdom, and not violence. And when Americans wake up the next morning waiting for the killing to begin, the fascists will already be there, and the liberals will still be wondering where it is.
I think the plan is fairly obvious in it's broad strokes by now. There are obvious avenues to pursue via violence in that plan. I think it's unlikely that violence will not be used where it seems tactically expedient. That's not the same as saying there'll be an "explosion" of violence.
All I'm saying is - don't expect violence to play anything more than some minor role. There'll be no 'civil war' in the US. Everything will be codified and done by the book, because the book itself will be rotten.
You need to support identity politics to be a true left-winger over here in the States, so sorry to say but you'd be considered regressive in some circles and possibly racist.
I'll spell it out for you a little clearer: You're somebody's right-wing extremist, Streetlight.
I highly doubt that. Today, it's much easier to leverage a mob via Facebook then it is to bend standing institutions to your will. Of course agents of the state will also be in play, but the justification will probably be existing unrest.
Quoting StreetlightX
The problem with that argument is that there isn't a book. I am sure legalistic arguments will be made, but the actual outcome will depend on who is able to impose their will - in the courtroom and outside of it.
Trump is supposed to be running on a law and order type of platform. At least, he loves to say the words. Here's the problem...
The FBI are law enforcement officers.
People are tired of this new normal. We are not creatures who thrive in isolation. Rather, we are interdependent social creatures and necessarily so. We need intimate connections with other people.
Trump's approach to addressing covid has caused covid fatigue. We must get past covid. The only way to do that is to contain it. The only way to contain it is to stop the spread. The only way to stop the spread is to reduce close interpersonal contact.
Had we pressed pause on all financial transactions, on all debt repayment, mandated isolation and self quarantine, while guaranteeing the necessary resources for each and every individual American to live in relative comfort during the meantime, all the while putting every bit of the resources needed into ramping up testing, ppe, and contact tracing efforts, we would have long since already been in a place to be able to effectively begin safe efforts to re-open the economy and/or go back to life 'as normal'.
That remains the best path forward.
At first it doesn't seem to make any sense: how can the same person talk of being for a law and order platform and praising the law enforcers and then, instantly, when the topic is changed, talk about a deep state conspiracy against him by the same people. But populism doesn't go with the lines of ordinary logic.
A conspiracy theorist usually believes that there's an evil network of people working against ordinary people and the result is to replace these people with your own people, just as propaganda is fought against with your own propaganda. Populists typical believe in democracy only as long it works for them.
Yeah, Trump's all for law and order unless he's the one it's being enforced against.
But a populism based on fairness and justice is able to distinguish between law-enforcement proper and abuse of power. One is worthy of admiration while the other of scorn. Consequently, one can be for law and order while being against the abuse of power.
Black Lives Matter
What about it?
It is a populism based upon fairness and justice that is able to distinguish between law and order and an abuse of power.
Do you not see the connection?
:lol:
I do not.
One should not confuse populism and something being popular (although populism is often popular). Populism seeks to divide people into two categories: "the elites" and "the common people" and that these are inherently against each other. A common definition would be: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." Not much thought is given there being people between these groups and that the system might not be so polarized.
Hence notice populism is quite common also in the leftist narrative and the best example of successful leftist populism is Hugo Chavez and the "Bolivarian revolution" in Venezuela. The evil elite is just portrayed differently, as the classic right-wing imperialists, not as leftist liberals.
What I find typical for both leftist and right-wing populism is their lack of trust in the "prior" democratic institutions as both sides view them to have worked badly and the correct path is only when they get to power. Populism doesn't respect other voices as people are either on their side or against them.
Well, it would be nice that the war in Afghanistan would finally end. A nation having war for over 40 years is extremely depressing.
Last February the U.S. signed a conditional peace agreement with the Taliban, so there's that. Knowing Republicans, it's far easier for Trump to seek a peace & withdraw the troops than later for a Biden administration do the same thing. If only his administration would be capable of taking the deal to the end.
The idea that the US has to be in Afghanistan because otherwise the country might become a safe haven terrorists planning strikes against the US is far more delirious than the domino-theory was as the reason for the Vietnam war.
Right-wing populism also positions the common people against the underclass or anyone who may threaten to displace their socioeconomic status, such as immigrants or minorities, and utilize ‘law & order’ to help suppress them.
Trump has used the powers of the presidency to influence matters that are beyond the carefully designed parameters bestowed upon that office in the Constitution. Trump uses the powers of the office of the presidency to discredit any and all people who disagree with him in a manner that can only be categorized as silencing one's own critics prior to presenting them in the worst possible light, simply because they disagree. That is to devalue, deny, and deride the free speech of American citizens, at the very least.
The rights of the accused are shared, especially when the accusations are coming from the president of the United States of America.
A distinction, you say?
That's how the left typically portrays the right, quite like the classical view of the bourgeoisie as a willing partner of the elite in suppressing the lower classes, especially the working class. The view has roots in traditional leftist thinking. Yet in societies people rarely displace others, which is an odd thing to happen when you think of it. If economic hardships make a society less prosperous, many indeed can fall into poverty, but it's not that someone has then displaced them. The rare occasion happens if a country invades and conquers another country with the objective to annex and assimilate the conquered people or to simply make them be second class citizens in their previously own country. Displacement and suppression are then quite real.
Anti-immigration and nativism are quite often on the agenda of the populists, however I think the main reason is now days more about transfer payments and income distribution, then fears of crime etc. Few might fear immigrants taking their jobs or corporations using cheaper foreign labor. However I think it's better to view as a separate agenda as not only populists can have those opinions.
The bourgeoisie ARE the elites.
There's no 'bending' involved - these institutions will willingly do what's needed. Basically, you have much too much faith in your insitutions. They're all basically already fucked, and the only question is one of degree. The US is the proverbial frog in boiling water - it's been slow roasting for so long most of its citizens don't realize just what a hellhole of a plutocracy they already live in. Which is why they can fantasize about some impending 'civil war' which would mark some kind of definitive change. Americans are largely a population of compliant, scared, and oblivious hicks who would be quite happy with whatever political arrangements there might be so long as no one bothers them too much personally.
What tiny pockets of 'resistance' that would arise would be crushed by your internal security forces while being cheered on by your 'thin blue line' crowd. The point is that the imaginary spectre of 'civil war' serves nothing more than to disable action in the present, in expectation of some messianic violence which is a fantasy of where the 'real political change' will play out. Except it's not in some imaginary future, it's here and now where your miserable lives are being decided upon.
At least he got fired for it.
Normality? Biden and his ilk put the US on this path to begin with.
"Normality" is relative. In one sense, things have never been "normal". In another sense (the one I take Punshhh to be using here), "normal" is just the status quo ante Trump. And there's a whole spectrum in between.
He's simply the projected fantasy of liberals made flesh. The idea of some external corrupting force whose defeat would affirm all the more the goodness and 'normalcy' of the system as it was before. The fantasy of 'civil war' is cut from the same cloth. Some big upheal outside the 'normal' run of things, beyond which, the system is just fine.
QAnon is big here in the UK now, the've even been protesting in Trafalgar Square. Once someone falls down that rabbit hole, the're almost unreachable.
The PB are largely an internet meme anyway. A couple of hundred losers who got into the limelight because their founder shoved a butt-plug up himself to 'own the libs', among other things. Again my point is to forget all this shitty spectacle. It's there to distract you. And the fantasy of more spectacle - "civil war" - what, by a fatass nation that can't get off the couch long enough to give a shit about their own dead black neighbours? - isn't helping either.
The who live in the borough, craftsmen, artisans, merchants and other urban dwellers aren't the elite. Today small business owners, mid-level managers, lawyers working in small partnerships, pharmacists and doctors with a private practice aren't the elite today.
Never heard of the Petite bourgeoisie?
I see a system set up to create asset inflation, which then creates huge wealth inequality. And that has been policy. This should be obvious from the fact that when we have a global depression, the S&P 500 is at an all time high now.
The asset inflation is a big deal in the UK at the moment, as I pointed out in the Brexit thread. It is done through property in the UK. The housing stock has not kept up with demand for over 40 years, resulting in house price inflation. This results in the middle classes and the rich reaping the rewards. Many areas have seen over 1000% increase in value over the period.
Unfortunately we are now in the predicament that this is a bubble just as we are descending into a depression caused by Covid and Brexit. It will shake things up a bit though. The wealthy are worried, the poor aren't that bothered because they haven't got much to lose. Those who don't own property (who missed out on the benefits of the inflation) are not that worried. The people in the middle (a large group), who are not wealthy, but do own a house, are in big trouble. And of course, the rich will be laughing all the way to the bank.
As you noticed, in the UK there is more physical demand for houses as your population has rapidly grown, as the following graph shows:
Yet housing not keeping up with this isn't the cause for asset inflation. Housing prices going up because of excess demand is the natural response how the market mechanism works. It provides an incentive to build more houses.
However, with asset inflation there is another phenomenon present. Asset inflation happens when the financial sector can give longer loans on lower interest with less own collateral needed, which makes then the prices spike up. People. with the same income as earlier, can now afford buying a more expensive house.
Imagine if people had to pay 60% of the price of a house in cash from their own savings immediately. Few could do it and the housing prices would collapse.
Quoting Punshhh
The elites didn't let the bubble burst during the financial crisis and they are desperately trying to let it correct even now. That is the actual policy. We have to remember, that the interest rates are at an all time low in written history now.
Bank of England base rate, now 0,1%:
This is the real policy problem: the bursting of this bubble would mean deflation, and that has been taught to be as the worst possible thing to happen. Well, it's the worst possible thing to happen if you have debt. And those who really have debt are the very rich.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/11/man-shot-dead-in-denver-during-rival-left-and-rightwing-protests
Likely the way America's new "civil war" will transpire.
Yes, we now have a perfect storm on the horizon.
Key Findings
That may be the etymology of the word but you know that’s not its meaning in this context. In this context it means the capital-owners, in contrast to the laborers.
Quoting ssu
You contrasted the bourgeoisie with the elites. If you had instead contrasted the petit bourgeoisie with the bourgeoisie proper I would have agreed with you. I think Marx unfairly ignores the true middle class that he ought to be championing, those who have capital enough that they don’t have to labor extra to service debt, but not so much capital that they can profit from just owning it and have others do their work for them. Owner-operators = employee-owned businesses. That should be the ideal he wants to elevate the proletariat to.
The Bourgeoisie would be close to upper-middle class. Those people who indeed do have actually capital, at least once in older age they have paid their debts to the bank.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I think the counterargument would be that in the time of Marx there wasn't a true middle class.
This is how the left portrays left-wing populism. I specifically mentioned the underclass (immigrants or minority populations).
Quoting ssu
Really? I've been displaced from two jobs by offshoring myself.
Quoting ssu
Well, I was talking about right-wing populism.
Apparently Trump wants the State Department to release full unredacted versions of all the emails from Hillary Clinton's private mail servers to the public.
The private mail servers that were such a big deal because classified information stored on them might get compromised.
Compromised as in, made available to people without proper clearance to see it.
People like the general public.
Whom he is now ordering all that information be released to.
What?
Releasing private emails sounds kinda illegal to me.
Trump apparently wishing it's 2016 again.
[quote=Goering]whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.[/quote]
Surrounded by his MAGA goons, Trump still questions how he could lose to Biden. Each time sounded like a tacit admission of defeat. Link is forwarded to one of them (11:35).
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/jpmorgans-kolanovic-has-warning-those-expecting-crushing-biden-victory
The argument presented in the article is hardly convincing, and doesn't address polling at all.
Whether or not Biden "has it in the bag" is a fairly irrelevant question anyways, since the course of the post-election phase depends more on immediate results and choices than on the final tally.
Absolutely, he could still lose -- either by getting too few votes in the states with sufficient Electoral College weight, or his victory could be stolen.
Regardless of who wins, the process itself is under attack, as Trump, Republicans, et al practice dirty tricks. For instance, in California (some) Republicans have been putting out phony but very official looking ballot election boxes, presumably with the intent of disposing of ballots of suspected liberal voters. Law enforcement is rounding these up, but such things cause voters to distrust "the system".
Voter fraud is nothing new, of course. The quip "Vote early and vote often" references ballot box stuffing in cities like Chicago (and other cities). Some states have a much cleaner record than others.
I think it matters whether Trump or Biden win -- at least in the short run. In the medium run (say by 2024) another election comes round and some of the bad things that Trump and the Republicans did can be undone. Unfortunately, global warming isn't waiting for a better congress and executive, or for a better SCOTUS either. In the long run (1980 to 2050 and beyond) we are almost certainly screwed whether Biden or Trump wins.
That said, that article that you linked to is absolute bonkers. The news outlet is a far-right libertarian conspiracy website, and the JPMorgan guy they talked to has a history of making bullish predictions on Trump's chances.
Ha, fair enough. I come across their stuff every now and then and it's usually economics rather than politics. Nonetheless, good to know.
I just feel there's been a bit of a turn in the last couple of weeks with alot of outlets looking to polls and basically calling it for Biden. This kind of hope ought to be crushed until one sees it in the concrete. And even then, one ought to give Biden every bit of shit that that corporate fuckbag deserves, even if he does win.
1,000X :up:
I am of the belief that both candidates are right wing corporate scumbags with no care for the common people, and should both be raked through the mud as is deserved, I couldn't agree more
Would you say there's no value to slow progressive change? If so, why not?
I wonder how many people (mainly the old ones) around the world realized that a leader, a president, a prince or a king is just the official speaker of a certain powerful rich Elite who helped him (I try avoiding saying the truth by saying... hired him :) ) to play these symbolic highest positions before 'The People'.
So one has to admit that D. Trump played so well his given role (better than his precedents and the greatest actors at Hollywood did) to the point almost all people (right, left.. etc..), if not all, were fully convinced that he is a real top decision-maker and not just another official speaker (just a great talented actor behind whom there are... sorry I don't like talking politics).
I think a lot of Amerucans want Biden to take us backward at least to the Obama era where providing health insurance, being a member among Pacific states, and being a barrier to Russian aggression were priorities.
I understand the frustration regarding Biden's lack of progressiveness, but remember that when Biden was younger, where we are today was the progressive goal. I imagine Biden's focus would be to allow the US to recover from the Godfather climate of Trump.
Ive never seen the Godfather, btw.
So now 'Neoliberals' and 'Neofascists' are indistinguishable ... like private prisons and gulags / concentration camps?
I'd like someone to name a US president who has advanced liberal (or progressive) reforms who was not also a corrupt pro-corporate / establishment opportunist. I don't recall any such 'saintly un/anti-political man-of-the-people' chimera in the White House in the last couple of centuries, do you?
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad
Hunter and his father are both easy to trust and to like. Biden's not a socialist. All Trump's SCOTUS seats are filled. Trump's got nothing.
I’m not a fan of child-touching politicians who have had a life in politics but accomplished nothing, nor am I a fan of his crackhead, deadbeat son. I don’t think Biden and Hunter are easy to trust and like.
Poor @NOS4A2 is falling to pieces and posting random garbage as his child-raping hero Trump (https://www.courthousenews.com/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump/) implodes electorally.
:sweat:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
:clap:
Quoting tim wood
Scion of the Establishment - proves my point.
No "liberal accomplishments" (desegregating the military was a logistical manpower issue as the NSC apparatus ramped up the Cold War), Truman was mostly caretaker of FDR's "New Deal" & "Yalta" legacies.
Proves my point. Gave a valedictory warning of the "Military-Industrial Complex" his 2 administrations had engineered. Balked at desegregating schools (& civil rights movement more broadly) and promoted segregation in housing, etc.
Proves my point. Irish mob colluded with Italian mob in Chicago to "throw" Illinois to Kennedy in order to beat Nixon in 1960. MLK, Jr lead March on Washington in August 1963 to pressure JFK to enforce federal laws to protect non-violent Civil Right protestors in the segregated "Deep" South because JFK had mostly appeased the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Negro 'Dixiecrats' he and RFK had calculated (correctly) they needed for reelection in 1964.
Proves my point. V.I.E.T.N.A.M. ('Gulf of Tonkin Incident' ruse--> Agent Orange, Tet Offensive, My Lai, etc).
No "liberal" accomplishments, ergo 1980 reelection-destroying primary challenge from the left by "liberial lion of the senate" Ted Kennedy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2jDcPbSCluA
Effin' Romneycare! Toothless Dodd-Frank. Surrounded himself with the same Clinton adminstration hacks who in the late '90s had deregulated (& regulatory captured) the US banking-financial system, which subsequently crashed by 2008, because he was naive or corrupt enough to trust them to fix what they had deliberately broken. Moscow Mitch's willing (i.e. ineffectual) punching bag for 6 out of 8 years in office. Also, Obama's DOJ didn't criminally prosecute any Wall Street executives for securities & mortgage fraud, etc or killer cops for violating the civil rights - public executions - of minorities. Green-lit rigging the 2016 Democratic Primaries by DNC decidedly in HRC's favor at Bernie Sander's expense (thanks Wikileaks) ... which (IMHO) helped elect DJT. Atrocity of drone strikes against civilians (orders of magnitude greater than GWB). And so on ...
"The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was," Pres. Obama to Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, February 2014
Ideologically, no doubt, YMMV.
"Jane Does goes on to claim that after Epstein also forcibly raped her, he and Trump bickered over who should have taken the minor plaintiff’s virginity."
@NOS4A2's hero, but look we caught Hunter Biden in the bath smoking a cigarette! :vomit:
https://www.courthousenews.com/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump/amp/
4-year old news and you still only tell half the story.
That quote is not in the link.
This is though:
"The first declaration, signed by Jane Doe herself, detailed Trump’s alleged “savage sexual attack” on the then-13-year-old plaintiff.
...
The second declaration was signed by pseudonymous Tiffany Doe, who said she was hired by Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 1990s to recruit adolescent women to attend the billionaire’s parties.
Tiffany Doe claims she convinced the then-13-year-old plaintiff to attend the parties as a means to break in to New York’s professional modeling world. In her declaration, Tiffany Doe says she witnessed four sexual encounters in which Jane Doe was forced to have sex with Trump, and two encounters involving the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein.
The Tiffany Doe declaration included Epstein’s threats against her and her family for disclosing the details of any sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and his party guests, swearing under penalty of perjury that she understands that her and her family’s lives are “now in grave danger.”
The fact that multiple child rapes by your guy are fine by you because the story is four years old is all anyone needs to know about who you are.
(The plaintiff did eventually dismiss because:
“She is living in fear,” Bloom told reporters then, referring to Jane Doe. “She has decided that she’s too afraid to show her face. She’s been here all day ready to do it but unfortunately, she’s in terrible fear."
https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-rape-accuser-dismisses-new-york-case/)
I think Trump did even that job poorly. I’ve never seen a president so obviously go off script and then get “handled” back on track by the people with real power. If I didn’t already know that was going on, Trump’s dismal performance would have tipped me off.
I guess it’s still duped the masses though, who seem to think that Trump is personally behind all the awful shit that’s happening, and not just some manipulable idiot merely enabling other people to get their evil shit done in exchange for a time to bask in the spotlight.
Voluntarily dismissed for a third time, right before the last election, and never to be heard from again. Isn’t that convenient. Now that Epstein is dead, I wonder why she won’t come forward?
Either way, whataboutism using 4 year old nonsense is silly at best, desperation at worst.
The suit was dropped because she was intimidated and threatened. Your guy did it and you know it but you don't care. Again, that's all anyone needs to know about you.
Here are the two dozen other women he's sexually assaulted, but, sure, they're all liars and Trump's the real victim here.
Don't forget about the other 12 (out of 14) federal grand jury investigations and/or indictments still under seal which are referred to in the redacted version of the Special Prosecutor's Report. Even if "Individual-1" pardons himself or receives a presidential pardon in some other way, Mueller's investigation has shared much of its discovery with state prosecutors in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, California & Florida, local jurisdictions which are outside the federal jurisdiction covered by presidential pardons (and only Florida has a GOP governor who might consider it). Because of Mueller's "witch hunt", covIDIOT-1 is rightly terrified to lose reelection and all the immunities that go with the office. FDT - dead twat tweeting.
t-minus 20 days. :victory: :mask:
This is just more proof you’ll believe anything without evidence. Guilty until proven innocent, an authoritarian wet dream.
From the guy posting made-up Project Veritas stories about voting fraud and pictures of Hunter Biden smoking a cigarette as proof he's on crack, that's a rather amusing comment.
Why does he skateboard at night?
No unredacted Mueller report then. Oh well.
:lol:
That one is really funny!
I'm gonna miss reading this thread in a couple of weeks. It's very entertaining.
Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm
It sounds like they are going to keep dropping articles like this.
If Biden wins it’s going to be great returning to the same policies that have hollowed out America for the past 40 years. China wins.
chYnA! :lol:
And that ended well for him.
Wow sounds like the Trump campaign is flailing
Eh, so much for that October "surprise". Notify me in a week or so when Trump announces a "surprise breakthrough" in a vaccine right before the election.
I'd say more likely he's going to announce "a miracle!"
"Retweeting a link entitled "Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News" – it never happened –Trump said: "Wow, this has never been done in history. This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T."
Twitter did not do that.
The story was the from the Babylon Bee, a satirical news site. The motto on the Bee's Twitter page says it all: "Fake news you can trust.""
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/16/donald-trump-retweets-babylon-bee-attack-joe-biden-twitter/3675923001/
Here's something else to add to the mix:
"The FBI is investigating whether emails that were published by the New York Post related to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, are connected to a possible Russian influence operation to spread disinformation, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The newspaper said in its story Wednesday that it had obtained a hard drive from Rudy Giuliani containing the emails, and that the messages were found on a laptop that had been left last year at a Delaware computer repair shop for service but never retrieved.
The unlikely account of how the emails surfaced raised immediate questions about Russian involvement, particularly because U.S. officials have warned that Russia — which backed Trump’s 2016 campaign through hacking and a covert social media campaign — is interfering again this year."
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-russia-024b553e9a4ffb2716286dd134876f8a
Likely then that NOS is spreading Russian misinformation. What a surprise...
Speak the obvious.
Joe's campaign will never recover from this.
Quoting WaPo
I wonder why.
I don't like Trump - joking about it may even be worse than floating it as a genuine possibility - but I do think the truth is important and I find it insulting when others (regardless of who they are or what they claim to stand for) try to deceive us.
Edit: OK, I just watched it a couple more times and it's less clear to me that he was joking. Hard to say with this guy.
General rule of thumb is that the more horrifying the thing he said, the more serious he's likely being. Injecting disinfectant into people? Totally serious. Leaving the country? Too good to be true so probably a joke.
Oh yeah, and he usually claims that the thing he said was "sarcasm" later to "own the media" when he's being serious so watch out for that too.
4d cHeSs.
But the next time I watched he seemed to get serious (at least as serious as he can get) when he said that he may need to leave the country if he loses.
After watching a couple more times I'm almost convinced that he was being serious at the end if not the beginning; like he was wondering out loud if he was going to be forced to leave if Biden wins, and not just out of embarrassment.
Granted I have a tendency to over-analyze.
Some of the things Trump says (and does) appear to be so devoid of thoughtfulness or even cynical strategic calculations that you're led to assume he *must* be playing some sophisticated game that you're not smart enough to understand. Then, after waiting for him to surprise you with some brilliant move that never materializes, it hits you: he's just not a very intelligent guy and even his vaunted "instincts" are greatly exaggerated.
Yes, he's a blowhard and must be the most intellectually lazy President the U.S. has ever had. I expect most Americans would agree with a little reflection but too many mistake his braggadocio for strength and that leads to much over estimation on every level. He's essentially someone's dumb uncle that accidentally became President.
I don't think he's capable of articulating in the most basic of terms his position on, say, ACB's judicial philosophy, and why he thinks that'll make her a competent SC judge. He has no clue and absolutely zero interest in those sorts of things.
I mean, you don't need to be an intellectual heavyweight to be an effective president, of course, but I do think you should have at least a general (i.e. non-specialized) grasp of, and interest in, relevant political, cultural, historical, and geostrategic issues.
This story is getting crazier. Looks like “the big guy” has some explaining to do.
He's in full panic mode.
Russian-fabricated documents mention actual (unspecified) person who will swear that they are true. Film at 11.
(Given his ties to Guo Wengui, Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, Lude is immediately suspect as an anti-CCP propagandist, and everything he says could be an influence ploy.
So I post this not to convince anyone, but to make aware some of the efforts of Trump’s close allies. It would be interesting to see if this rears it’s head in the media within the next couple weeks.)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pangukaitiandi/status/1317381399721123840?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pangukaitiandi/status/1317381941725859840?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pangukaitiandi/status/1317382814132703235?s=20[/tweet]
Here is a recent picture of Lude with Giuliani, Bannon, and Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan. Bannon has been working with Chinese dissidents for quite some time.
It was confirmed by one of the people in the emails, none of whom are Russian.
So Qanon isn't far from the truth except that it's Trump and his buddies who are the paedophiles.
Nailed it! Absolutely :100:
B.. b.. b.. ut hUntEr! chYnA!
Basically everything the alt-right accuses the left of is usually a projection of something they themselves are guilty of, so even without the details you give to support this claim, it's prima facie probable.
Of course he's serious. Otherwise he'll spend the rest of his life fighting to stay out of jail, if not spending a significant part of that time in jail. Being the coward that he is, when the chips are down, he'll run. We know that he'll never take responsibility for his crimes.
There were those high-profile Virginia Giuffre accusations she made against many, including 2 Dem politicians, governor Bill Richardson and former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. In the same deposition, she says she never saw Trump and Epstein together, let alone at any of his homes, and she claims previous reporting on Trump’s involvement was fake news.
So I wonder if the projection statement is a little ironic.
Actually Bush was worse. It's simply the case that most Americans have shit for memories, and half the whiners who are obsessed with bitching about Donald T. are too young to know the extent of tyranny the globe suffered under Bush (and is still suffering today).
Are there any Bushes left? Clintons we forgot about? Carter's only 95, maybe he'll run! Ok, I know Reagan is dead, but isn't that better than when he was senile? Is Nixon still available, does anyone know?
Have you never watched Futurama?
He couldn't be more traditional, merely a different brand.
That's not possible. "The 20th amendment states: "The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January" Backing up from there, there is law that states the electoral college votes must be certified on Jan 6.
Worst case, a Supreme Court ruling would be needed to meet the deadline. The actual deadlines are not subject to debate.
It's important, not because it exposes what thinking people already know about him, but because it's the sort of behavior that may get him reelected. I dare say that some of his supporters believe the false tweet, and are delighted (and energized) to see him repeat it. Those that don't necessarily believe it, don't care that's it's false - they only care that he thinks like they do: mainstream media is against "us".
Transcript:
[i]Guthrie: "Just this week, you retweeted to your 87 million followers, a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden orchestrated to have SEAL Team Six, the Navy SEAL Team Six, killed to cover up the fake death of Bin Laden. Now, why would you send a lie like that to your followers?"
Trump: "I know nothing about it, can I..."
Guthrie: "You retweeted it"
Trump: "That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody.(Guthrie interrups)..and that was a retweet. I’ll put it out there. People can decide for themselves. I don’t take a position.
===================
[/i]Pause right there. Trump doesn't take a position on whether or not bin Laden is actually dead. Perhaps someone will ask him about this in the next debate. What can he answer? If he says, "of COURSE I know bind Laden is dead" then he will be admitting to retweeting something he knows to be false. If he says, "I don't know if he's dead", then he's derelict - as President, he clearly has the resources to get to the bottom of it. And it's a pretty big deal.[i]
===================
Guthrie: "I don’t get that, you’re the President. You’re not like, someone’s crazy uncle who can just (Trump interrupts)...… retweet, whatever.
Trump: "That was a retweet. And I do a lot of retweets. And frankly, because the media is so fake, and so corrupt, if I didn’t have social media… I don’t call it Twitter, I call it social media. I wouldn’t be able to get the word out. And the word is...
Guthrie: "Well, the word is false."
Trump: "… and you know what the word is? The word is very simple. We’re building our country, stronger and better than it’s ever been before."[/i]
Rebuilding, one death at a time.
Thank you for your highly predictable reactionary gotcha remark.
I say potato, you say potawto.
I say potawto, you say potato.
I say tomato, you say tomawto.
I say tomawto, you say tomato.
He’s a right-wing populist, as traditional in the US as white bread or apple pie. Think stupid Nixon.
And he beat every Republican, and every Democrat, all the professional politicians, all the talking heads, all the expert insiders. All of them.
A world class asshole, yes, totally agree there. But not stupid.
And Trump is not a populist either. He's a quite intelligent asshole who has persuaded you that he's a populist. Trump has no political beliefs beyond the pursuit of his own self interest, which is primarily his childlike need for ceaseless attention. Please recall, Trump donated to various Clinton campaigns and causes. He would have happily run as a leftist if that was where the opportunity lie.
Trump's gift is that he can see through many of the lies we tell ourselves. Perhaps this is a talent which comes naturally to compulsive liars?
As example, the media is constantly patting itself on the back for being a heroic public service etc. Trump sees through the fantasy and knows the media is just another profit seeking business. He feeds them the drama their business model depends on, and in return they give him billions upon billions of dollars of free advertising, while they pretend to be appalled by the drama he has handed them.
The religious right is constantly patting itself on the back about it's moral superiority. Trump sees through that fantasy too, and proves it by getting them to enthusiastically vote for the most immoral president we've had in my lifetime.
The Democrats constantly pat themselves on the back about their intellectual superiority (like you're doing) and Trump sees through that, and proves it by winning a campaign they all confidently predicted he had no chance of winning.
Trump is the kind of guy who went down to the crossroads and sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for some extraordinary political talents.
You appear to be buying the myth that he’s a 4-D chess player or whatever. Grated he’s an accomplished con-man, but the self-beneficial accomplishments he has are owed to inherited wealth and the freedom of not being burdened with any principles.
You forgot the second part: an even more retarded electorate that is willing to cast votes for scum like Trump and Biden
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that's the latest possible date we'd know. It's a deadline SCOTUS would need to work backwards from, if a lawsuit comes to them.
I can get people disagreeing with him about policies (what he will and won't do), their being disappointed that he's the candidate instead of someone they prefer (Bernie?), or being apprehensive about his age...but "scum"? He seems like a decent, if imperfect, man. I can't see how anyone could put him into the same category as Trump.
Quoting praxis
DJT is a stupid person's idea of smart person (i.e. losers' idea of a "winner" :point: white grievence populism = "MAGA").
Another tacit admission of failure, loss and defeat by the far-right, matched with a threat of vengeance the next time around: Trump will be back...
If justice is served, then no, no he won't.
No, Trump really is stupid and everything that he's said and done in these past 4 years demonstrates that quite well. In spite of what he keeps saying about how unfair the system is towards him, the fact is he got into the White House through sheer luck because of that very system. From the billions he received in free media from the "fake news" outlets, to the "deep state" FBI saving his campaign with their October surprise email investigation, to the fact that he ran against quite literally the most unpopular establishment candidate in modern history, the fact that a conman like him could get through and become president speaks more to how broken the US is as a country more than anything else.
He's not in the same category as Trump. More in the same category of being an establishment politician like Hillary Clinton, except without the toxic image, which is why he'll likely do far better than she ever did.
Absolutely scum. He's a lacky to the status quo. I hope he gets elected so you can see all the fucked up shit he never talks about, but that he plans on doing. But, it really doesn't matter who gets "elected", everything is going to keep getting worse... at this point in history, there is no indication that American decadence is reversible
What do you think will take its place?
With Biden, all of meaningless surface issues will likely reverse. But military policy will continue unimpeded, and American prosperity will continue to be sold out to foreign interests. And worst of all, black kids will continue to be terrorized and murdered by a police force which will continue to be inflated, meanwhile guns will continue to be stripped from guilty-til-proven-innocent violent non-offenders, while white kids continue with public massacres unimpeded by the overinflated police force (kinda ironic).
Finally, covid mandates will become a permanent public health measure.
You're judging both Trump and Biden "scum" because they won't do the things you want done. That's a weird standard. You must think the world is filled with scum.
I judge Trump scum because he is a narcissistic sociopath. Even if I believed the well-being of the country would be identical in 4 years, regardless of winner, I'd vote for the guy who'd not the narcissistic sociopath.
But I actually think the nation WILL be better off with someone who displays decency and refrains from stoking negative, destructive passions.
To each his own.
Yes. But do you know what I want done, or are you assuming??? You know what happens when you assume, don't you? It makes you look like a bitch. Of course, I'm not assuming you are assuming here...I assume.
Quoting Relativist
Absolutely, I hope you're not scum. But in all fairness, we're probably all scum, relativistically speaking.
Quoting Relativist
Well I guess you wouldn't be voting for president this election. And if you would, I would applause your legendary naivety for its historical novelty.
Quoting Relativist
Negative, destructive passions? You mean like drones strikes on foreign land? Or reducing opportunities for decent american citizens on behalf of the few?
No, I mean things like normalizing degradation of those with whom we disagree, and stoking hatred and division.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
He's probably a rather affable, pleasant man (with a penchant for young girls), but were he to drop dead tomorrow the net manevolance in the universe would correspondingly drop by a number of degrees.
He sold his soul to some Russian oligarchs, and they got him elected. He has no political talents. And contrary to what you say, that's not so smart.
Trump has certainly not been establishment. Was that a good thing?
I wonder if the 2016 Bernie supporters who voted for Trump are truly happily with what they got.
Genius! Why can't everyone see this?
Genius! Why can't everyone see this?
What's unique is that this clown-like behavior is the core of his appeal to his supporters.
He is a master salesman. He knows how to sell bullshit as good as anyone who has ever sold anything. He has his opponents buying more of his bullshit than anything ever bought by any demographic in American history
I want more...on Biden too!
Trump retweets an implausible conspiracy theory about a staged killing of bin Laden, defends doing so because he doesn't know if it's true or not, and he wants people to judge for themselves. So you think the judgment of that is due to classism. I strongly disagree.
Bin laden has served nothing better than the agenda of the Bush regime. All the rest is hype. Congratulations on eating it up!
:rofl:
People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.
And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite.
Quoting StreetlightX
Fuckin A!!! So on point. I hate Trump sooooo much. But I hate the bullshit of the L's so goddamn much that I'm willing to pretend to be an R-tard just to piss them off. It's so fucked!
You gotta direct quote gold like that, like this:
Quoting StreetlightX
But a direct quote really gives substance and respect to the source material, for example, like this:
Quoting StreetlightX
See?
Oh yeah I see now.
Love it! :rofl:
I cannot see how anyone who truly agreed with Bernie would. Most stayed home, I'm afraid, as did so many others who just assumed based upon all the political narratives at the time that Trump could not possibly win.
Quite a few warned otherwise, and a couple - at least - saw the increasing likelihood of a totalitarian style(anti-establishment) leader being elected years before it actually happened. That's the result of a vast majority of Americans sharing a deep-seated distrust of American government that has been confirmed and reconfirmed with each successive administration since Nixon. While at the same time, the opportunities for Americans born into less fortunate socioeconomic circumstances to earn, create, and/or otherwise legally acquire enough wealth to live comfortable lives have tremendously diminished.
The ground was fertilized by decades of elected officials misrepresentation of Americans; of not acting in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans when faced with the choice between what's best for the overwhelming majority, and what's best for the few.
Bernie began to educate the American people about all this, and he was silenced for the most part by the very establishments that Americans wanted to hold accountable for the unacceptable results of fifty years worth of progressively increasing despicable governance. Regular average everyday working Americans began to acquire knowledge of why things had turned so much for the worse.
That much became very obvious in both 2016 and 2020. Add to that all of the disinformation, lies, and propaganda that had Bernie supporters in it's sights(particularly in 2016), and all these seemingly disparate circumstances(and there are plenty more aside from these) certainly had an overall effect on the election by virtue of having an overall effect on the turnout.
The circumstances are now remarkably different.
The sad irony, of course, is that the swiftest and most reliable method for containing the pandemic required resources and actions that the United States government simply would not spend or take though it could have, should have, and ought still be spent and taken.
We are more than seven months into this, and are still not prepared to do what it takes to contain the virus while causing the least amount of possible harm to - mainly - the less fortunate Americans.
Nationwide stay at home orders, with as few exceptions as possible, while providing everyone who would be otherwise earning an income with an amount equivalent to their earned income for a period of time adequate to contain the virus. Widespread testing, isolation/quarantine, and contact tracing until the community spread has reached manageable levels.
We are still grossly unprepared for doing so. The president knows this, and thus is doing everything he can possibly think of to convince people to believe that the pandemic is nothing to worry about. That way, there is no focus upon the fact that the government is still not prepared to contain this pandemic. That is the first step to getting back to normal(life beyond the pandemic).
I'm not at all confident that what can be done, and ought be done, will be done, even if Biden wins in a landslide. I see no reason to believe that had such strict measures been taken, we would have already been long since past the negative effects/affects of this pandemic. I suspect that that is still quite true. Such actions taken now would result in containing the pandemic with the least amount of harm, much faster than the current method of approach.
(OK, so they were polite babbling retards).
For alot of people, yeah it was. Trump was able to fool undecided voters with his outsider status and make them take a gamble on him. Although Hillary led Trump in alot of the polls, she only ever won 45% of the vote, which meant that if Trump won a majority of the remaining voters while Clinton stayed stagnant, he'd beat her.
Biden-Harris 2020 :victory:
Almost as if "the left" isn't a single ideology.
Neither is the right, but they seem to do a better job of putting aside differences to access the power of unity.
I'm explaining my point of view, not criticizing yours. But I am sad that there are so many people who don't care that the president tells such blatant untruths. It's bad enough that politicians tend to spin facts; at least there's a core of fact. If all politicians were to give us Trumpian level fiction, the last bit of influence by the people would evaporate.
I know you disagree, so no need to point that out. But I would like to understand your vision of the ideal President. What would he do?
But I don't think it's productive to spend my mental energy on being outraged by it after the initial understanding. That's falling into Trump's trap, he's kind of a propaganda genius. It's a way for all the news cameras to follow his every word, moving from one public show of insanity to the next, while his base support remains untouched and attention focuses away from the policies he's helping implementing, which is what really impacts and hurts millions of lives. Attention and energy in politics is finite, and you should allocate it to what matters more.
I don't know; I don't think it should matter. As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. Any system that could lead to a Trump being installed there, and a Biden being the alternative, is rotten to the core. The cult of personality that follows presidents - any president - is toxic in and of itself. A basic rule of thumb for treating anyone with any sort of power is with suspicion and contempt, unless they prove, consistently, otherwise. Practically every US president in living memory has been a sack of shit. I have every expectation that every other one will be as well.
As for Trump, it simply ought to be axiomatic that everything he touches is or will be a shitshow. That's baseline; a fact of nature, like the sun being hot. Nobody needs that reaffirmed, nobody needs to be shown yet another news story about how Trump, personally, is a Bad Person. That's just another episode in the personalization of politics that is it's trivialization.
And Biden? Sure, vote for him. It would be a deeply shameful act, but no less shameful than than being forced to do something terrible while being hostage. There's no begrudging anyone who does it. You can't hate people clawing pathetically for their survival. One hopes that one would spend every other waking moment making up for it though.
If Biden drops dead tomorrow, the US is fucked and the rest of the planet too.
Bold presumption that this is not already the case.
Well, as long as the rest of the world is fucked as well, we'd probably be okay with that. Jesus will make sure we're raptured away before really bad things start to happen, anyhow.
That's our middle name!
I've been Satan's lawyer for years now. I'll be representing him in Heaven after Judgment Day. Business is business.
As told from the right, Burisma is a Ukrainian gas and oil producer that was being subjected to an anti-corruption investigation by Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin when he was fired at the behest of then VP Joe Biden, who bragged that the firing occurred as the result of his withholding of $1b in aid from the Ukraine. Joe's son Hunter, after the firing, joined the board of Burisma, and even though he had no expertise for that position, earned over $80k per month while there.
Joe denied having any knowledge of Hunter's interactions with Burisma or in using his personal influence over anything having to do with Burisma. Some recently revealed emails found on Hunter's alleged computer by a computer repair person indicate direct involvement between Joe and Burisma. Those emails were provided to Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani , who then shared it with the Washington Post, who then published this story.
The left's position is that Burisma was corrupt, that Obama had tried to stop the corruption, that Shokin refused to investigate Burisma, that Shokin himself was corrupt, and that Biden's firing of Shokin was at the request of Obama and the EU for proper purposes. They agree Hunter probably shouldn't have sat on Burisma's board, but it occurred after the Burisma investigation was dormant and it was without Joe's knowledge. They also say the leaked computer information might be a Russian set up.
Twitter and Facebook have blocked any reference to the Washington Post story, effectively censoring it on their platforms. This story doesn't appear on CNN or MSNBC and Biden refuses to respond to it.
That's why I'm not voting for Biden. Censorship, evasion, and lack of transparency. So, sure, I understand the reasons provided why you shouldn't vote for Trump, but why not the reasons for not voting for Biden? His son earns $80k per month from a known corrupt entity that was being investigated by someone who his father fired? Maybe it is all innocent (???), but shouldn't it get a little more play time that it has, and are we not at all concerned that the media has taken a side on this?
Biden isn't responsible for Twitter and Facebook blocking posts or for the media not talking about it.
Also, Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden
I do not necessarily agree with the left/right distinction. There are some principled lefties who have been critical of the Biden/Ukraine saga, and righties who have called it Russian disinfo.
Many Bernie bros and former Obama-voters have flipped to Trump, many vocal conservatives have flipped to Biden. I think there are new divides at work here.
Your concerns about Biden are dead on. Hunter Biden is the product of affluence and power par excellence. While Biden’s crime bills led to mass incarceration, his crackhead son has avoided troubles. As the recent emails make clear, Hunter and his partners profited off the Biden, at the very least. Biden is possibly compromised, a national security threat.
(Just a small correction: the outlet that reported on the emails was the New York Post, the paper of Hamilton.)
Right now, people are too concerned with the pandemic and the economy crashing that they don't give a damn about what Hunter Biden did in another country. I don't blame them, but that is just how it is. It should be a concern for people that the media is censoring stories that they don't approve of, but many of them don't think that far ahead and in fact some of them are even cheering the move so much as they are aware of it. It's setting a bad precedent but that's how it usually starts, like the Terrorist Surveillance Program that was started in the wake of 9/11.
While I agree with the concerns, on the assumption of various accusations somewhat cancelling each other out (lacking the ability to continue to follow up indefinitely on every meme or report that gets out there), I've rather been thinking of the vote as 1) a vote for Harris-Biden versus Pence-Trump, especially with the two dudes aging, 2) a vote for Harris or Pence supposing their age increases the probability of their already apparent incoherence and ineffectiveness, 3) a vote for the ideas and backing of either supposing the ever-present stooge factor (and keeping in mind these are often the same forces), 4) a vote for the more everyday base of which they seem to represent - however ridiculously or imperfectly or even grotesquely - and 5) as 180 put it above, thinking of the vote as well as a "referendum on the incumbent."
With all of these in mind, supposing a degree of mutual cancellation, and not really thinking of the vote as an endorsement of either individual other than nominally, personally my vote goes to a Harris Administration.
Of all the reasons for not voting Biden (his actual voting history, his policies etc.) you choose some questionable story about how Biden was maybe somehow involved in getting his son some capitalist welfare payments (also known as board positions)? That seems very strange.
Quoting Hanover
You mean apart from all the other times when the media has taken sides? What's your concern, that US media might be getting increasingly partisan? Because if so I have bad news for you...
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
This deserves to be triple quoted! And read thrice!
Why they're his shill seems problematic. Your position is that he's just the lucky beneficiary of a cover up. Seems unlikely. In any event, I don't want a politician that is handled with kid gloves.
This was obviously prior to the recent leak from Hunter's computer, but it begs the question of why no other news source has picked it up and others are actively blocking its discussion.
I think you misunderstood my post. I didn't say I wasn't voting in this election.
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting frank
Quoting Saphsin
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Kevin
All of this makes sense enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vsrm1J-QzQ
So third party then? If not then the reasoning in your previous post doesn't make any sense to me.
Seems strange to not vote for someone because third parties choose not to talk about some possible scandal.
Quoting Hanover
Probably because they feel it lacks credibility. Fox News turned it down and even the New York Post had trouble getting their reporters to agree to be the byline.
Oh wow, the paper of Hamilton. Must be reliable reporting then!
There are more workers than bosses. The bosses have property, money power and influence in abundance, but lack the numbers. Thus 'divide and rule' has to be the tactic. This takes many forms, manipulation through the media, infiltration of left organisations, bribery of certain segments, fomenting of conflicts of all kinds racial, religious, and so on. There is no solidarity on the right, but a common interest in weakening the left. And of course everybody knows it is far easier to make a little money from a lot of poor people than the same amount from a few rich people. The solidarity of the left is the only enemy of the right.
Chomsky's thoughts on LEV back in 2016 (thought some here might find interesting):
[Quote=Chomsky]
1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.
4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.
6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.
8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
[/Quote]
There's a "preamble" I didn't copy/paste:
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
I wish I was as clear and articulate as that 90+ year old man.
This time around, he's been saying that even in a "safe" state, one should vote Biden -- just to run up the score. It's the first time I've ever heard Chomsky say this.
Quoting StreetlightX
1. Because Biden is obviously less bad. As horrible as he and the Democrats are, it’s pretty clear that they both vote along with the Republicans, but also often vote against terrible Republican policies. The difference between the policies of Democrats and Republicans (both small and large) will make a difference to hundreds of millions of lives. (if you add global warming, even more long term)
2. As bad as the Democrats are, much of their base is far more progressive than the politicians are. So activists have the space to organize the public and put pressure on politicians to implement programs. There is no such opportunity with the Republicans, both the voters and the politicians are hopeless. It’ll be another waste of 4 years of barely defending against an onslaught of right wing policy after right wing policy.
3. Trump will pack the Supreme Court.
4. It's much easier to challenge the 2 party system if the Democrats are in popular. If we show the public that centrists won't solve their problems they'll turn more left leaning. Bernie got popular after the discontent from Obama. When the Republicans are in power however, the Democratic base is far more prone to focus on being anti-Republican. Voter surveys showed that in the Democratic Primaries, the number one reason many voters opted for Biden was because they were concerned that he had a better chance of defeating Trump (sure that was complete false propaganda, but the Left doesn't control corporate media)
You minimize damage where you can, and shoot for our goals when you can, depending on the current opportunities. Taking one day to vote to put the less Right-Wing politician in power is easy, while the rest of the year can be organizing against the government and corporations.
Trump in power is a regression, he rolled back many progressive policies and corporate regulations, while implementing new right-wing policies. Not only does that hurt millions of people, but the Left is wasting time defending against them instead of pushing their own programs. It is obvious it's preferable to the Democrats to be in power, because they pass less Right-Wing policies, and there is a Democratic public base for the Left to organize to push our own programs. The more Right-Wing policies there are, the more time it takes to combat them. The Left has not implemented anything in the past 4 years. For all those who talk against electoral politics (while also constantly bitching about it more than I would), they can never use their imagination to understand the balance of forces, popular forces from below and the elites they’re struggling with. Maybe it’s because they don’t actually talk to American activists.
That Trump came into power in part due neoliberal policies that the Democrats share responsibility for is not logically inconsistent with this. And the Left is not as weak as it was just a decade or two ago, it has the capability to grow and organize the public, and push its demands. But that will not happen with Trump in power. With Bernie, there was a good chance of success. With Biden, the hurdles are much higher, but there’s at least a small crack of opportunity. With Trump, he’s just going to put more kids in concentration camps.
When discussing strategic decisions, even more so for ones that can easily be done, it's all about maximizing positives and minimizing negatives. With the available options in this particular choice (what you do on that one day, not what you do for the rest of the 4 years) under which circumstances can the Left build more of an advantage and in which less people get less tortured and killed. Trying to give a lecture about both parties having a bad record on neoliberalism and imperialism isn't answering the question.
If you really thought voting had zero effect on the distribution of political power either way (a ludicrous position in consideration of very clear evidence, but for argument's sake), you would actually shut up about it and focus on movement building instead of worrying about what people do on election day.
And if your politics was actually based on concerns of human lives, you would break things down and ask certain questions yourself, what is going to happen to person X (child in concentration camp, women who seek abortion, people in areas vulnerable to climate change, people in Iran or Cuba who suffer from Trump sanctions) what is my decision going to have on their lives. What would “they” want me to do. That's the definition of solidarity.
Actually the first party refuses to talk about it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-response-hunter-biden-emails-business-dealings
What else is there to say? If that's enough a reason to not vote for him (given my previous clarifications that Biden isn't responsible for what the media does or doesn't do, that the Senate found the Ukraine conspiracy to be unfounded, and that the story in the New York Post seems to be lacking credibility even to themselves and Fox News) then I think you're just looking for an excuse to not vote for him, rather than admit to whatever your real reason is.
To vote for someone like Trump or Biden is to vouch for them. And there are few acts more self degrading than giving your approval and your voice to a sack of shit like those two. Anybody with the smallest sliver of self respect would and should cringe with personal shame any time they even think about voting for a sack-of-shit.
Simple fact: the political machine is FUBAR, and we have a thick skulled populous that is too dense to understand that an irreparably broken machine will never work, but they keep trying to make it work. How retarded!
Yeah if you put that much emotional and symbolic attachment to the act of pushing a button at the voting booth (or by mail), which I find quite bizarre and pathetic really.
It's just to prefer one or the other as President.
I voted for a Labour MP, not because I supported him, but because I didn't want his Conservative opponent to win (and these were the only likely winners).
Voting can be nothing more than a pragmatic choice.
No states do that yet. There is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where a bunch of states have agreed to do that, but only when there's enough of them on board that that would actually decide the election.
Are you aware of the function elected officials are meant to serve? It is not an immediate matter of pushing a button. It is actually quite significant, in theory.
Voting has a little more significance than simply being a preference.
And that's a real great reason to vote for someone, because you want the opponent to lose. Tell me, are you aware of the function elected officials are meant to serve?
Perhaps to some, but not to everyone.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
To legislate. And if the choice is between the candidate of a party that will legislate in ways I strongly disagree with and the candidate of a party that will legislate in ways I somewhat disagree with then I will vote for the candidate of the second party because I don't want the candidate of the first party to win and to subsequently legislate in ways I strongly disagree with.
Additionally, any TWO of NV, UT, IA, KS, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, KY, NE, WV, or any one of those but the last two plus either ID or ME, would be enough to enact it as well.
Enacting that would basically bypass the electoral college, and in doing so probably doom the Republican party in its entirety, since they haven't won a popular vote in over 30 years.
In theory, one votes for the candidate that represents his interests. A vote for someone means that you recognize that a candidate will represent you, almost as if you were there yourself. It is a show of support, not so much for the candidate, but for what the candidate believes in, and for the electorate which he represents.
But, in my lifetime, there has neen not one president who has genuinely represented any real interests of the average American citizen.
Since you brought it up, are you skipping this part of the ballot or voting for Trump... or Kanye?
Actually, it is to represent the electorate. Presidents don't typically legislate, that is predominantly the job of Congress.
You are simply giving your "go ahead" to people that you disagree with less. But don't mistake it, they don't give a fuck about you or your interests either. It is apparent that you prefer "slow death".
Slow death buys time to escape death.
Then let's dispense with the fantasy, and talk "real world". We have a very particular and real case of voting, it exists in the present world at this period in history, right before our living eyes. Biden and Trump are the candidates in the 2020 us election.
We already can speculate on all the fucked up shit Trump will do if reelected, he has a definitive track record. So tell me, what chain of events will become impacted if Biden is elected?
I was referring to my case of voting for a Labour MP over a Conservative MP.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I know that they don't. But whether or not they give a fuck about me or my interests isn't the point. The point is that their opponent will legislate in ways that I strongly disagree with, either for ethical reasons or because they will damage some aspect of my life, and so my primary concern is to avoid that outcome.
Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and we can't always get what we want. If you want to act on principle and refuse to contribute, or to contribute in a way that has almost no chance of affecting the outcome, then you're free to do so. But I'm more pragmatic than that and would choose to aim for the least bad option. People's actual well-beings are at stake here.
That is to assume there is a means of escape available. That's why I used "death", because of its inevtability, the futility of any attemp at escape.
Can't even give me one ?
And I don't know if you know, but Trump and Biden have much more in common with each other, than they have in common with you or me.
Nice point, I can't argue.
Oh sorry, you know how we Americans are...no one else in the world but us. But their job is to represent their electorate, legislation is merely the political means of representation.
Quoting Michael
People's actual well-beings are at stake here. That is Goddamn absolutely on point. I'll tell you this, regardless of who gets elected this season, people's well-being is going to get fucked.
I'll also tell you this...If any candidate you ever vote for is anything close to a shit-sack like Trump or a Biden, he/she will definitely, I guarantee, damage some aspect of your life.
Well, you can go ahead and play with your broken machine, and pretend it will somehow, magically, and miraculously begin to work right. I will continue pointing out how lame it all is.
You misunderstand. It's not about emotion. It's about being responsible, and being complicit, and about the necessity of recognizing that voting entangles you in a system which you owe both yourself and others to extricate yourself from. Voting for a shitbag like Biden puts you in political debt, and marks you as responsible, whether you like it or not, for the millions whose lives will continue to degrade - albeit at a slower pace - under his adminstration were he to win it. I [I]don't[/i] think this is a bad thing. Call it the first step of voting anonymous - "I'm X, and I'm a sucker for doing this".
Of course Americans have always been complicit in making the world a worse place to live in, but now's perhaps a chance to actually recognize it.
I haven't paid attention, but I can surmise well enough.
Well if you were using that to convince me, it was counterproductive. I work for a living, and I am ineligible for unemployment benefits because I recieve a regular paycheck. Why would I desire unemployment benefits? So I can pay more taxes out of my already measly income?
And pandemic programs? Fuck pandemic programs. This Covid bullshit is enough for me to be eternally radical on that issue.
So then, I guess I should vote for Trump.
I don't think many voters think of it that way, but that is exactly how it is.
*shrug* If you want to act like voting takes you off the hook then so be it. Enjoy the continued decline of the world which you would be responsible for while pretending you're not.
The last Republican prior to Trump, GW Bush, won over 50% of the popular vote in 2004.
The point of democratic voting is to choose who best represents your own interests, not another's. It is inherently a selfish system of government (which is one reason both Socrates and Nietzsche considered it the most inferior mode of governance). What kind of retard votes for another person's interests, let alone a stranger's?
But you are right about one thing, I am a selfish jerk!
Another very good point. But I sympathize with those who do -- Biden is awful, and Bernie was much, much better. If I thought not voting, or voting for Trump or third party, would truly make a difference (and fairly quickly), I would consider it. But there's just no evidence of that whatsoever and, given what I view as the most important issue (climate change) and the limited time left to deal with it, I have to cast my vote for Biden and then, like your saying, continue on pushing him (and the DNC) towards progressive policies. It's actually worked so far -- we've seen in in his climate policies alone. Whether or not they get enacted is beside the point, he has been pushed left. So Sanders' campaign is a huge success in just that respect alone.
Exactly right.
What states? I don't know what you're talking about. You mean the state's popular vote?
Bush won the popular vote in 2004.
I'm just saying: voting for a monster like Biden in particular implicates you, and you had better work to srcub the filth off yourself in whatever practical way you can after the fact. Perhaps you recognize this. I'm not convinced many do.
It's not speculation -- there's four years of it. It WILL continue for the next four more years -- there's no reason to believe the opposite.
Anyways, this is all highly abstracted from talking about any of the details about activism and government, which I wrote a long post about. Talking about the nuances of responsibility or some other unhelpful use of terminology is very convenient for shielding your eyes from reality.
Pfft, and you complain about abstract. My point's not complicated: Biden's a fucking monster, and if you vote for him, you'd have to do everything you can to undo it after. No more no less.
Of course we're all responsible. Given the system we're currently in, in the real world, we make our decisions. Voting is a minor one, but there's no question that we should do it. But the real work is done every day, and it will continue.
I'd love to change the two-party system -- I'd also love to not have to participate in the capitalist system -- but I live in the real world. If I'm complicit and share responsibility for participating in it, so be it -- the degree is so minor that to dwell on this or emphasize it is pretty absurd.
Yes. But you said it: the reason is because people over-emphasize the importance of voting. Yes, it is important -- especially now. Why? Because we'd like to at least survive as a species, and if the minor political act of voting helps mitigate the threat of annihilation, we should do it -- even if we don't agree with the two-party system or fully endorse the "less evil" candidate. That's not what a vote for Biden means.
Technically, yes it is speculation. Anything that is predicted to happen but has not yet become an actuality is speculation.
So, I'm not insinuating that Trump will suddenly stop being a piece of shit, he is a piece of shit through and through. Everything he touches turns to shit. But, I can also guarantee that Biden is an equal and opposite piece of shit to Trump, and his apparrent shift farther to the left is a mere a ploy to attract votes. Once elected, he will carry on with the status quo, and everything will continue to get more fucked.
If you’re responsible for pushing for the less worse option between two available options, it doesn’t make sense to say there is additional political debt, to keep it simple.
But again, outside this philosophyforum, who cares about these notions? What’s the outcome?
Hopefully many don't. To shame people for making the right choice, as if they fully endorse Biden, is so childish as to be embarrassing. I expect nothing less from you, though.
I guess it's speculation that the sun will rise tomorrow, then. Fine.
True, we can believe Trump is perhaps visited by 3 ghosts this Christmas and changes his entire personality and attitude towards the world. But let's try to be serious about it.
Well if you're right, we're completely screwed. So we can give up now, or we can give ourselves some hope, however minor it might be. I don't see an alternative.
You keep charactering Biden as simply a 'less worse option'. Perhaps he is that. But he is not only that. He is also a terrible human being who is responsible for the immeseration of millions of not hundreds of millions. If the fact that he is 'less bad' is the limit of your political horizon and imagination then so be it. You vote for abstractions and nothing I say will change that.
Very good, I think you understand. And don't worry, it's not a bad word, everybody does it.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm just saying, Biden will change very little that matters. Fucks sake, Obama was infinitely better than Biden has ever been or ever could be. If he turned out to be a lackey of the status quo, what do you think will happen with Biden?
Quoting Xtrix
I prefer to abandon all hope, and talk shit as the free world eats itself alive.
Still, your point is well taken. One popular vote win out of the last 7 is still not a great record. Demographics can't change quickly enough. There's hope the younger generation is pretty engaged already.
I had no illusions about Obama either. But when you say that Biden is worse, I don't know what you mean. I'm not interested so much in the personality or history of the individual -- including Trump. I care about the policies that are enacted. And many of Biden's policies, thanks to the Sanders' wing, are the most progressive yet.
Well, that's your business.
This is the limit of my political horizon? What are you talking about, there aren’t any centrists in this discussion. I supported Bernie, and then the anti-police Black Lives Matter protests this summer. Maybe you didn’t know that, but I made my politics explicit a couple of pages back in what the Left should do. You’re seriously in denial by leaving out convenient points.
Obama had some of the greatest policies ever advertised to the populous. But then he got elected.
That is why I have no faith in an establishment politician who's greatest draw is that he probably won't seem as bad as Trump.
And I own it with pride
You're on a moving train. One track goes off the cliff, the other goes over a rickety, dangerous bridge. These are the only options, because you're on a moving train. What do you choose?
Now, if you're sane, and chose the obvious track -- should you feel shame or guilt at jeopardizing the lives of all the passengers?
The global economy was on the verge of collapse on his first day in office. Cut him some slack.
I was mistaken about that.
Yeah I just read that -- apologies for beating a dead horse.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You take pride in defeatism and fatalism? You're welcome.
I think it’s an ailment of not being able to juggle multiple ideas in one’s head at the same time because of ideological blinders.
Again, good instincts.
In a more rational world, 97% of the electorate would simply push the button and then get back to the hard work of pursuing their political goals.
I believe the future is better with Biden. Policy-wise, I want the ACA to survive and be improved, likely with a public option. Trump wants to eliminate it. I want real immigration reform; that will never happen with Trump. I want Social security rescued - that's much more likely with Biden. I want more judges who have an expansive view of human rights, and Trump is guaranteed to appoint the opposite. With dems in power, there's a better chance of moving in a better direction on climate change, with Trump - well, he doesn't admit there's a problem.
There's more, but these are my top issues.
By contrast, with Trump, we'll get the wall completed, and perhaps a head added to Mount Rushmore.
Even if I believed, as you do, that they're both assholes, I still have good reasons to vote for Biden.
Yeah, but he had 8 years to turn into the angry black man that he should have become to really shake shit up. But he didn't. I actually think he got whiter during those eight years. What a shame.
Well said. I'm surprised climate change wasn't up there on your list, though. Because in this area the contrast is even MORE striking.
More so in the irony and humor. Thanks
Could you be just a tad more racist please?
I fail to see the humor in the destruction of the planet and possibilities of human life. But that's me.
If someone with the authority and influence of the US president was merely to shine light on the real issues that are never included on the ballot, I imagine the system would quake, and possibly open the door to real systemic change.
Really??? Well, in my opinion, whiteness is unbecoming of a black president.
It's only humorous if you keep the irony in view. Otherwise it is just pitiable.
Cultural appropriation?
Please elaborate. Give me a few of the "real issues."
IMO, Trump has shined a light on some of the big issues in our society: he's exposed racism, xenophobia, self-righteousness, pettiness, and intolerance of disagreement. I don't believe this exposure is helping, I think it has hurt, because these things have been encouraged.
:rofl: it is cultural appropriation
I don't doubt it, and I haven't argued otherwise.
The excessive military presence around the world.
A burgeoning police-state. The corporate corruption of the political process. The gradual erosion of constitutional rights.
I'm not concerned with racism, xenophobia, self-righteousness, pettiness, and intolerance. Those are mere symptoms based in the frustration over the seeming futility of enacting true change. They will resolve themselves when the deeper issues are dealt with.
I think of our predicament like an animal trapped in a cage trying to break free, doing whatever it can to break free. But it cannot find the bars of the cage, so it creates an imaginary cage with imaginary bars that can be readily found, thus it can have something to potentially break free of.
Great, wonderful, what do you want, praise? You're still dirty, you're compromised [hide]as is everyone on the left[/hide], and everything is still awful, and will remain awful even if Biden wins. There are no clean hands, and we're all flith. This is not personal. This is structural flith.
It's curious that criticism of Biden is met with a chorous of "yes but here's why I'm going to vote for him". It's like people need to assurage their guilty consciences. Like Freud's dude on the couch who feels the need to proclaim that the dream is definately NOT about his mother.
Look, I don’t know what this meta-filth is, I don’t see what it adds to political analysis and strategic decisions we make every week. There are available choices that have different political effects, and what you do on voting day is one of them, what you do the following day or week or month is another, and you’re saying that you don’t like them and talking about these notions seem to make you very passionate, but frankly beyond my obviously shared sense of disgust and dissatisfaction with the situation, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I talk with many people about politics and this is one of the most confusingly framed discussions.
It is more advantageous to activists and causes less suffering for civilians if we move ourselves to a situation where we fight against Biden instead Trump. That’s it, obviously we do that in combination with many things like all processes in life. You can sit around moping and meta-analyzing about some responsibility that gets tied in with voting that I can’t understand or don’t see reason to care for talking about anymore. I discuss these details to assuage my guilt? What a bizarre train of thought to arise, not everyone thinks like this unless they’re obsessed with satisfying their sense of identity.
These are reasonable concerns, but "shining a light" on them will not get a majority to agree these are problems, much less agree on how to solve them.
You are probably correct. Nevertheless, it is as though those issues are hiding in plain sight. Everybody knows about them and can see what's happening, but we never hear anything substantial about it from our leaders. Until it becomes a concern for them, for instance if it affects their chances to be elected, we will never see any attempt at a solution to the big issues.
The fact an otherwise discerning poster is fooled believing again in Russian meddling talking points just goes to show how far the information apocalypse is along. (look it up). And it's getting worse. May I suggest you change your search engine to duckduckgo and your browser to Brave and delete Facebook, Instagram and Twitter? Or any other social media for that matter? Stop browsing YouTube and instead approach videos via duckduckgo. That goes a long way to avoid the rabbit holes of conspiracies those companies will serve up, whether right or left wing, just to have you click on the next link.
I would add upholding a fraudulent bubble economy, which doesn't create much else than asset inflation that deepens the divide between the rich and others. And benefits the financial sector.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
But those are great issues to focus on during an exceptionally bad economic downturn that people somehow still think will go away once the pandemic is gone.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Does the animal want to find the bars of the cage or really think how the cage is built?
If the basic problem is a corrupt two-party system, it simply will not go away by voting the two-party system once again into office. How intelligent people do not understand that the way to control people is to divide them is beyond me. So go off and hate each other. Just look at this forum on how the media narrative has an effect on what people here talk about. As if it's Nazi time / Commie time if you don't go and vote your side of the duopoly.
The worst end result is that people then don't believe in democracy or the values that the country was built upon.
You're awful dismissive of Hunter Biden's involvement with an organization that the Obama administration and the EU believed to be corrupt, so much so that they were willing to interfere in the Ukrainian elections process and demand that he be fired. Do you truly believe that Hunter's involvement had nothing to do with Joe and that Joe didn't financially benefit in any way?
Suppose Donald Jr. did what Hunter did? No big deal?
If I'm inconsistent in my treatment of Trump versus Biden, that just means I'm hypocritical, not that I'm wrong. Regardless, maybe Biden nor Trump are deserving of the presidency, which actually really is where I do think things fall.
What Michael pointed out was that the Ukrainians were found not to have tried to interfere in the US elections which conflates the issue at hand. I'm not trotting out that old argument, but I'm just pointing out that there has been some incriminating evidence presented by the Washington Post pointing to some corruption between Joe, Hunter, and the Ukraine which I think deserves more attention than it's getting. As I also noted to Michael, how would the left respond if Donald Jr. did this or if somehow Trump orchestrated that the issue be muted by the major social media outlets.
I give him credit for educating me regarding how many, gotta say it, stupid people we have in America. Yea, I already knew that intellectually, but I didn't really get it until Trump. Given that I'm 68 I should have gotten it long ago, but um, I guess I'm one of the stupid people.
But wait, I have a lame excuse! I've spent my entire adult life in a college town, and so fell in to the dream of thinking this is what life in general is like, when really it's just a very small sample of what life is like.
But really, no one should need Trump to teach them about stupid people. All you need to do is get in your car and drive a few miles. 80% of your fellow drivers will tailgate you, one of the stupidest acts a person can commit.
Well, anyway, thanks to Trump I'm slightly less stupid than I used to be.
No, I pointed this out. Quoting myself, an always reliable source:
Quoting Hanover
Biden bragged on camera that it was his withholding of $1b in US aid to Ukraine that resulted in a vote by Parliament soon thereafter to fire Shokin. The EU also wanted Shokin out, as I noted above. Biden was the point man for the Obama administration in trying to reduce Ukrainian corruption at the time, which makes Hunter's involvement with Burisma all the crazier. At least admit that much.
But yes, I know the respective arguments from each side, but that Hunter, a pretty useless crackhead, earned $80k per month from a known corrupt organization and that there are now emails (of still questionable veracity) indicating Joe's involvement in that is troubling. I mean, really, do you think Hunter's involvement with Burisma had nothing to do with his dad being VP and his dad having made prior efforts to clean the place up? Do you really think Joe got zero financial benefit from that or that he had no idea what his little boy was up to? But more importantly, do you think there is no story here at all and that it ought not be reported by any news outlet other than Fox and that Facebook and Twitter should block it?
Not exactly a fully clean bill of health: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-23/senate-republicans-issue-findings-on-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work
You just can't seem to accept that whatever Biden did was acceptable and legal, where with Trump we know he does plenty of illegal stuff. That has everything to do with ideology on your side and little with the facts.
Not sure, but I think his dad is, but he spends a lot of time in the basement not answering questions or appearing in public, so I'm not completely sure.
I haven't argued otherwise.
The first part of the story makes sense. Burisma hired the son of the US VP to get better connections with US politicians and thereby soften or avoid further US influence to their detriment. While it is possible that Joe Biden directly set up such a deal, it's at least as plausible that it was simply tactics hatched by Burisma themselves and / or Hunter Biden.
Nothing about the sequence of events suggests that Biden received any personal financial benefits, so that seems to be baseless speculation. Whether he knew what Hunter Biden was up to, I don't know, but his knowledge doesn't seem particularly relevant.
There's a difference between "acceptable" and "legal." Whether Trump is worse is an interesting argument where can try to figure out who sucks more. I'm less ideological than you make me. I've gone back and forth on who to vote for here, and the corruption stuff doesn't really move the needle much for me because I just assume they're all corrupt. If Biden comes out firmly against court packing, I might consider him. My biggest problem with Trump is that he lacks any leadership qualities and instead just fans the flames where ever there is conflict in order to create a stark choice for the voters. A leader sees cities burning and he tries to put the flames out, regardless of who's at fault. I think a country without burning cities is better than one that with, which seems obvious, but no one really seems to want to see that and the deep cultural divides addressed, much less resolved.
This is actually false. It was Shokin who blocked the Burisma investigation among other investigations.
Rather euphemistically put, but anyway, four more years of that, yay! :cheer:
The Senate investigation found nothing, so yes, I believe that Hunter's involvement had nothing to do with Joe and that Joe didn't financially benefit in any way.
Taking advantage of his family name to get a well-paid job? No, it's not a big deal. And certainly not something that gives a reason to not vote for Joe. How is it any worse than Trump giving a White House job to Ivanka?
An actual worrisome case is Trump ordering that Kushner be given security clearance despite the red flags, as that's a potential issue of national security. What has Joe allegedly done with respect to Hunter that is comparable to this and that hasn't already been disproved by the Senate investigation?
What if he comes out firmly for court balancing and points to the last five years as an example of what court packing looks like?
:brow:
Have you ever played any video games or sports, or read military fiction, or maybe chess? Anything involving tactics? You take out the leading general, and their replacement general is weaker and easier to fight (of course you fight them afterwards) That's the lesser evil, and I fail to see anything problematic. Any serious tactical struggle for power that doesn’t reduce harm (save soldiers, choosing the right enemies) is normative stupidity. Nothing regretful or abstract about that. What's abstract are all these notions you're bringing it up. It's honestly the kind of characteristic centrist liberals are infected with rather than those interested in realist notions like power and advantage.
Contrapoints just posted a great video on this subject last night:
[video] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Vah8sUFgI[/video]
It's not false. I noted above that Shokin himself was corrupt, and I do know he was accused of seeking bribes, so that's why they wanted him out. Bloomberg reported that the Burisma investigation was not moving forward at the time Hunter joined the board. Regardless, that's majorly fucked up that Biden's son sat on the Board of a company that the US and EU had determined was so corrupt that the US withheld $1b in order to fire the investigator who was refusing to investigate it.
But I get it, you think the Hunter/Joe connection is tenuous at best and that they are two adults living independent lives and that Joe knew nothing of Hunter's involvement and massive financial windfalls he was receiving.
Could be true. I sort of know what my son is up to, but maybe his family is really different from mine. Like if my son rolled up in a Ferrari and told me he didn't need me to cover his college tuition, I'd probably just think good for him and not ask any more questions. Don't want to pry.
The senate investigation disproved nothing. In fact they have a laundry list.
IV. THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF BUT IGNORED CONCERNS RELATING TO HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
V. SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY FALSELY CLAIMED HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
VI. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS VIEWED MYKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY AS A CORRUPT, “ODIOUS OLIGARCH,” BUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ADVISED NOT TO ACCUSE ZLOCHEVSKY OF CORRUPTION.
VII. WHILE HUNTER BIDEN SERVED ON BURISMA’S BOARD, BURISMA’S OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY, ALLEGEDLY PAID A $7 MILLION BRIBE TO UKRAINE’S PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE.
VIII. HUNTER BIDEN: A SECRET SERVICE PROTECTEE WHILE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
IX. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND A DEMOCRAT LOBBYING FIRM HAD CONSISTENT AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH FORMER UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ANDRII TELIZHENKO.
X. THE MINORITY FALSELY ACCUSED THE CHAIRMEN OF ENGAGING IN A RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND USED OTHER TACTICS TO INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION.
XI. HUNTER BIDEN’S AND HIS FAMILY’S FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH UKRAINIAN, RUSSIAN, KAZAKH AND CHINESE NATIONALS RAISE CRIMINAL CONCERNS AND EXTORTION THREATS.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf
Because Burisma isn't a White House job, but is a job at a company that is so corrupt that the US and EU were trying to clean it up.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1328941/download
And what does that have to do with Joe? You seemed to be suggesting that Biden used his position to his son's benefit, hence why I drew a parallel with Trump using his position to his daughter's benefit, but the Senate investigation could not find any evidence of such wrongdoing. So what exactly is the reason you're not voting for Joe? Because Hunter took advantage of his family name to get a well-paid job? Even if that job was at a corrupt company, what does that have to do with Joe, or even Hunter? As far as I'm aware it was Burisma's owner Zlochevsky that was under investigation.
:up:
In other words, idealists - ideologues - (like @StreetlightX et al) don't have the courage to live dangerously, for instance, according to the maxim "Enemy of my enemy is my ally" here & now, in this situation (Badiou).
All these tRumpy MAGA-trolls, like Pres. Cheeto-face Killer Clown himself, in denial that Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama & Dr. Fauci are not on the ballot is pathetic.
:victory: :mask: t-minus 14 days.
:razz: That proverb came to mind when reading along with the Streetlight drama.
Not so hard to explain how one should feel about it though. I’ll be glad that this intolerable fascistic shit show ends, and that the Left now has some breathing room and opportunities, even if it’s squeezing in the cracks. The other half is a frustrating reminder that we won’t have a Bernie Presidency, and all the other shit that comes with the Democrats.
Aw, you don't fool me. There aren't any generals in chess.
It certainly had everything to do with his dad being VP. I would prefer that people not capitalize on their parent's position (are you reading this Ivanka and Jarred?)
There's no evidence of it, and fanciful speculation ought not to be reported as fact.
I'm fine with reporting facts, and the facts include the murky means by which these emails became available. They also include the content of those emails, along with their dubious authenticity.
I'm not fine with reporting that the facts constitute "smoking gun" evidence that a crime was committed, because they don't in the least. If the emails are accurate, it suggests Biden agreed to meet with someone. Shall we list the people Trump has met with that seem somewhat suspicious?
Of course there are those who are too conservative and only care about saving their pieces, and they end up being killed off and never win checkmate. You have to be both bold going forward and compromising when needed.
“Fascistic”—an adjective often bandied about to describe the Trump administration, but it never turns to be accurate. Meanwhile, an illiberal strain of communo-fascism, with actual concentration camps, slave labor, a national socialism, threatens the world, only to be met by the reticence of self-proclaimed antifascists.
I think we've all been gratified to see that he wasnt bright enough to pull off what he seemed to want to.
So yay for whistleblowers.
This guy is crazy.
Also no idea what you’re talking about for the rest, but it sounds delusional.
I confess I was just being silly.
But chess, when played at high levels, is very much about theory. Some would say it's become too much a matter of theory (Bobby Fischer for one, before he became completely unhinged). And generals aren't necessarily good players. Napoleon was a terrible chess player, but is considered one of history's finest generals. So, one should be careful when comparing chess with politics.
I get what you’re saying though. I think some are good at transitioning expertise in one area to another context effectively, others aren’t.
Two distinct things
:100: :up: :clap:
What is the alternative here? Another 4-year term of Trump? Another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House (and possibly Senate) that will just gum up the works and not only stifle progress, but go backwards, and undo incremental reforms that will make life worse for all except the rich? And further bungle the crisis we are living in?
I get you find Biden reprehensible, but there is a world of difference between the policies his platform has versus the ghoulish ones on Trump's.
Had this been any other year, your outrage might make sense, but it is hysterical bordering on hyperbole.
We are living in a dangerous time: in the middle of a pandemic, there is social unrest, the wildfires in California, the effects of climate change, an upcoming election, high unemployment, etc etc.
Americans living today probably have not faced as many adversities piled up on top of another. This is no time to focus on the shortcomings of Biden or Harris or the Democrats.
And it's not about Biden sharing extreme left ideas and views that can lead us in the right direction, because such a person does not exist (not even Bernie). It's about pressuring a candidate that will put a more progressive agenda into legislation. The only candidate on the ticket who will take that pressure and demands seriously is Biden. Issues like race and climate change. You can't get anything progressively done as long as Trump is in office.
You lambasted the cult of personalities that make up American politics (which I agree with, and I certainly think Bernie, AOC is just as much included here as Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.), so then let's go beyond just looking at Biden as an individual in office and see the broader impact him in the White House would have.
At what point does this kind of logic lead one to preferring Gobbels because he's not a Hitler? Or a Beria because he's not a Stalin? At what point does the boiled frog think, well, it's just one more degree rather than five, and that's a pretty substantive difference so despite the fact that I'm boiling to death, well, I'll take what I can get?
I get that this is election is a referendum on Trump and that it is his to lose. What I don't buy is the feel-good bullshit that a Biden win is not an endorsement of the democrats. It is. It absolutely is, and anyone who wants to pretend to think otherwise is lying to themselves in the name of a pseudo-realism that disregards reality. You vote for Biden, you endorse him, you endorse what he's done, you endorse what he's going to do, and you endorse the corporatist ecology that he'll extend, expand, and entrench. Fucking own it.
If Biden wins, you're going to hear endless platitudes about 'mandates' and 'the rejection of hate' and how it's time for 'a new beginning' and so on. And people are going to eat it up, and the people will actually think that this is some kind of victory and not in fact a major loss whose counterfactual was nothing other than an even bigger one. Again, I'm not saying don't vote for Biden. I'm just saying to recognize it for the failure it is, and will be, if he wins - and the contribution to that failure of anyone involved in bringing it about. This shit:
Quoting Old Master
is poison. People need to get that crisis is the norm, not the exception. There will never be 'enough time'. It will always be 'too early' or 'too late'. Always some 'other year' in which one is meant to save criticism for.
:up: :100:
Quoting Saphsin
:clap:
:smirk:
What's wrong with preferring Goebbels over Hitler, in theory?
Quoting StreetlightX
The argument implied here is that, as long as the situation doesn't seem really dire, people will prefer to adapt and accept their oppression, rather than fight back. As a psychological fact, that might be the case. What I don't see is what solution you have in mind.
Quoting StreetlightX
I have heard that view expressed in a number of conversations with people intending not to vote. The basis for that argument seems to be the abstract idea that votes provide a mandate to the politician who receives it, and therefore entail responsibility for their action.
Interestingly, this argument implies exactly what you have earlier said you oppose: that politics are personal and about the character of persons. Where else could this mandate attach other than to the person being elected?
On a more fundamental level, this view seems to reify the social contract into an actual contract. It turns the idea that government receives it's power from the people and turns it into a literal transfer of power, via the ritual of voting. But that is of course not what actually happens. What actually is the case is that the machinery of the state simply has power, as a brute fact, and we have a bunch of institutions that keep this brute force in check by instilling certain ideas in the people that wield it.
So the question to ask is not whether the government of the United States under Biden somehow receives extra power or legitimacy from your individual vote. It doesn't. The question is whether too large a majority for Biden has any symbolic significance that affects the Institutions of US democracy in a way that should be avoided. And I don't think that's the case.
And if you don't vote, and Trump wins, have you not then contributed to that even greater failure?
That's the situation we're facing. Fail a little, or fail a lot. There's no point in blaming people for trying to pull up from "fail a lot" into "fail a little" territory. Sure, it'd be better if we can pull up into "not fail" territory, but so far as voting goes, which option does that? None of them. That's something that has to be done outside the ballot box. So we should all go do that outside-the-ballot-box stuff as much as we can. But then there's still the question of what to do with this ballot box. Obviously we shouldn't make it fail harder, so our choices are either to let it fail as much as it wants to (not vote), or try to make it fail as little as possible (vote for the lesser evil). That choice should be just as obvious. And then when you're done spending less time than I took to write this post doing that, move on to doing the real work that can make some progress toward not failing at all.
:up: :100:
The state has power and it is going to use it. We should be doing things we can to limit its ability to abuse it. But also, meanwhile, it gives us each a small input on how it uses its power. It's going to use it one way or another, until we can stop it, but if we get some say in how it's used meanwhile, how is exercising that say that a bad thing?
If the man with a gun to your head will take direction from you on where to point the gun, ask him to point it away from your head. At the least it buys you a little time before he points it back at you again, and at best maybe it will open up a better opportunity to disarm him.
One has to wonder where these phantom people talking about 'not voting' are, because they aren't in this thread. Look, I get it, people need a bit of warming affirmation for the fact that they're voting for a dude covered in blood and stench of drone death, and need a bit of a group therapy where they can be stroked gently by some comfort-figure telling them that it's all OK because they're doing it for the greater good. Well sorry but there is no comfort. Every option is the worse option (which does not mean "Trump and Biden are the same"), and every option involves your direct contribution and complicity in it. Voting, for Biden, for Trump, not voting, whatever.
And none of this is an attribution of blame. The reduction to the state of wretchedness in which one is complicit in the installing a cockroach into power is all the worse because yeah, you really don't have much choice do you? The choice is obvious because that's all you get - it's what you've been reduced to. Justify it all one likes with haughty discussions of social contracts and institutions or whatnot. The whataboutism (but what about the alternative???) is just that - whataboutism. My remarks are not a commentary on people, individuals, who vote - they are about the situation in which these people find themselves in.
Ditto. Second the complaint. Less outraged whining, more constructive specifics please.
Years ago I did a stint as a political activist, organizing public meetings etc. It was educational. I came to realize that, generally speaking, politicians who succeed in getting elected to do because they are realistic about the public they serve. And, we the public are mostly full of crap. Again, and again, and again times ten I saw people stand up in public meetings before the cameras and yell, "Somebody needs to do something!" But the somebody they had in mind was almost never them.
The people who did the actual work of that cause we're typically the nice little old ladies who sat way in the back at the public meeting and never said anything. That's who showed up to do the work when the cameras weren't rolling.
Professional politicians understand that we in the public are mostly child-like creatures who are full of crap, and so they talk down to us in the language that we deserve. And they do so largely without cynical hostility, they're just being realistic. We are what we are, and so they deal with the reality.
Politicians are a mirror in which we can see ourselves. When we don't like the image that appears, we yell at the mirror.
I'm not really sure where anything you're saying is in conflict with what others (including myself) are saying.
It's the simple reality that either Trump or Biden is going to be President. You can vote for Trump to increase Trump's chance of winning, vote for Biden to increase Biden's chance of winning, or vote for neither (either by not voting or by voting for a third party) to not influence the outcome at all.
If Trump winning is a worse outcome than Biden winning then it's pragmatic to vote for Biden. Biden might be terrible but that doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason to vote for him.
Aron Ralston cut off his arm to escape being trapped by a boulder. Having your arm cut off is obviously a loss, but it's better than dying. And Biden being President might be a loss, but it's better than Trump being President.
Pragmatism vs principle. Hardly as uncontroversial as cutting your arm off to avoid dying.
I don't think so either. I haven't been arguing against voting for Biden. At best and I've been grasping my way at trying to show what a vote for Biden entails, and taking that seriously.
Wow, Christian Morality runs deep even among philosophical atheists...
Personally I don't believe in sin or the necessity of shame or essentialist nature of actions or anything like that. I'm a virtue consequentialist, and I adapt my moral actions to what's most effective for myself and their predictable effects on others in the world.
If I’m pushing a button that chooses which President I want to fight, then that’s what I’m doing. Not endorsement. Your shouting doesn’t change the intent or nature of the action.
Even if hypothetically it actually is an endorsement or whatever, if the difference between the candidates results in saving the life of one person, I’ll do it, and even more so when its many lives. That's what matters and the other concocted moral thick concepts are comparably trivial.
Perhaps you could make a careful, reasoned, hopefully somewhat objective case for what you see to be Biden's crimes? Apologies if I've missed that above, very long thread. Time for a dedicated Biden thread too?
Perhaps it helps to note that all politicians, especially national leaders, have to deal with the world the way it actually is, not the way it should be. At best they can hope to nudge the world a bit towards what should be, but given the persistently perilous state of the human condition even that is quite ambitious. Avoiding chaos should probably be considered success.
My challenge to Biden would be the highly predictable remark that he's somehow managed to get through an entire presidential campaign without saying anything at all interesting about nuclear weapons, or barely anything at all.
Even looked at through a purely political lens, this failure seems an act of inexcusable political strategy insanity to me. The clown currently in the White House is widely considered, even by many of his supporters, to be unpredictable, unreliable, impulsive, uninformed on many important topics etc. And the Democratic Party can't figure out how to tie these well known personality traits to Trump's almost exclusive control of the nuclear arsenal???
I listen to NPR pretty much all day long, and I can't at the moment recall Biden making this point even once. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.
If we've learned anything from this campaign it might be that we're all totally nutzo, incapable of reason, frigging out of our looney tunes little minds. Not a pretty picture, but it's either that or back in to the dream.
Frankly the left could learn some lessons from the evangelists, given that the Christian crazies have far more sway and power than these so-called 'effective' left actions.
Quoting Saphsin
Dress it up all you like. What you 'intend' is irrelevant. People measure political time in the States in presidencies and movements, and the latter doesn't exist and the former is a neoliberal shitsthick who you make excuses for while putting an oh-so-convenient distance between. If the left doesn't get that it may as well have been in the same room that Biden felt-up Tara Rede in, or nodded as Biden locked millions of students and blacks into poverty and stochastic early death, or gave him the pen as he let communities in the Middle East be ripped apart by bombs on the behalf of oil barons and agriculturalists - because what, it makes you feel icky? - then the left doesn't deserve its name.
Yeah but that's not what we were talking about.
I only brought it up because you were ranting about endorsement, which is intention-riddled. Intentions are pretty irrelevant, what matters are the cold-predictable effects of the actions, not some perceived inherent attribute to them. And you don't care about those, it's all emotional for you.
I care about the fact that you think you get to pick and choose what matters at your convenience.
Isn't the first principle of life to try and survive?
Strength is brutal and weakness breeds chaos. What's the way out?
As a mod could you perhaps lead by example and start a thread which explains your issues with Biden in a detailed, reasoned, and at least somewhat objective manner? You know, minus the clever snarky superiority poses and such as example. So far it seems you're just spouting emotional slogans, and that is indeed no biggie.
It appears we may soon be handing Biden something like 1500 massive hydrogen bombs, plenty enough to utterly destroy Western civilization at the least. So if any of us have well documented claims which should cause us to question Biden's morality or judgement, it seems entirely appropriate to bring them forth, put them on the table, and subject them to reasoned review.
Yeah, the prognosticators who predicted a future dictator that never arrived. It’s a good little racket. You can keep predicting fascism, and when it never arrives, you can say your slander helped keep it at bay instead of admitting you were wrong about everything.
I was just watching the new movie documenting the Chicago 7, dealing with 7 college aged kids protesting the Vietnam war who ended up being charged with federal charges of inciting a riot. I take comfort in the fact that things have been worse in our country in terms of discord, but less comfort in knowing that we seem doomed to repeat this history over and over.
So, to your questions, I think the biggest challenges to this country deal with e pluribus unum, which make this country great and a leader in so many areas, but also provides a massive challenge, where we continuously have to remind everyone that their allegiance ought be to the common good and not the various tribes that make us up.. It's for that reason I support the showings of American patriotism you likely find nauseating. Some simple shared ideology and ritualistic practice is required to keep this merry group of folks working together. Maybe it's stupid we all must stand for the national anthem, but up until now maybe it might've been the most central thing we had in common, but I digress.
We need to treat people fairly and equally. We do that by trying. We're not trying. We need some leader who actually tries to bridge gaps. Trump is horrible at bringing people together, but the Dems are no better. Schumer had to have a stern talk with Feinstein for making a positive comment about the Court confirmation hearings and having hugged Graham. If you're civil to the other side, you get chastised and demoted within the party.
Those are the biggest challenges. We need leadership who can at least present the message that we're all in this together. In my local elections, the Republicans are against the expansion of heavy rail subways into my county, but the Democrats are for it. For some reason building roads is Republican but not laying tracks. The distinctions between the parties are not based upon any real principle as far as I can see. If Trump supports it, it's Republican. If Pelosi supports it, it's Democratic. Surely someone can just say this and get someone to listen.
Maybe I answered your questions, I don't know. I could just say healthcare or something like that, but that's just symptomatic of a bigger problem.
Here's the thing, I can understand a principled stand against voting for anyone (e.g. deal-breaking character traits). Flip the narrative and imagine Trump up against an even worse candidate than him if it helps to understand this. I also understand the pragmatic pov (how relatively fucked the country is likely to end up under a given candidate). So, overall, it's consistency that I respect. Plant your flag, defend it, and be prepared to accept the consequences. I'm not about to lecture anyone on anything other than that.
I recently heard an analysis of the pandemic around the world which claimed that it is the societies with the most allegiance to the common good that are doing the best. As evidence, apparently they are doing much better in Africa than expected, and much worse in America than expected. According to the theory, it's not technology and money that makes the difference, but social cohesion.
If that's true, and if Biden wins, the next step would seem to be for we lefties to reach out to Trump's base. Listen, show respect, seek areas of common agreement. Here's one example.
The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. The population of Florida has grown 7X, if my memory is working. It's not unreasonable for us to question how much farther in this direction we wish to go. It's not unreasonable to wish to live in a country with enforceable borders.
So, I presume you won't vote for the guy who used his privilege to fake an injury and dodge Vietnam and then referred to those who did sacrifice themselves for the flag as suckers and losers (in John McCain's case, on camera)? Hard to think of anything less patriotic than that.
Damn. A consensual act with a 25 year old woman? How could you do this, Rudy?
I’m glad I can make an appearance in your hopes and dreams, Tim. But these sorts of hopes are compelling you to vote for the same neoliberal politician who brought us the Iraq war, gave us the largest crime bill in US history, and compromised with segregationists.
Yeah, I mean it's not like anyone was impeached for that or anything...
I can't wait for the GOP to go back to complaining about that kind of stuff the minute the democrats get into power.
In what sense is rubbing your genitals in front of what you believe to be a journalist consensual?
Who impeaches a private citizen?
From your article:
“ Although unfortunate, the circumstances of the setup appear consensual, with Giuliani led to believe he was being courted.”
In the Oval Office, and then he lied about it.
No. He was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
So if a woman asks you out for coffee you'd think it appropriate to start rubbing your dick!
Also, since we're on the topic of lying under oath, should any public official, say a Supreme Court justice, be impeached too for lying under oath? Honest answers please.
If personal character were the primary driver in who I voted for, I wouldn't vote for Trump, but it's not. I guess you just wanted to point out that Trump sucked, which really wasn't in question. But, sure, if I were a staunch conservative with unwavering religious or moral beliefs that a person be of high character to hold office (as Romney does), I would probably vote to impeach Trump (like Romney did).
Trump's offensiveness does sometimes have unintended liberal consequences.. Had he not been such a complete motherfucker, McCain wouldn't have dragged himself from his literal deathbed thousands of miles away to vote down Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare.
My point regarding patriotism was more of a social statement describing what brings people together in terms of finding and having common ground and engaging in some activity that expresses that unity. It's the same sort of thing that happens in churches and temples every day, regardless of how truly devout you might be in the doctrine..
I thought he “reached into his trousers”. I haven’t seen the scene, but the article makes no mention of dick rubbing. Have you seen it?
Oh man, I missed that drama? I was looking forward to that.
People can be impeached for obstruction of justice, as history has shown.
It's like asking how we should sentence those who steal. It depends. It depends on what they stole, how they stole it, why they stole it, and maybe how much they've stolen in the past.
The irony is wonderful.
Guy was a nut. As for @NOS4A2, best I can say is he provides a certain diversity of opinion. No other comment.
Quoting Hanover
If that's what you value, you're not only off the Trump train, you're lying on the tracks.
Do you ever get tired defending racists, rapists and sex offenders?
As an aside, I find that I can diligently respond to dozens of posts daily, but I can't seem to answer my emails.
Couldn’t come up with an answer, could you? I never tire of defending people from unjust accusations, just as you never tire of making them.
The phrase “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski” is embedded in the American psyche, I’m surprised you forgot about it.
When Trump gets criticized for some nastiness, his supporters cry out, "yeah, but look what leftest person X said. " But Trump is one guy, who says this crap constantly. No single person on the left is like that. Nearly everyone says something inappropriate at times, but no single person is a firehose of constant divisive bullshit. This is Trump's claim to fame, or flame. If he loses, it will be a message that we won't tolerate this behavior. If he wins, it encourages more of the same.
Are you that ill-informed?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/us/politics/joe-biden-iraq-war.html
Racists, rapists, sex offenders, tax dodgers... I forgot tax dodgers.
Another unjust accusation. There is a pitchfork-wielding mob out there somewhere waiting for you.
I'll be glad to take a step back from encroaching fascism too; the last four years have been incredibly stressful to say the least even at a personal level. However, even when (if) Trump leaves office we'll still have numerous and existential problems that existed when he entered, including severe wealth inequality, which greatly metastasized during the pandemic, a growing police state with demonstrably little accountability, and now new problems like a fascistic cult germinating within and abetted by the Republican Party, a now solidly right-wing Supreme Court that can strike down major Democratic policies, and perhaps most critical of all - a relentless global warming crisis. Of all the candidates that entered the Democratic primary, Biden seems to me one of the least capable of handling the present and future crises. To that end I find it odd that so many are ganging up on @StreetlightX for articulating valid concerns regarding Biden's ability to confront these multifaceted issues as well as his culpability in a number of them. A vote for Biden is a rejection of Trump of course, but more more subtly it also entails a continuation of neoliberal policies and outmoded institutional practices that landed us here in the first place that require confrontation, and I think accepting and grappling with that reality, rather than coping with Biden through mental gymnastics, places us in a better position.
But he's a bigger nut!
No, he's just a very naughty boy.
I wrote a much longer comment a few pages back about the Left’s relation to the current situation, it was the first one before this exchange blew up. We’re much stronger than we were in the Obama years, but there needs to be some breathing room to push our agenda, not constantly defending against Far Right policies. Someone also posted a good Contrapoints video.
That's what I mean by defending racists, rapists, sex offenders and tax dodgers. And colluders, how could I forget colluders.
What worries me is that we don't worry about the same things. I'll give you mine:
1. How to escape debt fueled economic policies;
2. Global warming;
3. The information apocolypse;
4. Promoting equality and fairness;
5. Overfishing;
6. Pollution;
7. Biodiversity.
Or to summarise: corporate capitalism. 2 and 3 are long term problems that require the most immediate action in the short term. 1 and 5 are medium term and the rest is long term.
That particular quote was not made under oath. The one that was made under oath was in the present tense, after the affair had ended (and hence was true), which lead to the also-infamous "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Which is a delightfully philosophical point: the case hinged on whether that was a present-tense "is" or a tenseless "is".
You'll recall that he was not found guilty of lying under oath. Impeachment is just the holding of a trial, not a conviction. He was tried, and ultimately found not guilty.
Not that I especially care to defend Bill, but if we're being technical...
Accusations you can easily make but can hardly prove.
It’s true, and I never said otherwise. For the record I supported Clinton back then, regretfully.
#1 - doesn't concern me because I don't think whatever economic disaster we face in the future will have anything to do with this. What'll probably kill the economy is some made up virus.
#2 - doesn't concern me because I fucking hate the cold.
#3 - We know more today than ever before. My information circle now includes those from people from all sorts of fucked up places.
#4 - I agreed with.
#5 - I used to prosecute kids who caught too many trout, so I did my share. What have you done? Fish doesn't taste that good anyway.
#6 - I take out my garbage. If we all did like me, there wouldn't be this mess you talk about.
#7 - That's what zoos are for, to protect failing creatures from Darwin.
I thought the reasoning was that Jones' lawyers wrote "For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." and that receiving oral sex doesn't satisfy that definition, which is what Clinton told Starr: "I thought the definition included any activity by the person being deposed, where the person was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies with the purpose or intent or [sic] gratifi-cation, and excluded any other activity."
I'm not sure where you're from, but typically oral sex is received for cleansing purposes and not to receive pleasure.
Take it up with Paula Jones' lawyers. They wrote the definition to be used for the deposition.
How does that definition not include oral sex?
Because Clinton didn't come into contact with Lewinsky's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks – only her mouth, which wasn't included in the definition.
Big whup. STFD. :sweat:
Like Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, et al anti-fascist leftists (& progressives), I don't see how one can disagree with the electoral position that
[quote=Cornel West]An anti-fascist vote is not an endorsement of the Democratic Party.[/quote]
... unless you're too disingenuous, or your head is too far up your own anus, to tell the difference between a neoliberal disaster and a neofascist catastrophe.
Lewinski was guilty of performing “sexual relations”, while Clinton was just a passive object, I suppose. It’s a kind of lying that only a lawyer could muster.
I understand. In fact I was once faced with such a choice (Chirac vs Le Pen 2002) and I abstained. But it's a matter of survival at this stage. If one is in a position to affect the election (voting in a potential swing state) then it's a choice between to die today, or to survive and fight another day. In this sense, votes can kill.
Trump riffing live at a rally...
I'm just gonna watch it dispassionately to purge what remains of my political emotions, in preparation for the circus of the coming weeks.
Good luck and god speed to all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/
Because you don't get to pick and choose which bits of reality are most soothing for you. The whole sthick about "voting for Biden is only a rejection of Trump" is feel-good Left panacea that pretends it can have recto without verso. Like I said, I get that people need a little cuddling right now because voting for a mass incarcerator and corporatist war hawk is the only actual alternative to the next domestic genocide in the US, but the self-denial does no one any good. 'Out there', the Cornel Wests and the Chomskys have a duty to do what can be done to get the message out, but in here, we're allowed to look reality in the face without pretending that blood isn't on the hands of those who vote for Biden too.
If you need twist yourself in knots arguing for your own peace of mind that supporting Biden won't translate into supporting Biden for anyone and everyone who matters - i.e. outside of a left who find themselves in a double-bind of trauma so debilitating they feel the need to continually lie to themselves, then so be it. Whatever it takes I guess.
I don’t need any cuddling. I don’t like Biden but if I was in a swing state I would vote for him anyway and not have any guilty conscience about that.
Say your family has been kidnapped and your significant other is going to be forced to fight to the death... but you get to choose which of the kidnappers they have to fight. Picking the one less likely to kill them doesn’t make you guilty of killing them, it just means you (perhaps) failed to save them. But so long as you did your best to try, no blame should go on you, who are also a victim.
Yes, blood on your hands whatever you do. There's blood on you because you're fucking breathing in 2020. This isn't anyone's fault, this is not about ressentiment, it's about recognizing your objective situation for what it is. Principled courage? Absolutely. But there's nothing about that that's antithetical to recognizing the wretched creatures you - and frankly, everyone on the planet - has been turned into. And how that should make you fucking mad.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/10/21/the-gonzo-constitutionalism-of-the-american-right/
"Over the last several years, liberals and Democrats have characterized the power (and the threat) of the GOP in a particular way: Trump and the Republicans are seen as lawless enemies of the Constitution who rely on a combination of rabid rhetoric and mobilized masses to wreak havoc upon established institutions. It’s true that Trump’s tweets are toxic; the thrum of his rallies is ominous; the violence and possibility of more violence are unnerving. But that’s not, in the main, where Trump’s power, or the Republican Party’s, lies. The unsettling fact of the current regime is that it depends, ultimately, not upon these bogeymen of democracy—not on demagoguery, populism, or the masses—but upon the constitutional mainstays we learned about in high-school civics. The most potent source of the GOP’s power is neither fascism nor authoritarianism; it is gonzo constitutionalism.
...Two thirds of Trump’s [judicial] appointees are white men. Sixty-nine percent of them are graduates of elite law schools (a higher proportion than for any other president in the last forty years). Their median net worth is $2 million; their median age is four to six years younger than the judges appointed by the previous two presidents. Trump’s judges are rich, white, and built to last.
...However dubious their democratic credentials, the Electoral College, the Senate, and the judiciary are impeccably constitutional institutions. In the American mind, the Constitution is associated with all things good and democratic, but a central purpose of the document is to check majoritarian government, giving a small group of elites the power to thwart the will of the democratic majority. That is precisely what the Republicans now are doing."
My impression is that many people use the term "fascist" inappropriately. What they're trying to convey is someone is conveying a point of view that is similar to that of the guy who wrote these words:
[I]All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
[/i]
Maybe. I just really mean fascism. As for Trump's dog Rudy:
I always thought "fascist" emerged, loosely speaking, from Hegelianism --- that the spearhead of evolutionary progress, as the expression of absolute will, would rise to the surface of all phenomenonal existence as a supreme species or race. A state based on such an ideology would look an awful lot like the Nazis. Also, the idea of "state" was a critical component of phenomenology.
This tweet has a bigly amount of hearts.
It reads like you dismiss what you don't understand, do so flippantly, which indirectly is insulting towards me but still think 4 is important. Interesting choice of words if you really did think that. More likely you just pay it lip service as I also remember how you reacted when Trump won and I pointed out half of the country didn't and that they should still be heard too. That was "tough luck" because you were all too happy getting your way. As a lawyer you're trained to sound reasonable but you're a ball of emotional contradictions.
Also, your reaction to 3 would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
I see. Well, impotent rage is just that: impotent (re: ressentiment). More epicurean than stoic, I nonetheless practice Epictetus & co's exercise of 'striving to change things we can change and indifference with respect to the rest', etc. Maybe we're all 'guilty' - so what? - but not all are irresponsible: we can, we must, choose to take responsibility despite unavoidable complicity with our enemies or whatever else annihilates us ... like Sisyphus ... like Spartacus ... like Nat Turner ... like Gandhi ... like Gramsci ... like Mandela ... :fire:
Rome never "fell" because the bloodthirsty Bitch is still falling; who stands nevertheless? who struggles in spite of 24/7 anesthetizing circum et panem? who will bleed - go on bleeding - in order to slow The Great Whore's insatiable bloodletting?
:mask:
is an example of defending racists, rapists, sex offenders, colluders and tax evaders. Oh, and killers. Let's not forget killers. 300,000 dead through sheer stupidity and counting.
:up: :100:
I do.
It's because your writing, on this topic at least, is little more than the chanting of emotional slogans spiced with generous doses of fantasy superiority poses. The message seems to be that you alone get it, while the rest of us need our pathetic cuddling.
Biden has had a long career. There are undoubtably decisions in that career which can be reasonably challenged. You've briefly mentioned a few things that merit inspection. But it seems you haven't bothered to make a careful reasoned case for why we should be concerned about any particular decision.
Why not pick one Biden decision which bothers you the most, and start a new thread to analyze it in detail. If you don't know the details, then say that and we can all build the record together.
Edit: here, buy it/pirate it, read it.
Ah, a well done edit. Thank you for the upgrade. I'm attempting to upgrade here as well, as I agree I can be insufferable.
Please note that at no point have I asked you educate me. That's you reading in to my request that which you wish to see, and wish to be.
I'm instead asking that you make your case, which may be entirely reasonable, in a manner more suitable to your position as a mod on a philosophy forum. I like the forum. I'd like to see it thrive. You've chosen to be in a position of leadership. I'm agreeing with your choice, and asking you to do the job you have selected for yourself.
If I didn't think you were able, I wouldn't bring it up. But I know you are able. So I'm requesting that which I know you are capable of.
Thanks for listening. I've made my case, and said what I wished to say. I'm agreeable to let it go now and move on.
Quoting StreetlightX
I've been reading through this thread a bit and I just gotta say these post were :fire: :fire: :fire:
In any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden here. Good American liberals when push comes to shove gotta shut up and get in line, no other way about it.
You're so sensitive. My flippancy is based upon my obvious irrelevancy in these matters, regardless of the level of my comprehension. That is to say, even should I have an understanding on these matters as profound as yours, I'd still realize that the scope of my control doesn't extend far beyond my cul-de-sac. Quoting Benkei
Oh, good Lord, let's now explore the mind of Hanover and see what my true motives are. If I really insulted you, I apologize. I apparently took lightly what you take seriously. Quoting Benkei
Not so much. I mean I do appreciate the compliment that you see some evidence of lawyerly training and that I can at least sound superficially reasonable, and I'll even concede an inconsistency from time to time, but "ball of emotion" probably doesn't describe me.
Quoting Benkei
Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. I read that on a fortune cookie once. I got the sweet and sour chicken. It was meh.
My point on #3 is actually true, which is that I don't think an information apocalypse is a concern, We have access to more information than ever before, which includes my ability to converse with you, a regular guy from across the globe. That is a major development in the history of our world. When I was a kid, we had a set of Encyclopedia Britannica, a globe I could spin in circles and see where my finger landed, and some well intentioned teachers in suburban Atlanta. There were a handful of channels on my television I could watch cartoons on, and a few anchormen at night who got together and reported all the same news stories. For sure there are now those who will peddle misinformation for their own agenda, and it will take a more sophisticated public to ferret out the good from the bad, but to pretend the narratives of old were accurate when information was better controlled is nonsense. A book I'm reading right now, White Trash, makes the point in a different context to be sure, but the point is well made that the information we've always had, even as to the most basic of foundational societal facts, has always been recited from an agenda.
You guys following this story? He thought she was 15 years old.
A continuation to the tape of Donald Trump sexually harassing Rudy Giuliani in drag?
"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps towards it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some record of one’s opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it. Political predictions are usually wrong, but even when one makes a correct one, to discover why one was right can be very illuminating. In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality. If one recognizes this, one cannot, of course, get rid of one’s subjective feelings, but one can to some extent insulate them from one’s thinking and make predictions cold-bloodedly, by the book of arithmetic. In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean world where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality.”
- George Orwell “In Front of your Nose”
Now we don’t believe them, nor do we care, but before we did?
If you keep repeating it it will magically become true.
Is that really true? Is anyone really trying to NOS4A2 to vote for Biden?
I'm not. I just try to understand why he (and others) supports Trump, and to assess whether or not his judgments are principled or thoroughly partisan.
Didn't trump try and make bribery legal back in 2017?
Didn't a recent report also find that "over 200 companies patronized Trump properties while receiving benefits from his administration?".
Granted, both Trump and Biden are corrupt. Wouldn't you agree that Trump is the more belligerent offender? And if so, why vote for Trump?
Quoting ssu
Trump is doing what he believes his base wants. And he seems to be alining himself with bullies because his supporters admire people with power. I think only Zionist Christians would support Isreal at the expense of Palestinian and other Arab nations.
Jews were Semitic along with the Arabs, but they were Europeanized when they went north. Especially Germany played a strong role in the Isreal that exists today because of its influence on the Jews who migrated to Israel. Israel would not exist if Britain had not made this possible, and when Britain tried to prevent the Jewish takeover of Palestine, the Jews took up arms against the British, and the British left well-armed Jews and unarmed Palestinians, just as the Brits left well-armed colonist with poorly armed native Americans because men like Washington wanted to make a fortune on land that the Brits promised the colonist would not take.
I wasn't talking about NOS, I was talking about Streetlight. It's just interesting to me because Streetlight is definitely on the left, but he's certainly not mainstream left.
I treat people equally. Gotta work on the fairly.
What does this even mean, that there is some hypothetical reasonable man that would be insulted by certain comments, so it is therefore considered objectively insulting, but you have a thicker layer of skin than that person, so subjectively you weren't insulted?
That's so confusing. Can we just go back to the way I thought it to be to where if someone says "that's insulting," I can just take that to mean "I'm insulted"?
I've been called a cunt several times but not felt insulted.
Was calling you a cunt insulting if no one was insulted?
I haven't followed all of it but from what I gather it was a matter of trying to determine if SLX stood on pragmatic ground, as in the lesser of two evils or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' or ideological ground, a refusal to participate in a system that is beyond reform. A resolution would be interesting, assuming there isn't already one and my assessment is at all accurate.
Quoting Hanover
Rather extreme language, but at least you two are bang on topic.
If intended to insult is defined as insult, then the statement "I intended to insult you, but I failed" would be a logical contradiction, but it's not, so your explanation isn't correct, correct?
Calling a male a cunt is a European thing. I'd not heard that before, but I always like to learn new usages. I've heard it to be used to women of course, but such is considered nuclear. To a man, it'd be comical. It'd be like calling a woman a penis.
Half a second with SLX should tell you which side of that fence he stands on. It was just an interesting dialogue to me because there are plenty of Americans who feel the system is beyond reform, yet are still being told to basically shut up and vote Biden. I personally don't have a dog in this fight but I did feel sympathetic towards SLX despite us warring a little previously.
I honestly couldn't say. So pragmatist or ideolog?
Ideologue.
--
Anyway, because people have, I dunno, sub elementary school reading abilities or something, for like the 45th time, I ain't telling no one how to vote. Well. Except not for Trump because well obviously fuck you and die if you do.
I'm not playing idpol here. My idpol is mild at best, if you want serious idpol look to who you were arguing with earlier. It's one thing to discuss ideology and differences in ideas and to put people in relative ideological camps, it's another to view the entire world as essentially a struggle between ethnic groups or classes or sex. I do the former. You won't see me doing the latter. That's real idpol.
Ok, by identifying different ideologies and watching them argue and favoring one side over the other I was playing idpol. I admit my guilt. I was rooting for you, Streetlight.
Lol.
I speak in that accent in all of my posts on TPF.
And this on an anonymous forum!
But really also stop playing idpol all the time.
Streetlight, I don't know who you are or what you are. All I know about you is what you say. My entire idea of you is based on what you say. I'm here to discuss ideas, not people.
Edit: try this as an exercise - get through 5 political posts without using the word 'left'. You might find it interesting.
I only mention the 'left' because of their ideas. I'm not talking about them as people. I notice ideas or philosophies that are different, which makes you unique. That is why I am mentioning you. "Left" is useful because it can describes a certain set of ideas or values.
Discrete identities are useful for politicians to manipulate an unsuspecting public, so in order to not be fooled, it may be better to focus on the ideas and values expressed in what others say and do.
What? That's not a logical contradiction at all. I intended to score with basketball but I failed.
I take back calling you reasonable because of this silly mistake. :razz:
In any case, I would imagine many people would've been insulted or feel disrespected or not taken seriously so I can then call something "insulting". That post I set out things I consider a problem and your reaction is basically "those aren't problems". There's of course no way I'm going to take your problems seriously if you can't take mine seriously.
That said, I wish I had more time to start a thread about the information apocolypse.
You describe the term like it's propaganda or something, but I find it helpful and interesting to know where people are coming from politically/ideologically and "left" is a useful descriptor. Discourse between two individuals doesn't just occur in a vacuum, it occurs against a large network of ideas and background assumptions from both sides. Argument within a certain "side" or movement is often more interesting and insightful than argument between different sides because there's more potential for common ground and understanding as well as nuance, as opposed to just arguing with someone who has a completely different values or few shared values.
I know SLX's left is different from yours or 180s, but it's interesting to me to basically plot these differences and gain an understanding of them so I can better communicate with people. I understand that labeling someone as "left" is just a starting point, but it still conveys information and helps me communicate with others by knowing what to might be productive to say and what likely won't.
You appear to have bought the propaganda that people may have completely different values.
Here’s a number of investigations regarding Trump, his family, his campaign, the Trump organization. Lobbying violations, inflated insurance claims, hush money payments, tax practices, campaign contributions etc. I’m sure they’ll let you know if they find anything.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/13/us/politics/trump-investigations.html
Let’s hope the Biden family’s dealings will receive the same scrutiny.
Some people do have very different values, others have some shared. It's a mix. I'm certainly not saying that all Democrats and all Republicans share no values. Check out Haidt's studies on this, there are genuine differences between ideologies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-sudan-agree-to-normalize-ties-in-u-s-brokered-deal-11603469178
Previous administrations and their nanny-state allies could only ever dream of such advances in Middle East peace.
It’s deceptively edited, but clearly he’s tucking in his pants after she removes the microphone from him. A dupe’s idea of a story is a still-shot from deceptively edited Borat film. So awesome.
I'll assure you that the GOP will Benghazi the living hell out of this for the next 4 years.
Anyways, the COVID death toll is currently sitting at 55500 Benghazi's and counting. GOP remains silent.
Comparing Benghazi and coronavirus? No strand of chewing gum could connect the two.
A global pandemic is worse than Benghazi? Man, I never would have figured that out.
I’m not a republican.
Actually Haidt claims that we share the same moral intuitions and they’re merely packaged differently, such as liberal or libertarian.
If someone values X trait enormously while someone else values the same trait at essentially zero while the two might have the "same" moral value in actuality the two differ starkly on that value.
In any case would you really argue that, say, a Nazi and a communist share the same underlying values?
Is that true or is it just a story we tell ourselves in order to navigate the social world. I value liberty a great deal, as well as loyalty, and I feel a sense of the sacred on occasion even though I claim to not be religious. Conversely, do you not value fairness? Do you not care about others? You give every indication that you do.
If Streetlight has a distaste for planting a fucking flag, in my opinion, it demonstrates a quality that the vast majority of us tragically lack.
You would "tuck your shirt" in front of a 15-year-old girl? Pervert.
Right, all those alcohol-swigging, 15-year-old journalists. Only a pervert would pretend such a person was 15.
Personally, my feelings towards loyalty are lukewarm and I care next to nothing about economic equality. I value harm reduction less than many other people that I know. There are very clear differences in fundamental values between those who strongly value liberty vs those who strongly value security.
But the two go hand in hand. For instance, we outlawed child labor because it led to a kind of slavery. Education requires economic security for the student.
So everybody values both. The split is between social darwinists and those who believe we stand or fall together.
I was talking more about national security, but I definitely agree with you when you mention the split between social darwinists and those who believe we stand and fall together. I think that would be a fundamental difference in values.
Betrayal isn't usually met with insouciance, even for Libertarians. And thanks for providing an opportunity to use the word insouciance, btw.
Same story with the rest of your alleged lack of feeling.
Well thanks for the new word.
The reason I'm lukewarm towards loyalty is because loyalty is always towards some cause or some group, but what of the group/cause? Or is it simply the bond or the pledge that is to be considered laudable? Are Hitler's bodyguards laudable for upholding an oath? If we only admire loyalty towards "good" causes that's not the same thing as just "loyalty."
hello- this argument applies to all virtues that have some social content, from compassion to honesty. when virtues are followed excessively they become vices- i think Aristotle or some other old greek fellow pointed this out
Totally not sexist...
And I'm not even for that kind of change. Simply, one would be foolish to think a man-made system is without its flaws and inherent dangers or shortcomings. No problem is without a solution. Question is, will we find it?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-if-a-pill-can-change-your-politics-or-religious-beliefs/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
Ergo, Nixon’s war on drugs and declaring Timmy the most dangerous man in America.
Aka "whomever wins".
Fucker, I thought you were voting Nelson. :rage:
I guess my presidential vote will count more than yours after all. :party:
I simply told the waiter I wanted neither the chicken shit sandwich nor the dog shit sandwich. I chose not to dine. Some burn cities, some carry signs, some dump tea. I leave entries blank on ballots. Patriotism comes in many flavors.
Some problems have no good solution, like which baby should I throw overboard to keep the ship from sinking? Abstaining is a reasonable choice.
To the extent someone is listening, they'll work harder next time for my vote.
The water quality guy is more important than the president anyway.
Exactly: whether you order chicken shit or dog shit or nothing, you’re getting force-fed some kind of shit or another.
Your consequentialist talk disrupts my temporarily Kantian mind. Kant says the morally correct choice is to watch the boat sink. Call me foolish, but there is principle behind my madness.
I salute you :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
Nobody is going to win here...we are all losers in this one.
Living with no legs doesn't really sound like the better option. At least decapitation is a really cool death, and living headless (hypothetically speaking) is also a very appealing prospect.
Quoting Maw
Exactly.
Yeah I live in New York where my vote will not matter towards the EC, and yet will still (99% likely) vote for Biden in order to boost the difference in the popular vote (should a number of things go wrong). However, I also anticipate the political ineptitude of a Biden administration to willfully confront various issues which demand immediate and radical solutions. To @Merkwurdichliebe point, we are all losers in this one: "losing one's legs" (i..e Biden presidency) makes us (i.e. the Left) "losers". We can accept this now and strategize rather than seemingly remain complacent with it.
That sort of complacency will let the commies in.
Or in other words, it's ok to chop your own head off in a world without commies, but not in one where they lie in wait.
I didn't want to do it, but you are forcing me to say:
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Are you talking about the PF?
That's what I said, its obvious that if it started with him, it has been "since him". I thi k you are thinking too much. I'm glad Reagan's dead.
That's nice to hear positive things about the Reagan era. Unfortunately you might get that violent revolution (or something like it), which just makes things worse.
I think it was even better when Republicans had a President like Eisenhower.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/miles-taylor-former-dhs-official-and-adviser-to-john-kelly-is-anonymous
It may be more like the cutting out your tongue and cutting off your fingers if voting for Biden. Voting for an old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly fifty years after you've been complaining about systemic racism and white privilege just relegates your words into meaningless dribble. Everyone reading your words would have a difficult time believing anything you say or type, so your tongue and fingers basically become useless appendages.
Actually voting for either one is like cutting out your eyes and ears as people in both groups just dont bother to listen or read what others and each other are saying and are becoming more divisive every election cycle.
As a matter of principle I don’t like how Bannon and his friends are leaking Hunter Biden’s private affairs. His degeneracy, as ugly and predictable as it is, is his own business.
What we can say is that any claims of “Russian Disinfo” is complete horseshit, itself the wildest disinformation, and spread by the most useful of idiots. But the most staggering of blows is the media blackout on the subject. A media who spent weeks searching through Brett Kavanaugh’s year book or Trump’s tax documents will not touch this story.
Expect the president to gloat about these numbers in the coming days, to the chagrin of fear-mongers everywhere
The only thing more pathetic than it are the supporters he's duped into pouring time and energy into puffing it up.
the least big it could've been, the least big. nobody could've prepared for this, you think democrats would've done better sticking with the WHO? china..sfdhidfsdsbdf
The fucking retard has no policies and doesn't give a shit about policies. All he's capable of doing is saying everything will be great. It is a crying sin that this giant turd of nothingness will get even one vote but he'll probably only lose by about 10 points.
Yes "accusations" by right-wing sickos projecting their own disgusting fantasies exactly as they did with Hillary and pizzagate. Not one scintilla of evidence beyond that. Anyway, it all failed. Biden's numbers haven't moved. America has told you to take your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory and shove it up your ass.
I’m not going to pretend that your media-informed ignorance is an accurate representation of anything, especially after pretending, without evidence, that it was Russian disinfo.
Might be few years before Ivanka comes out with her tell all book. Yet there can be a time when she needs the money and the victimhood points.
Yes, I’ve heard it all before. I guess we’ll wait for that to come out. Any time now.
Nope. Read what I wrote.
It will take years.
Likely after Donald has passed away and everybody has forgotten about Ivanka.
Right. And then she’ll do the Washington book circuit and become a CNN contributor, where the press and their obsequious readers will fawn all over her. You should write a quatrain about it.
Yes, I'm an optimist.
What I really would want to see (if I live so long) is to see the movies made about this time 20 or 30 years from now. People always have this condescending view of looking at the past, which is painted as a caricature.
fAkE nEWs.
Six more days and you clowns are history. Enjoy your final act.
They honestly think that they can make this into the next Clinton email scandal. Unfortunately given the pandemic, the economic crash, and the social unrest, it's just not gonna resonate with people.
And let's see how well the US goes with the elections. Hope it isn't going to go like the 89th Oscars. Besides, Americans have had experiences of similar situations. I'm not sure how well people will take similar things now?
(Remember the good old times?)
To wit: a left-wing YouTube channel I watch recently had an episode titled "Vote! (For Joe Biden! (Who Sucks!))"
Well, God didn't choose us, true, but he thinks we're cool.
Puuhhhh-leeeze. :roll:
As if you wouldnt be focused on Trump Jr. as evidence that Trump is incapable if Trump Jr. had a similar story being circulated.
The political hypocrisy is soooo old and tiresome.
Ultimately it doesnt even matter what the Reps and Dems think about this, as it predictably falls along party lines. What ultimately matters is what Independents think about it.
Lessons in how to be wrong. Again. Street is the one poster who has been criticising since day 1, in the strongest possible terms, the emphasis on personality, especially re Trump.
Also obligatory wet blanket:
A Dutch Uncle, perhaps.
Why focus on, or even look for possible misdeeds of Trump Jr., when one just needs to look at the President himself, to be overwhelmed.
Yeah! His whole vibe is my jam. When I am grumpy here I am Pie grumpy.
I was posting his videos here way before @StreetlightX
I'm the real trendsetter.
As if misdeeds only began when Trump became president. :roll:
The size and power the U.S. govt. has accumulated over the years and the way theyve handled that power as a means to divide us and pit us against each other is the greatest misdeed of them all.
You, Baden, Street, and 180 cant see beyond your politically partisan goggles you have on to see that you are pawns in this bi-polar, partisan game that is being played. You all keep promoting the status quo and contradicting yourself.
Please dont call yourselves "progressives" if your voting for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont complain about systemic racism and white privilege and then go vote for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you do such things.
Abolish political parties and then you limit group think. I know you all know how to apply logic, as i see you call others out in other philosophical domains when logic is not being applied properly, so why abandon logic when it comes to politucs? Because most people have emotionally invested themselves in the "truths" that the political parties spin, just like a religion.
No, Benkei. We are simply tired of the hypocrisy.
Silly... Street and I (but especially Street) have laid into Biden harder than anyone else on these boards and 180 is no fan either.
Just one random example :
Quoting Baden
You can take your foot out of your mouth now. In future, please wake up and pay attention.
I think maybe the “truths” of your religious political beliefs are showing.
Yes, the last couple of months of racist and fascist "dog whistles" (bullhorns) have convinced me that a swing state anti-Trump vote for Biden can be seen as tactically pro-left.
Ah, the good old hypocrisy fallacy. You don't get to decide what people are allowed to complain about. What matters is whether the complaint is warranted, not whether or not the person making it meets your standard of purity.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yeah, that worked very well in the USSR. Or Nazi Germany.
It's not the "U.S. govt." (governing system in place) which commits the misdeeds, it's the individuals and groups of people involved in governing who do that. Some of these people have a divisive attitude, some have a unifying attitude. It's not fair to class everyone who is involved in governing as actively using the power derived from the governing system, in a divisive way.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Huh, that's an odd portrayal of me that doesn't even come close to reality, so I'll just ignore the rest of your post.
They aren’t pro-Biden; they are anti-Trump. Anti-Trumpism forces them to toss their principles to the wind. Out of one side of their mouth they will lament systemic racism, and out of the other they would gladly vote for a duo whose political careers led to the mass incarceration of dark-skinned people. Out of one side of the mouth they teach us the failures of neo-liberalism, and out of the other they vote for its champion. They would sink the entire ship if it meant Trump’s exit.
Lol. Neither Street nor I will be voting for anyone. But clearly a Dem win would be the lesser of two evils for the left. Otherwise, you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth over it.
It's very hard to imagine a worse candidate but if it were possible I suppose that I would vote for Trump, being the lesser of two evils. :vomit:
If Trump looses 2020, he'll just run again in 2024, if he isn't dead or in jail.
In fact I fully expect him to pretend he is still the "real" president for the next 4 years regardless of the results.
The Republicans have been electing a downward spiraling list of candidates since... Eisenhower in 1952.
1960 -- Nixon (slimy)
1968 -- Nixon -- not the worst president, even though he was a crook, slimier
1972 -- Nixon -- resigned in disgrace, slimiest
1980 -- Reagan (deplorable)
1984 -- Reagan (senile and more deplorable)
1992 -- H. W. Bush -- poor, but at least he had the insight to call out Reagan's "voodoo economics"
2000 -- G. W. Bush (abysmal)
2004 -- G. W. Bush (abysmal)
2016 -- Dildo Trump (sub-abysmal)
You'd wish he was a dildo as that would at least make him useful and give you good feelings.
He'll probably lose then because though the GOP are willing to put up with alot, they'll not tolerate a loser. Just look at Roy Moore for instance. Speaking of, if it wasn't for him losing in 2017, I'm willing to bet someone like Moore is exactly the kind of politician who will have a bright future in the GOP.
Unless they have no other alternative, which very well could be the case.
:up:
Trump Cheers on MAGA Caravan That Ambushed Biden Bus
He loves his violent thugs.
TR45H.
:mask:
Imagine the response of NOS and the right-wing media if the left attacked a Trump campaign bus and Biden tweeted his support. Their little empty heads would explode before you could say "ANTIFA!". More proof that domestic terrorism and violence in America is predominantly right-wing.
The only ones not paying attention are the ones that think this is only a two-man race. You and your pals have Trump tunnel vision.
Quoting Benkei
The ones that don't continue to vote or the status quo? - yes, we are the true "progressives", if that is the label you want to use. The Democrat left isn't progressive or liberal. They are authoritarian socialists.
Quoting Echarmion
Stop putting words in my mouth, hypocrite.
I never said that I get to decide what others complain about. People can make whatever decisions they want, but then don't expect others to make the decision to take anything you say seriously when your behavior contradicts your words.
Quoting Echarmion
:lol: The USSR and Nazi Germany were one-party systems, not no-party systems! The U.S. is currently only one step away from these types of government.
Quoting NOS4A2
Exactly. They hate Trump more than they hate systemic racism, white privilege and corruption. When hate is what is driving them, it is difficult for them to make clear decisions.
Quoting 180 Proof
Your tactic doesn't help you realize your strategy. There are means to vote against Trump while not voting for Biden. There are other candidates that aren't Trump or Biden. Instead of voting for the non-racist woman that hasn't been in power for nearly 50 years, you'd rather vote for Biden?
The way I see it is that both Obama and Trump were rejections of the dynastic, career politicians that have dominated American govt. We're tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, the Bidens and the McConnells. If Trump wins, it will reinforce the validity of this idea, and the next party to put an outsider on their ticket will be the next party to win the White House.
In my district, there are amendments to the state constitution and county referendums that will allow NPA voters to vote in primaries and will remove the Ds and Rs next to the names on the ballots for candidates running for certain county seats. I am voting for these and I would encourage others to vote similarly if they have similar measures on their ballots, as such measures will help to break down these partisan walls.
>Deplatforming is against freedom of speech.
>Trying to stop political rallies isn't.
With nearly 100 million votes already cast, this being a two-horse race has left the realms of the theoretical. But I agree that the fact that it is is a travesty.
Says a proponent of a non-alternative, a damn appeaser or worse ...
:shade:
The/my strategy is increased stakeholder-over-stockholder control of society.
• Momentarily - significant relief and forebearance to individuals, small businesses & landlords as well as an all-of-government national public health response of the pandemic, etc during Biden administration's first 100 days "honeymoon" - okay.
• Near-term - a few 'liberal' structural reforms - better.
• Long-term - comprehensive, "progressive" structural reforms - best.
A deliberately anti-fascist vote (but not, unfortunately, also anti-neoliberal vote) is a necessary, even though not itself sufficient, tactic towards that end.
And currently residing in Georgia, which is now for the first election since 1992 close enough to "swing" from covIDIOT-1 & the GOP to corporate Joe & the Dems, 'third-party voting' (esp. for a lifelong, left libertarian, third-party voter like me, who also is not ahistorical or unprincipled enough to 'not vote') would merely throw away my vote by barking at shadows of false equivalence as you do, Hindu, and thereby cowardly retreat from resisting the proven, difference in kind not degree, clear and present danger currently squatting squalidly behind self-pitying paranoid barricades in the White House. In hinge-moments such as this election, 'the enemy of my enemy' is either your ally if you've got balls or stumbling block if you don't. I AM ANTIFA - to my ears, Hindu, your crypto-appeasement noises sound fuckin' NUTLESS. :mask:
They learned victimhood from the best.
Defiantly a death cult.
What letter would Jesus have written?
"D". This is one letter he would definitely have written.
Says Jesus?
Check out the question I answered. I even quoted it for your ease of reference. I am the weird guy who answers questions asked directly and to the point, instead of talking a million different things that have nothing to do with the question, let alone giving a straightforward answer to it.
I said "witten", because the question specifically asked for a written letter. I am getting angry. You can't even differentiate between "say" and "write"?
I am sorry, I feel a heart attack is coming on. I can't handle this. Talking to people who immediately turn "write" to "say".
I apologize. I have to leave this.
Wat da fuck man? You bat shit crazy.
Yes, fuck him.
Don't get all worked up on my account. It's just a silly meme. You are permitted as much as any person to speak and write in Jesus' name.
Why not comment yourself?
It's a very poor OP. You haven't bothered with any analysis yourself or presented any thesis. What do you want us to talk about? The Catholic church's historically cozy history with fascism/authoritarianism? Trump's odd appeal to the religious? Whether this particular archbishop represents anything important about contemporary Catholicism? What? You asked only for 'comments' and you got them. Fill out a thesis or give some direction, please, or I'll just delete this.
50 years from now nobody will care. It's going around that people should stay home in the next week or so due to civil unrest. Are they saying that in NY?
The only rational conclusion: sell all assets of the Catholic Church - and any other church for that matter - and redistribute them to their ex-parishioners. Or else turn them into museums for learning how primitive we can be.
That said, I think the only solution for this polarisation and ridiculous hate-mongering going both ways is prohibiting targeted ads and content on social media. If I click on an "anti vax" movie, I get more anti vax movie suggestions, clicking another and I get a corona hoax, clicking that gets me a 9/11 hoax. Pretty soon I live in an alternative reality. Did find this gem though:
You know what never gets old? Dark humour and unvaccinated kids.
:rofl:
Social media exists in all countries (except North Korea), but we don't see the same kind of polarization in the US as in places like the UK or Canada. Also social media was only a recent invention. Polarization in the US has been around since the early 90s. Not coincidental I think, since that was when the Cold War ended and I suspect that alot of that anti-communist rhetoric that was so prevalent in the latter 20th century didn't exactly go away as one would've thought.
Honestly if I were to suggest a solution to the polarization in the US it would probably be to get rid of the two party system that currently exists today. The reason why alot of Americans see things as black or white is because it sort of is. Either the Democrats control the Senate or the Republicans do, and there's little room for any actual bipartisanship in such a system and little need too since if you're in control you essentially have a simple majority to work with.
It might be more obvious in the US but it's even happening in the Netherlands, which has a pluralistic political system. So it's not just the two party system.
It is important to point out that extreme polarization in the US does not originate with social media. There is some evidence it has accelerated since 2010, but that's difficult to measure.
On the other hand, the polarization is very clearly spreading. Europe is experiencing more extreme polarization across the board, a reduction of trust in government institutions and in some places serious authoritarian tendencies. The protest movement in France was in some ways very similar to Trumpism. Germany has an extreme right wing party in parliament, and polarization has markedly increased, mostly in the form of the right wing of parties increasingly separating from the mainstream.
There are also various populist governments across Asia which run a lot of their campaigning and propaganda over social media. In some SEA countries, Facebook is pars pro toto for the Internet, so it has significant influence.
I'd say the US is first in line, but unfortunately not unique with respect to this problem.
Ok. My thinking is that the letter will make many religious people vote for Trump if it is widely distributed. In my opinion Trump is hated because he 'drained the swamp'. He is keeping the wicked and unscrupulous people our of the White House. They have been in power for far too long and his main merit is he is blocking them. What is the alternative to Trump? The same old school that destroyed America?
By analysis, I meant something more than a five-year old could come up with. Merged with Trump main thread.
Then electing someone that has been in power for nearly 50 years and has done nothing to advance your stategy, just shows that you're all talk, 180. There is no difference between Biden or Trump in this regard. Neither one is interested in promoting a classless society as they are both opposite sides of the same coin - the corp./govt. symbiosis that feeds each other.
So go ahead and throw your vote away voting against something rather than for something unique and truly progressive - like a non-Democrat or non-Republican. But you can't because you are controlled by group-think.
You do realize that in a two-party system both parties take turns in holding power, or the majority, don't you? And that you have to live with Republicans being power from time to time? and that neither party represents your views, nor mine? The only other options are one party with no choice or liberty, or more choices with more parties having equal press time so that we can have access to alternate ideas.
With the existing system, you can never realize your strategy. It will always be a pipe dream until we have other choices.
Also, I'm not entirely sure what makes a Republican not a Democrat and what makes Trump a Republican. I think which side of the aisle you sit on determines it.
At least it has been successful in driving out those small capitalist shops from downtown Seattle and Portland, but yes, a lot of places in the US are totally OK even with the pandemic.
Anyway, if it's going to be a Biden administration, they have experience in putting down similar protests with the Occupy Movement. Kamala will get things under control behind the curtains sometime in the spring. Or at least in the autumn 2021.
Square pegs in round holes. You've got your corporate Republocrat party (aka "moderate" Dems and Republicans) in the middle, who just want a quiet life where they can squeeze money from their donors and throw a few chicken wings to the middle class, surrounded by the Social-Democrat-lite party (THE SQUAD! ANTIFA!) on one side and the liberty-freak/populist alliance (Trumpers) on the other. It's never going to work. Try Canada.
But of course, this was a thing Trump was surprised how it got wind from his supporters. That should tell everything. Yet many believe this, as if Trump really would be for fighting corruption and the power of lobbyists and special interest groups.
The main point is that he got them out of the White House. I would forget about the small stuff, like money, accusations of racism etc. This is too big for the small fry. The main issue here is Trump is keeping very dangerous warmongers and evil people out of the White House. That is why they hate him so much.
By evil I assume that you mean liberal?
I mean the people, whoever they are, who sold America out and dragged it into wars for far too long.
Sheer enthusiasm paints a different picture altogether. Trump can pack stadiums.
Then again, this apparent enthusiasm may be a sign of social distancing choices rather than support. Biden just may have stricter measures for his rallies.
The so-called silent majority is still silent, and there is only anecdotal evidence that such a group exists.
The advantage of being a Trump "Covidiot" is that you're not afraid to visit the polling station, and can be sure your vote counts. Mail-in votes could be showing up for days after the election.
So it will not only be interesting to see who wins, but also who was right in predicting the winner.
Then how do you know the vid I posted is false?
Nice site. Yours? I particularly like this article:
"The Powers Of Hell Come Against President Trump – We Can Stop Them
Published October 31, 2020 | By Bryan Fischer
Bryan Fischer
The power of Satan’s demons will be focused against President Trump on Halloween night in an effort to prevent his return to the Oval Office.
Counting on extra juice from two full moons in the month of October, over 6,000 witches “are plotting to cast a ‘binding spell’ on Donald Trump on Halloween, so that he loses the presidential election. The mystic women believe that the two full moons this month have given them extra magical powers to kick Trump out of the White House.”
Now while many Americans laugh at the concept that there are any such things as real witches, or that occult practitioners have any power, the Scriptures indicate otherwise. Balaam, for example, was an ancient sorcerer whose curses were powerful enough that God intervened before he could curse an entire nation (Numbers 22-24)."
Witches and demons and stuff. Duh..
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/fbi-investigating-alleged-incident-involving-trump-supporters-biden-campaign-bus/
The white SUV was a Biden supporter. The cognitive dissonance must be profoundly painful.
I'm not saying it is false. I'm saying America has been beaten down for decades and sold out. Trump is preventing these people from doing further damage.
Woe, Obama is Trump's father.
Hmm...
Yes this makes alot of sense given Trump's daddy issues.
Striking.
“The at-fault vehicle may be the white SUV and the victim appears to be the black truck”
You’re the one choosing to see “may be” as fact, apparently.
Did you watch and understand the video?
I never said it was a fact. The police say it appears the Biden vehicle may be at fault. Biden goons claim the Trump supporting vehicle was trying to murder Biden. Take your pick.
Yes, it doesn't matter. The people whose names you know are not the ones who run America. Politicians are only window dressing, pawns.
The Biden goons didn't know that Biden wasn't on the bus? If so, they probably were dumb enough to slam a car on the freeway.
Everyone knows Trump...
Yes but he is a maverick. He is not even a real politician.
Can you explain how he's not a real politician? or how his methods are unorthodox?
Go easy on NOS. His contract ends tomorrow.
It doesn't matter. The point I'm making is that America has been run by the deep state for decades and they have done untold harm to the country. Trump is not one of them, that is why they hate him so much. They want a return to power, tyranny and control. Trump is getting in the way. The same happened with Stalin; he wrenched power from the real communists and created Stalinism. Bad as Stalinism was, the alternative might have been much worse.
see my post above.
They say that Stalinism resulted in 6-9 million deaths. Perhaps Trump can beat that if reelected.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm only drawing a parallel between two historical political dynamics. No need to take it any further than that. If it comes to it, how many died as a result of the actions of the old guard? Trump has not started any wars.
Haven't really followed those races. From 538s forecast it seems likely, but by no means obvious that the senate will flip.
Edit: plus I'll say something nice about nos4a2 and actually mean it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/468081
:party: ??
From here.
In any case America has been a tumor for the last 100 years, it's a shitty country filled with shitty people who have made the world a worse place to be for everyone. Trump is an every sense an exemplary American and if he loses this vote, it'd be because Americans would prefer not to recognize themselves in the mirror.
Lol!
Tomorrow will be doubly hilarious.
The good points you often make about American politics are entirely undermined by this vile bigotry. Just stop.
Whether or not Biden or Trump wins, the result is gonna be alot closer than people expected and that's a bad sign for the US as a country going forward. As it turns out you can get away with just about anything, even killing hundreds of thousands of your own people through sheer negligence, and still win reelection just as long as you play divisive politics. Hopefully this means the end of the US as the leader of the free world because it is clear that it is not a country that deserves to have as much influence as it does.
So you must live in "a shitty country filled with shitty people who have made the world a worse place to be for everyone". How are you not one of the shitty people?
:sweat:
From a distance of 140 years, we are likely to look back on the the last two decades of the 19th century as "the good old days". But as Otto Bettmann, the famous archivist said, "The good old days were TERRIBLE". Life sucked a lot more in 1877 than in 1977 or 2020.
Do you speak from experience?
Yes, but, as a rule, no one is grateful for what they've inherited. And this does throw into question just how quality of life is measured. Quality has improved, but expectations have also (improved?)/changed, as quality of life has gone up. It does beg the question of whether there's a metric of how to measure quality of life.
Biden winning is disappointing?
Yeah was gonna say, I'm not too depressed (beyond the basic threshold) at the moment?
[Cross posted]
My all-powerful spidey sense was twitching this way and that, but it's twitching pretty blue at the moment.
A given conservative may not like aspects of Donald Trump, but in what he says--and how he says it--they see something very likable. They may not have much in the way of health insurance, but they do believe in reducing the weight of the government. Millions of Americans have had a hard on to cut the federal budget ever since there was a federal budget. They may be losing ground economically, but they don't see taxation as a tool of the 1% used against them. So when Trump flails away about cutting taxes, they like that.
The average conservative [i]probably[/I] does not want to see the police gunning down every demonstrator marching for civil rights, safer streets, civil protection, a just economy (etc, etc, etc,) but they don't like seeing black people marching in large numbers; they don't want to see high school students demanding environmental protection. Why should that half-assed 17 year old be judging me for driving a SUV? There is a lot of stuff they just don't like at all, and Trump seems to be against what they are against,
There is nothing uniquely American about this. American politics are uniquely American, of course, but other countries have their own uniquely embarrassing practices and experiences.
It doesn't show "how much we're able to put up with", it just shows how divided our country is, which is no shock to anyone.
:eyes:
With a few caveats, as someone raised in a conservative American world, I think your comments are pretty close to the reality.
Fair enough. Not gaining the Senate is bad though that was always a toss up.
Eh? You're still making the argument that how close it is "shows" X right?
Damn, forget I said that. *Knocks on wood*
Ok, fair enough.
I probably score high on "superstitious" when it comes to philosophy forum member questionaries. I'm embarrassed to say that not only do I trust my spidey-sense...it trusts me.
Hopefully Drumpf?
Fair enough. I can offer more than anecdotal observations, if anyone is interested.