It starts not with a bang, but with a whimper.
(https://preview.redd.it/jomwou52hx1b1.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=692bc61cc1ff64f9786296d277570c10e4d3d574)
I actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Quote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Those were my thoughts in 2016.
Quote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Too dangerous.
That is a remarkably lame PR spin by Elon. Like he is trying to sell us a lemon used car or something.
Quote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
:yes:
Especially considering the other choice is essentially "Like Trump only competent"
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2023, 07:30:02 AMQuote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Too dangerous.
That is a remarkably lame PR spin by Elon. Like he is trying to sell us a lemon used car or something.
DeSantis seems more dangerous than Trump. He might actually mean the BS he spouts.
Quote from: Tamas on May 25, 2023, 08:00:16 AMDeSantis seems more dangerous than Trump. He might actually mean the BS he spouts.
I strongly disagree. Nobody would storm the capital for an uncharismatic bore like him.
And the willingness to actually do obviously unpopular stupid things is a good thing in an opposition politician. Trump won't do them, but he will get credit for doing them anyway by his cultish fans. Trump is an existential threat to the Republic, anybody else is not (at the moment anyway). Trump is not replaceable. When DeSantis goes down, and he will, there will be dozens more Desantises coming up behind him each more uninspiring than the last. So Trump being defeated is vastly preferable.
And DeSantis' popularity rests on his management of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Florida...that is a pretty limited horizon to hang your hat on. Most of the country isn't Florida and Covid-19 isn't exactly the hot political topic anymore.
Likewise Trump losing the Republican Primary, as unlikely as that is, would be really interesting as it would focus his narcissistic destructive power on the Republican Party instead of the country itself.
The Republicans are a mighty political force but that power depends on their coalition staying strong together. Them choosing DeSantis would fray that power. Remember there are less Republicans than Democrats, they win by being more popular with the Independents and other outsiders. That strength would be severely weakened if they rejected Trump.
But this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff. Trump is going to win and DeSantis is going to get crushed.
Quote from: celedhring on May 25, 2023, 07:04:44 AMQuote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Those were my thoughts in 2016.
Yeah I find it slightly mad/alarming to see that opinion out in the wild again after we all saw 2016 :blink:
Trump tried to overthrow the system from outside. DeSantis is more likely to make the system itself less democratic, much like Orban in Hungary.
Quote from: PJL on May 25, 2023, 08:36:12 AMDeSantis is more likely to make the system itself less democratic, much like Orban in Hungary.
I don't buy it. DeSantis gambled and won on Covid-19 and good for him. But his bumbling in Florida and his bumbling handling Trump doesn't make him look dangerous like Orban. His anti-woke and populist messaging as a bland guy in a suit isn't exactly electrifying. I find him hard to take seriously. His recent Elon Musk fail just shows what an amateur hour politician he is.
I will certainly eat my words if I am wrong but in this case I vastly prefer the devil I don't know to the one I do.
I think the GOP is in a rough situation.
My intuition, somewhat backed by polling suggests a Biden / Trump matchup is probably Biden's best chance of reelection. Biden support appears soft--but it also was soft in 2020, Biden largely won not because he was strong but because Trump was loathed. Even the best Trump vs Biden polling, just show Biden pulling bad numbers, they don't show Trump improving on his 2020 numbers. They all show Trump in the 45-46% range...which is how he actually performed in 2020. If 45-46% was enough to win the election, Trump would be in his second term now. It is telling these polls show people not wanting to pick Biden, but not increasing Trump's vote share.
Those people aren't going to remain undecided, and most won't sit at home. Trump time and again has proven to be a big motivator of squishy Dem turnout after 2016, almost like that segment of the electorate learned a painful lesson about "staying home" out of frustration with the Dem party from Trump's victory.
A lot of the voters involved are suburbanites, a segment of whom did vote Trump in 2016. Many of them, particularly suburban women in the Midwest and PA, appear to have permanently soured on Trump's personal brand. But IMO they are much more open to voting for a Republican who can "be less offensive", and that isn't a high bar. DeSantis and Tim Scott both are genuinely less offensive than Trump, and IMO would be able to claw back some 2016 Trump voters in the PA / WI / MI suburbs.
IMO the best thing for the GOP would be a Tim Scott candidacy. I think DeSantis is very lacking in personal charisma, which could be a weakness that doesn't fully materialize until the general.
I also don't see how anyone beats Trump in the primaries. I almost wonder if these other Republicans are just running on the hopes that the various criminal cases against Trump reach a level that makes his candidacy impossible and they hope to swoop in.
On top of all that, if somehow one of these guys did beat Trump in the primaries, Trump is not a gracious loser. He is going to spend his time railing against the GOP and saying they stole the nomination from him. I don't see how that doesn't massively fuck over the GOP's performance in '24. So the best outcome would have been for Trump not to have ran, but that isn't the world the GOP is in.
I'm dismayed by Biden's announcement that he will seek reelection. I hope he pulls a Johnson and pulls out later.
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2023, 08:48:52 AMI don't buy it. DeSantis gambled and won on Covid-19 and good for him. But his bumbling in Florida and his bumbling handling Trump doesn't make him look dangerous like Orban. His anti-woke and populist messaging as a bland guy in a suit isn't exactly electrifying. I find him hard to take seriously. His recent Elon Musk fail just shows what an amateur hour politician he is.
I will certainly eat my words if I am wrong but in this case I vastly prefer the devil I don't know to the one I do.
Also I think DeSantis shows every sign of making the same mistake all the 2016 nominees did with Trump. My view for GOP politicians is that the way to beat Trump is through Trump. You can't pussyfoot around him because you want to win all the non-Trump supporters and then get the backing of Trump supporters (and perhaps Trump as well).
It doesn't work, it's inauthentic and voters can tell. I think it failed for Rubio, Cruz and most of the other 2016 candidates - and it seems to be the strategy DeSantis is going for. I think any GOP politician who wants to win will have to do it by beating Trump - and that means taking him on. That isn't necessarily running as a never Trumper - it could go to quite a dark place (if DeSantis wants to win, I suspect that's the line he'd need to take).
I also think, as OVB says, DeSantis is seriously lacking in charisma which I think is an issue in running against Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2023, 10:15:52 AMI'm dismayed by Biden's announcement that he will seek reelection. I hope he pulls a Johnson and pulls out later.
Yeah. Me to. I thought there was some kind of unspoken agreement that he was conscripted just because getting Trump out of office was such a priority that we needed some steadying and non-scary Obama hold over. He seemed like he was doing this act of public service and then stepping aside for the younger generation. Granted Kamala Harris was a dud as a hand picked successor but...was that particularly surprising after the Democratic Primary?
But I guess that is a danger of having unspoken agreements. So now we are looking at the prospect of two not particularly liked men in their 70s running for President.
I have mixed feelings on that, Biden is a weak candidate but I am not convinced any likely Dem nominee is not weaker.
The big thing that worried me in the 2020 primary is the strongest candidates other than Biden were all people that IMO would do much worse than Biden in a general election. Sanders / Liz Warren are popular but I can't see them doing as well in Georgia / Arizona, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Biden seemed likely to lose to Sanders in the primary if not for the intervention of a powerful black democrat before a key primary, and the willingness of the other centrist Democrats to clear the field for Joe.
It's been talked about to death and I don't fully understand the "why" of it, but I can think of 10 viable Republican Presidential figures who could run, I cannot think of any strong Democrats of that same stature. All the high ranking Democrats I can think of who could challenge just seem to have bad structural issues.
Sanders / Warren are far too lefty, ditto AOC. Kamala Harris (fairly or not) has a poor personal political brand at this point.
Who does that leave us with?
J.B. Pritzker (Governor Illinois)
Gavin Newsom (Governor California)
Pete Buttigieg (SecTrans)
Do we really think those three seem very strong as candidates? I guess I don't see it.
The Dems have a real problem here in terms of lack of "bench." Meanwhile the GOP have a lot of "plausible" figures:
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Glenn Youngkin, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 25, 2023, 10:25:14 AMWho does that leave us with?
J.B. Pritzker (Governor Illinois)
Gavin Newsom (Governor California)
Pete Buttigieg (SecTrans)
Do we really think those three seem very strong as candidates? I guess I don't see it.
I don't know. But Bernie didn't have a strong brand until he started running. If these governors started running for President one could get traction. Most of the "strong bench" the Republicans have seem like duds to me, but you might have a stronger sense of the right leaning independents that went Biden than I do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2023, 10:15:52 AMI'm dismayed by Biden's announcement that he will seek reelection. I hope he pulls a Johnson and pulls out later.
Why?
Because you have something against Biden's policies or personality and there are other candidates you personally would find more palatable?
Or do you personally find Biden just fine, but worry that he's less likely to win due to age or some sort of baggage?
Quote from: Jacob on May 25, 2023, 10:29:13 AMWhy?
Because you have something against Biden's policies or personality and there are other candidates you personally would find more palatable?
Or do you personally find Biden just fine, but worry that he's less likely to win due to age or some sort of baggage?
Mostly because he looks like a walking cadaver. Partly because I get the impression the general public is somewhat buying into the Republican attack lines. Partly because I disapprove of cancelling student debt via presidential directive. Partly because he's a little spendier than I'm comfortable with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2023, 10:15:52 AMI'm dismayed by Biden's announcement that he will seek reelection. I hope he pulls a Johnson and pulls out later.
I really like Biden and I think in terms of actual policies and delivery, he's possibly the most effective and impressive president in my lifetime.
But I do think he's a little old and worry about him in a general election.
The problem is, as far as I can see, the Democrats have a very weak bench - and frankly that's on them even just in terms of post-Biden if he wins another term. It feels like it's been an issue since Obama's victory (and I think part of the problem is leaders hanging around for too long in senior positions which makes it challenging to refresh the party/allow others to build a national profile). Harris has not impressed - weirdly she's a bit like DeSantis for me, on paper I thought they sounded like very compelling candidates for their parties, then I saw them :ph34r:
I see lots about Whitmer but it seems probably too soon for her? Aside from that it seems like a lot of 2020 candidates who either I don't think have really improved their position (Harris, Buttigieg, Klobuchar) or are not compelling if you want to replace a candidate for being too old (Warren, Sanders). Maybe Newsom, maybe Pritzker - but it's not an exciting selection with someone who is clearly and obviously superior to Biden.
I also think that in 2020 it felt to me like the only candidates who really thought it was even worth Democrats trying to win blue collar, white working class voters at all were Sanders and Biden - and they came at it from different perspectives and with different values. I'm not sure of the leading Democrats that there's many who want to make that pitch/have that vision of the party - and, I could be wrong, but I think it is still a necessary part of any Democratic pitch.
Yeah the Diane Feinstein disaster isn't the first time we have seen that in the Senate. The Democrats are really suffering because she didn't step aside. And it is entirely nonsensical in her case since there was a zero chance her place was going to be taken by some Republican.
And the Presidency is a job that traditionally takes in young spunky politicians and spits out old broken gray haired retirees. It is just such a high stress and demanding job. An 80 year old seems a very risky choice.
And Biden was always considered kind of a goof ball and man of highly flexible convictions. He did kind of gain some softness as old uncle Joe as he got older and picked up some of that Obama shine. He has done better than I would have thought he would have done but he was never seen as this great leader.
Finally it is way past time for these Baby Boomers to go into retirement. Trump, Biden, the lot of them. They need to be playing golf. It is time to get people more in touch with the modern times to be the leaders of this country.
There is simply zero chance a person who looks like Klobuchar will ever win the presidency.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2023, 10:36:17 AMThe problem is, as far as I can see, the Democrats have a very weak bench
The only way to get a strong bench is to run people for President.
I'm not a Biden fan but I wasn't a big fan when I voted for him. I basically knew the spending and student debt stuff would come with his election (I also strongly assumed the SCOTUS would quash any student debt forgiveness--even though I think the law allows it, wisely or unwisely). Unfortunately when we as voters are put into situations where we're picking between Biden and Trump, there's only bad options and determining which is less bad. To me Biden is easily less bad.
The reality is a good Democratic candidate is probably more lefty than I personally want, since I recognize I am not really a genuine part of the Dem base--I'm a NeverTrumper in permanent exile since the GOP went full fash on us.
I've said it before but I really think the Dems were unlucky with Obama's timing. Obama is much more suited to be a politician of this era IMO than the era in which he ran. A Democrat with strong charisma who is very grounded in practical government. Like I spent a lot of Obama's Presidency dogging on him, and I still take issue with some of his governing style and specific policies. But just in terms of being someone who can energy his party's voters and navigate the current moment, I think Obama would be stellar.
Biden to his credit is also grounded in practicality maybe moreso than Obama, in fact I think Biden has gotten a lot more done with bipartisan legislation than Obama was able to do. But Biden is really bad in a number of ways--he has poor charisma. He had poor charisma at age 50 too, but now he has poor charisma and is visibly very, very old.
I also think Biden is generally a weak campaigner. He was very fortunate that 2020 you could basically get away with a "Rose Garden" campaign. 2024 won't be like that.
Quote from: celedhring on May 25, 2023, 07:04:44 AMQuote from: Josephus on May 25, 2023, 06:23:11 AMI actually want Trump to win the nomination. Cause I know he won't win the presidential election
Those were my thoughts in 2016.
Yes. I recall being in Palm Bea h listening to him and Palin and thinking what a joke. :cry:
With Florida likely closed off for the foreseeable future, is the capture of Arizona/Georgia again likely needed for Joe to win? Those were pretty close and I'm unsure if he'll do well enough to win there again.
My main concern with Biden is that the perception of him being mentally feeble is there, and it's shared by many who aren't even Trump voters. Whether that's fair or not is beside the point in politics, it's a narrative that will not go away, and will have confirmation bias going for it. Every video of him pausing while walking, stumbling while walking, or shitting while walking, will be used to reinforce that narrative.
Right, I think that is one reason Ron would likely beat him. But unless the state of play changes a lot, it will be Trump v Biden, and people prone to worry about cognition probably already jumped off the Trump train in 2020 and aren't likely to go back. Like I don't speak for all the centrist Biden voters, but speaking for myself I thought Biden seemed unfit for the Presidency in 2020, but Trump was more unfit and more dangerous. Like I said, bad choices.
Edit: FWIW, in terms of most of his political actions and governing, I think Biden has done a fine job. I have some gripes with some policies. I think Biden has actually gotten a lot more done for Democrats than many of the Democrats who elected him with their noses held would have expected. Now, I don't know if that's because he's just so bad at public speaking he is actually a lot better intellectually "in real life" than he appears, or if we have a "Prime Ministership" going on where his staffers are really running the country (ala late stage Reagan.) I'm fine with either option if the alternative is Trump.
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 25, 2023, 01:08:29 PMWith Florida likely closed off for the foreseeable future, is the capture of Arizona/Georgia again likely needed for Joe to win? Those were pretty close and I'm unsure if he'll do well enough to win there again.
So of the states that have flipped back and forth between '16 and '20, if Biden holds WI, PA and MI and loses AZ and GA, and everything else stays the same, he wins 276-262.
Remember part of why Trump's election fighting efforts were so uphill battle is even if he could flip AZ and GA (which he couldn't), he still needed one more Biden state to flip.
Most likely a lot of these states move in tango though, in most scenarios where Biden wins, I assume he wins all 5 of these, and in most where he loses he probably loses at least 4 of them.
The only hitch is abortion scrambles it a bit. From everything we can see the GOP politics on abortion right now really hurt them badly in PA / WI / MI, whilst being less of a problem in the Sun Belt.
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2023, 10:23:04 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2023, 10:15:52 AMI'm dismayed by Biden's announcement that he will seek reelection. I hope he pulls a Johnson and pulls out later.
Yeah. Me to. I thought there was some kind of unspoken agreement that he was conscripted just because getting Trump out of office was such a priority that we needed some steadying and non-scary Obama hold over. He seemed like he was doing this act of public service and then stepping aside for the younger generation. Granted Kamala Harris was a dud as a hand picked successor but...was that particularly surprising after the Democratic Primary?
But I guess that is a danger of having unspoken agreements. So now we are looking at the prospect of two not particularly liked men in their 70s running for President.
It'll be curious to see trump attack bidens age. I really hope Biden points out he said the exact same shit about him when he was 2 years younger than the current trump...
Honestly I'm quite comfortable with bidens announcement. He did seem to be just a bland Meh at least America isn't collapsing anymore steady hand but he has turned out rather good.
Pence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
Quote from: Maladict on June 05, 2023, 12:40:33 PMPence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
Gonna get crushed
Quote from: HVC on June 05, 2023, 12:46:36 PMQuote from: Maladict on June 05, 2023, 12:40:33 PMPence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
Gonna get crushed
In a question about the events of January 6th? :P
Quote from: Maladict on June 05, 2023, 12:40:33 PMPence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
Trump won't debate Pence.
Apparently the GOP has set up some fairly high threshold requirements for its own debates, at this point only Trump and DeSantis would qualify.
And if, somehow, Pence gets enough support to qualify, Trump will refuse to debate him. Hell he might refuse to debate Desantis anyways
Quote from: Maladict on June 05, 2023, 12:40:33 PMPence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
More candidates just play into Trump's hands. The GOP needs to rally around one candidate early if they want to stop Trump from easily sailing to victory.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2023, 02:06:43 PMQuote from: Maladict on June 05, 2023, 12:40:33 PMPence is running. Might be interesting to see him in a debate against Trump.
More candidates just play into Trump's hands. The GOP needs to rally around one candidate early if they want to stop Trump from easily sailing to victory.
On the one hand, this is true.
But it's only June - primaries don't start until 2024. Who is in the race right now doesn't matter much. So let's see how the early period goes - can anyone get traction and move up the polls? Then hopefully all the no-hopers withdraw before Iowa/NH so we can get a meaningful 1 on 1 race.
Because I'd hate to see the field cleared to make way for DeSantis, only for him to fall flat on his face.
Is there any candidate with a chance who isn't a fascist shit bag?
Quote from: Josquius on June 05, 2023, 04:06:11 PMIs there any candidate with a chance who isn't a fascist shit bag?
By your standards, no.
BY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
Are all these republicans declaring to run now because they think Trump's legal goose is cooked?
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 05, 2023, 05:10:42 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
In large measure yes, I don't understand BBs equivocation on this, it's almost as if he's 'saying' the other republicans are just fine and dandy.
Quote from: mongers on June 05, 2023, 06:46:36 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 05, 2023, 05:10:42 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
In large measure yes, I don't understand BBs equivocation on this, it's almost as if he's 'saying' the other republicans are just fine and dandy.
Not the way I read it.
More like "Here is the hand we are dealt. Let's pick the least worst of it".
I agree with Oex assessment's here:
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. However, they are still a legitimate political party in the United States. BB isn't saying "
Pence or DeSantis for Prez"
. But like me, he's a realist, and there's a chance the GOP might win the next presidency. So, there we have Trump, who tried to overthrow the government, and the others, who didn't.
It is a small distinction. It does not mean they are just fine and dandy. It just means you are allying with Staline to defeat Hitler. Or with Saddam to defeat Iran. Or the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban, even though they were sometimes even just as bad as the Taliban for the civilians.
Whichever candidate the Republicans pick is likely the one that stands the best chance to win against Biden. Do you want to risk another Trump mandate or do think it is preferable that another, a tad more law-abiding candidate, runs for President against Biden?
Having Trump there is a gamble. Assuming he's not arrested and indicted (and even then, unless he's in jail, he might still run), he might win. 55% of Americans disapprove of Joe Biden as we speak. It might get worst before the election.
Quote from: mongers on June 05, 2023, 06:46:36 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 05, 2023, 05:10:42 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
In large measure yes, I don't understand BBs equivocation on this, it's almost as if he's 'saying' the other republicans are just fine and dandy.
It's almost like he actually tried to answer Squeeze's question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2023, 10:24:06 PMQuote from: mongers on June 05, 2023, 06:46:36 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 05, 2023, 05:10:42 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
In large measure yes, I don't understand BBs equivocation on this, it's almost as if he's 'saying' the other republicans are just fine and dandy.
It's almost like he actually tried to answer Squeeze's question.
If you're going to say that Donald Trump is a unique moral hazard to American democracy - then you have to act like it. Anyone but Trump.
If you're saying Asa freaking Hutchinson is just as bad as Trump because they both, I dunno, support a 6 week abortion ban (I have no idea what Asa Hutchinson's abortion policy is - same with Trump actually) then you're completely losing the plot.
To get to the point...
I don't like many of De Santis's policies - but I don't think he'll try to overthrow democracy.
Mike Pence - I don't mind some of his policies, hate that he worked with Trump, and know from past experience he won't overthrow democracy.
I could go down the list but you get the idea - some candidates I like (Tim Scott seems pretty good), mixed on others, hate others - but it has to be Anyone But Trump.
But someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
It's a frog in boiling water situation. Pence isn't as bad as trump, but he isn't good. He agrees with everything trump does, except for a coup. Hooray? Would early 2000 BB vote for pence, or 1990s? I hope not. But with every horrible actor out there (trump) each bad actor looks less bad, but is still dangerous.
I think several of the Republican contenders are authoritarian and might go for a Orban-like erosion of American democracy versus Trump's more open coup instigation. Not convinced that's the better alternative, as it might be more successful and pervasive than Trump's blunt narcissism and personality cult based attempt.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 05, 2023, 05:10:42 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
The GOP is politically, morally, ethically bankrupt at this point. Anyone but Trump is hoping that a bunch of other fascists are as incompetent at governing as he was.
I agree that the GOP is bankrupt but I think BB has it right.
Thus far Trumpism without Trump has been pretty weak electorally. I still think getting Trump himself defeated is mission #1. These other guys are a concern...sure...but I just don't see a fanatical cadre forming behind DeSantis or Nikki Haley or Pence or whomever. And if somebody is going to set themselves up as a fascist dictator they need a fanatical cadre willing to do things the rest of us won't. And they need a cause to get a majority of the people super engaged. Twitter-brain nonsense about anti-wokeism, in the style of DeSantis, isn't going to get it done.
Can a engaging leader who can mobilize the real grievances of Americans and form a fanatical party behind him and pair that with experience and knowledge of a political operator with intelligence and skill emerge? Sure. But nobody behind Trump has any of those talents.
The primary goal is to see Trump defeated. Trumpism without Trump is certainly a thing that will need to be dealt with, but it kind of seemed like it is being dealt with in the 2022 election for example. His hand picked candidates faced defeat.
I just don't see this super talented brilliant boogieman out there. But even if there was I don't see how that changes anything. We are already engaged in a political struggle with the right wing populists on every front. It is not like we are hiding some secret weapon waiting to mobilize it at some point.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 04:44:49 PMQuote from: Josquius on June 05, 2023, 04:06:11 PMIs there any candidate with a chance who isn't a fascist shit bag?
By your standards, no.
:lmfao:
You guys do love pulling this one out of your arse.
QuoteBY anyone else's standards... there's one only candidate who tried to overthrow the government. So yes. Stop me if you've heard this before - anyone but Trump.
From all I've heard De Santis is the same but competent (hes the one with the stupid Martha's vinyard refugee troll?)
Heard some ridiculous nonsense from some minor candidates too.
QuoteBut someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
So if a left of centre person pulled the same shit he'd be fine?
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 11:24:05 PMBut someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
:rolleyes:
Trump's biggest sin is appealing to an existing authoritarian strain in the American right and amplifying it tremendously. That is a siren's call that is being answered by many on the right - not just in the US, but elsewhere too. That is my main concern. That a lot of the GOP have cynically embraced this, and a not insignificant part of the GOP actively, and genuinely embraced this, has to be punished.
To pin everything on Trump is missing that underlying trend, and making yourself blind to similarly concerning types of stunt-politics, Schmittian embrace of power for power's sake that exists, and thrives, quite outside of Trump.
Trump fits very poorly on the right-wing dichotomy. But the people who are applauding, and egging him on are right-wing. I know this is uncomfortable if you self-describe as conservative, but that's how it is right now.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 11:24:05 PMBut someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
Being right wing is to want to overthrow democracy.
As a lifelong Republican until 2016, I generally think any Republican is a danger to the Republic.
Trump is a certain type of danger--the type to try an overt autogolpe or coup, albeit in a manner that is highly unlikely to actually succeed.
The anti-democratic bent of basically all Republican Federal judges appointed by Trump, however, is to my mind a long term risk.
We have a Supreme Court now who has basically said there is no judicial remedy to even the most serious gerrymandering. We have instances where States like Ohio have been told by their own State Supreme Court to follow a citizen passed law against gerrymandering--the legislature simply refused. The court largely did nothing about it, because the State Supreme court lacked any strong remedy under its powers and the Federal courts refused to intervene. The Ohio Republicans then won some Supreme Court elections the next election cycle which removed the majority on the court that was trying to uphold the duly passed citizen initiative against gerrymandering.
While that is one State's narrative, variations of it are happening across red states. State legislators are largely making it so it is all but impossible for Democrats to wield power, even if they win substantially more than 50% of the total votes cast in State legislative races. The States that allow citizen referendums, which could be a potential bulwark against this, are duly passing laws stripping away the referendum process.
The Federal Supreme Court is doing everything it can to destroy unions, a major source of opposition to Republican policies, it has forced us to permit unlimited campaign spending (before Citizens United, billionaires spent around $30m on an election cycle, they now regularly spend $2-3bn a cycle.)
The Federal Supreme Court is letting States pass laws like Texas's SB6, which before Dobbs, let the State "end run" around Roe v Wade by letting "private litigants" use a bounty system to harass people engaging in otherwise constitutionally protected behavior. This Supreme Court has had ample chances to address it, and refuses, leaving the laws in place. The "bounty system" style laws being used to target otherwise constitutionally protected behaviors have spread to other subject matters of Republican concern and other States.
When Democrats have attempted to adopt similar tactics, the right wing judiciary blocks them, showing clear political favoritism.
America has always had an archaic and flawed democracy, but the Republican party is systematically abusing every single element of those flaws to entrench minority rule right now, and about the only fix I can see against that is for Democrats to win elections--and a lot of them. Most importantly they need to hold the White House often enough and long enough to whittle away at the massive tilt to the right of the Federal judiciary (not just the Supreme Court, but the judiciary as a whole.)
Another major thing Democrats need to do is learn to wield power when they have it far more ruthlessly. A good example is the concept of the Senate "blue slip" on Federal judicial nominations. Historically, a "blue slip" has allowed a Senator from a given State to basically "block" a judicial nominee in the committee level that he did not like. This rule allowed more conservative States to generally influence the shape of judges appointed from their region even if they were the minority party in the Senate. This was a tit-for-tat rule, it meant that more liberal areas had more liberal judges appointed and more conservative areas had more conservative judges appointed. It did not mean a Democrat was going to appoint a far right judge, but it tempered the sort of judges they could appoint.
Under Trump, Republicans largely quit allowing blue slips and pushed through far right judges in courts all across the country. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, they are letting Republican Senators use blue slips to stop Biden from doing the same. Just another in a long list of examples where Democrats are behaving asymmetrically in what is truly a fight for the Republic.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 11:24:05 PMIf you're going to say that Donald Trump is a unique moral hazard to American democracy - then you have to act like it. Anyone but Trump.
If you're saying Asa freaking Hutchinson is just as bad as Trump because they both, I dunno, support a 6 week abortion ban (I have no idea what Asa Hutchinson's abortion policy is - same with Trump actually) then you're completely losing the plot.
To get to the point...
I don't like many of De Santis's policies - but I don't think he'll try to overthrow democracy.
Mike Pence - I don't mind some of his policies, hate that he worked with Trump, and know from past experience he won't overthrow democracy.
I could go down the list but you get the idea - some candidates I like (Tim Scott seems pretty good), mixed on others, hate others - but it has to be Anyone But Trump.
But someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
Beeb, I think that you're often getting unfair flack for being one of the few conservatives left here, but here I think it's going to be fully deserved. It almost looks like you're playing dumb here. Justifying support for non-Trump candidates by talking about policy seems like a deliberate obfuscation, when the real issue is the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. Every single GOP politician on the federal level is fully onboard with whatever new measures are enacted to further shield GOP power from the voters.
I can see the point Beeb is making, but I disagree that anyone is preferable to Trump. DeSantis would do far more damage to the US than Trump if either were elected. DeSantis knows how to enact policies that effectively target the "evil minority of the day" whereas Trump only knows how to bluster about them.
I disagree completely that DeSantis would not try to overthrow democracy. He'd just be more subtle about it.
Pence is more narrow-minded than DeSantis, but also much less likely to punch down for anything but religious reasons. He's not a demonizer or a threat to democracy, but also is very unlikely to get elected, given the grudge so many in his party hold against him for "betraying" Trump by certifying the election.
I think that Trump is too damaged to win a general election, so he's probably the one I'd like to see win the nom.
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 09:06:08 AMI think that Trump is too damaged to win a general election, so he's probably the one I'd like to see win the nom.
When polled, voters right now prefer Trump to Biden, 45.5 to 43.7. Trump also beats Harris 46.8 to 42.5.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
It was a close election last time magnified by all the pandemic stuff. Now obviously a lot of time between now and November 2024 but it's ridiculous to say Trump can't win. Trump has a fanatical base of support unlike any other candidate out there. FFS he still has people out there thinking he's a great businessman from The Apprentice, while other's thinking he's personally selected by God (or Q, or both) to be leader. A lot of Americans still think he won in 2020.
As for indictments, enough people think it's just "the deep state" taking its revenge on him.
If it winds up being Biden, I think we're just one Biden health scare, or one economic downturn, away from Trump 2.0.
And I get what you're all saying about Republican gerrymandering, or Supreme Court Justices, or DeSantis trying to bully Disney. But that's all still authoritarian in a normal 'within the lines' kind of way. Trump is the one who has called for the Constitution to be overturned.
If it winds up being DeSantis vs Biden then you can all try to convince me (and my all important non-citizen non-vote) to support Biden go ahead. But we're at the GOP Primary stage, and the only priority should be stopping Trump.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 10:04:39 AMAnd I get what you're all saying about Republican gerrymandering, or Supreme Court Justices, or DeSantis trying to bully Disney. But that's all still authoritarian in a normal 'within the lines' kind of way. Trump is the one who has called for the Constitution to be overturned.
If it winds up being DeSantis vs Biden then you can all try to convince me (and my all important non-citizen non-vote) to support Biden go ahead. But we're at the GOP Primary stage, and the only priority should be stopping Trump.
Got it - you're more okay with Hitler passing the Enabling Act in 1933 than with him trying to do a coup / overthrow the Bavarian regional govt from the outside in 1923. At least the former to you is within the system. Getting rid of democracy is okay if it's legal.
IMO, the biggest danger to the US right now is what happend to 1940's South Africa or what Hungary is like under Orban. I don't think it will be as extreme as the Nazis under Germany, but there is a very real risk that the US will be become a 'partial' democracy, where only the right sort of people will have a disproportinate voting share (a bit like Tsarist Russia between 1905-1914).
I don't think that's a fair representation of BB's point.
That being said, I do disagree that Trump is a unique threat. Trump didn't create any of the trouble we have, he is a symptom of the trouble. That trouble is that a large segment of the country has become "enraged", by a number of things. We could debate it to death, but it mostly appears to be rage about violations of cultural values, uppity blacks, LGBT people who dare to exist outside of private residences and etc. These people see an apocalypse coming--because younger people overwhelmingly are hostile to anti-ethnic minority views and anti-lGBT views, even many young conservatives do not share the level of vitriol this core group of angry MAGAites have--at least not in the same percentages as Gen X and Boomers.
If anything, Trump is just a really gross, really bombastic expression of this cultural rage. This cultural rage has created deep acceptance of the idea that anything is justified if it keeps Democrats from getting elected. Since Trump is just a symptom, and his expression of it is often incompetence, it is not the case that opting for a more competence / restrained person with the same goals and thoughts is safer. DeSantis is never going to run a coup, be he will continue policies and judges that will make America less and less democratic.
America is likely not meaningfully vulnerable to a real coup in its current form, what it is vulnerable to is what has happened in Hungary or Russia or countries like that. Where you do things that are mostly legal to just steadily make the country undemocratic. Boiling the toad is an apt analogy.
Quote from: PJL on June 06, 2023, 11:07:54 AMQuote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 10:04:39 AMAnd I get what you're all saying about Republican gerrymandering, or Supreme Court Justices, or DeSantis trying to bully Disney. But that's all still authoritarian in a normal 'within the lines' kind of way. Trump is the one who has called for the Constitution to be overturned.
If it winds up being DeSantis vs Biden then you can all try to convince me (and my all important non-citizen non-vote) to support Biden go ahead. But we're at the GOP Primary stage, and the only priority should be stopping Trump.
Got it - you're more okay with Hitler passing the Enabling Act in 1933 than with him trying to do a coup / overthrow the Bavarian regional govt from the outside in 1923. At least the former to you is within the system. Getting rid of democracy is okay if it's legal.
What?
I'm saying Trump=Hitler in your scenario. (Note I wouldn't ordinarily make this comparison - PJL started it).
Hitler also made it quite clear, in 1923, that he wanted to overthrow the existing government. So you have to oppose Hitler no matter what.
If you have a chance to put Hermann fucking Goring in charge of the Nazi Party in 1933 you go ahead and do it. Anyone But Hitler.
Now obviously this is not a great analogy. In large part because obviously the entire Nazi party was rotten to the core, whereas Trump helped take over an existing party that still has at least some muscle memory of being much more responsible (did you see the attack by Ted Cruz on the Ugandan "death to gays" law, and the attacks he got in response?) And like I said - I'd LOVE to see Tim Scott become the nominee, as one example.
So yeah - maybe Goring winds up being as bad as Hitler in the end. But we know how fucking bad Hitler is.
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 09:06:08 AMI can see the point Beeb is making, but I disagree that anyone is preferable to Trump. DeSantis would do far more damage to the US than Trump if either were elected. DeSantis knows how to enact policies that effectively target the "evil minority of the day" whereas Trump only knows how to bluster about them.
I disagree completely that DeSantis would not try to overthrow democracy. He'd just be more subtle about it.
Pence is more narrow-minded than DeSantis, but also much less likely to punch down for anything but religious reasons. He's not a demonizer or a threat to democracy, but also is very unlikely to get elected, given the grudge so many in his party hold against him for "betraying" Trump by certifying the election.
I think that Trump is too damaged to win a general election, so he's probably the one I'd like to see win the nom.
Does DeSantis know how to enact these policies? Is he this smooth political operator? Because he kind of seems like a blunderer to me. He got fortunate in a big way with his Covid policies in Florida. And good for him and good for Florida, I guess I don't live there so I don't know exactly the nature of his policies and what their impacts were but Floridians seem to like them. But I haven't seen him have a similar touch since.
But again I am not discounting the fact that these other people are dangerous. They have proven they can be. What makes Trump uniquely dangerous is his ability to attract fanatical followers and appeal to people outside of the conservative bubble. The normies. When I hear DeSantis talk he is going on and on about wokeness and COVID and all this stuff that if you are not in the conservative social media bubble you probably do not care about that stuff at all. I just don't see "DEFEAT WOKENESS AND NO MORE COVID SHUTDOWNS" mobilizing the masses.
So I agree that defeating Trump is #1 priority. Anybody is better than Trump. But I also agree they are all bad and should all lose. If I knew how to do that I would be advancing that plan. The all Republicans lose all the time plan. But there is no such strategy. We have to take this one step at a time. Step #1: Stop Trump. Step #2: Stop whomever the person is who stopped Trump.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2023, 11:36:59 AMSo I agree that defeating Trump is #1 priority. Anybody is better than Trump. But I also agree they are all bad and should all lose. If I knew how to do that I would be advancing that plan. The all Republicans lose all the time plan. But there is no such strategy. We have to take this one step at a time. Step #1: Stop Trump. Step #2: Stop whomever the person is who stopped Trump.
I maintain some hope that whomever Stops Trump might be worthy of supporting, but you get it.
#1 Stop Trump.
If #2 is Stop the next guy, then so be it as well.
Trump has a fanatical following and a fanatical group of people opposed to him. And events since the 2020 election have increased his support not at all but has increased the size of the fanatically anti-Trump crowd. And 2020 was not all that close: 306 EV to 232, 81M votes to 74M
BB: I never said that "Trump can't win," I said that I thought that he was too damaged to win.
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 12:06:29 PMTrump has a fanatical following and a fanatical group of people opposed to him. And events since the 2020 election have increased his support not at all but has increased the size of the fanatically anti-Trump crowd. And 2020 was not all that close: 306 EV to 232, 81M votes to 74M
BB: I never said that "Trump can't win," I said that I thought that he was too damaged to win.
HAs it increased the number of anti-Trump votes, or just increased the fervency of their anti-Trumpness?
Looking at total votes isn't helpful and Trump lost the total votes in 2016. Electoral college wasn't razor-thin, but only requires flipping 3-4 states.
So like I said - by 2024 voters don't want to hear about Jan 6, memories of Trump's time in office aren't quite so fresh. I think Biden has done fine, but he has negative approval numbers. It doesn't take much for enough voters to switch to Trump (or enough 2020 anti-Trump voters to stay at home) to throw the vote to Trump.
Why do you think voters won't care about Jan 6 in 2024? Short memories or some other reason?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 06, 2023, 01:13:52 PMWhy do you think voters won't care about Jan 6 in 2024? Short memories or some other reason?
Short memories mostly. Besides it didn't succeed, did it? So it's not a big deal to some - in particular when violent crime is up 5% in their neighbourhood!!!
I'm going to repeat myself - in a Trump v Biden matchup, Trump is leading in the polls...
And don't forget there's also third party threats. You already have Cornell West running for the People's Party (which was formed to try and draft Bernie to run third party, but he wanted nothing to do with it). You have the "No Labels" people trying to maybe draft Joe Manchin (he hasn't committed either way). And you have RFK Jr running in the Dem primary but with such an eclectic base of support (*cough Bannon) not impossible to imagine him going third party.
And I dare say they all draw more rom the Dems and the GOP. And it doesn't take much in a close election for a third party to change the results.
Iirc last election wasn't the main 3rd party the libertarians drawing away conservatives who couldn't quite bring themselves to do the right thing but weren't irredeemable?
I do expect suppressing the Biden vote to be the main tactic of the reps.
Also, it is worth remembering many years have passed since 2016. I think millenials may now be the biggest group of voters. Boomers are dropping like flies. And all data suggests millianls are far more left wing than previous generations with minimal rightwards move as they age.
I do believe that 2016, in the UK and US, was a high point of such shit and now it's a slow battle to cut back the vines and try to restore normalcy - something that could be quite a bit harder in the American system.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 12:28:10 PMHAs it increased the number of anti-Trump votes, or just increased the fervency of their anti-Trumpness?
Looking at total votes isn't helpful and Trump lost the total votes in 2016. Electoral college wasn't razor-thin, but only requires flipping 3-4 states.
So like I said - by 2024 voters don't want to hear about Jan 6, memories of Trump's time in office aren't quite so fresh. I think Biden has done fine, but he has negative approval numbers. It doesn't take much for enough voters to switch to Trump (or enough 2020 anti-Trump voters to stay at home) to throw the vote to Trump.
Has the number of women infuriated by the Trump Court's removal of their rights just forgotten about that? Casey is an albatross around Trump's neck.
I am also not as positive as you that 2024 voters "don't want to hear about Jan 6." A large majority of Americans feel the investigations into Trump are merited. Even among Republicans, only 45% believe that he did nothing wrong.
Biden has negative approval ratings, but Trump has catastrophically bad approval ratings: 39% positive, 51% negative. Among independents, only 37% positive.
Don't call them 'witch hunts.' Most Americans say investigations into Trump are fair (https://www.npr.org/2023/03/27/1166173049/donald-trump-investigations-republican-voters-2024-presidential-election)
Goofy Trump only lost the general by 2 million votes, while evil Trump lost it by 9 million. Hard to see him "flipping 3-4 states" when its only gotten worse for him. His approval rating was 49% heading into the 2020 elections. It's 39% now. The argument that people are just forgetting all the bad Trump stuff and are more willing to vote for him now doesn't withstand a look at the evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 05:07:27 PMGoofy Trump only lost the general by 2 million votes, while evil Trump lost it by 9 million. Hard to see him "flipping 3-4 states" when its only gotten worse for him. His approval rating was 49% heading into the 2020 elections. It's 39% now. The argument that people are just forgetting all the bad Trump stuff and are more willing to vote for him now doesn't withstand a look at the evidence.
Then why is Trump leading Biden in head-to-head polling?
Most off-year elections are a referendum on the incumbent. In 2020 that was Trump, and he lost.
In 2024 that will be Biden. We've had a few turbulent years - first coming through the second year of the pandemic, then all the supply shocks and inflation of the after-pandemic. Obviously there's still another year and a half to go (Bush 41 was flying high in mid-1991, while Clinton didn't look so hot in mid-1995) but right now Biden is in an uphill battle.
Now there is the possibility that Trump's ego means he can't help but make it a referendum on himself yet again. But I wouldn't want to count on that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2023, 07:55:35 AMQuote from: Barrister on June 05, 2023, 11:24:05 PMBut someone like Jos or Oex - Trump's biggest sin isn't the whole overthrowing democracy bit - it's that he's right-wing. Which I understand, kind of, but profoundly disagree.
Being right wing is to want to overthrow democracy.
Because, obviously, so many people on the left love democracy and free speech.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 06, 2023, 03:57:32 AMTo pin everything on Trump is missing that underlying trend, and making yourself blind to similarly concerning types of stunt-politics, Schmittian embrace of power for power's sake that exists, and thrives, quite outside of Trump.
Trump fits very poorly on the right-wing dichotomy. But the people who are applauding, and egging him on are right-wing. I know this is uncomfortable if you self-describe as conservative, but that's how it is right now.
I agree with what you say, but I think you're again missing BB's point.
Trump is the one leading them to the revolution. Without Trump, the Republicans have a lesser chance to win.
You may find them all bad, but you're not a Republican elector.
Democrats have played a dangerous game of pushing for the most extremists Republicans to be selected in the Congressional primaries last time, and it didn't work that well.
I don't think banking on Trump to be selected by the GOP so he would lose the general election is a good bet.
Quote from: PJL on June 06, 2023, 11:07:54 AMQuote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 10:04:39 AMAnd I get what you're all saying about Republican gerrymandering, or Supreme Court Justices, or DeSantis trying to bully Disney. But that's all still authoritarian in a normal 'within the lines' kind of way. Trump is the one who has called for the Constitution to be overturned.
If it winds up being DeSantis vs Biden then you can all try to convince me (and my all important non-citizen non-vote) to support Biden go ahead. But we're at the GOP Primary stage, and the only priority should be stopping Trump.
Got it - you're more okay with Hitler passing the Enabling Act in 1933 than with him trying to do a coup / overthrow the Bavarian regional govt from the outside in 1923. At least the former to you is within the system. Getting rid of democracy is okay if it's legal.
What he's saying is, while there's an election for leadership of the Nazi party, knowing how bad Adolf Hitler is, do you want people of the NSDAP electing him as their leader or do you prefer them choosing Himmler?
Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2023, 05:55:03 PMWhat he's saying is, while there's an election for leadership of the Nazi party, knowing how bad Adolf Hitler is, do you want people of the NSDAP electing him as their leader or do you prefer them choosing Himmler?
Surely in this analogy he's the one saying Himmler hasn't done anything wrong and would be fine.
I sympathise with those remaining conservatives who do not want to accept that the only people left to (claim to) represent their views when running for office are anti-democratic fascists, but sadly that is the case.
There are only two policies left in politics to take a side on: "soft" fascist autocracy ala Russia and Hungary, or maintaining liberal democracy. Everything else is subjugated to this, the great culture war of these decades. If you can't see it and go about being lenient and sympathetic to people like the Republicans because they use the buzzwords you liked 20 years ago when they still mattered, you are deluding yourself and endangering the future of you and your children.
Yes like I've said before, the important political dividing line in the 20th and 21st centuries is not between right and left but between democracy and anti-democracy.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2023, 03:55:29 AMI sympathise with those remaining conservatives who do not want to accept that the only people left to (claim to) represent their views when running for office are anti-democratic fascists, but sadly that is the case.
There are only two policies left in politics to take a side on: "soft" fascist autocracy ala Russia and Hungary, or maintaining liberal democracy. Everything else is subjugated to this, the great culture war of these decades. If you can't see it and go about being lenient and sympathetic to people like the Republicans because they use the buzzwords you liked 20 years ago when they still mattered, you are deluding yourself and endangering the future of you and your children.
Yeah... :(
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2023, 03:55:29 AMI sympathise with those remaining conservatives who do not want to accept that the only people left to (claim to) represent their views when running for office are anti-democratic fascists, but sadly that is the case.
There are only two policies left in politics to take a side on: "soft" fascist autocracy ala Russia and Hungary, or maintaining liberal democracy. Everything else is subjugated to this, the great culture war of these decades. If you can't see it and go about being lenient and sympathetic to people like the Republicans because they use the buzzwords you liked 20 years ago when they still mattered, you are deluding yourself and endangering the future of you and your children.
Well-said.
A simple two part acid test would be to ask each of these republican candidates if they unreservedly condemn Jan 6th capital attack/coup attempt and if they think the 2020 election was fairly conducted.
Quote from: Josquius on June 06, 2023, 11:32:31 PMQuote from: viper37 on June 06, 2023, 05:55:03 PMWhat he's saying is, while there's an election for leadership of the Nazi party, knowing how bad Adolf Hitler is, do you want people of the NSDAP electing him as their leader or do you prefer them choosing Himmler?
Surely in this analogy he's the one saying Himmler hasn't done anything wrong and would be fine.
FFS I actually used this analogy already (though I used Goring).
I didn't say Goring would be fine - I said we know how bad Hitler is so better to try with Goring if given the option.
Quote from: Tamas on June 07, 2023, 03:55:29 AMI sympathise with those remaining conservatives who do not want to accept that the only people left to (claim to) represent their views when running for office are anti-democratic fascists, but sadly that is the case.
There are only two policies left in politics to take a side on: "soft" fascist autocracy ala Russia and Hungary, or maintaining liberal democracy. Everything else is subjugated to this, the great culture war of these decades. If you can't see it and go about being lenient and sympathetic to people like the Republicans because they use the buzzwords you liked 20 years ago when they still mattered, you are deluding yourself and endangering the future of you and your children.
Sadly too many of them favour conservatism over democracy.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 05:21:13 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 05:07:27 PMGoofy Trump only lost the general by 2 million votes, while evil Trump lost it by 9 million. Hard to see him "flipping 3-4 states" when its only gotten worse for him. His approval rating was 49% heading into the 2020 elections. It's 39% now. The argument that people are just forgetting all the bad Trump stuff and are more willing to vote for him now doesn't withstand a look at the evidence.
Then why is Trump leading Biden in head-to-head polling?
Most off-year elections are a referendum on the incumbent. In 2020 that was Trump, and he lost.
In 2024 that will be Biden. We've had a few turbulent years - first coming through the second year of the pandemic, then all the supply shocks and inflation of the after-pandemic. Obviously there's still another year and a half to go (Bush 41 was flying high in mid-1991, while Clinton didn't look so hot in mid-1995) but right now Biden is in an uphill battle.
Now there is the possibility that Trump's ego means he can't help but make it a referendum on himself yet again. But I wouldn't want to count on that.
Keep in mind--Trump in head to head polling is drawing numbers roughly where he has always, literally for 7+ years now. And those numbers have been tested in 2 elections. It seems shockingly unlikely Trump will pull more than that.
Biden's total + Trump's total is well short of 100%. Most of those remaining votes are going somewhere, and unless the actual election trends of 2016 and 2020 have shifted to Trump suddenly becoming much more popular than he was in either of those elections, most of those votes are going to go to the other choice in our binary two party system.
It certainly shows low enthusiasm for Biden, but there's a number of reasons such far out election polling don't well capture what voters will do when faced with the reality of making a
choice instead of expressing an opinion. With Trump's numbers we do have 2 huge elections to judge them on, and that middling 40% number is where he has always been.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2023, 02:54:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on June 06, 2023, 05:21:13 PMQuote from: grumbler on June 06, 2023, 05:07:27 PMGoofy Trump only lost the general by 2 million votes, while evil Trump lost it by 9 million. Hard to see him "flipping 3-4 states" when its only gotten worse for him. His approval rating was 49% heading into the 2020 elections. It's 39% now. The argument that people are just forgetting all the bad Trump stuff and are more willing to vote for him now doesn't withstand a look at the evidence.
Then why is Trump leading Biden in head-to-head polling?
Most off-year elections are a referendum on the incumbent. In 2020 that was Trump, and he lost.
In 2024 that will be Biden. We've had a few turbulent years - first coming through the second year of the pandemic, then all the supply shocks and inflation of the after-pandemic. Obviously there's still another year and a half to go (Bush 41 was flying high in mid-1991, while Clinton didn't look so hot in mid-1995) but right now Biden is in an uphill battle.
Now there is the possibility that Trump's ego means he can't help but make it a referendum on himself yet again. But I wouldn't want to count on that.
Keep in mind--Trump in head to head polling is drawing numbers roughly where he has always, literally for 7+ years now. And those numbers have been tested in 2 elections. It seems shockingly unlikely Trump will pull more than that.
Biden's total + Trump's total is well short of 100%. Most of those remaining votes are going somewhere, and unless the actual election trends of 2016 and 2020 have shifted to Trump suddenly becoming much more popular than he was in either of those elections, most of those votes are going to go to the other choice in our binary two party system.
It certainly shows low enthusiasm for Biden, but there's a number of reasons such far out election polling don't well capture what voters will do when faced with the reality of making a choice instead of expressing an opinion. With Trump's numbers we do have 2 huge elections to judge them on, and that middling 40% number is where he has always been.
No they aren't. Not necessarily.
Trump got way more votes in 2020 then he did in 2016, because turnout matters. Biden got HUGE turnout - probably predicated on dislike of Trump.
Turnout matters. If voters are unenthused about Biden they can also stay home. I also pointed out the several possible third-party candidates that unenthused Biden voters could turn to.
Do not sleep or scoff at Trump being the GOP nominee.
No one is. We're saying the polls don't mean very much at this stage, and why.
Romney was beating Obama in the Gallup Poll at one point; Trump was never beating Hillary, and Trump was losing to Biden in a landslide. None of those things really came to pass.
That is why much of my point was actually based on electoral performance--because going off of current polling isn't wise. If I see polls with Biden down in the low 40s in the summer of 2024 I'd be more worried.
I have also said in a number of posts across this forum, repeatedly and consistently--any Republican can win in 2024. If you can look at 2016 and 2020 and think the election won't be tight and come down to the same few swing states, I don't know what to tell you. That means things are going to swing on a little bit of shifts in a few states, and anyone who feels confident they know what is happening are false.
But we can still make political analysis. I personally think Trump will prove a weaker candidate in the 24 general than most other GOP options. I also personally think his brand is too damaged in the suburbs of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania to win those States.
The national opinion polls, 17 months out are a VERY abstract view of what is really like a 10 state election (most of those states are not being heavily polled individually right now.)
Of the few relevant states that have had recent-ish polls:
PA had Biden beating DeSantis by 9 points, and Kennedy (RFK Jr) beating DeSantis by 4 points. That doesn't tell us a lot, since I think either matchup is unlikely--and why the pollster didn't do Trump v Biden is anyone's guess. But it does suggest what both 2022 and 2020 showed, which is that Trump and large swathes of the Republican brand are struggling in the Midwest, and other data we've collected shows this is primarily a problem of the Midwestern suburb.
Again--these polls aren't worth much more than the national polls 17 months out, but they show me some things a little more interesting than national polling.
The litany of reasons the national polling isn't a great indicator of much should be well known at this point.
At the end of the day I don't know what cause there is to make such a fuss over the fact Biden might lose. Of course he might, anyone who thinks he doesn't have a chance of losing is crazy. But there's nothing in the available data that makes me think the Democrats are facing an apocalypse, particularly when they haven't even started campaigning--and Trump has.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2023, 03:25:58 PMNo one is. We're saying the polls don't mean very much at this stage, and why.
At the end of the day I don't know what cause there is to make such a fuss over the fact Biden might lose. Of course he might, anyone who thinks he doesn't have a chance of losing is crazy. But there's nothing in the available data that makes me think the Democrats are facing an apocalypse, particularly when they haven't even started campaigning--and Trump has.
Let's remember where this pile-up started.
Several people were saying "it doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is, they're all equally bad", or even "I hope Trump is the nominee - he'd be easier to beat in the general".
I don't think either statement is true.
Trump is demonstrably worse than any other GOP candidate by the sheer fact he openly tried to conduct a coup d'etat. He's openly called for the Constitution to be suspended.
As for "easier to beat in the general" - as you have noticed Trump polls better than DeSantis. Yes it's early, but he has name recognition through the roof and a dedicated minority of voters that view him as some kind of divinely-inspired candidate.
Any remotely intelligent person should be rooting for Trump to lose the GOP nomination race.
That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2023, 10:13:35 AM(did you see the attack by Ted Cruz on the Ugandan "death to gays" law, and the attacks he got in response?)
Yeah I did see that. Now granted twitter nuts are their own thing and don't really speak for most people and all but I couldn't help but notice him condemning the death penalty for homosexuality was him "going woke".
Which to me kind of says it all. DeSantis and his culture warriors are out there saying that wokeness is this dangerous and terrifying extremist ideology that is going to do all these unspecified horrible things. Like make all the kids trans or something. Yet it appears all you need to to to be a follower of this scary and terrifying ideology is disapprove of executing somebody for engaging in homosexuality. At least according to these twitter nuts.
I am not sure when the last time was a western country had the death penalty for homosexual acts, but I suspect it has been awhile so we have clearly been woke for a long time.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2023, 04:04:02 PMI am not sure when the last time was a western country had the death penalty for homosexual acts, but I suspect it has been awhile so we have clearly been woke for a long time.
I could be wrong but my guess would be Germany and 1945.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2023, 03:37:28 PMSeveral people were saying "it doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is, they're all equally bad", or even "I hope Trump is the nominee - he'd be easier to beat in the general".
I don't think either statement is true.
Trump is demonstrably worse than any other GOP candidate by the sheer fact he openly tried to conduct a coup d'etat. He's openly called for the Constitution to be suspended.
I think you put a lot more weight on the coup attempt. Which, let's be a little honest here. What sort of coup attempt doesn't involve the military? Or doesn't involve any elements of the State? He made a dangerous, rabble rousing speech, and he spent a month spreading lies about the election. Then a bunch of far right idiots committed a bunch of felonies by breaking into the U.S. Capitol. I am not saying Trump has no moral culpability, but nothing about that scares me about Trump, it actually tells me Trump doesn't know how a coup would work or how the government works, because interrupting that certification vote did nothing to change the reality of his repeated losses in
State elections due to losing court case after court case.
I worry more about guys like DeSantis who actually IMO would have a better idea how to continue dismantling democracy. To me that is a bigger threat than a guy who was too lazy and inept to do most of what he screamed about the 4 years he was President.
QuoteAs for "easier to beat in the general" - as you have noticed Trump polls better than DeSantis. Yes it's early, but he has name recognition through the roof and a dedicated minority of voters that view him as some kind of divinely-inspired candidate.
What % of voters know who Ron DeSantis is, and what % of voters know who Donald Trump is? I am willing to bet a lot of money the first number is a lot lower than the second number.
QuoteAny remotely intelligent person should be rooting for Trump to lose the GOP nomination race.
That's all I'm saying.
Some Republican has to win the primary, and I don't see any viable contenders that are good options.
With a Trump 2.0 Presidency you have democratic backsliding and demagoguery and a lot of inept nonsense
With a DeSantis 2.0 Presidency you have democratic backsliding and a little less demagoguery, but a bit less ineptitude.
Those are both bad options, and the DeSantis option doesn't seem massively preferable to me, and could be worse.
So. Pence in the running. He's a least bad option right?
Still a dickhead who wants to murder women and other nonsense but seemingly not anti democracy?
I don't know if Pence is the least bad option but he is certainly proven himself committed to the Constitution so acceptable.
But he has no chance.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2023, 04:04:02 PMI am not sure when the last time was a western country had the death penalty for homosexual acts, but I suspect it has been awhile so we have clearly been woke for a long time.
South Carolina, 1873.
I don't know if it's Western enough... ;)
Otherwise, Australia and UK in 1861, with the last execution having been in 1835.
We shall of course exclude Nazi Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality
In 1874 South Carolina went woke.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2023, 07:42:18 PMIn 1874 South Carolina went woke.
:D
I shouldn't laugh given the current political climate...
From NPR:
After indictment, majority want Trump to drop out, but he's getting stronger with GOP (https://www.npr.org/2023/06/16/1182521901/after-indictment-majority-want-trump-to-drop-out-but-hes-getting-stronger-with-g)
Maybe Trump is actually is a very stable genius who is playing five dimensional chess. His popularity amongst Republicans has increased both after his house was raided and after both indictments. That would explain why he kept secret documents when he had every opportunity to return them and avoid any legal consequences. :unsure:
In any event, I can't see how Trump could lose the nomination. If mind bogglingly reckless behavior with government secrets makes him more popular with Republicans, what can the other candidates do? Promise to sell nuclear secrets to the Iranians?
Question, how serious is RFK jr's bid? :unsure:
(https://i.redd.it/gs5szuv3d27b1.png)
He's totally serious.
It's sad as RFK would be good to have right now... Alas the apple was taken from the tree and shipped to Uganda.
Alas, if not for an unfortunate accident, we could have had JFK Jr instead.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2023, 01:20:27 AMAlas, if not for an unfortunate accident, we could have had JFK Jr instead.
So what's the Chappaquidic (sp??) guy's son or dauther like?
* The name is on the tip of my tongue, Charles ???
It'll come to me, eventually...
Maybe this post should be in the 'Old Geezer Thread' instead? :unsure:
Ted
RFK Jr is not a serious candidate. Unless something takes down uncle Joe before Christmas I don't think there will be any serious candidates for the Democratic Nomination.
It says it all that he isn't even bothering with something so lame as running for Senator or anything. Just running for President in a year where we have an incumbent running for his party.
I think he is a handy reminder that health-based conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bullshit was largely a leftwing thing in the US until recently.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:04:09 AMRFK Jr is not a serious candidate. Unless something takes down uncle Joe before Christmas I don't think there will be any serious candidates for the Democratic Nomination.
It says it all that he isn't even bothering with something so lame as running for Senator or anything. Just running for President in a year where we have an incumbent running for his party.
I think he is a handy reminder that health-based conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bullshit was largely a leftwing thing in the US until recently.
Doesn't everything you just said also apply to Trump in 2015?
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2023, 11:07:23 AMQuote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:04:09 AMRFK Jr is not a serious candidate. Unless something takes down uncle Joe before Christmas I don't think there will be any serious candidates for the Democratic Nomination.
It says it all that he isn't even bothering with something so lame as running for Senator or anything. Just running for President in a year where we have an incumbent running for his party.
I think he is a handy reminder that health-based conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bullshit was largely a leftwing thing in the US until recently.
Doesn't everything you just said also apply to Trump in 2015?
There was no Republican incumbent running in 2015. This would have been like Trump running for the Republican nomination in 2004.
I don't think most Democrats even know who RFK Jr is unless they are really plugged in to political junkie discourse or obsessed with the Kennedy Family (and I doubt many people under 50 really care about them). I don't think he is comparable to Trump.
But I guess now that Trump happened every wingnut who runs for President should be taken much more seriously than before.
It is kind of funny just how desperately Gavin Newsom and Greg Abbott want to run for President. I just think it would be hard to overcome the California and Texas brands to have a national appeal being governor of those states these days. But maybe we will find out in 2024.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:10:57 AMQuote from: Barrister on June 20, 2023, 11:07:23 AMQuote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:04:09 AMRFK Jr is not a serious candidate. Unless something takes down uncle Joe before Christmas I don't think there will be any serious candidates for the Democratic Nomination.
It says it all that he isn't even bothering with something so lame as running for Senator or anything. Just running for President in a year where we have an incumbent running for his party.
I think he is a handy reminder that health-based conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bullshit was largely a leftwing thing in the US until recently.
Doesn't everything you just said also apply to Trump in 2015?
There was no Republican incumbent running in 2015. This would have been like Trump running for the Republican nomination in 2004.
I don't think most Democrats even know who RFK Jr is unless they are really plugged in to political junkie discourse or obsessed with the Kennedy Family (and I doubt many people under 50 really care about them). I don't think he is comparable to Trump.
But I guess now that Trump happened every wingnut who runs for President should be taken much more seriously than before.
Every wingnut who has enormous name recognition, yes.
I think most democrats know who RFK Jr is - he's RFK's son and JFK's nephew. All the stuff about the wacky vaccine beliefs, probably not - but they know who he is.
Now I don't think at the end of the day he'll win the Democratic nomination, but I don't think that was ever the plan (since this is largely being bankrolled by Steve Bannon). It's just enough to weaken Biden for the general.
I had thought RFK Jr would run as an independent - but now I'm not so sure that he wouldn't take away more votes from Trump than he would from Biden.
Wait he is being bankrolled by Steve Bannon? What a crazy world we live in. That is kind of weird since the main thing RFK Jr is known for is being a big environmentalist. Didn't know Bannon cared so much about the planet.
As I said I don't think most Democrats care about the Kennedys anymore. Our prime base is what? Minorities? LGBT? Union members? Urban hipsters? I don't think too many of them care about the Kennedys. We do have the suburbanite demographic but that is not our base, more a group we fight with the Republicans for. Those suburbanites probably do know and care about the Kennedys, we'll see if they all show up for the primaries.
Iowa and New Hampshire probably will not be kind to Biden but I doubt those votes will all go to RFK Jr but we will see.
RFK doesn't worry me, he has no shot in the primaries and Joe won't even have to show up.
Remember Joe Kennedy lost a primary challenge against Ed Markey, in Massachusetts, with the full Kennedy name and money behind him. I don't think there's a big demographic of people who will just vote for a random Kennedy.
On top of that most voters don't know that RFK has a serious physical defect that makes it so he can barely speak, he will look terrible under the spotlight--and a lot of voters also don't know he is primarily known for anti-vaxx shenanigans.
Bannon doesn't care about the planet. He cares about "clever" insurrectionist hacks of the US electoral system.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:27:25 AMWait he is being bankrolled by Steve Bannon? What a crazy world we live in. That is kind of weird since the main thing RFK Jr is known for is being a big environmentalist. Didn't know Bannon cared so much about the planet.
So I gotta say that I think the main thing RFK Jr is known for (other than his name) is being an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. And he's been that way for decades - long before Covid.
The connections between Bannon and RFK Jr are not crystal clear. It's been reported Bannon repeatedly urged him to run, which RFK Jr has denied. So I don't know I can say 'Bannon bankrolls RFK Jr' with certainty, but it does look that way.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/steve-bannon-alex-jones-love-robert-f-kennedy-jr-rcna82057
As for Democratic base - I would say minorities and university-educated whites. And yes the latter are much more susceptible to RFK Jr's "charms" than the former.
On RFK - obviously his wife is a beloved star in Hollywood and I really enjoyed this paragraph of an interview with her in the NYT:
QuoteMs. Hines clarified: "I haven't lost any jobs because of my support for his candidacy, but there was a project I'm involved in where there was a pause for discussion about how his candidacy might affect what we are doing but it has been resolved." Mr. Kennedy added that so far, "I feel a lot of support and love from most of her friends, including Larry." (In a text, Mr. David clarified: "Yes love and support, but I'm not 'supporting' him.")
:lol:
I think her role and that he's a figure in that world does get to Valmy's point though that, until very recently, fears abot vaccines, big pharma conspiracies etc were generally the preserve of the left. Pre-covid I remember reading articles about the dangerously low rates of measle vaccinations in places like Portland and Vermont. Partisanship's a hell of a drug in a country as polarised as the US.
QuoteAs for Democratic base - I would say minorities and university-educated whites. And yes the latter are much more susceptible to RFK Jr's "charms" than the former.
Although Black Americans are still the least likely to have received a covid vaccination - I think because we all got distracted by the political/partisan side of people not getting vaccinated that the far more significant material, public health, access side of people not getting vaccinated slightly fell to the side.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 20, 2023, 11:29:51 AMRFK doesn't worry me, he has no shot in the primaries and Joe won't even have to show up.
Remember Joe Kennedy lost a primary challenge against Ed Markey, in Massachusetts, with the full Kennedy name and money behind him. I don't think there's a big demographic of people who will just vote for a random Kennedy.
I only slightly remembered the Kennedy-Markey race. This Politico story certainly seems to suggest the race was Joe Kennedy's to lose, and he did in fact lose it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/joe-kennedy-senate-campaign-failed-408033
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2023, 11:35:35 AMSo I gotta say that I think the main thing RFK Jr is known for (other than his name) is being an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. And he's been that way for decades - long before Covid.
Right. I meant to say "besides being an anti-vaccine conspiracy guy".
I've read descriptions of Joe as the dumbest Kennedy.
That's really saying something. I mean there is Rosemary Kennedy...
Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2023, 02:17:29 PMThat's really saying something. I mean there is Rosemary Kennedy...
Harsh toke.
Quote from: Barrister on June 20, 2023, 11:07:23 AMQuote from: Valmy on June 20, 2023, 11:04:09 AMRFK Jr is not a serious candidate. Unless something takes down uncle Joe before Christmas I don't think there will be any serious candidates for the Democratic Nomination.
It says it all that he isn't even bothering with something so lame as running for Senator or anything. Just running for President in a year where we have an incumbent running for his party.
I think he is a handy reminder that health-based conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bullshit was largely a leftwing thing in the US until recently.
Doesn't everything you just said also apply to Trump in 2015?
The incumbent president was not eligible to run in 2016 and was a Democrat to boot.
So RFK Jr. is a potential GOP candidate in 2028.
Well, I suppose this was inevitable:
RFK Jr. says COVID may have been 'ethnically targeted' to spare Jews (https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/rfk-jr-says-covid-was-ethnically-targeted-to-spare-jews/)
:tinfoil:
He's weirdly specific that it's Ashkenazi Jews (and Chinese).
From Newsweek: (http://newsweekhasreachedouttowest'scampaignviaemailforcomment. WesthaslongbeenacriticofPutin,describinghimasa"gangster"and"criminal"inpastinterviews.SincetheUkraineinvasion,hehasbeenopposedtoforeigninvolvementinthecountry,callingforacessationofallU.S.militaryaidabroadaspartofhisplatform.)
QuoteCornel West Blames NATO for Russia's War With Ukraine
Story by Nick Reynolds • Tuesday
Third-party presidential candidate Cornel West suggested Tuesday that NATO was just as culpable for the Ukraine war as the Kremlin, calling the alliance an "expanding instrument" of Western imperialism that "provoked" the Russian invasion.
In a Tuesday post to his social media pages, West—a leftist philosopher and academic running on a fierce anti-war platform—said that ongoing efforts by NATO allies to arm Ukraine represented a policy of escalation that, if left unresolved, "could lead to World War III."
The latest alleged escalation came earlier this week after NATO-allied Turkey and U.S. President Joe Biden said they would support providing cluster munitions to the Ukrainian military to resist the Russians' offensive. Use of the weapons is outlawed by some 123 countries.
Such a deal, West said, was a step too far. His remarks mirrored rhetoric from Russian state media and President Vladimir Putin, who have said their country was justified in breaking international law to launch a preemptive assault on Ukraine and stand up to the West.
"NATO is an expanding instrument of U.S. global power that provoked Russia into a criminal invasion and occupation of Ukraine," wrote West, who is seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination.
He continued: "This proxy war between the American Empire and the Russian Federation could lead to World War III. We must stop the war and war crimes (including cluster bombs used by all parties) and embark on diplomatic talks that should lead to a just peace."
He then quoted a line from author W.E.B. Du Bois, saying, "I seem to see outlined a third World War based on the suppression of Asia and the strangling of Russia."
He went on: "The Democratic Party is a party of war and Wall Street targeting Russia and China. Let us save our democracy and world by dismantling U.S. militarism at home (as in Cop Cities) and abroad—as Martin Luther King Jr. painfully reminded us!"
Newsweek has reached out to West's campaign via email for comment.
West has long been a critic of Putin, describing him as a "gangster" and "criminal" in past interviews. Since the Ukraine invasion, he has been opposed to foreign involvement in the country, calling for a cessation of all U.S. military aid abroad as part of his platform.
West is running for the nomination of the Green party for president. A number of left-of-center publications in the United States have fretted that he'll siphon off votes from Biden and play a Nader type role in this election. I don't see the appeal, but I didn't see the appeal of Nader either, so maybe.
(Although, with his blame of the US for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, it sounds like he has common ground with the Freedom Caucus. Maybe there's a Molotov-Ribbentrop type opportunity ahead.)
It's nothing really new. Much of the very far-left seem to have that "if only they ("they" ultimately meaning the US, but inevitably Ukraine too) could both lose" view of war, and a perplexingly naive idea that a simple negotiated peace could be obtained that is reasonable to all sides.
When it comes to these sorts of people, labelling them left or right becomes meaningless. They're ideologists and they have more in common with other ideologists than they do with pragmatists.
You have some weird Greens over there. Our Greens are like among the strongest NATO supporters.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 16, 2023, 02:56:32 AMYou have some weird Greens over there. Our Greens are like among the strongest NATO supporters.
In an around about way it makes sense, a Russian occupation of Finland would devasted the environment, not to mention the damage caused by a war on the civilian infrastructure.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2023, 08:56:13 AMQuote from: Solmyr on July 16, 2023, 02:56:32 AMYou have some weird Greens over there. Our Greens are like among the strongest NATO supporters.
In an around about way it makes sense, a Russian occupation of Finland would devasted the environment, not to mention the damage caused by a war on the civilian infrastructure.
I think it has more to do the fact that Greens outside the US either wield, or have an opportunity to wield, some form of political power - and so their policies need to make some sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2023, 12:13:21 PMI think it has more to do the fact that Greens outside the US either wield, or have an opportunity to wield, some form of political power - and so their policies need to make some sense.
Yeah - a friend of mine who's very involved in climate activism for lawyers (https://www.lar.earth/) and Green party politics (she's drafted a few manifesto amendments) has said the England and Wales Green Party's manifesto is an absolute disaster that will not survive any contact with media attention.
Apparently it's a "living manifesto" so until something is explicitly removed by party conference, it stays. Which means, for example, it includes some very dubious (and possibly quite racist/eugenics-y) stuff about population control from a few decades ago. Although they have moved from supporting NATO withdrawal and back providing some military aid to Ukraine - so that's progress towards engaging reality.
Not to mention their core pro climate change stance....
So where are the social media posts/rumours that Biden is planning to cancel the election because of fake climate change and instead rule by decree?
I think we just found one
Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman formed a new party and no one gave a shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2023, 11:11:34 PMAndrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman formed a new party and no one gave a shit.
Yang's career was done when the lost the Mayoral race. He would have to rebuild it by winning small elections, not losing even more with a ridiculous third party.
Not even sure who that other lady is.
It truly gives me heartburn that literally everybody besides old man Biden seems to be completely insane and detached from reality. Granted I haven't looked through every single Republican that closely.
The fact that Biden, for decades considered kind of a clown and a famous for gaffes, now seems to be the only adult in the room is deeply depressing. Oh and the fact he is 80.
Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2023, 11:45:40 PMIt truly gives me heartburn that literally everybody besides old man Biden seems to be completely insane and detached from reality. Granted I haven't looked through every single Republican that closely.
The fact that Biden, for decades considered kind of a clown and a famous for gaffes, now seems to be the only adult in the room is deeply depressing. Oh and the fact he is 80.
That was bound to happen when Biden decided to go for a second term. The sane Dems would not run against him.
Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2023, 11:43:08 PMNot even sure who that other lady is.
Former NJ governor; Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republican.
I.e. basically a living political fossil.
The main thing I remember about Governor Whitman was that she told Howard Stern that if he supported her campaign for governor, she'd name a rest stop on the NJ Turnpike after him. She won her campaign, and kept her promise, and so for a while the Turnpike had a Howard Stern Rest Stop. :)
I believe it closed many years ago, though.
Was bored so looked a bit at the polling landscape. Now--I firmly believe we need to be pretty dismissive of polls this far out, so it is really only the lightest of indicators and more just a temperature reading on the public vs actually having strong predictive value.
But a few things:
1. DeSantis is done. Not only is DeSantis polling far below Trump, he polls much worse, in virtually every measure in every State that is running polls, against Biden than Trump does. One of the core arguments for the DeSantis candidacy months ago was that he was more electable than Trump, but the actual polling suggests he is significantly worse on electability than Trump is.
Now, I was someone who some time ago would have said "if he could get through the primary without Trump around his neck", DeSantis would be a bigger threat to Biden than Trump. So, was I wrong? I think I was partially--I think I underestimated how much DeSantis just isn't charismatic or a good campaigner. He does poorly when he isn't doing a press release touting some new anti-woke gubernatorial action, and instead is in a context where people can force him to talk off-script.
I say "partially", because I think part of the reason DeSantis is doing so badly is the other part of my earlier prediction "if he could get through without having Trump around his neck." I think part of why DeSantis is doing so poorly is because to be the nominee he has to challenge Trump--and the GOP just remains where it was 8 years ago--you can't challenge Trump without alienating his cultists, and his cultists are too significant a share of the party for a candidate to win without them.
2. In Biden v. Trump, it seems like the landscape is going to be very similar to 2020. Biden appears to enjoy an overall polling advantage, most of the time. In some States the polling is a lot tighter than it was in 2020, in some States it is much wider (for example it looks like Wisconsin is just much more anti-Trump now than it has ever been, and given how unpopular the repeal of Roe was in Wisconsin it may be this is a state that a figure like Trump is going to have a much harder time of winning than in 2020--when he lost it narrowly, or 2016 where he won it narrowly.)
Some things that I think people might question:
How is Biden outpolling Trump when he is doing so badly in approval polling? I don't think this is that complicated. Approval polling is largely a measure of how happy you are about the way the country is being ran. I think a significant part of the Joe Biden coalition is, and probably always will be, unhappy about the direction of the country. Young people in general are pretty negative on the country, they view it is drifting into extremism, doing too little about climate change, doing too little about wealth inequality etc. But when asked how they will vote between Biden and Trump, they are saying Biden. Essentially--you don't have to approve of someone to vote for them, you just have to not want their opponent to win.
Does this mean Dems have it in the bag?No, I think it means the election will be very similar to 2020. If you're a reasonable person you will note 2020 was decided by some very narrow margins in several swing states. Assuming a similar electorate and similar voting patterns in 2024, that means that Trump could easily win. It also means Biden could certainly win. Probably I think Biden has the edge, but anyone going to bed the night before election night who thinks their guy has it won, in this political climate, is IMO being foolish.
I do think there's some things that will be interesting to watch for:
- How does the economy do? So far it looks like inflation is going to be reined in with either no, or minimal recession. This is good for an incumbent.
- How will Biden campaign? He largely campaigned from his basement in 2020, which is unlikely to be suitable for 2024, he likely very much needs to campaign aggressively.
- How will Trump campaign? Every indication I have seen is that he continues to drift more and more towards the "worst part" of his base, and further and further from the 2016 strategy that won him key suburban (especially white women) voters. There are many political analysts that have strongly argued the GOP's losses in 2018, 2020, and their muted wins in 2022 are directly linked to a loss of support in key white women suburban votes that have never been recovered. I do question how they plan to recover those votes with the sort of rhetoric they are doubling down on.
I've heard a big thing in 2016 for trump was everything saying he didnt have a chance. This suppressed Clinton votes and boosted his. A close election could be good in getting large numbers of unenthusiastic dem supporters out.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZC1SL4m/image.png)
For all those Republican Primary voters who watch CNN.
It might help Ramaswamy, but I'm not convinced that a non-white person can win the GOP primary.
They went with an orange one before.
Quote from: Jacob on August 19, 2023, 10:03:59 AMIt might help Ramaswamy, but I'm not convinced that a non-white person can win the GOP primary.
Well that and the fact he is a nobody and rather cringey to listen to.
So the first GOP Also-Ran Debate was held and not even one post here. I guess that shows the irrelevance without Trump.
8 candidates is not a debate...it is a glorified and mildly spicy press conference.
You assholes are going to elect trump again, aren't you?
Quote from: Zanza on August 24, 2023, 12:14:07 AMSo the first GOP Also-Ran Debate was held and not even one post here. I guess that shows the irrelevance without Trump.
If you are into trashy, reality TV, there is better programming.
Quote from: Jacob on August 19, 2023, 10:03:59 AMIt might help Ramaswamy, but I'm not convinced that a non-white person can win the GOP primary.
I dont know. They desperately want to show they're not racist..so he may be the guy. Face it he is quite electable, can appeal to a strong young demographic. I mean, him v. Biden?
Quote from: HVC on August 24, 2023, 01:08:38 AMYou assholes are going to elect trump again, aren't you?
Didn't you say this in 2020?
Quote from: Habbaku on August 24, 2023, 08:20:49 AMQuote from: HVC on August 24, 2023, 01:08:38 AMYou assholes are going to elect trump again, aren't you?
Didn't you say this in 2020?
It's not like we dodged that bullet by a mile. I remember losing at least 5 years of my life to stress that election night, because the electoral college math was way too close then and still wound up way too close.
I read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 24, 2023, 08:20:49 AMQuote from: HVC on August 24, 2023, 01:08:38 AMYou assholes are going to elect trump again, aren't you?
Didn't you say this in 2020?
And I was almost right :P
Quote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 09:38:01 AMI read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
I don't think any of them are that stupid. But the people whose votes they are courting are, and so they all have to lie. It's a shame.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2023, 10:28:03 AMQuote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 09:38:01 AMI read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
I don't think any of them are that stupid. But the people whose votes they are courting are, and so they all have to lie. It's a shame.
Yes, hat's kind of what I find most shocking.
It's made even more painful from the fact they haven't just failed to understand things.
They understand just fine.
It's just they've seen THE OTHERS favour doing something to solve the problem hence its woke and bad to believe in it.
Quote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 09:38:01 AMI read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
Ramaswamy said something like he knew climate change was a thing and caused by CO2 but we had to keep burning fossil fuels in order to make enough money to deal with climate change or something.
I thought ok well for a Republican that is at least not too bad. We are compelled to continue to burn fossil fuels in the short term. And then he does this. Ah well.
Quote from: Josquius on August 24, 2023, 10:59:22 AMIt's made even more painful from the fact they haven't just failed to understand things.
They understand just fine.
It's just they've seen THE OTHERS favour doing something to solve the problem hence its woke and bad to believe in it.
I go back to wishing someone had branded Pfizer as the Trump vaccine that Democrats don't want you to get and Moderna as the lib vaccine that'll kill you.
It's not an indication of a healthy politics but it's a shame that the polarisation can't be taken advantage of to do something. Make solar and Tesla the Republican route to energy transition, say v wind and, I don't know, Leaf for Democrats. Again not great but it'd be good to keep moving.
FWIW I think the big win of the IRA is that it positioned lots of energy transition stuff not as fighting climate change but reducing dependency on and competing with China, plus it means I think there will be a green industrial complex with lobbying power who want their subsidies protected etc. I feel like turning something into a national security issue and getting corporate power behind it may not give us the satisfaction of sinners repenting, but might keep the US spending money on energy transition and getting to net zero.
Quote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 10:51:07 AMQuote from: Caliga on August 24, 2023, 10:28:03 AMQuote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 09:38:01 AMI read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
I don't think any of them are that stupid. But the people whose votes they are courting are, and so they all have to lie. It's a shame.
Yes, hat's kind of what I find most shocking.
Right wing media has spent decades convincing their viewers that human caused climate change is a malevolent scam designed to...do something bad. We who think climate change is a thing we have to deal with are evil to our cores.
Or we are stupid and brainwashed. Something like that.
And even the few times they admit that, in fact, we are right they then go on that we are stupid and brainwashed anyway because we are too hysterical about it. Climate cult!
Which is weird. A cult cannot be correct about its central tenants. If L Ron Hubbard actually had discovered all the secrets of humanity and Scientology really did give you super powers nobody would think they were a cult just because they were a little silly about it. We would be lining up for the super powers.
But, you know, are there wacky extremists with counter-productive ideas about environmentalism and climate change out there? Sure. So that will then get used. The point is: we are wrong about climate change. The exact way we are wrong about climate change shifts around as needed.
What impact this has on actual policies I don't know. Texas is a leader in renewable energy despite its leading politicians insisting wind and solar are nothing but evil conspiracies and climate change is a scam.
So I think this is a another matter of the tail wagging the dog. The right wing media compels the politicians to pretend like this is their position when it isn't really.
I sometimes wonder if Hansmeister is a liberal scientists scam for funding money.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2023, 11:06:13 AMQuote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 09:38:01 AMI read that when asked whether climate change had anything to do with fossil fuels, not one of them raised his/her hand.
I should be numbed to his by now, but I still find it shocking.
Ramaswamy said something like he knew climate change was a thing and caused by CO2 but we had to keep burning fossil fuels in order to make enough money to deal with climate change or something.
I thought ok well for a Republican that is at least not too bad. We are compelled to continue to burn fossil fuels in the short term. And then he does this. Ah well.
I don't think he did - at least not according to this clip (and it also sounds like I was unfair about the hand raising)
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/vivek-ramaswamy-gop-debate-climate-change-b2398433.html
"During the first 2024 GOP presidential debate on 23 August 2023 candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believed human behavior was causing climate change.
Nobody was able to raise a hand before Florida governor Ron DeSantis overtook the conversation by blasting President Biden over his handling of the Maui wildfires.
Vivek Ramaswamy was quick to join the conversation by saying he believed that "climate change agenda is a hoax." His statement was met with boos from the audience.
The only candidate to acknowledge climate change was South Carolina governor Nikki Haley."
On the boos before he said the "climate change agenda is a hoax", he said "I'm the only person on this stage who isn't bought and paid for" - I think some people have said that it might have been booing that. It's not super-clear.
Quote from: Gups on August 24, 2023, 11:26:41 AMI don't think he did - at least not according to this clip (and it also sounds like I was unfair about the hand raising)
I thought he did earlier. So I thought maybe he was alright, at least on my biggest issue. I just want the GOP to acknowledge this is going on and put forward some plan. Probably something like plant 40 trillion trees and just keep drilling or something, but still a plan.
But yeah during the debate he went on about the hoax thing. A hoax...perpetrated for over 40 years by millions of people over dozens of countries to achieve some goal unclear even to those of us that are in on it.
And bear in mind this guy got rich investing in big pharma. Why he thinks he can win over the conspiracy set is unclear. And he got boo'd for it anyway, what an idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2023, 11:53:28 AMAnd bear in mind this guy got rich investing in big pharma. Why he thinks he can win over the conspiracy set is unclear. And he got boo'd for it anyway, what an idiot.
Same reason Trump could chant "Drain the Swamp" - "I know you're for sale, I bought you."
Looking at the NYT coverage of a candidate who disagrees with birthright citizenship and 14 amendment. I continue to think nothing has been learned from 2016:
QuoteHow Vivek Ramaswamy Broke Through: Big Swings With a Smile
With unchecked confidence and insults, the biotech entrepreneur baited his rivals into skirmishes that dominated Republicans first debate.
And I think mainstream like this or things like showing entire Trump rallies uninterrupted have played a bigger role in Trump's victory but also the mainstreaming of this politics than the fringe right alternative media.
Ramaswamy Says He'd Run the Government Like Elon Musk Runs Twitter: 'A Good Example Of What I Want To Do' (https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ramaswamy-says-hed-run-the-government-like-elon-musk-runs-twitter-a-good-example-of-what-i-want-to-do/)
I don't use Twitter and the news about the recent changes hasn't meant anything to me; but, from what I've been able to piece together, Musk's leadership style seems a tad... mercurial.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2023, 12:15:47 PMSame reason Trump could chant "Drain the Swamp" - "I know you're for sale, I bought you."
I don't know if "you can buy stocks in corporations" is quite the same thing.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 25, 2023, 02:46:47 PMRamaswamy Says He'd Run the Government Like Elon Musk Runs Twitter: 'A Good Example Of What I Want To Do' (https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ramaswamy-says-hed-run-the-government-like-elon-musk-runs-twitter-a-good-example-of-what-i-want-to-do/)
I don't use Twitter and the news about the recent changes hasn't meant anything to me; but, from what I've been able to piece together, Musk's leadership style seems a tad... mercurial.
Bizzare someone would say they would run something as Musk does twitter and mean it to be a positive rather than stating they should never be allowed near power.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 25, 2023, 02:46:47 PMRamaswamy Says He'd Run the Government Like Elon Musk Runs Twitter: 'A Good Example Of What I Want To Do' (https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ramaswamy-says-hed-run-the-government-like-elon-musk-runs-twitter-a-good-example-of-what-i-want-to-do/)
I don't use Twitter and the news about the recent changes hasn't meant anything to me; but, from what I've been able to piece together, Musk's leadership style seems a tad... mercurial.
He's gonna change the countries name and stop paying bills?
That Ramaswamy guy sounds like a fine VP candidate for The Donald.
Quote from: HVC on August 25, 2023, 04:10:27 PMHe's gonna change the countries name and stop paying bills?
:D
Isn't Trump in the lead by like 50 points?
Not sure any of these idiots matter much.
Is there a realistic way for Trump to not be the nominee, legal-wise?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2023, 11:42:50 PMIsn't Trump in the lead by like 50 points?
Not sure any of these idiots matter much.
Is there a realistic way for Trump to not be the nominee, legal-wise?
he decided to die?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2023, 11:42:50 PMIsn't Trump in the lead by like 50 points?
Not sure any of these idiots matter much.
Is there a realistic way for Trump to not be the nominee, legal-wise?
Yes, Trump has an enormous lead, but it is only August. Even a conviction couldn't stop Trump from running (legally, I mean); I think it's on this thread someone brought up that Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 25, 2023, 11:42:50 PMIsn't Trump in the lead by like 50 points?
Not sure any of these idiots matter much.
Is there a realistic way for Trump to not be the nominee, legal-wise?
I guess they matter for those who pull ahead dishing it out on trump?
Haley and Scott are the two most clearly running for VP.
While their motivations vary (sometimes running a quasi-successful primary campaign opens doors politically and/or financially), my guess is the candidates who are genuinely hoping to be President are running because they either think something is going to happen to derail Trump, or they are thinking Trump will disastrously lose in 2024 and leave the party ripe for an "I told you so 4 years ago, I know how to win" candidate in 2028.
Note that some of these people may be wishing for something that is highly unlikely.
Swami wants to cut the federal work force by 75% and eliminate the department of education and the IRS ( :blink: :blink: ).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2023, 07:36:40 PMSwami wants to cut the federal work force by 75% and eliminate the department of education and the IRS ( :blink: :blink: ).
So he wants to repeal the 16th Amendment too? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 30, 2023, 07:56:47 PMSo he wants to repeal the 16th Amendment too? :hmm:
I guess he wants to put taxes on the honor system.
Where did this dude come from anyway? What's his deal? Gotta be tech or finance.
He does seem to kind of be the GOP's answer to Andrew Yang.
Inherited wealth and pharmaceuticals to pump their prices with investment from hedge funds. He's darn near everything that is wrong with how the system works.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2023, 07:58:28 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on August 30, 2023, 07:56:47 PMSo he wants to repeal the 16th Amendment too? :hmm:
I guess he wants to put taxes on the honor system.
Where did this dude come from anyway? What's his deal? Gotta be tech or finance.
He is an investor in Big Pharma. That is pretty much all I know.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2023, 08:25:50 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2023, 07:58:28 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on August 30, 2023, 07:56:47 PMSo he wants to repeal the 16th Amendment too? :hmm:
I guess he wants to put taxes on the honor system.
Where did this dude come from anyway? What's his deal? Gotta be tech or finance.
He is an investor in Big Pharma. That is pretty much all I know.
IIRC, he invested big in a drug that had failed it's initial trials, really pumped it up and advertised it. Stock went up a lot, he sold his shares for a fortune, than it failed the next trials and everyone still invested lost their shirts.
Ramaswamy is a very successful con man. None of his companies ever turned a profit, nor did any (as far as I can tell) ever actually succeed in getting any drug to market. He had some early success in a venture capital firm, and then turned around and sweet-talked a bunch of venture capitalists to back his losing ventures.
IOW, he is what Trump wanted to be.
My sense is exactly the same - he has the business soul of Trump but without the drawback of being a complete moron. He is skilled in playing the private investor hype game and exploiting the relatively lax rules around private offerings. Pharma has great potential for such games because of the lottery-style payoff schedule where 90%+ of prospects bust but the few successes can payoff big. If you can convince some investors that a 99% bust candidate is really a 92% bust candidate, you can skim off quite a lot of cash.
It is also worth noting, not that it "matters" but unlike a lot of families of immigrants, Ramaswamy doesn't have a narrative of rags to riches. His family were actually members of the highest caste in the Indian caste system in his region of India (Brahmin) and controlled basically a traditional feudal land holding for generations. He had grandparents who were college graduates and successful in the modern economy of mid-20th century India. He isn't a "child of immigrants who made it big", he is the child of wealth who got more wealthy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 06, 2023, 09:19:56 AMIt is also worth noting, not that it "matters" but unlike a lot of families of immigrants, Ramaswamy doesn't have a narrative of rags to riches. His family were actually members of the highest caste in the Indian caste system in his region of India (Brahmin) and controlled basically a traditional feudal land holding for generations. He had grandparents who were college graduates and successful in the modern economy of mid-20th century India. He isn't a "child of immigrants who made it big", he is the child of wealth who got more wealthy.
So a textbook conservative politician albeit with a very handy "I can't be racist as I support a brown guy. Maybe YOU'RE the racist for hating him"? card for supporters.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 06, 2023, 09:19:56 AMIt is also worth noting, not that it "matters" but unlike a lot of families of immigrants, Ramaswamy doesn't have a narrative of rags to riches. His family were actually members of the highest caste in the Indian caste system in his region of India (Brahmin) and controlled basically a traditional feudal land holding for generations. He had grandparents who were college graduates and successful in the modern economy of mid-20th century India. He isn't a "child of immigrants who made it big", he is the child of wealth who got more wealthy.
Fyi, brahmins are the top caste anywhere in India it's not regional for the the four main caste although there are regional subcastes.Brahmins aren't necessarily wealthy, though they can be.
Good to know--I was trying to tread lightly since I know close to nothing about the Indian caste system or Indian feudal norms. The reporting I had read noted his family were Brahmin and had controlled a traditional "Agraharam" land holding for generations, which as best I can tell was a sort of feudal style holding although probably not directly equivalent to any Western concept.
Vivek's dad and mom both graduated from prestigious universities in India, his dad was an engineer and patent attorney for General Electric, his Mom a psychiatrist.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong from being from an affluent family, obviously--I only pointed it out because Vivek like many Republican billionaires (or near-billionaires) often present themselves as people who got wealthy as entirely self-made men, which is very often false if you read up on any of the sort who make those claims.
I think being a billionaire for any sustained period of time means you are a bad person.
What do you have against Buffet?
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2023, 12:26:15 PMI think being a billionaire for any sustained period of time means you are a bad person.
Totally agree.
It depends on whether it's the same billions I say.
If you've an income hitting such levels then it says a lot about problems with the world but not so much the person. If they're then using this huge income for positive ends then being such a billionaire can be perfectly fine.
Can't think of an example who qualifies though.
Quote from: Josquius on September 14, 2023, 04:00:25 PMIt depends on whether it's the same billions I say.
If you've an income hitting such levels then it says a lot about problems with the world but not so much the person. If they're then using this huge income for positive ends then being such a billionaire can be perfectly fine.
Can't think of an example who qualifies though.
Quibble- billionaires become billionaires because of their investments not their income.
A person can become wealthy and never have a large income. And that is normally how it is done. The working stiffs earning large incomes are still working.
And ever heard of the Gates foundation?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2023, 03:28:10 PMWhat do you have against Buffet?
Second this comment. Not aware of any support for the proposition that he is a bad person.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/opinion/warren-buffett-billionaire-taxes.html
QuoteWarren Buffett and the Myth of the 'Good Billionaire'
Warren Buffett appears to be the safest kind of billionaire: the good kind. Mr. Buffett is neither Zuckerbergian messiah nor Musky provocateur, neither Bezosist space cadet nor Sacklerian undertaker. He is, or seems to be, quiet, humble, indifferent to money, philanthropic and critical of the system that allowed him to rise. Years ago, a proposed tax increase was named after him.
It's easy for people to think: If only members of the Sackler family were more like Mr. Buffett, imagine how many lives would have been saved. If only the billionaires who haven't signed the Giving Pledge would give away as much as Mr. Buffett has pledged to, imagine the impact on the world. If only more billionaires would make use of the system without feeling the need to pervert it, so many of our troubles would vanish.
So I regret to inform you that Mr. Buffett is actually the most dangerous kind of billionaire we have. The worst billionaires are the Good Billionaires. The sort who make it seem like the problem is the distortion of the system when, in fact, the problem is the system.
Actually malevolent and disastrously negligent plutocrats get most of the attention. And when we hear about these Bad Billionaire exploits, it is possible to conclude from them that the system needs better policing, updated regulations and maybe slightly higher taxes. The system needs to be made to work again.
But as America slouches toward plutocracy, our problem isn't the virtue level of billionaires. It's a set of social arrangements that make it possible for anyone to gain and guard and keep so much wealth, even as millions of others lack for food, work, housing, health, connectivity, education, dignity and the occasion to pursue their happiness.
There is no way to be a billionaire in America without taking advantage of a system predicated on cruelty, a system whose tax code and labor laws and regulatory apparatus prioritize your needs above most people's. Even noted Good Billionaire Mr. Buffett has profited from Coca-Cola's sugary drinks, Amazon's union busting, Chevron's oil drilling, Clayton Homes's predatory loans and, as the country learned recently, the failure to tax billionaires on their wealth.
The Good Billionaire myth took a hard blow in recent days when Mr. Buffett won a dubious distinction. A staggering exposé published by ProPublica revealed just how little the biggest plutocrats pay in taxes, despite mounting piles of wealth. And at the very top of that list of plutocrats — many of them with troubled reputations — was the cleanest, grandfatherliest plutocrat of them all: Mr. Buffett.
ProPublica's story was unusual in that, for once, it was the Good Billionaire at the top of the naughty list. This was helpful, because it served to indict the system that makes him possible, even when it is working perfectly, wholly lawfully.
From 2014 to 2018, Mr. Buffett's wealth soared by $24.3 billion, according to ProPublica. (To underline, this is just the amount the fortune grew.) The amount of taxes Mr. Buffett paid over this period? $23.7 million. If middle-class Americans in their 40s enjoyed such a low effective tax rate, they would have paid a few dozen bucks per household over this same time period. Instead, as the ProPublica story notes, they paid around $62,000.
Imagine if Mr. Buffett had to pay the same fraction of the growth of his net worth that regular people do. Taxing that money could have helped pay for bridge repairs, mammograms, and free day care. More important — and this isn't said enough — there is intrinsic value in shrinking gargantuan fortunes. The sway plutocrats have over public life is inconsistent with a one person, one vote democracy.
The important point here is that Mr. Buffett's tax payments as detailed by ProPublica are fully legal. Though Mr. Buffett has called for changing the tax system, while we have the one we have, he will continue to benefit from the madness of taxing billionaires for their income, rather than their wealth, when their income is pretty much just a number they can construct.
I asked Mr. Buffett last week, via his longtime secretary, Debbie Bosanek, if he could think of even one tax or accounting practice that he has come to regret. Sure, he may have followed the letter of the law. But was there any aspect of his patriotism or humanity that left him feeling guilty for hoarding so much untaxed when regular people pay so much in taxes? Though Ms. Bosanek responded to an initial inquiry, she declined to offer any such examples.
In a long statement last week, Mr. Buffett defended himself by pointing to his long advocacy for a fairer taxation system, and then he immediately told on himself by undermining the very idea of taxes in the same letter. "I believe the money will be of more use to society if disbursed philanthropically than if it is used to slightly reduce an ever-increasing U.S. debt."
In other words: I believe in higher income taxes on people like me, but I'm highly organized to avoid having income to report, and I don't really believe in taxes because I think I should decide how these surplus resources are spent.
And this points to another way in which the Good Billionaire is hard to deal with. The crooks and the scoundrels and the people manifestly looking for quick P.R. highs come to philanthropy for the marketing payoff. When Goldman Sachs announces a new initiative on fighting the racial wealth gap despite having done little to repair the damage it did to Black homeowners in contributing to the 2008 financial meltdown, some may be fooled, but, more and more, many are not.
Supposed Good Billionaires like Mr. Buffett and his friend Bill Gates are more complicated because they give real money. They may benefit from marketing but also seem to many people to be motivated by more than that, and they apply their smarts to the work.
Yet because of this, it is often the Good Billionaires who end up with the most illegitimate influence over public life. No one is asking members of the Sackler family for public health advice. But Mr. Gates has become a major policy voice on vaccines despite holding no elected position. Mr. Buffett, for his part, has shied away from that kind of lane hopping and richsplaining, but in donating his fortune to Mr. Gates's foundation he has pumped up that undemocratic influence.
Mr. Buffett is almost the perfectly made billionaire for this moment in which, at last, many Americans are beginning to question not only corruptions of the system but the matter of whether billionaires should exist at all. He doesn't do the things the worst of them do. He isn't in it for what they're in it for. He clearly must care about money, but he also kind of doesn't care about money. Even in his generosity, he has avoided the imperial lording over that others cannot resist.
And this is what makes him so troubling, because through him we are tempted into believing that a system can be defended that allows a man to accumulate more than $100 billion while people are sleeping, in hock to him, in his mobile homes, shortening their lives with the beverages he's invested in, scampering around the warehouses whose nonunion status has redounded to his money pile.
It can't. And who keeps us from seeing that simple, stark truth more effectively, more perniciously, than the Good Billionaire?
And then a bit more...stridently.:lol:
https://pittnews.com/article/175763/opinions/opinion-there-are-no-ethical-billionaires/amp/
QuoteThere are no ethical billionaires
In a capitalist economy with few limits on how a person can acquire and maintain their wealth, we live with an abundance of billionaires. Social media, news sources and politics constantly bombard us with the idea of "$1 billion" to the extent that we've become numb to it. As a result, the majority of Americans, myself included, fail to properly conceptualize just how much a billion truly is.
Through the typical immoral strategies used to earn and maintain a billion dollars — such as investments in big oil, technology expansion reliant on the abuse of natural resources and manufacturing reliant on the mistreatment of workers — I have recently come to believe that no one can truly be a good person while owning a billion dollars. Not to mention, the understanding that an individual with a billion dollars — in accumulated wealth, assets and investments — actively chooses not to ease the suffering of millions, even billions worldwide, instead hoarding a fortune that is too much for one person to reasonably spend.
In order to understand why a person cannot morally own a billion dollars, one must first understand exactly how much money that truly is. So how much is one billion, really? Here are a few examples to help us conceptualize the amount — a million seconds is roughly equal to eleven days, whereas a billion seconds is roughly equal to 31.5 years. If you had a million dollars and spent $1000 a day, you would run out of money in three years. In contrast, if you had a billion dollars and spent the same amount each day, it would take you 2,740 years to spend your wealth. If you earned $7,000 an hour every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, you'd have a whopping $124 billion by the end of 2022 and would still have made less money than 58-year-old Jeff Bezos — whose estimated net worth is $138.2 billion.
A billion dollars, in reality, is an alarming amount of wealth for one person to earn and maintain. Even while most billionaires dedicate large sums of money to charitable causes and philanthropic organizations, these are small sums in comparison to their overall wealth. Even more, they often use their money to minimally mitigate the large, negative impacts of their own financial practices. Mark Zuckerburg, for example, donates millions each year to combat the housing crisis in Silicon Valley — one that he created himself through mass gentrification.
Even "charitable" billionaires known for donating their fortune to valuable causes are not in the clear ethics-wise. Oprah Winfrey is a great example of this phenomenon, working herself out of poverty and into wealth and fame through the "Oprah Winfrey Show" from 1986 to 2011. The $2.9 billion she's acquired from this show, however, does not go towards entirely ethical expenses. She owns a $42 million private jet and has taken multiple cruises via private yachts worth tens of millions of dollars — both of which are known for their catastrophic carbon emissions. She's also spent over $100 million on property around the world — including in many highly desired locations such as Maui, Hawaii and Montecito, California — which takes away and raises the price of valuable land from working-class, indigenous individuals.
Even while Winfrey has donated hundreds of millions over the years to a number of charitable organizations — from schools in South Africa to the Time's Up campaign — her immense private spending has produced considerable environmental damage while simultaneously exposing the massive fortune she keeps for herself.
While we do exist in a free-market economy and it is not any individual's responsibility to spend their money on others living in poverty and squalor, billionaires have the undeniable power to do something major at little cost to themselves. A billion dollars is far more than a single person needs to survive or even enjoy life. Yet, these individuals continue to perform charitable acts for the public eye while spending the vast majority of their wealth on personal, environmentally destructive means, hoarding insane amounts of money while the majority of individuals on Earth struggle to afford basic necessities.
This is why, as of 2019, the wealthiest 1% of American families own roughly 34% of the country's wealth, whereas the bottom 50% of American families own nearly 2% — all while the wealthiest pay only 25.6% of all taxes.
Furthermore, billionaires exhibit a link between corruption and extreme wealth, often using unethical means to earn and hoard money that others desperately need, simultaneously wielding insane political power in the process. As United States House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once said, "No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars."
Capitalist systems create billionaires by enabling the abuse of others. Jeff Bezos, for example, is known to place his Amazon workers in horrendous conditions in order to maximize their labor, even forcing individuals to skip bathroom breaks in order to keep their jobs.
Billionaires thrive off of the abuse of their workers. They do not make the products they sell themselves — rather, they oversee thousands of workers who create these products for them. In order to turn over a profit of a billion dollars, these workers are, more often than not, underpaid and subject to physical and other abuses. Billionaires make their money off the backs of novel immigrants, minority groups and those living in poverty who are desperate enough for a job that they will accept any pay or conditions if it means a stable wage.
Simultaneously, these billionaires save money by ignoring environmental needs, choosing to leave enormous carbon footprints rather than pay the price for renewable, clean energy and other environmentally friendly practices. Again, Amazon's Jeff Bezos knowingly emitted roughly 71.44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2021 — a powerful greenhouse gas that rapidly warms our planet, causing mass environmental disaster — in 2018 alone. This number is greater than the carbon footprint of many small countries, such as that of Switzerland.
The business models of many billionaires further relies on the concept of overconsumption. This entails lowering prices to increase purchasing demand, consequently manufacturing intentionally low-quality items for the appeal of cheapness. This culture of overconsumption imposed by large, wealthy companies encourages consumers to buy and toss products to their delight, appealing to fast-fashion trends especially.
The resources required to make, package and ship these products all over the world increase as companies such as Amazon sell more and more. The cycle intensifies, repeats, and Jeff Bezos gains money while our climate crisis worsens.
As the wealth gap between rich and poor widens globally each year, billionaires threaten the lives of everyone on Earth. They earn their money by abusing their workers, reaping the planet of its limited resources and paying politicians to keep rules and regulations in their favor. Even seemingly philanthropic and kind billionaires choose to maintain their wealth rather than alleviate the poverty of millions, even if they did acquire their money through seemingly ethical means. It is about time that we all realize — there are no ethical billionaires.
But that does not support your claim he is a bad person. They make the claim the system is deeply flawed.
Buffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.
Those are really weak arguments.
Buffett is a bad person because although he strongly advocates tax laws that would result in a much higher tax burden for himself, he does not deliberately misreport his taxable income to pay higher tax?
Because he has put investor money into oil companies etc. that 98% of Americans who own IRAs and 401ks also invest in (look up the composition of the S&P 500 index)?
That's bullshit. Using the same sort of logic, I will condemn the writer of the NYT piece as evil incarnate, profiting off the newspaper business with its wholesale slaughter of trees, use of printer ink and its toxic chemical by-products, and exploitation of the non-union labor used to produce both.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 09:42:11 AMBuffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.
Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
Quote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 09:54:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 09:42:11 AMBuffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.
Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
See JR's post.
That argument is bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from donating everything you own, but the fact you don't does not make you evil.
Condemning Buffet for not donating 25% or whatever of his wealth to the public treasury every year is the same, stupid logic right-wingers used to attack Bernie over owning a second house.
Quote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 09:54:59 AMNobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe. There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals. Taxation is set by statute. Your share is what the law says it is. If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW. Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness. Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 15, 2023, 10:02:11 AMCondemning Buffet for not donating 25% or whatever of his wealth to the public treasury every year is the same, stupid logic right-wingers used to attack Bernie over owning a second house.
Except that we are talking about entirely different order of magnitude.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 10:10:53 AMWarren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.
It doesn't sound particularly great for democracy that he can have such an outsized voice by virtue of his wealth.
Cynically, it also is less compelling when he's advocating for something that won't actually impact him in his lifetime.
I'm not bought into the argument that being a billionaire automatically makes you a bad person but I do favor policies which would make billionaires non-existent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 09:58:39 AMQuote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 09:54:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 09:42:11 AMBuffet himself has been very public in saying exactly that and imploring politicians to change the system and in particular the tax code.
Nobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
See JR's post.
That argument is bullshit. Nobody is stopping you from donating everything you own, but the fact you don't does not make you evil.
I'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 10:10:53 AMQuote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 09:54:59 AMNobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe. There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals. Taxation is set by statute. Your share is what the law says it is. If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW. Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness. Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.
I know there's no objectively fair share. But we all (Buffett included) know his share definitely isn't fair.
I think him being a strong voice AND setting an example of paying a higher amount (whatever he thinks is a fairer share) is more helpful than just being a voice and being fawned over for his charity donations.
Quote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 11:31:16 AMI'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.
Voluntarily paying taxes is not putting his money where his mouth is. Putting his money where his mouth is would be not lobbying for policies that contradict his stated proposal. Frankly I think this logical fallacy is very destructive to policy debates.
Imagine a different scenario: it's war, and a soldier is arguing that his unit should be attacking. The argument is inextricably linked to everyone attacking. Is it a valid thing to say "well, if you think we should be attacking, put your money where your mouth is, go and attack"? No, of course it wouldn't be valid, it would be very stupid.
Making a personal sacrifice that only hurts you without meaningfully advancing the goal your proposal is meant to achieve is not putting your money where your mouth is, it's just a stupid sacrifice. Buffet donating his money won't materially advance the positive changes his proposals would cause, such as reducing income inequality.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 12:06:42 PMQuote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 11:31:16 AMI'm not argiung he's evil. I'm just unconvinced by him arguing the tax code needs to be revised. He knows full well that's not going to happen anytime soon. He could actually put his money where his mouth is, but he doesn't.
Voluntarily paying taxes is not putting his money where his mouth is. Putting his money where his mouth is would be not lobbying for policies that contradict his stated proposal. Frankly I think this logical fallacy is very destructive to policy debates.
Imagine a different scenario: it's war, and a soldier is arguing that his unit should be attacking. The argument is inextricably linked to everyone attacking. Is it a valid thing to say "well, if you think we should be attacking, put your money where your mouth is, go and attack"? No, of course it wouldn't be valid, it would be very stupid.
Making a personal sacrifice that only hurts you without meaningfully advancing the goal your proposal is meant to achieve is not putting your money where your mouth is, it's just a stupid sacrifice. Buffet donating his money won't materially advance the positive changes his proposals would cause, such as reducing income inequality.
Agreed. This is where the criticism of the right that all the left is doing is engaging in a politics of envy gains some traction.
The debate should be how to create a fair system, not to vilify those who have succeeded within the system we have, while expressing the need for reform of that same system.
@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves. The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?
Quote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 11:37:48 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 10:10:53 AMQuote from: Maladict on September 15, 2023, 09:54:59 AMNobody will stop him from paying his fair share of tax. He chooses not to.
Taxation is not a matter of natural law or of the fundamental reality of the universe. There is no Platonic "fair share of tax" floating around with the other Universals. Taxation is set by statute. Your share is what the law says it is. If the existing law is unfair that is a fault with the LAW. Warren Buffett paying some arbitrary additional amount of money to the US Treasury as opposed to giving it to charity does absolutely nothing to remedy the nature of the unfairness. Warren Buffett being a strong voice to change the law does do something, and something that reflects to his credit.
I know there's no objectively fair share. But we all (Buffett included) know his share definitely isn't fair.
I think him being a strong voice AND setting an example of paying a higher amount (whatever he thinks is a fairer share) is more helpful than just being a voice and being fawned over for his charity donations.
I don't and neither does Buffet. What Buffet has said, and I agree, is that it makes no sense for his employees to pay more in tax then he does.
How are you defining fair here? And how do you define what is a fair share?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 12:12:22 PM@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves. The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?
But I'm coming from the opposite side. There is some level of wealth in our unequal world where you cross into being unethical if you sustain it. The location of that line is debatable. I see a billion as a bright line where you are unambiguously in the unethical category.
From my personal experience, one big knock against Buffett is that companies owned by his conglomerate all seem extremely stingy with expenses. Not prudently stingy, but stingy to the point where you eat the seed corn. I think at some point Buffett started taking pride in his persona as a homeless miser with billions in his sack over his shoulder, and that culture permeates throughout his conglomerate. Just look at the Berkshire Hathaway home page, it just screams "I'm Warren Buffett, I can walk in my pajamas and slippers on the street and you'll think it's a secret to my success, because I'm Warren Buffett".
I have reasons to believe that my experience was not unique to just the particular company I happened to work at. Frankly after that experience, I find it so much harder to take Buffet seriously as he says all the right words at his annual shareholder meetings.
Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2023, 12:40:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 12:12:22 PM@Garbon, the problem with the orders of magnitudes argument is at what point should "wealthy" citizens voluntarily tax themselves. The top .01%, .1%, 1%, 10%, 50% - and on what principled basis do you draw that line?
But I'm coming from the opposite side. There is some level of wealth in our unequal world where you cross into being unethical if you sustain it. The location of that line is debatable. I see a billion as a bright line where you are unambiguously in the unethical category.
Ok, but help me understand why that is a bright line for you. What if someone has a billion dollars in assets, pays their employees well and giving some percentage of that wealth would mean they would have to share their shareholdings and give away control to others who may treat the employees less well.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 12:40:36 PMFrom my personal experience, one big knock against Buffett is that companies owned by his conglomerate all seem extremely stingy with expenses....
Berkshire Hathaway is nominally set up as a conglomerate but it's really a PE fund in corporate form and always has been. It's just that PE firms weren't a big thing in the early 60s but conglomerates were.
Buffett isn't managing companies for stingy spending because he doesn't really manage companies at all. It would be more accurate to say that he has a tendency to favor investing in companies that have tight cost controls, which is not that surprising for a value investor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 08:59:22 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 14, 2023, 04:00:25 PMIt depends on whether it's the same billions I say.
If you've an income hitting such levels then it says a lot about problems with the world but not so much the person. If they're then using this huge income for positive ends then being such a billionaire can be perfectly fine.
Can't think of an example who qualifies though.
Quibble- billionaires become billionaires because of their investments not their income.
A person can become wealthy and never have a large income. And that is normally how it is done. The working stiffs earning large incomes are still working.
And ever heard of the Gates foundation?
Gates would qualify today but he hasn't always been such a positive figure. Gates of the 90s was a complete POS.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 01:08:08 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 12:40:36 PMFrom my personal experience, one big knock against Buffett is that companies owned by his conglomerate all seem extremely stingy with expenses....
Berkshire Hathaway is nominally set up as a conglomerate but it's really a PE fund in corporate form and always has been. It's just that PE firms weren't a big thing in the early 60s but conglomerates were.
Buffett isn't managing companies for stingy spending because he doesn't really manage companies at all. It would be more accurate to say that he has a tendency to favor investing in companies that have tight cost controls, which is not that surprising for a value investor.
I know that this is the general perception of BH: Warren finds good companies with good management, buys them, and lets them continue doing their thing, as long as they continue being good managers. I can't speak to whether that's the case in his consumer goods companies or the like, but I'm pretty sure it's lot more complicated in insurance, which is the industry around which Berkshire Hathaway is built. I'm guessing that there is a strong relationship between being a tightwad manager and being considered an effective manager by the higher-ups at Berkshire Hathaway, and ultimately one way or the other it has to roll up to Buffett.
I think the ethical billionaire would commit a non-trivial amount of their massive wealth - and use their greater-than-average-person societal influence - to change the system to reduce billionairism.
That said, if I had billions I don't know if I'd be able to make myself do that.
I don't think that billionaire's are necessarily inherently bad people as individuals... they may well be nice and kind to the folks around them and so on. But the systemic influence they have is unhealthy for our socieities.
... I guess class warfare is a real thing, it's just that the billionaire class are the ones who are winning.
Quote from: Josquius on September 15, 2023, 01:37:34 PMGates would qualify today but he hasn't always been such a positive figure. Gates of the 90s was a complete POS.
Ok, but assuming I agree with your characterization, Gates in the 90s was not as wealthy as the Gates who set up the Gates Foundation. I don't know when he became a billionaire but I assume it first happened during the tech bubble of the late 90s?
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 02:14:46 PMI think the ethical billionaire would commit a non-trivial amount of their massive wealth - and use their greater-than-average-person societal influence - to change the system to reduce billionairism.
That said, if I had billions I don't know if I'd be able to make myself do that.
I don't think that billionaire's are necessarily inherently bad people as individuals... they may well be nice and kind to the folks around them and so on. But the systemic influence they have is unhealthy for our socieities.
... I guess class warfare is a real thing, it's just that the billionaire class are the ones who are winning.
Yeah. I also think that fundamentally, in our world you cannot have acquired or maintained that level of wealth in a way that is ethical or moral.
I think there's also all degrees of how much we live in and benefit from a social order, while maybe being aware of its negative consequences. It's always incomplete and we all live in the tension, with billionaires they are either choosing to ignore it or benefiting while complaining about it. I don't think "oh God make me chaste, but not yet" is enough given the scale of their benefit from that unjust system.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 01:39:27 PMI know that this is the general perception of BH: Warren finds good companies with good management, buys them, and lets them continue doing their thing, as long as they continue being good managers. I can't speak to whether that's the case in his consumer goods companies or the like, but I'm pretty sure it's lot more complicated in insurance, which is the industry around which Berkshire Hathaway is built. I'm guessing that there is a strong relationship between being a tightwad manager and being considered an effective manager by the higher-ups at Berkshire Hathaway, and ultimately one way or the other it has to roll up to Buffett.
I forgot you were in insurance. :Embarrass:
You may be right about that, he definitely has more substantive knowledge about the insurance business and there may be more direct impact in those business lines.
For those in the billionaire = evil camp, I'm curious - what is the level of wealth that tips someone over into the irredeemably damned? It is only when the 1B threshhold is met? 500M? 100? 10M? Is there an adjustment for local housing costs? Is there a purgatory if one is short of a cool billion but making upward progress from a nine figure base?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 04:38:50 PMFor those in the billionaire = evil camp, I'm curious - what is the level of wealth that tips someone over into the irredeemably damned? It is only when the 1B threshhold is met? 500M? 100? 10M? Is there an adjustment for local housing costs? Is there a purgatory if one is short of a cool billion but making upward progress from a nine figure base?
Already asked and answered.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 02:37:43 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 15, 2023, 01:37:34 PMGates would qualify today but he hasn't always been such a positive figure. Gates of the 90s was a complete POS.
Ok, but assuming I agree with your characterization, Gates in the 90s was not as wealthy as the Gates who set up the Gates Foundation. I don't know when he became a billionaire but I assume it first happened during the tech bubble of the late 90s?
Youngest ever in 1987 Google says. Worlds richest from 95.
And back then and into the 00s I recall him and M$ being quite the villain figures.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 04:38:50 PMFor those in the billionaire = evil camp, I'm curious - what is the level of wealth that tips someone over into the irredeemably damned? It is only when the 1B threshhold is met? 500M? 100? 10M? Is there an adjustment for local housing costs? Is there a purgatory if one is short of a cool billion but making upward progress from a nine figure base?
I don't know but I do notice when managing my mother's affairs that I do end up doing some pretty morally grey stuff in order to do what I believe is my fiduciary responsibility to my family. Raising rents on her properties, dealing with big oil, investments in stuff like Blackrock. Nothing mustache twirling but not exactly making the world a better place either.
It is kind of eye opening how dealing with even a relatively small fortune does at least make you feel a little compromised. I have been thinking about when half of this is just my money what I will do with it. I know people try to do things like ethical investing but my state government tends to not like those kinds of shenanigans.
I can only imagine if I was really trying to aggressively grow this into a billion dollars or something I would have to go even further into even shadier areas.
Quote from: Josquius on September 15, 2023, 01:37:34 PMGates would qualify today but he hasn't always been such a positive figure. Gates of the 90s was a complete POS.
The Andrew Carnegie of the 21st century. Complete monster to make his fortune then beloved philanthropist and public conscience later.
Of course Bill Gates trying to do good made him a force of infinite evil to the right wing conspiracy types. Trying to be ethical with your money enrages right wingers so much.
But in a way I kind of get it. Here is a private person accountable to absolutely nobody out there determining big public questions with just money. That sucks. But they can't say that phenomenon in itself is bad so instead they pretend it is just because some individual people are bad. Having private people accountable to nobody deciding big public questions is great, so long as they do what we want.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2023, 04:26:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 02:14:46 PMI think the ethical billionaire would commit a non-trivial amount of their massive wealth - and use their greater-than-average-person societal influence - to change the system to reduce billionairism.
That said, if I had billions I don't know if I'd be able to make myself do that.
I don't think that billionaire's are necessarily inherently bad people as individuals... they may well be nice and kind to the folks around them and so on. But the systemic influence they have is unhealthy for our socieities.
... I guess class warfare is a real thing, it's just that the billionaire class are the ones who are winning.
Yeah. I also think that fundamentally, in our world you cannot have acquired or maintained that level of wealth in a way that is ethical or moral.
So Boeing stock in a company is unethical? Better dispose of any stock that might bring you over the billion air mark because that will automatically then make you an immoral person. It just makes no sense or at the very least is incredibly arbitrary. Rather than talking about a measure of wealth and try to be quick that to unethical behaviour you're probably better off, naming what the unethical behaviour is. Plenty of poor people act on ethically and immorally.
Wealth, or, rather, the absence of it is not a signifier of an angel. Nor is wealth, or rather the presence of it the signifier of a devil.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2023, 04:26:42 PMYeah. I also think that fundamentally, in our world you cannot have acquired or maintained that level of wealth in a way that is ethical or moral.
Buffet saved and invested. How is that unethical or immoral?
I think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Personally I agree that "investing" - especially at scale - is not inherently value neutral or benign. I don't think it's a given that large scale investing is inherently unethical (are pension funds unethical), but it certainly could be in any number of cases.
I've read an article recently that puts Jerry Seinfeld's net worth at almost a billion dollars, as apparently the residuals for Seinfeld episodes are still astronomically lucrative. Where does he rank on ethics?
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Can you give one or two examples of what you mean?
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 08:03:05 PMI've read an article recently that puts Jerry Seinfeld's net worth at almost a billion dollars, as apparently the residuals for Seinfeld episodes are still astronomically lucrative. Where does he rank on ethics?
I dunno about his ethics...but what I have seen of his personal life/behavior, he seems like a bit of a dick.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 15, 2023, 08:13:25 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 15, 2023, 08:03:05 PMI've read an article recently that puts Jerry Seinfeld's net worth at almost a billion dollars, as apparently the residuals for Seinfeld episodes are still astronomically lucrative. Where does he rank on ethics?
I dunno about his ethics...but what I have seen of his personal life/behavior, he seems like a bit of a dick.
He's a comedian, they're all self loathing dicks. It's where the funny comes from.
Although i think he also likes them young, which is less forgivable
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2023, 08:09:04 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Can you give one or two examples of what you mean?
You could invest in a jade mine that employs slave labour.
You could invest in a company whose business model is based on creating and fuelling an opioid addiction crisis.
You could invest in a company pursuing lucrative contracts with the Russian military, enabling their genocidal war against Ukraine.
You could invest in a company that squeezes an extra 5% profit margin by accelerating Amazonian deforestation, including facilitating extrajudicial killings of activists and indigenous people.
You could invest in a company that generates revenue by monetizing child pornography, trafficking, and serial abuse and refuses to take steps against those things as it would threaten profits.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 09:06:44 PM<snip>
So to be clear, this means every billionaire owns companies, or shares in companies that engage in these practices or similar practices?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2023, 07:14:29 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2023, 04:26:42 PMYeah. I also think that fundamentally, in our world you cannot have acquired or maintained that level of wealth in a way that is ethical or moral.
Buffet saved and invested. How is that unethical or immoral?
Capitalism is immoral.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 09:06:44 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 15, 2023, 08:09:04 PMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Can you give one or two examples of what you mean?
You could invest in a jade mine that employs slave labour.
You could invest in a company whose business model is based on creating and fuelling an opioid addiction crisis.
You could invest in a company pursuing lucrative contracts with the Russian military, enabling their genocidal war against Ukraine.
You could invest in a company that squeezes an extra 5% profit margin by accelerating Amazonian deforestation, including facilitating extrajudicial killings of activists and indigenous people.
You could invest in a company that generates revenue by monetizing child pornography, trafficking, and serial abuse and refuses to take steps against those things as it would threaten profits.
You could, but what if you don't, how does that affect the theory that having a billion dollars of assets automatically make someone a bad person?
In other words your claim relies upon an assumption that there is no ethical way to create the wealth.
What about the next generation of billionaires who make their wealth generating green energy, mitigating or reversing climate change. Still horrible people?
Yes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
So if you won the lottery you'd give the extra cash away? :P
"Too much money is only a thing when you're paying it, or someone else is making it." :D
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
That line appeals more to my sensibilities more than one billion.
I'm wondering if you have any concrete thinking supporting that as the optimal line of wealth distribution.
Not trying to trap you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 12:14:50 PMHow are you defining fair here? And how do you define what is a fair share?
A burden that is distributed in proportion to the strength of the shoulders carrying it.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
Sounds reasonable though everything is perhaps a bit much. I'd probably do more of a tapering off of taxes into silly money so north of there you're on over 90%.
If these mega rich people are being taxed then there's no issue with them pursuing profits.
Though more than this of course the problem is in tackling worth beyond base income. The truly rich don't care about such things. I don't understand enough of taxes to begin to think of a solution there.
Interesting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
It's a difficult question. People like Gates or Bezos, when it's not hindsight but in the flow of things how do you judge it's time to stop the behaviours which have brought you success? When to say OK I am stopping hiring people, I am stopping growing I am stopping investing, and of course yes I am stopping eliminating competitors.
So I am not keen on grabbing pitchforks but on the other hand undue influence on society by powerful actors and the fight against this has been a common theme through history, and we should not ignore this danger just because it's exact form is new and the least violent so far.
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2023, 02:53:12 AMQuote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
It's a difficult question. People like Gates or Bezos, when it's not hindsight but in the flow of things how do you judge it's time to stop the behaviours which have brought you success? When to say OK I am stopping hiring people, I am stopping growing I am stopping investing, and of course yes I am stopping eliminating competitors.
So I am not keen on grabbing pitchforks but on the other hand undue influence on society by powerful actors and the fight against this has been a common theme through history, and we should not ignore this danger just because it's exact form is new and the least violent so far.
Yes, a good point, maybe we've been lucky that Gates is ploughing his money into real human development, but we shouldn't be replying on the off-chance that hugely powerful individuals will choose to spend their resources, political and financial, on 'good causes'.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Sadly I am nowhere near 1 billion or even 10 million. A boy can still dream I guess.
I have professionally encountered real and fake billionaires though. Plenty of sons of a bitches but some OK. In that sense very much like the non-billionaires.
Trump reminding ungrateful liberal Jews to vote correctly next time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DvNZ5YcP/image.png)
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Personally I agree that "investing" - especially at scale - is not inherently value neutral or benign. I don't think it's a given that large scale investing is inherently unethical (are pension funds unethical), but it certainly could be in any number of cases.
Yeah I don't think it's about individual's morality or ethics, or a magic number that they cross, or even necessarily how they made their money. It's more like I don't think you could describe a lord in medieval or early modern Europe, or a gentleman in the 18-19th century as moral or ethical. If you don't think the system is ethical or moral, which I don't, then I think you inevitably say that the winners can't be. I also think people have that sense when you read about, say, a Nigerian or Indian or Chinese billionaire that there is a scepticism - perhaps with some justification. I'm just not sure that our billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism are significantly different or better - or that that level of wealth can be acquired or maintained without similar compromises.
And the reality is that this is, because of the nature of the world as it is (and as in every other period in human history), that we are all, to some extent, involved. I always think of that Walter Benjamin line that there is "no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism". The billionaires can perhaps live a life less entangled with those documents or artifacts, but are, perhaps perversely, more directly implicated in the barbarism.
I'd add that I also don't have a huge amount of sympathy with them giving away large sums. First and most obviously it is very good from a tax perspective. But also I think it plays into their own mythos of men who deserve and have earned that wealth through their talent or genius - and can apply that to solve x problem, but also know better how to use that wealth than a democratic, social process would. I think Bankman-Fried and the whole "effective altruism" thing are an example of that, but also even Gates. I have a friend in malaria research and while it is absolutely very, very good it has also queered the pitch in that research is aimed at what can get funding from the Gates Foundation which may be missing other avenues.
I think it's not a million miles from the sort of technopopulism of Bloomberg (which I think Trump is also linked to becase he plays a billionaire on TV) democratic processes and the messy reality of politics is the problem - a genius businessman applying their business nous to politics/global development/ending x disease is the solution.
Also not to get too much into therapising them :lol: But I think the altruism is an attempt to mitigate their soul - no different than patronage of a different age from Carnegie Hall to the Medicis to a noble paying to establish an almshouse. And ultimately they're in control of whatever philanthropic project they launch.
Quote from: Maladict on September 16, 2023, 09:15:22 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2023, 12:14:50 PMHow are you defining fair here? And how do you define what is a fair share?
A burden that is distributed in proportion to the strength of the shoulders carrying it.
Ok, now define those things
Quote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
I don't agree with zoupas formula, but under his scenario the government would now have billions of dollars more to fight climate change.
Quote from: HVC on September 18, 2023, 09:21:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
I don't agree with zoupas formula, but under his scenario the government would now have billions of dollars more to fight climate change.
Also surely this investment comes from companies not individuals?
Which is another problem with enforcement really. Won't the rich just hide wealth with fake companies. We already see this even on a considerably smaller cash level- but then tightening up companies law is something that needs to be done for other reasons.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2023, 09:08:44 AMour billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism
Who do billionaires kill and eat? Since by implication all of us are predators, who do we all kill and eat?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 09:35:09 AMUh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.
Unfettered capitalism has had some company. Like state owned utilities in China.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 09:35:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.
Climate change was well under way in non capitalist countries.
Quote from: viper37 on September 18, 2023, 11:29:10 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 09:35:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.
Climate change was well under way in non capitalist countries.
Even in capitalist countries a lot of emissions come from industries that are pretty heavily regulated - transportation, energy production, agriculture, heavy industry, etc. It's just that until recently we've done very little to regulate those sectors regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Now I'm not arguing that all we need to do is remove regulations and the private sector will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it's childish and naive to argue that "unfetterd capitalism" is the cause of the climate crises.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 09:35:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 09:19:34 AMQuote from: Zoupa on September 15, 2023, 10:28:13 PMYes.
Once you're worth 10 million, my totally made-up but personal threshold, that's it, you get a gold star, bravo, you win capitalism, every extra dollar goes to the state.
But think about the impact of what you're proposing. It's going to take a massive investment to solve climate change, and that sort of investment is not going to come from government. Once you rule out any massive investment, which in turn will create billionaires, you doom us to the status quo.
Uh what? Unfettered capitalism brought us climate change. Let's try something new.
The uh what is contained in my post that he was responding to. It might have made more sense if he had included my post in his response.
So a couple of points to clarify, I don't think anyone here is arguing for unfettered capitalism. If you wish to say that nobody can have assets over 10 million, that means that the private sector will never be able to amass the capital investments that are going to have to be raised to both mitigate the effects of climate change and scale up the production of the methods that are being developed to remove carbon and other greenhouse gases from the atmoshere.
While it might make people feel better to vilify those who become wealthy through such investments, you probably also want those investments to be made.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Unending? You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?
Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made. In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time. There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success.
Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.
What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question. But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 11:57:40 AMQuote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Unending? You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?
Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made. In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time. There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success.
Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.
What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question. But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.
I'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 12:04:07 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 11:57:40 AMQuote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Unending? You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?
Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made. In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time. There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success.
Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.
What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question. But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.
I'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions. :huh:
I don't follow. If you win the big lottery in the US, are you a bad person the next day?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 12:48:23 PMQuote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 12:04:07 PMI'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions. :huh:
I don't follow. If you win the big lottery in the US, are you a bad person the next day?
I think you'd find behind any and all successful people there are varying degrees of both hard work and luck. Bill Gates was by all accounts a smart programmer and businessman, but he was in the right lace at the right time to be able to sell DOS to IBM.
I didn't study philosophy in university (other than a single formal logic course) - I was a science guy. But in law school I did take a course in Jurisprudence, which was really a legal philosophy class. It was perhaps my favourite class of all time - it was taught in the staff lounge and the professor brought wine. :D
But anyways, two of the thinkers that were taught (and contrasted) were John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Garbon is taking a very Rawlsian-type position, that we ought to try and structure society so that luck doesn't play much of a role. CC is taking a position similar to Nozick that as long as the steps taken to get to the society are all considered fair, then the ultimate result is also fair even if there are disparities in the end.
Obviously that's a gross simplification. But this is a debate long-argued.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2023, 12:57:56 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 12:48:23 PMQuote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 12:04:07 PMI'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions. :huh:
I don't follow. If you win the big lottery in the US, are you a bad person the next day?
I think you'd find behind any and all successful people there are varying degrees of both hard work and luck. Bill Gates was by all accounts a smart programmer and businessman, but he was in the right lace at the right time to be able to sell DOS to IBM.
I didn't study philosophy in university (other than a single formal logic course) - I was a science guy. But in law school I did take a course in Jurisprudence, which was really a legal philosophy class. It was perhaps my favourite class of all time - it was taught in the staff lounge and the professor brought wine. :D
But anyways, two of the thinkers that were taught (and contrasted) were John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Garbon is taking a very Rawlsian-type position, that we ought to try and structure society so that luck doesn't play much of a role. CC is taking a position similar to Nozick that as long as the steps taken to get to the society are all considered fair, then the ultimate result is also fair even if there are disparities in the end.
Obviously that's a gross simplification. But this is a debate long-argued.
Actually I think my position is entirely in line with Rawls. The system works best when the winners are not predetermined and upward mobility is not only possible but likely.
Rawls never suggested luck plays no part in success nor that there should be no disparities. Rather he argued, to the extent anyone can discern what he meant in practice, that the system be fair.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 12:48:23 PMQuote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 12:04:07 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 11:57:40 AMQuote from: mongers on September 16, 2023, 04:12:39 PMInteresting that two of the wealthiest people on this forum are defending the unending pursuit of vast quantities of assets. :hmm:
Unending? You realize the debate is over the claim that all billionaires are by definition bad people?
Some of us here, more than two, have worked with people who were or who became billionaires because of the investments they have made. In my experience all were just lucky that what they were working on caught fire and they were in the right place at the right time. There are a lot more people for whom investments and business ideas they had went nowhere or had moderate success.
Our system depends on taking the chance that something might work, despite the odds that most things don't work out.
What we do in terms of taxing that wealth is a separate question. But no one has yet put forward a good argument for why someone who acts ethically throughout and just has a great idea that becomes very successful, by definition becomes a bad person because, by virtue of their shareholding in the company they start to develop their idea, they become wealthy.
I'm not sure how we can given your starting principle that some people just luck themselves into billions. :huh:
I don't follow. If you win the big lottery in the US, are you a bad person the next day?
No I began this by saying sustained wealth.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 02:02:46 PMNo I began this by saying sustained wealth.
Ok, another hypothetical then. Let's say you win 500 million, are concerned about climate change and so invest all of that money into various companies looking for financing to develop tech which will save us all. You have the good fortune that one of those companies develops a technology that will be very helpful and can be rapidly scaled up - bingo you become very wealthy. But you see more needs to be done, so you reinvest in other ventures that will save us all and you help even more companies succeed. You keep rinsing and repeating.
Are you still a bad person?
A clarification on my previous post: when I wrote unfettered capitalism, I was mostly referring to the cost of polluting being zero for the polluter, for hundreds of years and in 99% of cases. Even today, the fines slapped by regulatory agencies are laughable.
Those regulatory agencies have either dropped the ball, been defanged or have always been irrelevant, and I draw a direct link between late-stage capitalism and the undermining of those agencies. The environment has always been an afterthought, because profit is the numero uno priority now and forever. And that includes state-owned entities nominally non-capitalist.
As to the private sector, why on earth would we think salvation could come from there? There is no money to be made in carbon capture, which is the only real way to stop the cascade. There certainly is no money to be made in reducing emissions.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 02:26:15 PMA clarification on my previous post: when I wrote unfettered capitalism, I was mostly referring to the cost of polluting being zero for the polluter, for hundreds of years and in 99% of cases. Even today, the fines slapped by regulatory agencies are laughable.
Those regulatory agencies have either dropped the ball, been defanged or have always been irrelevant, and I draw a direct link between late-stage capitalism and the undermining of those agencies. The environment has always been an afterthought, because profit is the numero uno priority now and forever. And that includes state-owned entities nominally non-capitalist.
As to the private sector, why on earth would we think salvation could come from there? There is no money to be made in carbon capture, which is the only real way to stop the cascade. There certainly is no money to be made in reducing emissions.
No argument with your first two paragraphs.
As to your third paragraph, there is lots of money that is now being made and that will be made in relation to both reducing and eliminating emmissions. Why do you think there isn't, and how do you explain the growth of all the companies who have developed and continue to develop power generated by non fossil fuels? Its big business.
The main goal is making lower emissions profitable. Once you do that, you see pretty dramatic growth. I can point to the explosion in renewable energy in Texas as an example.
From what I could google, renewables accounted for 11% of energy consumed in 2019. It's too little too late, and it's not going to magically reach 100 % by 2030 even if there's a buck to be made there. China is still opening dozens of coal plants, and we're still subsidizing fossil-fuels and approving new pipelines, drilling etc. It's stupid.
The built-in CO2 infrastructure and upcoming releases are IMO insurmountable. We're not able or willing to reduce emissions in a significant way, so let's science our way out of this by carbon capture is the only way to somehow mitigate the apocalypse.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 02:09:58 PMQuote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 02:02:46 PMNo I began this by saying sustained wealth.
Ok, another hypothetical then. Let's say you win 500 million, are concerned about climate change and so invest all of that money into various companies looking for financing to develop tech which will save us all. You have the good fortune that one of those companies develops a technology that will be very helpful and can be rapidly scaled up - bingo you become very wealthy. But you see more needs to be done, so you reinvest in other ventures that will save us all and you help even more companies succeed. You keep rinsing and repeating.
Are you still a bad person?
I guess in this hypothetical it depends what you are doing with the earnings. Are you actually investing all of that back into other ventures or are you keeping a good portion to live a fabulously wealthy lifestyle?
Anyway my statement wasn't based on hypotheticals but the reality of our world today. I think Sheilbh's post bears repeating as that's a well stated argument that I'm sympathetic to. I don't think we have a world where people innocently come into and maintain great amounts of wealth where they have fellow citizens who are struggling to meet basic human needs (and ofen failing).
I personally feel implicated when I think about my standard of living versus those of my neighbors in my largely working class (though due to be displaced) neighborhood. And I don't have an obscene amount of wealth that I could never manage to spend in multiple lifetimes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2023, 09:08:44 AMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Personally I agree that "investing" - especially at scale - is not inherently value neutral or benign. I don't think it's a given that large scale investing is inherently unethical (are pension funds unethical), but it certainly could be in any number of cases.
Yeah I don't think it's about individual's morality or ethics, or a magic number that they cross, or even necessarily how they made their money. It's more like I don't think you could describe a lord in medieval or early modern Europe, or a gentleman in the 18-19th century as moral or ethical. If you don't think the system is ethical or moral, which I don't, then I think you inevitably say that the winners can't be. I also think people have that sense when you read about, say, a Nigerian or Indian or Chinese billionaire that there is a scepticism - perhaps with some justification. I'm just not sure that our billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism are significantly different or better - or that that level of wealth can be acquired or maintained without similar compromises.
And the reality is that this is, because of the nature of the world as it is (and as in every other period in human history), that we are all, to some extent, involved. I always think of that Walter Benjamin line that there is "no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism". The billionaires can perhaps live a life less entangled with those documents or artifacts, but are, perhaps perversely, more directly implicated in the barbarism.
I'd add that I also don't have a huge amount of sympathy with them giving away large sums. First and most obviously it is very good from a tax perspective. But also I think it plays into their own mythos of men who deserve and have earned that wealth through their talent or genius - and can apply that to solve x problem, but also know better how to use that wealth than a democratic, social process would. I think Bankman-Fried and the whole "effective altruism" thing are an example of that, but also even Gates. I have a friend in malaria research and while it is absolutely very, very good it has also queered the pitch in that research is aimed at what can get funding from the Gates Foundation which may be missing other avenues.
I think it's not a million miles from the sort of technopopulism of Bloomberg (which I think Trump is also linked to becase he plays a billionaire on TV) democratic processes and the messy reality of politics is the problem - a genius businessman applying their business nous to politics/global development/ending x disease is the solution.
Also not to get too much into therapising them :lol: But I think the altruism is an attempt to mitigate their soul - no different than patronage of a different age from Carnegie Hall to the Medicis to a noble paying to establish an almshouse. And ultimately they're in control of whatever philanthropic project they launch.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 02:26:15 PMA clarification on my previous post: when I wrote unfettered capitalism, I was mostly referring to the cost of polluting being zero for the polluter, for hundreds of years and in 99% of cases. Even today, the fines slapped by regulatory agencies are laughable.
Those regulatory agencies have either dropped the ball, been defanged or have always been irrelevant, and I draw a direct link between late-stage capitalism and the undermining of those agencies. The environment has always been an afterthought, because profit is the numero uno priority now and forever. And that includes state-owned entities nominally non-capitalist.
As to the private sector, why on earth would we think salvation could come from there? There is no money to be made in carbon capture, which is the only real way to stop the cascade. There certainly is no money to be made in reducing emissions.
Zoupa, you're quite right in that for a long time air pollution has been a classic "tragedy of the commons" scenario, with zero consequence. While other forms of pollution have largely come under control in the west (remember how we took care of the ozone layer! :yeah:) that is still largely the case with greenhouse gasses. But we're working on it.
You kind of out yourself with the term "late stage capitalism" however.
It's a shame the world turned its back on nuclear .
Where is the brain, btw?
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2023, 03:22:00 PMYou kind of out yourself with the term "late stage capitalism" however.
I mean, have you forgotten what my profile picture is? :P
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 03:00:28 PMFrom what I could google, renewables accounted for 11% of energy consumed in 2019. It's too little too late,
It is certainly dramatically higher than what we could have reasonably expected say in 2007.
QuoteThe built-in CO2 infrastructure and upcoming releases are IMO insurmountable. We're not able or willing to reduce emissions in a significant way, so let's science our way out of this by carbon capture is the only way to somehow mitigate the apocalypse.
I agree carbon capture if going to have a play a big role. If we end up solving this problem it will be a combination of things.
Quote from: HVC on September 18, 2023, 03:25:02 PMIt's a shame the world turned its back on nuclear .
It is enormously expensive.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 03:00:28 PMFrom what I could google, renewables accounted for 11% of energy consumed in 2019. It's too little too late, and it's not going to magically reach 100 % by 2030 even if there's a buck to be made there. China is still opening dozens of coal plants, and we're still subsidizing fossil-fuels and approving new pipelines, drilling etc. It's stupid.
The built-in CO2 infrastructure and upcoming releases are IMO insurmountable. We're not able or willing to reduce emissions in a significant way, so let's science our way out of this by carbon capture is the only way to somehow mitigate the apocalypse.
OK, but if what you are proposing is that we should do nothing because you have no hope that it will work, you and I will just fundamentally disagree.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 03:08:59 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2023, 02:09:58 PMQuote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 02:02:46 PMNo I began this by saying sustained wealth.
Ok, another hypothetical then. Let's say you win 500 million, are concerned about climate change and so invest all of that money into various companies looking for financing to develop tech which will save us all. You have the good fortune that one of those companies develops a technology that will be very helpful and can be rapidly scaled up - bingo you become very wealthy. But you see more needs to be done, so you reinvest in other ventures that will save us all and you help even more companies succeed. You keep rinsing and repeating.
Are you still a bad person?
I guess in this hypothetical it depends what you are doing with the earnings. Are you actually investing all of that back into other ventures or are you keeping a good portion to live a fabulously wealthy lifestyle?
Anyway my statement wasn't based on hypotheticals but the reality of our world today. I think Sheilbh's post bears repeating as that's a well stated argument that I'm sympathetic to. I don't think we have a world where people innocently come into and maintain great amounts of wealth where they have fellow citizens who are struggling to meet basic human needs (and ofen failing).
I personally feel implicated when I think about my standard of living versus those of my neighbors in my largely working class (though due to be displaced) neighborhood. And I don't have an obscene amount of wealth that I could never manage to spend in multiple lifetimes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 18, 2023, 09:08:44 AMQuote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 07:56:24 PMI think the point being made is that "investing" can potentially include perpetuating or amplifying exploitative and unethical activities - and once this is done at the scale of billionaires it is inevitable.
Personally I agree that "investing" - especially at scale - is not inherently value neutral or benign. I don't think it's a given that large scale investing is inherently unethical (are pension funds unethical), but it certainly could be in any number of cases.
Yeah I don't think it's about individual's morality or ethics, or a magic number that they cross, or even necessarily how they made their money. It's more like I don't think you could describe a lord in medieval or early modern Europe, or a gentleman in the 18-19th century as moral or ethical. If you don't think the system is ethical or moral, which I don't, then I think you inevitably say that the winners can't be. I also think people have that sense when you read about, say, a Nigerian or Indian or Chinese billionaire that there is a scepticism - perhaps with some justification. I'm just not sure that our billionaires who are the apex predators of global capitalism are significantly different or better - or that that level of wealth can be acquired or maintained without similar compromises.
And the reality is that this is, because of the nature of the world as it is (and as in every other period in human history), that we are all, to some extent, involved. I always think of that Walter Benjamin line that there is "no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism". The billionaires can perhaps live a life less entangled with those documents or artifacts, but are, perhaps perversely, more directly implicated in the barbarism.
I'd add that I also don't have a huge amount of sympathy with them giving away large sums. First and most obviously it is very good from a tax perspective. But also I think it plays into their own mythos of men who deserve and have earned that wealth through their talent or genius - and can apply that to solve x problem, but also know better how to use that wealth than a democratic, social process would. I think Bankman-Fried and the whole "effective altruism" thing are an example of that, but also even Gates. I have a friend in malaria research and while it is absolutely very, very good it has also queered the pitch in that research is aimed at what can get funding from the Gates Foundation which may be missing other avenues.
I think it's not a million miles from the sort of technopopulism of Bloomberg (which I think Trump is also linked to becase he plays a billionaire on TV) democratic processes and the messy reality of politics is the problem - a genius businessman applying their business nous to politics/global development/ending x disease is the solution.
Also not to get too much into therapising them :lol: But I think the altruism is an attempt to mitigate their soul - no different than patronage of a different age from Carnegie Hall to the Medicis to a noble paying to establish an almshouse. And ultimately they're in control of whatever philanthropic project they launch.
Well, then, your mind is made up and there's no point discussing it. You claim that you were arguing the real world example, but there are plenty of real world examples of entrepreneurs who have built their wealth in non nefarious ways.
You appear to simply be arguing from, and in result and ignoring any other contract examples in order to make a very broad statement about a whole group of people that cannot possibly be true for each of them. It is simplistic populist rhetoric that gets us nowhere and adds next to nothing to the political discourse. We actually need to have in order to get to the point where we have a properly structured and regulated system.
In summary, it's just way too easy to say that wealthy people are evil maniacal beings that do no good. Without court sort of simplistic analysis, you get the equally nonsensical proposal that will should be kept at some arbitrary number. If you want to talk about the real world, real world, enterprises don't work that way.
I suspect that the biggest disconnect is that early on in this thread, people are making a mistake of a equating a large income with wealth. Some of the poorest people I know have large incomes. They just spend it all and go deeper and deeper into debt.
:yawn:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 03:00:28 PMFrom what I could google, renewables accounted for 11% of energy consumed in 2019. It's too little too late, and it's not going to magically reach 100 % by 2030 even if there's a buck to be made there. China is still opening dozens of coal plants, and we're still subsidizing fossil-fuels and approving new pipelines, drilling etc. It's stupid.
The built-in CO2 infrastructure and upcoming releases are IMO insurmountable. We're not able or willing to reduce emissions in a significant way, so let's science our way out of this by carbon capture is the only way to somehow mitigate the apocalypse.
I don't understand how you can start off by saying the root cause of global warming is unfettered capitalism and use the fact that China isn't doing enough as proof.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2023, 04:14:07 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 03:00:28 PMFrom what I could google, renewables accounted for 11% of energy consumed in 2019. It's too little too late, and it's not going to magically reach 100 % by 2030 even if there's a buck to be made there. China is still opening dozens of coal plants, and we're still subsidizing fossil-fuels and approving new pipelines, drilling etc. It's stupid.
The built-in CO2 infrastructure and upcoming releases are IMO insurmountable. We're not able or willing to reduce emissions in a significant way, so let's science our way out of this by carbon capture is the only way to somehow mitigate the apocalypse.
I don't understand how you can start off by saying the root cause of global warming is unfettered capitalism and use the fact that China isn't doing enough as proof.
China is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 04:24:40 PMChina is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
They sure seem to be fond of the one party idea.
I would describe China's economy as mixed (like France's).
It would make more sense to me if you were to say economic growth and rising incomes created global warming regardless of economic system.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 04:24:40 PMChina is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
It feels like your definition of capitalism is "things I don't like".
The Winnipeg Jets are the linchpin of capitalism :sleep:
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2023, 04:41:19 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 04:24:40 PMChina is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
It feels like your definition of capitalism is "things I don't like".
That's not really answering the question.
China is undoubtedly capitalist.
Its an old inaccuracy in cold war language to see democracy and capitalism as linked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 09:04:04 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2023, 03:28:10 PMWhat do you have against Buffet?
Second this comment. Not aware of any support for the proposition that he is a bad person.
His diet is atrocious. Cherry Coke drinkers are the worst.
Quote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 01:42:12 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 18, 2023, 04:41:19 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 04:24:40 PMChina is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
It feels like your definition of capitalism is "things I don't like".
That's not really answering the question.
China is undoubtedly capitalist.
Its an old inaccuracy in cold war language to see democracy and capitalism as linked.
Not just Cold War but end of history too. Liberal democracies with market capitalist economics that were, broadly, being integrated. There was no ideological alternative.
I think it's why we can see that phase is ending, but not necessarily what will come next (not least because we have an idea of the perspective of western powers, but it isn't solely in their hands).
Obvs I know I'm alone on this but I also think China is communist, or Marxist-Leninist, and that it's really key to China's politics and system. They don't have the same biases, instincts or vulnerabilities precisely because the leadership have a different ideological framework for interpreting the world. On the Cold War part of me wonders the extent to which todays confrontation emerges from that - the US won in Europe, but having never got more than a stalemate in Asia is facing a new phase after a period of detente? :hmm:
Quote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 01:42:12 AMChina is undoubtedly capitalist.
They are mixed. Undoubtedly X infinity.
Quote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 01:42:12 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 18, 2023, 04:41:19 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 18, 2023, 04:24:40 PMChina is in many ways the linchpin of our current, late-stage capitalism. Do you honestly think that China pursues communist economic ideology today? Or any time since Deng?
It feels like your definition of capitalism is "things I don't like".
That's not really answering the question.
China is undoubtedly capitalist.
Its an old inaccuracy in cold war language to see democracy and capitalism as linked.
:huh:
Undoubtedly capitalist? Add capitalism to the list of words that have lost all meaning I guess.
:console:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2023, 11:55:35 AMThe ignorance of this forum today is really hard to take.
I'd say it's about average for languish :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2023, 11:55:35 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 05:57:32 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2023, 05:56:06 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 01:42:12 AMChina is undoubtedly capitalist.
They are mixed. Undoubtedly X infinity.
Like every country in the world.
The ignorance of this forum today is really hard to take.
Sounds like you're quite ignorant on this one if you can't recognise this obvious fact.
Even Somalia and Afghanistan have a limited public sector.
Quote from: Josquius on September 19, 2023, 12:33:32 PMSounds like you're quite ignorant on this one if you can't recognise this obvious fact.
Even Somalia and Afghanistan have a limited public sector.
A simple definition of a mixed economy is that some economic activities are privately owned and some are publicly owned. On a very superficial level China meets that definition, and for a while it looked like they might even become a mixed economy with actually private ownership of corporate interests. But of course that was not to be. China went hard authoritarian, jailed or disappeared corporate leaders the party did not like etc.
The state owned part of mixed economy is obvious enough, but I think where you could become a little more sophisticated in your analysis is what private ownership actually means. In the G7 private ownership is protected by the Rule of Law. I grant you that it is diminishing in the G7 as well, but at least we have not reached to stage of authoritarianism (and the associated corruption) that defines business relations in China today.
I don't think it is necessary to engage in a terminological debate about "capitalism" and exactly how the special Chinese case fits or doesn't fit the definition.
The claim that the problems associated with global warming lies with "unfettered capitalism" is a claim that the cause of the problem is the relatively free operation of private capital without sufficient policy restraint.
As applied specifically to the 21st century PRC, that claim does not carry because although the PRC has a market based economy, the key decisions on energy and transport are made by the state and the Party. And that impact has cut two ways. On the one hand, the Party has pursued a development-oriented policy emphasizing raising energy consumption and thus coal. That has clearly been a policy decision from the Party with state entities in the lead. On the other hand, the Party also seems to concerned about the potential impact of warming given the population concentration in low lying coastal areas and thus has also heavily directed investment into batteries, solar, and green tech.
Hypothetically, a counterfactual true capitalist PRC would probably end up roughly in the same place: capital constraints might have slowed the breakneck expansion of energy expansion but green tech development might have been slower as well. As for a hypothetical true Communist regime, both the Stalinist and Maoist models were not exactly known for environmental concerns. Such a regime would have attempted to do worse in terms of pursuing energy output at all costs, but perhaps not resulted in a worse outcome due to its failure to achieve the targets.
Arguments about capitalism IMO miss the point. We are where we are because:
1) In the developing world, even those countries facing potentially stark consequences from climate change have tended to privilege expanding energy access to the mass population over carbon control. The PRC and India being the largest in size but hardly the only examples.
2) In the developed world, democratic political regimes have failed to convince their populations to make economic trade offs needed to achieve the carbon reductions required. I don't buy that this outcome is entirely or even principally because of capitalist propaganda, but because the mass of the people simply aren't willing to sacrifice present gain for future insurance.
These are consequences of political choices, and focusing on abstractions like capitalism IMO distract from the relevant concerns.
Trump found guilty in a New York court of inflating his ego to 3.6 billion.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2023, 03:08:59 PMAnyway my statement wasn't based on hypotheticals but the reality of our world today. I think Sheilbh's post bears repeating as that's a well stated argument that I'm sympathetic to. I don't think we have a world where people innocently come into and maintain great amounts of wealth where they have fellow citizens who are struggling to meet basic human needs (and ofen failing).
I personally feel implicated when I think about my standard of living versus those of my neighbors in my largely working class (though due to be displaced) neighborhood. And I don't have an obscene amount of wealth that I could never manage to spend in multiple lifetimes.
Yeah. I think climate is definitely part of it and I agree on the experience of living at the cutting edge of gentrification in a big city on a professional's wage. But the example I always think of with Benamin's fragments in mind is that I, like everyone here I imagine, own devices which include materials mined by children in unimaginable conditions and that fuels some of the world's longest running conflict. Not only that but because of my brand preference it is assembled in a work unit in China of the type that was locked down during their zero covid policies to prevent workers from leaving.
On the one hand they are absolutely artifacts of progress and civilisation that have changed the world for the better. On the other, you read anything about their material build and it is barbarism. We are enmeshed and even energy transition won't end that - again it's going to require lots of those materials, but also other more "benign" ones like copper that are going to be essential but wherever they've been mined in the past leave environmental and social degradation.
My point is simply if that's the position of a consumer albeit a comfortable one then I think billionaires are likely to be more implicated however many indulgences they buy. On that I'd add that as well as my other criticisms of these "trusts" and "foundations", they're nothing new - there's a long history of people with extreme wealth and reforming instincts attempting to solve social issues or resolve poverty etc. There's a reason we don't remember any of those 19th century attempts - because they didn't work. You need the scale and the power of the state. They'd arguably be better for their own reputation and human legacy just getting back into old school patronage and building a few concert halls - those legacies last.
QuoteI don't think it is necessary to engage in a terminological debate about "capitalism" and exactly how the special Chinese case fits or doesn't fit the definition.
I agree but also I think it is too focused on the "how" (and I think this is symptomatic of a wider issue). There is a tick list of features of different social or economic models. I think those economic models structure what a society does and what it can do. But the bit that's missing from the "China's just capitalist now" point is the "why" - what are the goals, what is the Chinese state trying to do, what is it working towards and what shapes that. Putting big picture questions about China aside I find the idea that Deng Xiaoping, with his biography, ended up being "capitalist" slightly inane but that is where that check list leads you.
And I think that's where ideology matters. Politics is in the service of social and economic goals, shaped by ideology and at some point it feels like a lot of western conversations about politics has sort of flipped all of that. So our social and political goals are subordinated to our politics. But also, I think we've maybe lost the imagination that you need when facing a genuine ideological opponent - like the USSR, or fascism etc. I think we currently too often think difference is actually just a bagatelle or a performance.
The heritage, the myths, the traditions - all of those things that shape an institution and the way it thinks and behaves - are profoundly different in the CCP. I think there are definitely distinctive Chinese characteristics but they are also the inheritors of the Leninist worldview. You know, you get documents from the CCP that refer to Stalingrad or Kursk - because that is the tradition they stand in. I think it's why I also really struggle with the articles saying Meloni's post-populist and mainstream right in Europe can and should work with her. I don't think the issue is populism or not which is just a style of politics, but that she comes from a post-fascist tradition founded by men who were involved in the Salo Republic (and indeed initially rejected people who had only been fascist when it was easy/pre-43). It is more than attitudes to populism that should distinguish that political tradition from Christian Democracy, and for a very long time there was. Same, for that matter, goes for a "no enemies to the left" approach.
Quote from: mongers on September 26, 2023, 07:25:14 PMTrump found guilty in a New York court of inflating his ego to 3.6 billion.
And the fact he committed fraud will barely register with the GOP.
House Democrat Dean Phillips launches primary challenge against President Biden (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/26/politics/dean-phillips-presidential-campaign-launch/index.html)
This is late to start a presidential campaign, and even under the best of circumstances he's be a long shot. The only president to come directly from the House of Representatives was James Garfield; who had also been a Brigadier General during the Civil War (and had devised his own proof of the Pythagorean Theorem using trapezoids; those were different times.)
I suppose what would be really good is Sanders or so launching a campaign just to shore up the moderate conservative support for Biden? (he ain't one of those socialists)
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 11:48:15 AMI suppose what would be really good is Sanders or so launching a campaign just to shore up the moderate conservative support for Biden? (he ain't one of those socialists)
No :P
I think that's very much too clever by half and underestimates Sanders' support.
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 11:48:15 AMI suppose what would be really good is Sanders or so launching a campaign just to shore up the moderate conservative support for Biden? (he ain't one of those socialists)
No, a serious third party contender would force Biden to spend money during the primaries and drain resources that he'll want during the main election. (IMO even Dean Phillips is playing with matches; but he doesn't have anywhere near the name recognition or fund raising ability of The Bern.)
I think a lot of former Bernie Bros think Sanders sold out to Biden and that he is too close to him. They've moved on.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 27, 2023, 12:55:36 PMI think a lot of former Bernie Bros think Sanders sold out to Biden and that he is too close to him. They've moved on.
If true, it shows they never understand Sanders. And why Sanders himself is greater than the sum of his supporters.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 27, 2023, 12:59:23 PMQuote from: FunkMonk on October 27, 2023, 12:55:36 PMI think a lot of former Bernie Bros think Sanders sold out to Biden and that he is too close to him. They've moved on.
If true, it shows they never understand Sanders. And why Sanders himself is greater than the sum of his supporters.
I totally agree and I think, in the nicest possible way, the US left/radical left have gone in some very odd directions since 2016 and Sanders losing.
Yeah, Sanders was able to harness some of that same "angry voter" energy Trump did in 2016. It explained some Bernie Bros who said they would vote for Trump instead of Clinton.
That section of the radical left is very weird. For example, my brother, who was a big Bernie supporter, is now a supporter of RFK Jr. :bleeding:
I don't talk politics much with my brother :lol:
:lol: Understandable.
Purely from online, but I always think attitudes to Warren are a pretty good tell. Obviously she was quite popular with a lot of Bernie supporters once. The Bernie Bros who went full in on "she's a snake" in 2020 seem to me more often than not to be the ones who've developed in some quite peculiar ways in the last few years.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 27, 2023, 01:15:03 PMYeah, Sanders was able to harness some of that same "angry voter" energy Trump did in 2016. It explained some Bernie Bros who said they would vote for Trump instead of Clinton.
That section of the radical left is very weird. For example, my brother, who was a big Bernie supporter, is now a supporter of RFK Jr. :bleeding:
I don't talk politics much with my brother :lol:
I guess for some folks, they're attracted to "the system is rotten, we've seen through it, and here's our hero to fix it" narratives more than any particulars of the rotten elements or the proposed fixes.
I've heard of this kind of crazy being a big thing in France too.
When the far left is knocked out switch to supporting the far right.
Because who cares if they stand for everything the left is against and are ultimate beasts of the establishment. They say the right populist lines.
Anecdote time:
In my last year of highschool white power bullshit was surging a bit in Ontario. I got involved with our local Anti-Racist Action group.
One summer the white power movement organized a racist punk show in town, bussing in supporters. We organized a counter protest, which was very well attended. As the show wound down, it turned into street fighting culminating with a bit of a brawl just by parliament hill. It was a big deal and got a lot of attention in the local press, as you'd expect. That also meant massive attendance to our meetings and general interest from all kinds of people.
Anyhow... some friends and I were out at the bar and there was some kid along who was interested in joining. Not sure where he'd come from. Over the course of the afternoon he takes the time to pull out a big pocket knife and showing it off to everyone, one by one in a "isn't that fucking cool" way.
Our reaction was pretty much uniformly "WTF, no. Put that away. This is not about stabbing people."
He didn't show up again. However, a few weeks later it turned out he'd started hanging out with the local white power skinheads instead.
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 01:57:26 PMI've heard of this kind of crazy being a big thing in France too.
When the far left is knocked out switch to supporting the far right.
Because who cares if they stand for everything the left is against and are ultimate beasts of the establishment. They say the right populist lines.
Yeah, for some folks it's about anger at the establishment and the world-as-is, rather than the specifics of the solution.
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 01:57:26 PMI've heard of this kind of crazy being a big thing in France too.
When the far left is knocked out switch to supporting the far right.
Because who cares if they stand for everything the left is against and are ultimate beasts of the establishment. They say the right populist lines.
I think in France it's more staying at home not turning out for a republican front in the second round. Although if you are a voter who cares aboutsome cultural issues and migration etc on the left - then Macron's Interior Minister has accused Le Pen of being "soft on Islam" and has tried to outflank her. So if those are your big issues, it is more difficult to justify.
This is a danger - which I think is quite common in the Eurozone because of the fiscal rules - of not providing alternatives within the mainstream. Kicking out the bums is a really core democratic principle and if you basically wipe out the centre left and centre right and just have one super-party, it may help consolidate support against the extremes for a while.
But at some point there'll be a change election and the only alternatives will be the radical right or left. I think it's a danger of that sort of "grand coalition" politics is that the only place from which you can oppose is with the extremes. It can work for a while in a response to a specific set of circumstances but is dangerous if it becomes the norm. You always need meaningful choice and difference for voters.
Yeah agreed. I have a couple of observations on that, but I'll take it to the EU thread.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2023, 02:12:47 PMHe didn't show up again. However, a few weeks later it turned out he'd started hanging out with the local white power skinheads instead.
That's a cool anecdote, and it supports something I've suspected for a while: some people are radicals who then find a cause to be radical about, rather than the people who found a cause first and then became radicalized by it. Like with that dude with a knife, I think people who legitimately care about their cause should be careful about accepting useful phychos into their ranks.
Some reason story makes me think of a police plant. Random dude shows up after conflict making news.
Quote from: DGuller on October 27, 2023, 03:45:12 PMThat's a cool anecdote, and it supports something I've suspected for a while: some people are radicals who then find a cause to be radical about, rather than the people who found a cause first and then became radicalized by it. Like with that dude with a knife,
Yeah... that's a thing I basically "know to be true." I think there's been a bunch of studies about people's needs (especially young men's need) to "belong to something" and provide a sense of purpose - especially if the other things that might provide structure in their lives is absent. Whether that becomes football hooliganism, political activism of whatever stripe, crime, the military, or something else.
It certainly matches my own anecdotal observations. A sense of belonging is a powerful thing.
QuoteI think people who legitimately care about their cause should be careful about accepting useful phychos into their ranks.
If only it was that simple. But yeah.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2023, 04:07:06 PMYeah... that's a thing I basically "know to be true." I think there's been a bunch of studies about people's needs (especially young men's need) to "belong to something" and provide a sense of purpose - especially if the other things that might provide structure in their lives is absent. Whether that becomes football hooliganism, political activism of whatever stripe, crime, the military, or something else.
It certainly matches my own anecdotal observations. A sense of belonging is a powerful thing.
Yeah and also a big part of radicalisation by violent extremists/terrorsts (both Islamist and far right). We haven't seen them in a while but I imagine it's also true of violent left-wing radicals like the Red Brigades or even further back in the early 20th century, and ironically, anarchists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2023, 04:11:27 PMYeah and also a big part of radicalisation by violent extremists/terrorsts (both Islamist and far right). We haven't seen them in a while but I imagine it's also true of violent left-wing radicals like the Red Brigades or even further back in the early 20th century, and ironically, anarchists.
Yeah I'm confident it's the same mechanism.
I wonder how long before we start seeing the reemergence of violent left-wing radicals.
The talking...er, mouths on NPR are talking up Nicki Hailey's rise in the polls.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:01:36 AMThe talking...er, mouths on NPR are talking up Nicki Hailey's rise in the polls.
I mean - it's something at least.
But Trump is up 50 points on Haley! Nationally (I know) it's Trump 58, Haley 7.
Yeah Haley has no chance. Nobody really does so long as Trump is there.
Jill Stein is back. :mellow:
I guess Russian sanctions are not biting hard enough. :(
Andrew Yang ('memba him?!) endorses Dean Phillips for president (https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/politics/andrew-yang-endorses-dean-phillips-president/index.html)
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/240118183237-01-andrew-yang-dean-phillips-011824.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_653,w_1160,c_fill/f_webp)
(I'm not sure if that's the real Andrew Yang, or one they stole from Madame Tussauds.) While this might not look like much of a rally, but it is still better than the one he held where no one showed up. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/09/biden-rival-dean-phillips-new-hampshire-field-of-dreams)
Endorses who?
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2024, 01:15:32 PMEndorses who?
Gelato tycoon turned politician:
55 Things You Need to Know about Dean Phillips (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/27/55-things-to-know-dean-phillips-00123600)
Amazingly he agrees with Joe Biden's policy positions even more than Joe Biden does. It's too bad they never debated:
(https://i.redd.it/5bz6lvpbr6731.jpg)
Yang is basically just going milk toast conservative trying to get this third party thing going and have traction.
Which isn't how parties get created and have traction, he has to have some kind of position that gets people's attention and actually motivates them to vote against the established parties. That is why the Libertarians just sort of hang around at 2% decade after decade, they are least are radically different than what we currently have. Radically different in a stupid way, but still.
But he couldn't even make a "UBI party" work. So instead he is just allying with centrists and conservatives who don't like the current Republicans because of vibes mostly. That is never going to go anywhere.
Yang is just a professional dilettante, and always has been. His heart may in the right place, but his head is nowhere to be found.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2024, 02:36:49 PMYang is just a professional dilettante, and always has been. His heart may in the right place, but his head is nowhere to be found.
He hasn't been a serious person ever since he lost the mayoral election. I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish now.
And I see even here Phillips is overshadowed by Andrew Yang, the man who is endorsing him. I should have answered Jacob with the Doonesbury line "He's never heard of you either."
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2024, 02:39:38 PMQuote from: DGuller on January 19, 2024, 02:36:49 PMYang is just a professional dilettante, and always has been. His heart may in the right place, but his head is nowhere to be found.
He hasn't been a serious person ever since he lost the mayoral election. I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish now.
He wasn't serious even before, he was just taken seriously by some.
To be fair, Americans elected Donald Trump, so being serious does not seem to be necessary for electoral success.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2024, 04:08:29 PMQuote from: Valmy on January 19, 2024, 02:39:38 PMQuote from: DGuller on January 19, 2024, 02:36:49 PMYang is just a professional dilettante, and always has been. His heart may in the right place, but his head is nowhere to be found.
He hasn't been a serious person ever since he lost the mayoral election. I am not sure what he is trying to accomplish now.
He wasn't serious even before, he was just taken seriously by some.
We had our reasons.
But it's all in the past now.
Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2024, 04:31:25 PMTo be fair, Americans elected Donald Trump, so being serious does not seem to be necessary for electoral success.
I thought he was serious but not literal? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2024, 04:47:54 PMQuote from: Zanza on January 19, 2024, 04:31:25 PMTo be fair, Americans elected Donald Trump, so being serious does not seem to be necessary for electoral success.
I thought he was serious but not literal? :P
I think he's multi-capable - he's both littoral and deepley deeply out to sea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
Read on Twitter: DeSantis should be forced to carry his presidential campaign to term.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2024, 12:53:25 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
Trumps super power is that he can spit in someone's face and they'll still endorse him when they drop out.
Quote from: Oexmelin on January 22, 2024, 01:48:41 AMRead on Twitter: DeSantis should be forced to carry his presidential campaign to term.
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2024, 12:53:25 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
He's young, he can wait another term or two.
Quote from: Syt on January 22, 2024, 04:08:49 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2024, 12:53:25 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
He's young, he can wait another term or two.
But will he learn social skills?
Quote from: garbon on January 22, 2024, 04:24:35 AMBut will he learn social skills?
(https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/il47u4/picture266923026/alternates/FREE_1140/AP22278716941078.jpg)
His whole manner has been pretty extraordinary.
Quote from: garbon on January 22, 2024, 04:24:35 AMQuote from: Syt on January 22, 2024, 04:08:49 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2024, 12:53:25 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
He's young, he can wait another term or two.
But will he learn social skills?
Will he need to? He can just keep yukking it up in FL for his base.
Is Kanye West not going to run again? :unsure:
Quote from: HVC on January 22, 2024, 01:52:06 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2024, 12:53:25 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIg4w5cbykM
DeSantis out, endorses Trump.
Trumps super power is that he can spit in someone's face and they'll still endorse him when they drop out.
Everyone wants to endorse the winner; and his debates with Haley were pretty nasty (largely because they agreed on every policy issue other than level of support for Ukraine, so they had to be personal.) Also DeSantis is term limited and cannot run for governor of Florida in 2026, so he may be angling for a cabinet position.
Quote from: Syt on January 22, 2024, 06:17:43 AMWill he need to? He can just keep yukking it up in FL for his base.
I expect that will end (and,
much more importantly, our national media will no longer care) now that he's no longer running for president. There will probably be some sort of quiet reconciliation between his administration and Disney.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 22, 2024, 08:24:34 AMEveryone wants to endorse the winner; and his debates with Haley were pretty nasty (largely because they agreed on every policy issue other than level of support for Ukraine, so they had to be personal.) Also DeSantis is term limited and cannot run for governor of Florida in 2026, so he may be angling for a cabinet position.
Last time around Trump learned he can only trust his family, so if there's a second Trump term it'll be Ivanka, Chief of Staff, Don Jr, Secretary of Defense, Eric Trump, Secretary of the Treasury, Jared Kushner, Secretary of State, Barron Trump, Secretary of Education (since he's a student, he knows a lot about education), etc.
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2024, 12:02:36 PMLast time around Trump learned he can only trust his family, so if there's a second Trump term it'll be Ivanka, Chief of Staff, Don Jr, Secretary of Defense, Eric Trump, Secretary of the Treasury, Jared Kushner, Secretary of State, Barron Trump, Secretary of Education (since he's a student, he knows a lot about education), etc.
:lol:
He can't actually do that, but he will surround himself entirely with hyper-loyal yes-men (probably the ones who stayed on board after the Jan 6 events). I don't think DeSantis has a realistic shot at a position in a Trump administration; if that was his goal he should have rolled the dice and endorsed Haley.
Their tunes may change if he wins again, but the scuttlebutt is Ivanka and Jared want to be separated from Trump's political career. Nothing to do with them rejecting his politics, just the negative blowback they got in term one affected them in ways they care about. They are NYC socialites with fingers in a lot of businesses, too close an association with Donald isn't to their benefit.
Eric appears to be busy actually running what remains of Trump's companies.
Now, Don Jr only appears to have right wing cultural grievance politics and right wing grifting on his plate, so he would almost certainly be a part of the Trump White House in some capacity. None of them would be cabinet officials though.
CNN calls NH for Donald.
This season of "The Primaries" is a bit bland. Maybe due to the authors' strike.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2024, 09:26:48 PMCNN calls NH for Donald.
And for Biden...despite Uncle Joe not even being on the ballot.
Yang's endorsement just wasn't enough for Phillips to pull it out.
Quote from: Zanza on January 23, 2024, 09:58:06 PMThis season of "The Primaries" is a bit bland. Maybe due to the authors' strike.
And it looks like "Trump vs. Biden" is going to be renewed for another season despite low ratings and being widely panned.
I just can't believe the Republican Racist Party keeps standing behind this asshole. What a bunch of cretins.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 24, 2024, 08:48:31 AMAnd it looks like "Trump vs. Biden" is going to be renewed for another season despite low ratings and being widely panned.
The only decent season was the 2015-2016 one. Running on fumes now that it's 2024. :hmm:
Quote from: Savonarola on January 24, 2024, 08:48:31 AMQuote from: Zanza on January 23, 2024, 09:58:06 PMThis season of "The Primaries" is a bit bland. Maybe due to the authors' strike.
And it looks like "Trump vs. Biden" is going to be renewed for another season despite low ratings and being widely panned.
The screenplays are awful, but on the positive side, neither lead actor can say their lines properly anyways.
The Marvel Universe has a lot to answer for. Nobody is willing to take a chance on new material these days.
And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the MAGA about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them -Revelation 20:9 (aided and abetted by Savonarola)
Trump Says Haley Donors Will Be 'Barred From the MAGA Camp' (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/us/politics/trump-haley-donors-maga-blacklist.html)
QuoteTrump Says Haley Donors Will Be 'Barred From the MAGA Camp'
Far from trying to unite Republicans as he seeks to cast himself as their inevitable nominee, Donald Trump threatened supporters of his last major primary rival, Nikki Haley.
Former President Donald J. Trump essentially threatened Nikki Haley's donors with excommunication from his political movement on Wednesday night, declaring that he would refuse contributions from anyone who donated to her primary campaign.
"When I ran for Office and won, I noticed that the losing Candidate's 'Donors' would immediately come to me, and want to 'help out,'" he wrote on his social media platform. "This is standard in Politics, but no longer with me."
He then added, using his insulting nickname for Ms. Haley: "Anybody that makes a 'Contribution' to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don't want them, and will not accept them, because we Put America First, and ALWAYS WILL!"
Mr. Trump made the post not long after Ms. Haley held a rally in North Charleston, S.C., as the primary campaign moves to that state from New Hampshire. At that rally, Ms. Haley told supporters that she had raised $1 million in the past day since promising she would stay in the race despite her loss in New Hampshire.
"Well in that case...donate here," Ms. Haley wrote on X in response, with a link to her fund-raising page. A spokeswoman for her campaign said on Thursday that after Mr. Trump's post, "We saw a surge of donations." She did not respond when asked for numbers.
Ms. Haley's campaign also promptly began selling T-shirts that read "Barred. Permanently."
Ms. Haley has the support of a number of big donors, who began to coalesce around her late last year as they concluded that she was the most viable alternative to Mr. Trump. Her backers include the political network of the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, among the wealthiest and most powerful forces in Republican politics in recent years.
Until shortly before the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Trump had often ignored Ms. Haley. But in the days leading up to the vote, he began to attack her relentlessly. He also began using (and butchering) her given name, Nimarata, and suggesting falsely that she wasn't born in the United States, the same racist playbook he used against former President Barack Obama.
While Mr. Trump's new threat about Ms. Haley's donors was probably empty — politicians in close general elections tend not to refuse large contributions — his post reflected his fury at Ms. Haley for not dropping out and ceding the nomination to him as he, and many elected Republicans, seek to declare the race over.
But Mr. Trump's warning ignored the fact that, to win in November, he will need to earn the support of many of the voters currently backing Ms. Haley — the independents and college-educated voters who don't hold much power in Republican primaries but who will be essential in the general election.
I think I'd take that risk; MAGA Camp sounds like it would be a lot lamer than Space Camp.
Koch Brosefs going for Haley is an interesting tidbit.
The risk of Trump refusing to take money from someone for any reason is exactly zero. It's the least credible threat since Baghdad Bob promised the imminent destruction of American troops.
He'd do things proper 1984 style.
"Mr X is a loser. He's forbidden from MAGA. He's a RINO kind and sensitive person. He's a tool of antifa woke warriors."
*brown envelope appears*
"Mr X has always been a friend of MAGA. He really cares about America. He's our new special advisor."
Joe Biden speaking authentic frontier gibberish and expressing a courage little seen in this day and age:
I was told off on this forum for raising his age as an issue.
Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2024, 08:49:23 AMI was told off on this forum for raising his age as an issue.
To be fair, it's been quite the week for senior moments. Trump here confuses Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi:
(And then, when commenting on this, Nancy Pelosi confused Trump with Biden.) Trump has long suffered from "Irish Alzheimer's" where one forgets everything except his grudges. It's getting worse now and his grudges are all starting to run together.
If there was ever a chance for a third party candidate to grab the Presidency, it's now. What a shitshow this is going to be.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 26, 2024, 08:59:56 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 26, 2024, 08:49:23 AMI was told off on this forum for raising his age as an issue.
To be fair, it's been quite the week for senior moments. Trump here confuses Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi:
[youtube]uRkaiRt_q
(And then, when commenting on this, Nancy Pelosi confused Trump with Biden.) Trump has long suffered from "Irish Alzheimer's" where one forgets everything except his grudges. It's getting worse now and his grudges are all starting to run together.
Thinking about it though, surely its worse with Biden, even though he's actually in better shape than Trump.
Biden's whole thing is being a competent sensible politician who isn't going to start WW3 because someone said something mean about him on Twitter.
Trump... the inconsistent chaos and random nonsensical insults is part of the whole appeal to his cultists. Dementia is easily masked by this.
Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2024, 09:02:56 AMIf there was ever a chance for a third party candidate to grab the Presidency, it's now. What a shitshow this is going to be.
Unfortunately all the third party candidates say even crazier things, and they don't have the excuse of being old.
Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2024, 08:49:23 AMI was told off on this forum for raising his age as an issue.
Really? By whom?
Johnny Marr blasts Donald Trump for playing the Smiths song at rally (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/jan/24/johnny-marr-the-smiths-songs-playing-at-donald-trump-rally-rallies)
Sadly it wasn't "Some Girls are Bigger than Others." I wouldn't expect there's a lot of overlap between The Smith's fans and the camp of the MAGA; so probably not a lot of people there realized this was a band who sings songs like "Meat is Murder." Further I realize Morrissey has gone way off to the right in the past few years; but still Trump presents himself as an uber-macho sexual Tyrannosaurus of an alpha male, "Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want" seems a little off brand.
:lol:
Having said that there is something a little Trumpy about Morrissey :ph34r:
His rally playlist is extraordinary - a few journalists have written about it as it is a playlist taken from rally to rally. The Smiths have been regulars for a year or so. YMCA and Tiny Dancer are always played, as, I believe, is Phantom of the Opera.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 26, 2024, 01:08:34 PMJohnny Marr blasts Donald Trump for playing the Smiths song at rally (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/jan/24/johnny-marr-the-smiths-songs-playing-at-donald-trump-rally-rallies)
Sadly it wasn't "Some Girls are Bigger than Others." I wouldn't expect there's a lot of overlap between The Smith's fans and the camp of the MAGA; so probably not a lot of people there realized this was a band who sings songs like "Meat is Murder." Further I realize Morrissey has gone way off to the right in the past few years; but still Trump presents himself as an uber-macho sexual Tyrannosaurus of an alpha male, "Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want" seems a little off brand.
As noted Trump has very interesting taste in music. And politicians in general tend to not pay attention to lyrics - how many politicians have used "Born in the USA" when the lyrics themselves are hardly very patriotic.
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2024, 01:54:16 PMAs noted Trump has very interesting taste in music. And politicians in general tend to not pay attention to lyrics - how many politicians have used "Born in the USA" when the lyrics themselves are hardly very patriotic.
Yeah, it's like Gil Gadot and other celebrities singing "Imagine (https://youtu.be/bQK32bwvRuI)" from their spacious mansions during the depths of the covid quarantine.
Quote from: Tamas on January 26, 2024, 09:02:56 AMIf there was ever a chance for a third party candidate to grab the Presidency, it's now. What a shitshow this is going to be.
Our third parties offer absolutely nothing of substance. That has long been a problem.
I'm trying to picture how Tiny Dancer fits in a political rally :hmm:
I assume they reserve "Private Dancer" for small circle meetings with lobbyists and representatives of Super PACs. :P
Uhm... that would be a bold new direction for the Libertarian Party:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mulls running for president as Libertarian (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-mulls-running-for-president-as-libertarian/ar-BB1hsBK2)
Ah the Libertarians :lol:
Boo! Competency? Boo! :lol:
Great potential slogans there.
Libertarianism: It's not about ideology, it's about incompetence
The Libertarian Party: The Last Refuge of the Incompetent (thanks IA)
00Libertarian: Unlicensed to kill
Live Free and Die
It's Mourning Again in America's Highways
A Chicken in Every Pot and a Wrecked Car in Every Garage
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2024, 05:24:08 PMAh the Libertarians :lol:
(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-nq6l4syi/images/stencil/608x608/products/103169/244234/167685-1024__07045.1607796147.jpg?c=2)
I love that literally everyone in the clip, including the audience, is a Simpsons character.
Love that the guy who actually tries to give a thought out answer rather than just a snappy black and white one liner is the one they boo.
Whilst fascism may be the popular form of extremism, its worth remembering the others do exist.
I am not "getting" the whole right-wing-Republican conspiracy theory about the Super owl being rigged so that Taylor Swift can endorse Joe Biden. There's a long history of music stars endorsing presidential candidates (including Taylor Swift in 2020), and the KC Chiefs were in three of the last four Super Bowls (and are the reigning champs). It's gotten tpo the point where the Pentagon felt it had to officially deny it (https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/02/02/dod-confirms-taylor-swift-is-not-a-pentagon-asset-and-travis-kelce-probably-isnt-either/?sh=66ce873352d9).
I'd believe that it was a false flag op, given how incredibly stupid-on-the-face-of-it and damaging to the Republican image with Swift fans and women generally it is, but this stuff is coming from Fox News, not exactly a left-wing false flag front. It's bizarre and self-defeating.
And I love it even if I don't get it.
Yeah I think it's another example of the interests of the Republican entertainment-media complex not really aligning with the interests of the Republican party.
Biden recounts 2021 G7 meeting where he spoke with French President Francois Mitterrand. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDrxXBIX1w)
A triumph of US presidential diplomacy and a good news since his recent calls with Leonid Brezhnev haven't gone so well. It gives us hope that his upcoming meeting with David Lloyd George will be a success.
Between this and Trump with the whole Nikki Haley/Nancy Pelosi episode, you folks are in good hands.
Hasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Quote from: Savonarola on February 06, 2024, 08:22:10 AMBiden recounts 2021 G7 meeting where he spoke with French President Francois Mitterrand. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDrxXBIX1w)
A triumph of US presidential diplomacy and a good news since his recent calls with Leonid Brezhnev haven't gone so well. It gives us hope that his upcoming meeting with David Lloyd George will be a success.
Biden has been in politics long enough he probably met Mitterand.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 11:18:46 AMHasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Yes
Quote from: Jacob on February 06, 2024, 11:28:07 AMQuote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 11:18:46 AMHasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Yes
Always worth remembering Biden had to quit his first presidential campaign (back in 1988!) after it came out he lifted entire sections of a speech by UK Labour Leader Neil Kinnock, including personal details that were true for Kinnock but not of Biden.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 11:18:46 AMHasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Yeah. Spicey gave us a running commentary on the weird and stupid things he would say when he was VP.
Weirdly I think the internet age has helped him here. In the old days of the dominance of the mainstream media and its 30 second sound bytes his gaffes could be disastrous. Now they just kind of get lost in the noise.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2024, 11:50:33 AMQuote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 11:18:46 AMHasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Yeah. Spicey gave us a running commentary on the weird and stupid things he would say when he was VP.
Weirdly I think the internet age has helped him here. In the old days of the dominance of the mainstream media and its 30 second sound bytes his gaffes could be disastrous. Now they just kind of get lost in the noise.
He gets helped A LOT in comparison to his opposition.
I mean really - I would ordinarily run screaming away from the guy. But when the choice is Biden versus Trump...
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2024, 12:03:55 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 06, 2024, 11:50:33 AMQuote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 11:18:46 AMHasn't Biden, even from when he was young, been all tongue tied and gaffe prone?
Yeah. Spicey gave us a running commentary on the weird and stupid things he would say when he was VP.
Weirdly I think the internet age has helped him here. In the old days of the dominance of the mainstream media and its 30 second sound bytes his gaffes could be disastrous. Now they just kind of get lost in the noise.
He gets helped A LOT in comparison to his opposition.
I mean really - I would ordinarily run screaming away from the guy. But when the choice is Biden versus Trump...
Yeah the whole reason Obama chose him as his running mate was because it was doubted he would be a serious rival.
I have been pleasantly surprised by how he has done as President but obviously I am in the minority here. I am not sure what people expected.
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2024, 11:32:50 AMAlways worth remembering Biden had to quit his first presidential campaign (back in 1988!) after it came out he lifted entire sections of a speech by UK Labour Leader Neil Kinnock, including personal details that were true for Kinnock but not of Biden.
Yeah it was Kinnock's great "why am I the first Kinnnock in a thousand generations to go to university?" speech.
Of course there is a media angle here which sort of goes against Valmy's point. Because riffing off that was, I believe, part of Biden's stump speech in 1988. He always credited and referenced that it came from Kinnock. He gave that speech, referencing Kinnock, hundreds if not thousands of times. Then he used it a closing peroration in one of the debates and didn't reference Kinnock. Dukakis team (and this goes to the international party activist thinig) included a volunteer from Britain who was also the son of a former (and future) Labour MP who was then acting as secretary to the Parliamentary Labour Party - he recognised that in that one section of that one debate Biden had nicked someone else's life story. And the Dukakis made sure the press knew, and it was a story for the press even with all the other times Biden had given his stump speech correctly acknowledging his debt to Kinnock's speech.
I think now, that sort of story and spin wouldn't survive contact with social media because you'd have people splicing clips of all the other times. But in the early 90s media world that sort of spin and story would quickly become dominant - the debate was on TV, those hundreds of stump speeches weren't - and very difficult to rebut - once an impression is formed it's not easy to unform it.
Totally agree on Biden's history of "gaffes" and mis-speaking. But I think there is something to the definition of a gaffe that it's when a politician inadvertently says or reveals something that is true, but they're not supposed to admit. If you think of Brown's "bigoted woman", or Clinton's "deplorables", or Romney's "47%" remarks - they seemed to indicate something about how those politicians actually thought about those chunks of voters, which was previously just subtext. I think in 1988 Biden's gaffes were evidence that he was a bit of a gobshite. In the current context - and why I think they could be more damaging - they just point to the question of is he too old.
So totally get the point that he has a history of this, but I think the context now means it lands differently. I think it's also why there's different standards for Trump - there's no objective gaffe because it is all context dependent and for Trump everything is text, there's no subtext there's no unspoken truths or hypocrisy that he's accidentally revealing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2024, 12:13:55 PMTotally agree on Biden's history of "gaffes" and mis-speaking. But I think there is something to the definition of a gaffe that it's when a politician inadvertently says or reveals something that is true, but they're not supposed to admit. If you think of Brown's "bigoted woman", or Clinton's "deplorables", or Romney's "47%" remarks - they seemed to indicate something about how those politicians actually thought about those chunks of voters, which was previously just subtext. I think in 1988 Biden's gaffes were evidence that he was a bit of a gobshite. In the current context - and why I think they could be more damaging - they just point to the question of is he too old.
So totally get the point that he has a history of this, but I think the context now means it lands differently. I think it's also why there's different standards for Trump - there's no objective gaffe because it is all context dependent and for Trump everything is text, there's no subtext there's no unspoken truths or hypocrisy that he's accidentally revealing.
I raised because of the context. Current narrative is Biden is the too old one of the two and anything that can be pegged as examples of him being senile is attributed to that.
A ridiculous narrative that it would be great to see the Democrats due more to combat or pivot from.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/9ZJtn/?utm_source=NBC&utm_medium=iframely
Poll noting by far 81 sends people into panic vs the 77 year old.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 12:20:18 PMI raised because of the context. Current narrative is Biden is the too old one of the two and anything that can be pegged as examples of him being senile is attributed to that.
A ridiculous narrative that it would be great to see the Democrats due more to combat or pivot from.
Yeah I'm not sure. It's really tough to fight the narrative that Biden is too old because he is very old. I'm not sure "Biden's always misspoke" is necessarily a helpful line either.
If you try and pivot it to attack Trump for being old or more senile - I feel like you are still just drawing attention to age and that's an issue where it's more of a risk/perception issue around Biden.
In a way I wonder if the best strategy would be to get him out at events speaking, working the crowd, engaging with people (which is what Biden does best). Without going into Jack Palance territory you try to project an image of Biden being out there, engaged, active etc.
My feeling has always been that the attack line you want is what the other side don't want to talk about and even trying to make it a comparison, you're fighting on the GOP's terrain. I've said it for a long time but I still think the line of attack with Trump is that he's weak and a loser (I think this is why Biden keeps emphasising "former" President) - and I think from the Dem side maybe not talking about age.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 12:22:26 PMhttps://www.datawrapper.de/_/9ZJtn/?utm_source=NBC&utm_medium=iframely
Poll noting by far 81 sends people into panic vs the 77 year old.
I think this just reflects what we've long-known: Donald Trump has a devoted, almost fanatical base of support of between 25-30% of voters, while Biden does not.
Because again, I think and neutral viewer would tend to agree that while Biden has lost a step, Trump comes across as unhinged.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2024, 12:31:21 PMQuote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 12:20:18 PMI raised because of the context. Current narrative is Biden is the too old one of the two and anything that can be pegged as examples of him being senile is attributed to that.
A ridiculous narrative that it would be great to see the Democrats due more to combat or pivot from.
Yeah I'm not sure. It's really tough to fight the narrative that Biden is too old because he is very old. I'm not sure "Biden's always misspoke" is necessarily a helpful line either.
If you try and pivot it to attack Trump for being old or more senile - I feel like you are still just drawing attention to age and that's an issue where it's more of a risk/perception issue around Biden.
In a way I wonder if the best strategy would be to get him out at events speaking, working the crowd, engaging with people (which is what Biden does best). Without going into Jack Palance territory you try to project an image of Biden being out there, engaged, active etc.
My feeling has always been that the attack line you want is what the other side don't want to talk about and even trying to make it a comparison, you're fighting on the GOP's terrain. I've said it for a long time but I still think the line of attack with Trump is that he's weak and a loser (I think this is why Biden keeps emphasising "former" President) - and I think from the Dem side maybe not talking about age.
The problem with going after Trump for Trump's age is that isn't even in the top 10 of reasons not to vote for the guy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2024, 12:31:21 PMQuote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 12:20:18 PMI raised because of the context. Current narrative is Biden is the too old one of the two and anything that can be pegged as examples of him being senile is attributed to that.
A ridiculous narrative that it would be great to see the Democrats due more to combat or pivot from.
Yeah I'm not sure. It's really tough to fight the narrative that Biden is too old because he is very old. I'm not sure "Biden's always misspoke" is necessarily a helpful line either.
If you try and pivot it to attack Trump for being old or more senile - I feel like you are still just drawing attention to age and that's an issue where it's more of a risk/perception issue around Biden.
In a way I wonder if the best strategy would be to get him out at events speaking, working the crowd, engaging with people (which is what Biden does best). Without going into Jack Palance territory you try to project an image of Biden being out there, engaged, active etc.
My feeling has always been that the attack line you want is what the other side don't want to talk about and even trying to make it a comparison, you're fighting on the GOP's terrain. I've said it for a long time but I still think the line of attack with Trump is that he's weak and a loser (I think this is why Biden keeps emphasising "former" President) - and I think from the Dem side maybe not talking about age.
Oh I should be clear. I was chiding Zoupa with biden always gaffes not suggesting a democratic strategy. -_-
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2024, 11:04:22 AMBetween this and Trump with the whole Nikki Haley/Nancy Pelosi episode, you folks are in good hands.
The future looks bright indeed. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2024, 11:24:06 AMQuote from: Savonarola on February 06, 2024, 08:22:10 AMBiden recounts 2021 G7 meeting where he spoke with French President Francois Mitterrand. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDrxXBIX1w)
A triumph of US presidential diplomacy and a good news since his recent calls with Leonid Brezhnev haven't gone so well. It gives us hope that his upcoming meeting with David Lloyd George will be a success.
Biden has been in politics long enough he probably met Mitterand.
It's likely since Biden was on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. It's possible (though much less likely) that he met Brezhnev as well, as Biden was well into his second term when when Brezhnev died. Lloyd George was simply a fanciful jest; the earliest serving PM could have met as a Senator was Ted Heath, and living PM would have been Anthony Eden.
And after skipping all the Republican debates:
Trump says he wants to debate Biden (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donald-trump-says-wants-debate-joe-biden-rcna137340)
Biden's response:
Quote"Immediately? Well, if I were him, I'd want to debate me, too. He's got nothing else to do," Biden told reporters when asked whether he would agree to Trump's challenge to debate him.
Which isn't at all fair, as Trump has a number of court appearances to keep him busy.
Is this election going to be the last hurrah of the boomers? Clinching to power with their last ailing grasp before they are replaced by a less ridiculously lucky generation?
Quote from: Tamas on February 06, 2024, 05:30:01 PMIs this election going to be the last hurrah of the boomers? Clinching to power with their last ailing grasp before they are replaced by a less ridiculously lucky generation?
Biden isn't a baby boomer. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 05:35:54 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 06, 2024, 05:30:01 PMIs this election going to be the last hurrah of the boomers? Clinching to power with their last ailing grasp before they are replaced by a less ridiculously lucky generation?
Biden isn't a baby boomer. :hmm:
But surely close enough.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 06, 2024, 04:56:33 PMWhich isn't at all fair, as Trump has a number of court appearances to keep him busy.
Not really. Not yet.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2024, 05:35:54 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 06, 2024, 05:30:01 PMIs this election going to be the last hurrah of the boomers? Clinching to power with their last ailing grasp before they are replaced by a less ridiculously lucky generation?
Biden isn't a baby boomer. :hmm:
Don't get technical when the Boomer Boogieman gets mentioned. It's not like these generational labels are more than fuzzy generalizations anyway.
Looks like None had an impressive showing tonight. Definitely a Republican nominee I can get behind.
Haley can't even win when she's the only one on the ballot :lol:
Sure anyone can meet with living European leaders but Biden sets the bar much higher than that:
In his second mix-up this week, Biden talks about meeting with dead European leaders (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823)
This time Helmut Kohl when presumably he meant Angela Merkel, (on the other hand it could just have been one heck of a G7 summit that he attended.)
Voting decisions now universally seem to be about choosing the least worst option.
This could be an attempt to appeal to conservative voters living in the past.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 08, 2024, 08:20:58 AMSure anyone can meet with living European leaders but Biden sets the bar much higher than that:
In his second mix-up this week, Biden talks about meeting with dead European leaders (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/second-mixup-week-biden-talks-meeting-dead-european-leaders-rcna137823)
This time Helmut Kohl when presumably he meant Angela Merkel, (on the other hand it could just have been one heck of a G7 summit that he attended.)
Following the strategy proposed by garbon we should highlight he may have been this stupid even before he turned 80.
How are people preparing themselves for Trump's second term? At this point I am taking it as a given and if he loses it will be a pleasant surprise.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2024, 09:16:01 AMHow are people preparing themselves for Trump's second term? At this point I am taking it as a given and if he loses it will be a pleasant surprise.
I cannot see him winning. Why somebody who didn't vote for him 4 years ago do so today? He is even more unhinged and there was the whole riot/coup attempt thing.
I guess the only possible way is if non-Trump voters stay home in droves.
Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2024, 09:22:54 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2024, 09:16:01 AMHow are people preparing themselves for Trump's second term? At this point I am taking it as a given and if he loses it will be a pleasant surprise.
I cannot see him winning. Why somebody who didn't vote for him 4 years ago do so today? He is even more unhinged and there was the whole riot/coup attempt thing.
I guess the only possible way is if non-Trump voters stay home in droves.
Which without Trump sitting in the oval office and the very real atmosphere of fear of what happens if he stays there I can see happening.
Especially considering the narrative that against all data the economy is doing bad under Biden.
Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2024, 09:22:54 AMI cannot see him winning. Why somebody who didn't vote for him 4 years ago do so today? He is even more unhinged and there was the whole riot/coup attempt thing.
I guess the only possible way is if non-Trump voters stay home in droves.
Agree, that's why I am happy Haley is doing badly. If she managed to win the nomination, I would worry she could be elected. Prior data suggests Trump cannot be.
But what are the risks that too many anti-Trump voters stay home because Biden is not that much better in their view?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:08:57 AMBut what are the risks that too many anti-Trump voters stay home because Biden is not that much better in their view?
Good question, but I think the risk is low because there will be redoubled efforts to get the Democratic base fired up as we approach the general.
Quote from: Caliga on February 08, 2024, 10:11:02 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:08:57 AMBut what are the risks that too many anti-Trump voters stay home because Biden is not that much better in their view?
Good question, but I think the risk is low because there will be redoubled efforts to get the Democratic base fired up as we approach the general.
Fair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I can't see how Trump can not win the election at this point. Unless the polls improve by the summer, Biden is toast and the extremists will ensure that Trump wins.
Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2024, 09:22:54 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2024, 09:16:01 AMHow are people preparing themselves for Trump's second term? At this point I am taking it as a given and if he loses it will be a pleasant surprise.
I cannot see him winning. Why somebody who didn't vote for him 4 years ago do so today? He is even more unhinged and there was the whole riot/coup attempt thing.
I guess the only possible way is if non-Trump voters stay home in droves.
Except for the fact that Trump is leading in the polls.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden
Now yes - National polls don't mean that much - the election will be decided in a handful of battleground states. But it means something - in both prior elections Trump lost the national vote.
As to why this is - I wish I could say. But it's a thing.
Yeah man. Lots of reasons to be concerned. I think as we get more into the campaign things will sort themselves out but lots of reasons to anxiety.
Which, to be fair, is pretty much every national election since 2016.
Quote from: PJL on February 08, 2024, 11:36:50 AMI can't see how Trump can not win the election at this point. Unless the polls improve by the summer, Biden is toast and the extremists will ensure that Trump wins.
Yeah. I am just hoping more Trump spouting BS and Biden being given a chance to push forward his policy successes might do the trick.
But we will see.
Quote from: PJL on February 08, 2024, 11:36:50 AMI can't see how Trump can not win the election at this point. Unless the polls improve by the summer, Biden is toast and the extremists will ensure that Trump wins.
I've posted the same thing a few times but basically: either candidate could plausibly win, and polls this far out just aren't associated, in any prior elections, with reliability.
Some of the key factors to consider:
- Trump's polling, aside from brief exceptions, has been in the mid-40s range since like 2016. This suggests there may be about that % of the electorate who is ever willing to vote for Trump.
- The above means that, to lose to Trump, a Democrat would need to pull 48% or less. This is based on "roughly" translating national vote share to expected state-by-state results, because they do correlate somewhat, just not perfectly.
- Pulling 48% or less is actually associated with every Democratic electoral college defeat since Gore, that is about what Gore, Kerry and HRC got.
- Could this happen in 2024? Sure. I don't know if it will, no one does. But the math means, given Trump's likely ceiling, that around 6% of the electorate has to vote for someone outside of the two major parties--this is a higher bar than Republicans faced when they won in 2000 and 2004, because Bush wasn't capped at the ~45-46% Trump seems to be capped at, Bush got 48% in 2000 and 50% in 2004.
- Since the 2020 elections (this means in the 2022 midterms, and the majority of off-cycle elections), Democrats have consistently outperformed their polling, this is similar to how Republicans outperformed their polling in 2016 and 2020; why Dems have been outperforming polling, and whether it will apply to Biden, remain open questions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:22:25 AMFair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I do hope the Dems have a plan B prepared because I think the age stuff is a real risk.
Totally get Garbon's point which is right objectively, but I think politically it is cutting through and like all the best attacks is fundamentally factual: Biden is old.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666
QuoteBidens' memory, Hur's report said, "was significantly limited" during his 2023 interviews with the special counsel.
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," it said. "Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."
Later in the report, the special counsel said that the president's memory was "worse" during their interview with him, compared to his memory in recorded conversations from 2017.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2024, 03:32:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:22:25 AMFair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I do hope the Dems have a plan B prepared because I think the age stuff is a real risk.
Totally get Garbon's point which is right objectively, but I think politically it is cutting through and like all the best attacks is fundamentally factual: Biden is old.
The whole situation is unbelievable. I think we all assumed, and was reinforced by Biden himself, that he would be a one term President and he would be a bridge to some younger politician in 2024. Instead we are taking an enormous risk for no particular reason with enormous stakes. Biden isn't some irreplaceable unique figure.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 08, 2024, 03:41:34 PMhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666
QuoteBidens' memory, Hur's report said, "was significantly limited" during his 2023 interviews with the special counsel.
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," it said. "Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."
Later in the report, the special counsel said that the president's memory was "worse" during their interview with him, compared to his memory in recorded conversations from 2017.
Ouch.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2024, 04:01:05 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2024, 03:32:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:22:25 AMFair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I do hope the Dems have a plan B prepared because I think the age stuff is a real risk.
Totally get Garbon's point which is right objectively, but I think politically it is cutting through and like all the best attacks is fundamentally factual: Biden is old.
The whole situation is unbelievable. I think we all assumed, and was reinforced by Biden himself, that he would be a one term President and he would be a bridge to some younger politician in 2024. Instead we are taking an enormous risk for no particular reason with enormous stakes. Biden isn't some irreplaceable unique figure.
Problem is Kamala Harris hasn't exactly captured the nation's attention.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2024, 04:01:05 PMThe whole situation is unbelievable. I think we all assumed, and was reinforced by Biden himself, that he would be a one term President and he would be a bridge to some younger politician in 2024. Instead we are taking an enormous risk for no particular reason with enormous stakes. Biden isn't some irreplaceable unique figure.
Yeah - although I think politicians force the issue to some extent. It's not like Harris has overwhelmed or some other alternative has managed to push themselves forward.
Maybe not president next year quality but are there any politicians the level below that?-Looking like president in a decade or two candidates?
About the only non old dem with a profile that comes to mind for me is AOC, and obviously a hell of a lot would have to change before she gets a shot.
I have to say that for the first time, I truly am concerned about Biden's condition. I hope he's not another RBG whose stubbornness at the end of their life undid all their life's work. It seems likre whatever is done to run the US is working, but if Biden shits the bed during the debate (figuratively or literally), that won't matter.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2024, 04:20:00 PMI have to say that for the first time, I truly am concerned about Biden's condition. I hope he's not another RBG whose stubbornness at the end of their life undid all their life's work. It seems likre whatever is done to run the US is working, but if Biden shits the bed during the debate (figuratively or literally), that won't matter.
Sorry for what reason? Because he misstated foreign country leader names? That is concerning, but has been going on his entire Presidency, not saying it isn't a concern, but I'm confused as to why it is "now" a big concern.
W. Bush did similar, and wasn't even 80.
I think objectively speaking Biden shows his age, but he has always been poorly spoken, and frankly probably not like a "top tier" intelligence. I don't see any signs he has serious dementia or anything versus somewhat dumb and poorly spoken Joe Biden from 10 or 20 years ago.
Misspeaking is one thing, but this kind of misfiring when you link to facts you learned during your younger years triggers dementia alarm for me. This is what my grandmother used to do on her bad days. It's like the layer of memory formed during the later years, which modifies or augments your memory formed earlier in your life, gets taken offline.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2024, 05:16:52 PMMisspeaking is one thing, but this kind of misfiring when you link to facts you learned during your younger years triggers dementia alarm for me. This is what my grandmother used to do on her bad days. It's like the layer of memory formed during the later years, which modifies or augments your memory formed earlier in your life, gets taken offline.
I think it would be more concerning if he hadn't always talked like this, like I know tons of people who have poor memory misfires, and have, for decades of adulthood. I dunno, just seems like a big nothing to me. I don't think everyone has equivalent memory recall abilities and I don't know that such variance is a sign of dementia. I don't think it is something that is commonly tested for in dementia tests, either.
Sounds like a really lame way to defend him.... But this kind of misspeaking can also be an indicator of intelligence.
Somebody whose brain is constantly making connections and thinking of context and making links. Thinking out of pace with speaking.
Key words there can be of course. Depends on what other evidence is out there for whether this is valid or they're just dumb.
I don't think Biden is that smart, with the caveat that (using the clumsy tool of IQ), 100 is intended to be the mean IQ. A person with an IQ of 100 isn't "dumb" but they aren't "smart", smart usually implies someone is more intelligent than the average, with definitions getting squishy.
Biden graduated law school and was admitted to the Delaware bar, while lawyers are fun to pick on, I don't really think you can be actually "stupid" and do those things. That requires the ability to study and retain knowledge of what you studied, and to pass an exam that is somewhat well known for being hard to pass.
On the flipside, he graduated near the bottom of his class and got in trouble for plagiarism while in school. He spent most of his life in elected office, and regularly said things that came off as pretty dumb. This is distinct from his speech impediment--which he has, and which frequently causes people to assume someone is dumber than they actually are.
He isn't "Joe Rogan" dumb, but he is probably less intelligent than the average lawyer. But a lot of that is squishy, key point being whatever Joe's intelligence, he has never presented himself well. He is not well spoken and never has been, he has never been good at speaking clearly and coherently, he has done worse than his peers in his academic pursuits--but he has completed academic pursuits that genuine imbeciles typically can't do. Where that puts him I don't know, but he seems significantly less intelligent than national political figures like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John McCain, George H.W. Bush and people of that nature. He seems equal or maybe more intelligent than George W. Bush and Donald Trump (Trump's intelligence is also not easy to judge because his manner of speech trends towards the incoherent and disorganized, but he has some obvious indicators he isn't actually an imbecile.)
There is being absent minded and then there is regularly mistaking one person with a completely different one. If he has always been unable to remember the difference between Kohl and Merkel, that makes him less fit for office compared to a demented 81 years old, not more.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2024, 04:12:03 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2024, 04:01:05 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2024, 03:32:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:22:25 AMFair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I do hope the Dems have a plan B prepared because I think the age stuff is a real risk.
Totally get Garbon's point which is right objectively, but I think politically it is cutting through and like all the best attacks is fundamentally factual: Biden is old.
The whole situation is unbelievable. I think we all assumed, and was reinforced by Biden himself, that he would be a one term President and he would be a bridge to some younger politician in 2024. Instead we are taking an enormous risk for no particular reason with enormous stakes. Biden isn't some irreplaceable unique figure.
Problem is Kamala Harris hasn't exactly captured the nation's attention.
Well that was obvious when he picked her. I thought he had promised his black supporters a black female VP so he delivered. But I didn't think at the time that he was also locking in his successor.
Quote from: Tamas on February 08, 2024, 06:24:42 PMThere is being absent minded and then there is regularly mistaking one person with a completely different one. If he has always been unable to remember the difference between Kohl and Merkel, that makes him less fit for office compared to a demented 81 years old, not more.
Again, I don't know what to say--mistakes like this are not even uncommon among American Presidents. The electorate doesn't appear to find them disqualifying. I don't think they are a credible sign of dementia given I know people in their 30s who make mistakes like this.
There are actual tests for dementia, that AFAIK don't quiz people on things like "who is the current President of France."
I remember arguing against all the claims people made against W. Bush on similar things back in the 2000s, and I also tended to view most instances of Trump confusing names and such with a grain of salt.
I wonder some times how many people who act like this is such a big deal regularly speak in front of audiences? It isn't anything like having a conversation at a dinner table, and by the way, most of you here if we transcribed your dinner table conversations and picked out every mental error in your speech it is highly likely there would be quite a few. I think there is just a lack of recognition of how common flubs in speech are, and how uncritically a typical person's speech is received.
Being in a job like the Presidency it is a polar opposite, every word is recorded and every word is scrutinized.
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 08, 2024, 09:16:01 AMHow are people preparing themselves for Trump's second term? At this point I am taking it as a given and if he loses it will be a pleasant surprise.
By expecting the worse. Our western rules base world order is ending. Free elections are on their last legs.
The USA will be a white supremacist theocracy within 25 years.
I haven't had a chance to read every line of it, but the special counsel report that came out involving the Biden classified documents probe seems shockingly unprofessional and partisan. It leads by finding that Biden "did willfully" mishandle classified information, and claims his "forgetfulness" is one reason he chose not to prosecute. But buried 200 pages into the report it admits there was not actually any evidence that Biden willfully mishandled the documents.
It reads like a partisan special counsel wrote the intro and then the actual attorneys who worked the case wrote the rest.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2024, 04:12:03 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 08, 2024, 04:01:05 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 08, 2024, 03:32:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 10:22:25 AMFair point. The urgency may be greater than if Biden was considered a strong candidate.
I do hope the Dems have a plan B prepared because I think the age stuff is a real risk.
Totally get Garbon's point which is right objectively, but I think politically it is cutting through and like all the best attacks is fundamentally factual: Biden is old.
The whole situation is unbelievable. I think we all assumed, and was reinforced by Biden himself, that he would be a one term President and he would be a bridge to some younger politician in 2024. Instead we are taking an enormous risk for no particular reason with enormous stakes. Biden isn't some irreplaceable unique figure.
Problem is Kamala Harris hasn't exactly captured the nation's attention.
I think we can award you with the understatement of the year award right now. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2024, 06:33:58 PMWell that was obvious when he picked her. I thought he had promised his black supporters a black female VP so he delivered. But I didn't think at the time that he was also locking in his successor.
I disagree that it was obvious that she'd fail to catch on. She was a strong candidate in the primaries, and had checked off almost all the boxes. I don't think she chose a very good staff for the VP position, though, and never broke through into the limelight.
Mayor Pete is my choice for heir apparent. He's really impressed me as Transportation Secretary, which is a hard job from which to impress.
Is Kamela Harris locked in as Biden's running mate?
The Special Counsel's commentary was grossly unprofessional and a cheap shot, but it doesn't change that it happened. And the press conference was a disaster.
It doesn't really matter anymore what Biden's mental condition is anymore because people have made up their mind about him and nothing he does now will change it. On the contrary, further public appearances will reinforce it. That may not be fair but it's the reality.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2024, 09:10:14 PMIs Kamela Harris locked in as Biden's running mate?
No...I don't believe so...but it'd be a huge political kerfuffle to jettison her.
FDR could easily get away with it.
I'd be happy to see President Katie Porter, Raphael Warnock, or Gretchen Whitmer.
There is frankly political malpractice that more attacks are not made on Trump's age and confusion, and journalistic malpractice that the media largely minimizes Trump's struggles with coherence. In recent memory, Trump has:
Has said either that Barack Obama is president or that he had run against Obama for the presidency at least seven times, according to Forbes's Sara Dorn.
Mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, claiming Haley was in charge of security at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Identified a picture of E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, as a picture of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.
Has anyone found evidence Biden can't recognize if he is looking at a picture of his wife? Or who he ran against in 2020?
The Dems need to rail on all of this, and the media need to actually meaningfully cover Trump's verbal and coherence problems if they are going to judge similar issues for Biden as being constantly newsworthy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2024, 01:23:29 AMThere is frankly political malpractice that more attacks are not made on Trump's age and confusion, and journalistic malpractice that the media largely minimizes Trump's struggles with coherence. In recent memory, Trump has:
Has said either that Barack Obama is president or that he had run against Obama for the presidency at least seven times, according to Forbes's Sara Dorn.
Mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, claiming Haley was in charge of security at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Identified a picture of E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, as a picture of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.
Has anyone found evidence Biden can't recognize if he is looking at a picture of his wife? Or who he ran against in 2020?
The Dems need to rail on all of this, and the media need to actually meaningfully cover Trump's verbal and coherence problems if they are going to judge similar issues for Biden as being constantly newsworthy.
On this we totally agree. There is one person in front-row politics today who makes Biden appear coherent and in good mental state and that's Trump. He should be thorn apart over this.
When you've a choice of two, whataboutism does become valid.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2024, 08:43:10 PMI disagree that it was obvious that she'd fail to catch on. She was a strong candidate in the primaries, and had checked off almost all the boxes. I don't think she chose a very good staff for the VP position, though, and never broke through into the limelight.
Mayor Pete is my choice for heir apparent. He's really impressed me as Transportation Secretary, which is a hard job from which to impress.
Yeah I agree. I was surprised how poorly Harris did in the primaries in terms of her performance, but I thought she was a strong VP candidate and practically if you're the VP of a President in his late 70s you are an heir (possibly quite literally).
I don't know why but I don't think she's built any presence up in that role. In fairness to her part of that may be that Biden's White House is not letting her build a presence. I imagine if you're the staff of a late 70s leader and age is an issue politically, the last thing you'd want is for a young, active VP to be looking like they're the one really running the government. But I'm not sure if that's it or not.
QuoteIt doesn't really matter anymore what Biden's mental condition is anymore because people have made up their mind about him and nothing he does now will change it. On the contrary, further public appearances will reinforce it. That may not be fair but it's the reality.
Yeah and this is part of the problem with it as an attack Biden's vulnerable on - it is factual and it is something everyone can form a view on. There's no need for expert commentary or "he said"/"she said" style reporting; people can just watch the news.
I think objectively it's unfair for all the reasons OvB says - but also I think Biden's been a pretty impressive President and when I've seen him speak (except in those 5 second clips of gaffes) I think he's fine. But on the practical level, I don't really know how Biden or his team would go about fighting the complaint that he's too old. I think getting him speaking and working crowds is probably the best strategy (and I think it's stuff that Biden is good at) - project an image of energy and being on top of things (which may even reflect reality). But I'm not sure if that'd work or if it's enough. As you say I think people have largely made up their minds on this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 09, 2024, 07:17:48 AMBut on the practical level, I don't really know how Biden or his team would go about fighting the complaint that he's too old. I think getting him speaking and working crowds is probably the best strategy (and I think it's stuff that Biden is good at) - project an image of energy and being on top of things (which may even reflect reality). But I'm not sure if that'd work or if it's enough.
(https://duet-cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0x0:1409x785/1440x960/filters:focal(734x364:735x365):format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8846551/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.png)
I increasingly view that meme as a personal attack :weep: :ph34r:
I wonder what the modern version would look like.How does the geriatric millenial seek to fit in.
Biden is clearly old. His best tack is going "well duh" to that and empathising in a choice between two 80 year olds you should chose the competent one.
I think paradoxically, whilst the "basement campaigner" worked in the specific political scenario of 2020, I think it is not going to work as a strategy in 2024--and the answer is to have Biden out there more.
But...Biden is a bad speaker, and frequently embarrasses himself when speaking!
Well, so does Trump.
At least part of why Trump's general lack of coherence and poor handle on facts and specifics when speaking doesn't do him more harm is Trump just lives in the media, he is out there so much a lot of it just becomes background noise.
When Biden has a very limited relationship with the public, I think it actually exacerbates his many faults.
There is no one else. Any thoughts of swapping Biden for another candidate are fanciful dreams. The Dems have to find out how to win with Biden, and IMO getting him out there more--even if he's angry, is good. In fact, regularizing "angry Biden" may be more or less a good thing.
In a best case scenario you have a well spoken, clearly coherent guy like Barack Obama at the top of your ticket. We don't have that option. So I think you let Biden play to, frankly, his instincts--Biden is infamously foul tempered and moody and that has been well known by the politico crowd for decades. The time has come for the public to sample more of that. Yes, he is going to regularly embarrass himself. There is no way to stop that, and I think we've reached the point where keeping him sequestered actually does more harm than good.
I also suspect the Biden camp has been loathe to go after Trump too hard on this for the same reason Trump "passed" on the (very specious) rape allegation that was made against Biden during the 2020 campaign--Trump is vulnerable on that line of discussion, so why even bring it up as a topic. The logic in Bidenworld was probably that "Biden is weak on the whole old and incoherent thing, so why front and center it." Well, it is front and center. There is no fixing that, what you can do is make the public more aware that Trump is at least as bad on that front, and IMO is actually worse with the sheer scale of incoherent comments he makes.
I also don't think it would be a bad idea for Biden to take one of the cognitive screening tests like the Montreal test the way Trump did when people accused him of having dementia. Assuming he actually passes it--if he actually failed a screening test like that then we're in a much more serious situation where I think you do have to discuss emergency options.
(For the record, I actually do think people catastrophize referring to the wrong names and dates a lot more than is reasonable, but this is politics--reasonability isn't that relevant. I think to some degree it is obvious Biden and Trump have experienced declines in acuity from their peaks--both men have lived in the public their whole lives, and you can compare to their public commentary in the 80s or 90s, but I actually think Trump has declined far more in the coherence and poise of his speech than Biden, partly because Biden started from a weak position on that to begin with.)
Another thing--Dems need to consider just giving the media a giant middle finger. I think there is still a false perception the media is "on their side." They aren't. The media are attention whores and catastrophizers, that is how they make their money. While the individual journalists, as a profession, are mostly liberals, that doesn't make them political allies.
The format of the "contentious press conference" is no longer useful politically--and it is not an innate part of democracy, democracy existed long before it was a norm, and it is not really a necessary thing. It just exposes Democrats to embarrassment.
Trump infamously did very few press conferences of that type, he preferred venues where he had a tight control on the press. Several other leading Republicans have largely eschewed press conferences to a stunning degree versus the previous norm (Ron DeSantis for example has done very few while Governor of Florida--and the few he has done, have not been to his benefit.)
There was one point in Trump's Presidency where he went almost a full year without a press conference.
Trump only really broke with this habit when covid hit, and he started doing his daily briefs--which have widely been seen as a huge political mistake, he almost certainly cost himself votes among the suburban middle class when he went full crazy person in those pressers (including the infamous "Ingest bleach" one.)
The reality is this venue has become one where press get to attack the President for attention, and when only one party is still subjecting themselves to it, I think the political benefit is questionable. Toss it. The press can make their attention grabbing stories without the Dems helping them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2024, 08:45:09 AMI think paradoxically, whilst the "basement campaigner" worked in the specific political scenario of 2020, I think it is not going to work as a strategy in 2024--and the answer is to have Biden out there more.
But...Biden is a bad speaker, and frequently embarrasses himself when speaking!
Well, so does Trump.
I think a significant difference though, is that Biden's bad speaking tends to make even his base cringe. Trump's base eats everything up that he pukes out, or just waves it off for the sake of expediency.
.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2024, 10:55:50 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2024, 08:45:09 AMI think paradoxically, whilst the "basement campaigner" worked in the specific political scenario of 2020, I think it is not going to work as a strategy in 2024--and the answer is to have Biden out there more.
But...Biden is a bad speaker, and frequently embarrasses himself when speaking!
Well, so does Trump.
I think a significant difference though, is that Biden's bad speaking tends to make even his base cringe. Trump's base eats everything up that he pukes out, or just waves it off for the sake of expediency.
Yes. That is a problem.
Trump may be more senile and crazy than Biden but...
Bidens whole selling point is that he's a safe and competent guy who is president because he will do a good job of following common sense and improving the country.
Trump on the other hand has the whole selling point that he is an agent of chaos who will smash the system. Even from normal republican eyes, the best government is one that doesn't do anything, so that's good too.
Being a bit kooky and past it is a much bigger deal for Biden than for trump.
Quote from: Josquius on February 10, 2024, 02:46:33 AM.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2024, 10:55:50 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2024, 08:45:09 AMI think paradoxically, whilst the "basement campaigner" worked in the specific political scenario of 2020, I think it is not going to work as a strategy in 2024--and the answer is to have Biden out there more.
But...Biden is a bad speaker, and frequently embarrasses himself when speaking!
Well, so does Trump.
I think a significant difference though, is that Biden's bad speaking tends to make even his base cringe. Trump's base eats everything up that he pukes out, or just waves it off for the sake of expediency.
Yes. That is a problem.
Trump may be more senile and crazy than Biden but...
Bidens whole selling point is that he's a safe and competent guy who is president because he will do a good job of following common sense and improving the country.
Trump on the other hand has the whole selling point that he is an agent of chaos who will smash the system. Even from normal republican eyes, the best government is one that doesn't do anything, so that's good too.
Being a bit kooky and past it is a much bigger deal for Biden than for trump.
:lol:
Is all I can really say about this garbage.
:huh: Why? What other explanation can you give for all the countless shit Trump gets away with in the eyes of his followers? It's because even his cult has zero expectations except for him destroying the system they see as harming them.
Quote from: Tamas on February 10, 2024, 04:21:22 AM:huh: Why? What other explanation can you give for all the countless shit Trump gets away with in the eyes of his followers? It's because even his cult has zero expectations except for him destroying the system they see as harming them.
Perhaps I misread it in my haste but I took it to mean that people can reasonably see Biden as risky vs Trump as it significantly detracts from idea Biden is safe pair of hands. Even if one views Biden as mentally degraded, the people around him leave him infinitely more of a safe choice than loose cannon Trump.
Quote from: garbon on February 10, 2024, 06:16:51 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 10, 2024, 04:21:22 AM:huh: Why? What other explanation can you give for all the countless shit Trump gets away with in the eyes of his followers? It's because even his cult has zero expectations except for him destroying the system they see as harming them.
Perhaps I misread it in my haste but I took it to mean that people can reasonably see Biden as risky vs Trump as it significantly detracts from idea Biden is safe pair of hands. Even if one views Biden as mentally degraded, the people around him leave him infinitely more of a safe choice than loose cannon Trump.
I believe what he meant was that nobody, least of all his fans, expect Trump to be a safe pair of hands. So any news saying Trump is not a safe pair of hands is nothing new. Precisely because of this the main selling point of Biden is that he is sane and at least somewhat capable. Any news that refutes the latter is thus bad for Biden (and the same is not true for Trump per the above).
But it shouldn't really refute it for any reasonable person. Trump is still so much more of a risk.
Quote from: garbon on February 10, 2024, 09:07:29 AMBut it shouldn't really refute it for any reasonable person. Trump is still so much more of a risk.
Unreasonable people still vote. Not all unreasonable people vote Trump, some people's lack of reason is centered on them being "independent thinkers" for the sole sake of thinking of themselves as independent thinkers. These unreasonable voters count just as much as the others. Elections should be strategized around what people
will do, not around what they
should do.
Meanwhile, Trump argues it would be okay to have members of nato not paying their share be attacked by Russia.
Yep.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweHeWX-epE-LoWLEpl4ZMp0Q
It is depressing that nearly half of the US population is willing to as a minimum tolerate this person by inaction, and a massive number of them actually want him as their leader.
From what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
Quote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 07:04:03 AMFrom what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
seems far too many americans suffer from basically the same problem the russians suffer from:
The russians can't imagine other countries and governments not being as shit as theirs, while many americans apparently can't fathom other peoples not being as ignorant as them.
Quote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 07:04:03 AMFrom what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
Fair. I often mention a formative short conversation I had with a Fidesz-voting family member back in 2002 or 2006. They outlined how some of the specific election promises Fidesz made would benefit them personally. I asked politely if they are not concerned that they had made very lavish promises to pretty much every subset of society and there was no way they could keep all of these. They replied saying that those other promises are not serious (as opposed to the ones benefiting them) and were just made to win the election. Ok then!
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 11, 2024, 07:24:27 AMseems far too many americans suffer from basically the same problem the russians suffer from:
The russians can't imagine other countries and governments not being as shit as theirs, while many americans apparently can't fathom other peoples not being as ignorant as them.
For the Trump supporters, it is worse: they think that they are the smartest ones in the room and cannot understand why everyone else fails to understand that every stupid lie that dribbles off Trump's lips is secretly genius subtlety.
I am set to retire in '25. Ya'll better not let it be Trump that I get the signed "thank you for your service" letter from. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 11, 2024, 02:03:47 PMI am set to retire in '25. Ya'll better not let it be Trump that I get the signed "thank you for your service" letter from. :mad:
He'll sign it with crayon.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 11, 2024, 04:59:05 AMYep.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweHeWX-epE-LoWLEpl4ZMp0Q
Do you want war? This is how you get wars.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 11, 2024, 07:24:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 07:04:03 AMFrom what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
seems far too many americans suffer from basically the same problem the russians suffer from:
The russians can't imagine other countries and governments not being as shit as theirs, while many americans apparently can't fathom other peoples not being as ignorant as them.
I think it's pretty common to this sort of populist right winger the world over.
I remember back in the midst of the brexit shit so many of them going on about how the UK would run rings around the EU at negotiations and the EU would just stand still leaving gaping openings for the UK to exploit at its leisure.
It's quite ironic considering what they say about the poor at home, but they just don't get that other countries have agency or even that they will react to their country's actions.
Then again it does connect with many of their views of not being capability of thinking holistically and only look at the immediate "nail sticks out? Hammer that thing down!"
The holistic approach to getting Europe to pay their fair share for NATO has not worked either.
Quote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 07:04:03 AMFrom what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
Yes. On the other hand Europeans have had since at 2016 to act in a way that reduces their reliance on America and make their security more Trump-proof - and things couldn't have been clearer since 2022.
With the exception of the Finns, the Baltics and, right now, the Poles, we haven't really done that.
I get that America's nuclear umbrella in particular is very important in Europe's security. But we could still take the risk seriously ourselves.
Quote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 02:36:29 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 11, 2024, 07:24:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 11, 2024, 07:04:03 AMFrom what I've seen in the past they explain this kind of comment to themself as something like "Yeah but it works. It gets them to spend more. He wouldn't actually let Russia conquer Europe obviously. He's just saying it as its part of making genius business deals to threaten to walk away".
They really do live in an alternate reality where Russians don't read the news.
seems far too many americans suffer from basically the same problem the russians suffer from:
The russians can't imagine other countries and governments not being as shit as theirs, while many americans apparently can't fathom other peoples not being as ignorant as them.
I think it's pretty common to this sort of populist right winger the world over.
Equally present with the left wing, josq. They also think they're smarter than the rest.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 12, 2024, 01:58:06 AMuote author=Josquiu
Equally present with the left wing, josq. They also think they're smarter than the rest.
Could be. But the equivalents of Trumpies on the left aren't really a thing in numbers worth even thinking about.
There are people in the center who think they're smarter than everyone else.
:lol:
Untitled.png
The logic is irrefutable.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2024, 01:23:29 AMThere is frankly political malpractice that more attacks are not made on Trump's age and confusion, and journalistic malpractice that the media largely minimizes Trump's struggles with coherence. In recent memory, Trump has:
Has said either that Barack Obama is president or that he had run against Obama for the presidency at least seven times, according to Forbes's Sara Dorn.
Mixed up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi, claiming Haley was in charge of security at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Identified a picture of E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, as a picture of his ex-wife, Marla Maples.
Has anyone found evidence Biden can't recognize if he is looking at a picture of his wife? Or who he ran against in 2020?
The Dems need to rail on all of this, and the media need to actually meaningfully cover Trump's verbal and coherence problems if they are going to judge similar issues for Biden as being constantly newsworthy.
I think that Trump's coherence issues have been well covered by news services (to the left of Fox News.) This morning MSNBC had a long piece on Trump referring to Barak as president (he had done it again over the weekend.) CNN ran seven stories about Trump confusing Haley with Pelosi (and referenced it in every article that mentioned either the Hur report or Biden recalling meeting with dead European leaders). I think it's difficult to get this to register when Trump is threatening retribution against his enemies, saying immigrants are "Poisoning the blood of our country," calling journalists "The enemy of the people" and encouraging Russia to invade our NATO allies.
I have to admit I growing somewhat apprehensive about the upcoming American presidential election.
The secret to Taylor's success:
(https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/trump-swift-truth-social-frb-11.png)
But I thought Taylor Swift was a psy-ops campaign created by the CIA to re-elect Joe Biden... :unsure:... was Trump in on this all along? :unsure:
I was hoping the chiefs would lose so she could get to her next break up album and I could stop hearing about their relationship.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 12, 2024, 02:48:29 PMThe secret to Taylor's success:
He did sign the MMA.
Joe Biden hasn't done anything personally for Taylor Swift that I am aware of.
It's quite likely Travis Kelce doesn't like him.
As Trump statements go, that's pretty good on accuracy even if most of it is nonsense.
I think it would be funny to quiz Trump on the contents of the MMA though.
Quote from: HVC on February 12, 2024, 02:51:47 PMI was hoping the chiefs would lose so she could get to her next break up album and I could stop hearing about their relationship.
Why are you bothered by a love story that isn't dysfunctional?
I do find the online right deciding that they need to war with sports and popular music a little baffling :blink:
No wonder a community that desperate to be bullied loves Trump.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2024, 04:57:34 PMI do find the online right deciding that they need to war with sports and popular music a little baffling :blink:
No wonder a community that desperate to be bullied loves Trump.
Yeah, this is where you can see that as dumb as Trump usually comes across, even he knows that it's a bad idea to try and pick a fight with both the NFL and Taylor Swift.
It's Kansas City - I can see him wanting to piss off SF, but why anyone in MAGA world thought it was wise to pick on Kansas City is a bit baffling.
It was quite a weekend for Commander Bonespurs:
Trump asks about whereabouts of Haley's husband, who's serving overseas (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-asks-about-whereabouts-of-haley-s-husband-who-s-serving-overseas/ar-BB1i5Hyf)
Quote"Then she comes over to see me at Mar-a-Lago. 'Sir, I will never run against you.' She brought her husband. Where's your husband? Oh, he's away. He's away. What happened to her husband? What happened to her husband? Where is he? He's gone! He knew. He knew," Trump said.
I haven't been following Trump's campaign all that closely, so I was surprised to see the following quote in the article from a speech last month:
Quote"They'll be indicted, because they'll say she was having an affair or something, you know. That doesn't mean it's lying. But she'll be indicted for something," Trump said.
Even by Trump's standards (well, okay, I'll grant you that's an oxymoron) that seems stunningly hypocritical.
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2024, 05:01:02 PMpick a fight with both the NFL and Taylor Swift.
Let's complete the scorecard.
NFL, Taylor Swift, Disney and Budweiser.
No American icon is safe from these nihilists.
Harley Davidson
He's changed his mind on Budweiser, guess they made a contribution to his campaign
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2024, 05:10:48 PMIt's Kansas City - I can see him wanting to piss off SF, but why anyone in MAGA world thought it was wise to pick on Kansas City is a bit baffling.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 12, 2024, 04:36:15 PMQuote from: HVC on February 12, 2024, 02:51:47 PMI was hoping the chiefs would lose so she could get to her next break up album and I could stop hearing about their relationship.
Why are you bothered by a love story that isn't dysfunctional?
Isn't dysfunctional
yet :contract: :P
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2024, 05:01:02 PMYeah, this is where you can see that as dumb as Trump usually comes across, even he knows that it's a bad idea to try and pick a fight with both the NFL and Taylor Swift.
Yes - but also fundamentally I think for a Presidential candidate Trump has an unusually regard and respect for how famous people are :lol: It's an achievement or quality that I think he genuinely admires (unlike most of the more traditional American virtues).
Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2024, 01:53:56 PMI have to admit I growing somewhat apprehensive about the upcoming American presidential election.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGMDEZKW4AIvCP7?format=jpg&name=medium)
The New York Times.
Even Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
Quote from: Zoupa on February 13, 2024, 02:28:47 AMEven Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
Fair.
But only one wants to destroy the world.
Quote from: Josquius on February 13, 2024, 03:44:04 AMQuote from: Zoupa on February 13, 2024, 02:28:47 AMEven Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
Fair.
But only one wants to destroy the world.
I just hope people get this out of their system now. As while Biden may not be the candidate we love, when it is time to support the home team, voters need to come out.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 13, 2024, 02:28:47 AMEven Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
Jon Stewart deserves a good chunk of the blame for making our society too cynical to be able differentiate good actors from bad actors. His methods and intentions are radically different from Rupert's, but the damage to democracy is comparable.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2024, 04:02:59 AMI just hope people get this out of their system now. As while Biden may not be the candidate we love, when it is time to support the home team, voters need to come out.
Yes - my concern with that is I think it might work better to unseat a President than to re-elect an incumbent.
My additional fear on top of all the usual ones is that Trump won't really be a lame duck president the way most second term presidents are. His power in large part come from him personally rather than the position he holds.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 08:15:42 AMMy additional fear on top of all the usual ones is that Trump won't really be a lame duck president the way most second term presidents are. His power in large part come from him personally rather than the position he holds.
I'd just be thankful he's old there.
I could really see him and his supporters arguing "Oh its 2 consecutive terms you can't do. Of course he can run again".
Reality is flexible.
Or hell. Knowing Trumpies.... "He can't be ELECTED president again. Nothing against him just being president for longer"
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 06:29:30 AMQuote from: Zoupa on February 13, 2024, 02:28:47 AMEven Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
Jon Stewart deserves a good chunk of the blame for making our society too cynical to be able differentiate good actors from bad actors. His methods and intentions are radically different from Rupert's, but the damage to democracy is comparable.
Really? Did people really have trouble distinguishing between good and bad actors before Trump and the Russians started their disinformation campaign through social media? Did people really have trouble doing that while Stewart was at the height of his powers on the daily show and we still had viable news media outlets that everybody watched and trusted?
Your post actually sounds more like a Russian disinformation campaign.
Quote from: Josquius on February 13, 2024, 08:18:30 AMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 08:15:42 AMMy additional fear on top of all the usual ones is that Trump won't really be a lame duck president the way most second term presidents are. His power in large part come from him personally rather than the position he holds.
I'd just be thankful he's old there.
I could really see him and his supporters arguing "Oh its 2 consecutive terms you can't do. Of course he can run again".
Reality is flexible.
Or hell. Knowing Trumpies.... "He can't be ELECTED president again. Nothing against him just being president for longer"
I think it's a real concern. In Magel land he has already won to terms. This will be his third term but because of the deep state he needs to have a third term in order to save the country. And so once he has this third term, again under the logic of MAGA land, why should the great leader stop?
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 06:29:30 AMJon Stewart deserves a good chunk of the blame for making our society too cynical to be able differentiate good actors from bad actors. His methods and intentions are radically different from Rupert's, but the damage to democracy is comparable.
I have no idea what this means. Is "Rupert" Rupert Murdoch? If so, by what measure does Jon Stewart have anything like the media reach of the Times, Fox News, the Sun, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc, etc? I doubt that half the people in the US even know who Jon Stewart is, past the name.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:23:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 13, 2024, 08:18:30 AMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 08:15:42 AMMy additional fear on top of all the usual ones is that Trump won't really be a lame duck president the way most second term presidents are. His power in large part come from him personally rather than the position he holds.
I'd just be thankful he's old there.
I could really see him and his supporters arguing "Oh its 2 consecutive terms you can't do. Of course he can run again".
Reality is flexible.
Or hell. Knowing Trumpies.... "He can't be ELECTED president again. Nothing against him just being president for longer"
I think it's a real concern. In Magel land he has already won to terms. This will be his third term but because of the deep state he needs to have a third term in order to save the country. And so once he has this third term, again under the logic of MAGA land, why should the great leader stop?
Yes. Existential crises (like Wokeness)justify extraordinary actions (like suspending elections). If Trump gets re-elected, we can only hope that his lifestyle catches up with him sooner rather than later.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 08:49:32 AMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 06:29:30 AMJon Stewart deserves a good chunk of the blame for making our society too cynical to be able differentiate good actors from bad actors. His methods and intentions are radically different from Rupert's, but the damage to democracy is comparable.
I have no idea what this means. Is "Rupert" Rupert Murdoch? If so, by what measure does Jon Stewart have anything like the media reach of the Times, Fox News, the Sun, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc, etc? I doubt that half the people in the US even know who Jon Stewart is, past the name.
He can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 10:18:26 AMQuote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 08:49:32 AMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 06:29:30 AMJon Stewart deserves a good chunk of the blame for making our society too cynical to be able differentiate good actors from bad actors. His methods and intentions are radically different from Rupert's, but the damage to democracy is comparable.
I have no idea what this means. Is "Rupert" Rupert Murdoch? If so, by what measure does Jon Stewart have anything like the media reach of the Times, Fox News, the Sun, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc, etc? I doubt that half the people in the US even know who Jon Stewart is, past the name.
He can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
I do think this could be a big problem going forward in the US.
As the young demographic move leftwards the Democrats will stick to the centre-right as it just makes sense with the way elections work and under the idea that they have the left wing vote locked in.
If a decent third party candidate should rise on the left... or even if cynicism grows high enough to prompt not voting.... the dems could really lose a lot of voters the more left wing party should be getting.
I've definitely seen a lot of left wing Americans online hating on Biden- last election several made clear you better bloody vote for him as better to have someone spitting in your face than stabbing you...but will they be so enthusiastic this time? And next time?
I'd like to be optimistic and think what we're seeing with Trump is peak idiocy. From here the old will die, their place taken by more digital savvy people not quite so plugged into fox news and facebook, and steadily normalcy will be restored.... but who knows.
Although on the "young moving leftward", I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. As I mentioned in the Brexit thread it is vastly more of a feature in British politics than elsewhere - in the US it's about 40/60:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GF42Y4eWoAAUVSX?format=jpg&name=small)
I'd also add that how that goes I think depends to a large extent on this social trend which I think is important to try and get to the bottom - and will have big social and political implications if it continues. Which is that in the US (and a fair few other democracies) young women are moving left, while young men are moving right:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEw1o3PXEAA4FDZ?format=jpg&name=small)
And from the US - young men holding more socially conservative views on gender than old men (I think a lot of this is something to do with lived experience, but that's also reality):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEw64XLWAAA5t-p?format=png&name=small)
I'm not sure we can say the young in the US are moving left. I think there's a big gender split (and I think Trump is part of that or plays into it). Similarly I think the reporting/polling (it's very early and polling at this stage is meaningless) of Latino and Black (generally male) voters should cause a bit of worry for the Democrats.
I think waiting for/hoping your opponents dies is not a great (or attractive) political strategy but I also don't see any reason to think it'll work for the Democrats (remember the emerging Democrat/Republican maority depending on the year of publication). I think if the polling does hold up and there is a significant Latino and Black (male) vote for Trump that's probably enough to undo any "old people dying" political gain and probably presents a longer term risk for the Democrats.
We can say the young are moving to the left based on actual election results, in the U.S. at least.
But it shouldn't be misconstrued, a 60/40 split is ahistorically poor for Republicans in the 18-29 group, they have not generally fared that poorly in that age group--they did actually fair that poorly when Obama was running, but not before or after when Hillary ran.
Also that last chart is pretty uninteresting to me. Even the "worst" segment only around 15% of young men hold those views, that is almost certainly a view by angry unmarried men. As they age out some of them will get married and have more normal views on women.
Youth polling in that 18-29 cohort shows robust (and bad for the GOP) levels of support for abortion rights, policies to address climate change, etc. And some of those don't have much of a gender gap; there is a small gender gap on abortion rights, but not that significant of one (there is as larger gender gap overall on party affiliation.)
Again I think it needs to be broken down - this is interesting on the US specifically (including on the gender gap on specific issues):
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-gender-gap-young-men-women-dont-agree-politics-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
It may change over time as you say through socialisation. But I think the trend is striking. (Edit: And present in other countries: South Korea, Poland, Germany etc.)
I'm generally very suspicious of "demographics is destiny" arguments of political inevitability - I remember them in the W Bush years and the Obama years and I don't think they're any more likely to be right now. Also I think the inevitable product of that argument is passivity. If all you need to do is wait, what's the point of getting out and organising politically now. And I think the UK has a particularly extreme age gap that we shouldn't read into the rest of the world.
In terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2024, 12:35:38 PMIn terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.
The Black men thing is laughable. For 40 years there has been this thing about how the black men are going to vote for Republicans ANY MINUTE NOW but it never really goes anywhere. The only demographic more Democratic than Black Men are Black Women where it is almost unanimous. However I think it would be wrong to say that black people just love the Democrats and that is why they vote for them, so I could certainly see anti-Democratic party opinions coming from that group but they sure as hell aren't going to start voting Republican.
Latinos are a different deal but that is very normal for immigrant groups who can pass for white people. The Democrats have always been the immigrant party and as groups cease to see themselves as immigrants and are accepted into the majority white culture they tend to move to the Republicans. That is an ancient story and generally how things probably should go.
In any case I am not sure what specific politics the Democrats would need to shift towards to really capture those groups to a greater extent. The Republicans are so anti-black and so nativist that it is kind of hard to position yourself to capture people who like those aspects. But maybe you have some other ideas. The Democrats cannot out-Republican Republicans despite their best efforts.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 13, 2024, 02:28:47 AMEven Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".
:wacko:
I saw the segment, it was far, far from both-sidism. But there is taking a side, and there is denying what the eyes see and ears hear.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2024, 12:35:38 PMAgain I think it needs to be broken down - this is interesting on the US specifically (including on the gender gap on specific issues):
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-gender-gap-young-men-women-dont-agree-politics-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
It may change over time as you say through socialisation. But I think the trend is striking. (Edit: And present in other countries: South Korea, Poland, Germany etc.)
I'm generally very suspicious of "demographics is destiny" arguments of political inevitability - I remember them in the W Bush years and the Obama years and I don't think they're any more likely to be right now. Also I think the inevitable product of that argument is passivity. If all you need to do is wait, what's the point of getting out and organising politically now. And I think the UK has a particularly extreme age gap that we shouldn't read into the rest of the world.
In terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.
Just saw an interesting article on Canadian polling results:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-thanks-to-women-tories-on-course-for-largest-landslide-in-canadian-history
The take-away is that if you went back one year there was a 20 point gap between men and women: between the ages or 35 and 54 men supported Poilievre at 47%, while women only at 27%.
But now the numbers are 47% men, 38% women. And the Conservatives have one of the biggest leads we've seen for a long, long time.
Also - under 34s are the group of the population most likely to vote Conservative.
All of which goes to show these kinds of trends are not etched in stone...
And yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 01:58:51 PMAnd yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.
It's kind of interesting.
While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.
It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.
It seems to me that the Liberals are the natural governing party of Canada but every four or five elections the country decides to take a break.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2024, 02:36:14 PMIt's kind of interesting.
While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.
It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.
Interesting phrase as from a British perspective "sea change" is very associated with Jim Callaghan just before the 1979 election:
QuoteYou know there are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of.
I suspect there is now such a sea change and it is for Mrs Thatcher.
FWIW I think there is a sea change in Western politics right now (as there was in the 70s) - although I've no idea yet yet who it is for.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2024, 02:36:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 01:58:51 PMAnd yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.
It's kind of interesting.
While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.
It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.
I think there is a strong argument that the Trudeau broke every major promise he made and is just flat out bad at governing. Just look at my post about what the Federal Court did today to rebuke them for their failure to appoint judges. That has been going on this government for years. And it to have the Federal Court and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada rebuke them like that is unprecedented in Canada.
I agree with Sheilbh. There is a sea change coming. And I too don't know who will win in the end. But I do know its not going to be Trudeau.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 10:18:26 AMHe can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things. If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 04:48:12 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 10:18:26 AMHe can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things. If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.
I have now seen the clip - he was making fun of the Dems for not doing a better job on social media - i.e. rather than just saying Biden is on top of his game, show it.
If that sort of criticism prevents people from meaningfully engaging in the democratic process, as DGuller suggests, then there are bigger problems than cracking a joke.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2024, 02:36:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 01:58:51 PMAnd yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.
It's kind of interesting.
While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.
It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.
I think his act has just worn thin? He came in with his talk of "sunny ways", but anything really positive from his time as PM was pretty early on - child care benefit, legal cannabis. Now he comes across as more scolding.
Plus there's Sheilbhs favourite issue - housing costs. I posted that link above on how under 35s are now the age group most likely to vote Conservative, and you have to think housing is the reason why.
By the way - I've been enjoying Poilievre's schtick, but he has to be careful as well - the attacking the media can play very well when the media is being dumb, but if he runs across a well-prepared reporter he could get into trouble and look either like a bully or just ill-informed.
Of course there's something a little ironic about John Stewart, a comedian whose glory days were 20 years ago and who has returned to that show now, complaining about American gerontocracy.
Haven't seen the joke but I'm with DG on the cynicism point. Often think of Jonathan Coe's piece on satire in Britain:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2024, 05:25:56 PMOf course there's something a little ironic about John Stewart, a comedian whose glory days were 20 years ago and who has returned to that show now, complaining about American gerontocracy.
Haven't seen the joke but I'm with DG on the cynicism point. Often think of Jonathan Coe's piece on satire in Britain:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea
But he's only 60 something and I've on good authority old only starts at 80. :whistle:
I don't actually think there is a sea change coming to American politics, I think we are looking at continual gradual changes.
I think the biggest "miss" on viewing a sea change was Obama's unique appeal to working class whites in purple rust belt states--that largely evaporated completely by 2016 when Obama was no longer on the ballot (and it had evaporated somewhat between 2008 and 2012.) I think that is just a lesson that certain generational candidates can pull some weird votes, but the longer trendlines were that working class whites in the rust belt have been trending GOP since the 80s.
As union work got gutted out, and as those groups consequently no longer felt a strong economic tie to the Democrats, they were left with caring about social issues--and working class whites have always disproportionately disliked immigrants, minorities, gay people etc. They were at home in the GOP other than the GOP's anti-labor rhetoric, so once the labor unions got killed off they became a natural constituency for Republicans.
The other gradual change is the complete flight from the Republican electorate of educated people (which reliably voted Republican for like 100 years--although 100 years ago the % of the electorate who had a college education was very small.)
I also think most of the changes around these demos has already happened--like I don't think we're going to see dramatic shifts in working class white or educated people's voting patterns in the coming years, I could be wrong though.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 04:48:12 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 10:18:26 AMHe can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things. If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.
As I said to garbon earlier, I'm less interested in blaming voters for having skewed priorities, and more interested in them not having those skewed priorities that helped get us the first Trump term and might get us to the second. I do believe that the historical effect of Jon Stewart being a popular comedian in a way that he was led to some people not taking politics as seriously as they should've, and contributed to the "both-sidism" that has had toxic consequences.
As an aside, I never bought Jon Stewart's line that "he's just comedian making jokes". That always sounded very insincere, or at last self-deluded. He clearly seemed interested in making a difference and doing it through comedy. You don't organize a rally to implore people to be nice to each other if you just want to crack jokes. Nothing wrong with that, humor is always more effective when there is a message communicated with it, but what's wrong is hiding behind the "I'm just a comedian, why you take me so seriously people?" when you're clearly trying to say something serious through comedy.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 11:44:31 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 04:48:12 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 13, 2024, 10:18:26 AMHe can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general. That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do.
The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness. Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".
He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things. If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.
As I said to garbon earlier, I'm less interested in blaming voters for having skewed priorities, and more interested in them not having those skewed priorities that helped get us the first Trump term and might get us to the second. I do believe that the historical effect of Jon Stewart being a popular comedian in a way that he was led to some people not taking politics as seriously as they should've, and contributed to the "both-sidism" that has had toxic consequences.
As an aside, I never bought Jon Stewart's line that "he's just comedian making jokes". That always sounded very insincere, or at last self-deluded. He clearly seemed interested in making a difference and doing it through comedy. You don't organize a rally to implore people to be nice to each other if you just want to crack jokes. Nothing wrong with that, humor is always more effective when there is a message communicated with it, but what's wrong is hiding behind the "I'm just a comedian, why you take me so seriously people?" when you're clearly trying to say something serious through comedy.
When has Stewart ever said that people should not take him seriously when he is engaging in things he takes seriously?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2024, 05:25:56 PMOf course there's something a little ironic about John Stewart, a comedian whose glory days were 20 years ago and who has returned to that show now, complaining about American gerontocracy.
They played that up as a bit on the show, of course.
The one thing I do blame John Stewart for was turning Tucker Carlson from a dorky, preppy, minor political commentator into a neo-fascist Kremlin agent of influence, by blowing up Crossfire and ending Part One of Tucker's career. In retrospect, Stewart's criticism of Crossfire was badly misplaced; if only we could back to a time when that was the worst kind of partisan hackery.
I think Jon Stewart's importance is massively exaggerated by the type of people that watch the Daily Show or care what he says / does.
He is basically a figure that was only ever consumed by people well ensconced in Democratic politics (often specifically anti-Republican sentiment), those people aren't important because they don't need influenced. I don't think Stewart ever has, or ever will, affect much of substance because his content is just consumed by people already in alignment with Jon's politics.
I think right wing figures have a lot more influence because of the nature of the right wing. Left of center people aren't looking at a pundit figure like Stewart to "guide them", they are mostly looking for entertainment or to see Republican hypocrisy pointed out. Right wingers on the other hand often decide what issues to care about quite literally by watching right wing pundits, this is how issues that don't actually affect most people's lives (like the border) have become so important to this group of people.
I think there is a big divergence in how lefties and righties consume media, and it makes partisan agents more effective on the right intrinsically. There are certainly left wing propagandists in the mold of Tucker and Hannity, but they tend to have very small audiences, that sort of personality just doesn't capture large viewership or listenership on the left.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 14, 2024, 09:36:10 AMThe one thing I do blame John Stewart for was turning Tucker Carlson from a dorky, preppy, minor political commentator into a neo-fascist Kremlin agent of influence, by blowing up Crossfire and ending Part One of Tucker's career. In retrospect, Stewart's criticism of Crossfire was badly misplaced; if only we could back to a time when that was the worst kind of partisan hackery.
Agreed. Stewart is likely the most culpable for Tucker discontinuing his use of the bowtie.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2024, 10:44:00 AMAlthough on the "young moving leftward", I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. As I mentioned in the Brexit thread it is vastly more of a feature in British politics than elsewhere - in the US it's about 40/60:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GF42Y4eWoAAUVSX?format=
I'd also add that how that goes I think depends to a large extent on this social trend which I think is important to try and get to the bottom - and will have big social and political implications if it continues. Which is that in the US (and a fair few other democracies) young women are moving left, while young men are moving right:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEw1o3PXEAA4FDZ?format=jpg&name
And from the US - young men holding more socially conservative views on gender than old men (I think a lot of this is something to do with lived experience, but that's also reality):
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEw64XLWAAA5t-p?format=pn
I'm not sure we can say the young in the US are moving left. I think there's a big gender split (and I think Trump is part of that or plays into it). Similarly I think the reporting/polling (it's very early and polling at this stage is meaningless) of Latino and Black (generally male) voters should cause a bit of worry for the Democrats.
I think waiting for/hoping your opponents dies is not a great (or attractive) political strategy but I also don't see any reason to think it'll work for the Democrats (remember the emerging Democrat/Republican maority depending on the year of publication). I think if the polling does hold up and there is a significant Latino and Black (male) vote for Trump that's probably enough to undo any "old people dying" political gain and probably presents a longer term risk for the Democrats.
Sitting and waiting for demographics to change is of course daft. Its not a strategy.
But being aware of these shifts does help to explain things and to plan for the future.
I really don't think we should underestimate the impact the internet has had on the discourse the world over and how this can be especially dangerous to those generations who were hit by this later in life.
Yeah lots of research about the young's engagement with fake news too, but it is very different in nature.
The idea the left, at least in America, is "sitting and waiting on demographic change" is not supported by any evidence. It all stems from articles that came out in the early 2010s with titles like "Demographics is Destiny" and then people mapped that onto their assumptions / feelz about politics.
The Democratic party is hilariously different on a huge number of important policy issues in 2024 than it was in 2010 when this narrative started. They have not "sat in place" waiting. [Incidentally the idea I'd be a Democrat voter back in 2010, for an even more liberal Dem party would have been unthinkable to me, but I also didn't expect the GOP to go full fash just 6 years later. When the alternative is fascism it is odd the political party you will throw your lot in with.]
Call him Charles Foster Trump:
(https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy81MTQ2NzM5MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTcyMDczOTM0M30.yJFiTZRJ87BQMQahcsYJ0Ob2ozVdFwq6NwEYrb8Plms/img.jpg?width=800&quality=85)
He just wants to be loved. :(
Jedediah Leland: You don't care about anything except you. You just want to persuade people that you love 'em so much that they ought to love you back. Only you want love on your own terms. Something to be played your way, according to your rules.
Kane: A toast, Jedediah: to Love on my own terms.
News story going about that Putin has endorsed Biden.
Some real games being played there. :lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 14, 2024, 10:24:24 AMThe idea the left, at least in America, is "sitting and waiting on demographic change" is not supported by any evidence. It all stems from articles that came out in the early 2010s with titles like "Demographics is Destiny" and then people mapped that onto their assumptions / feelz about politics.
The Democratic party is hilariously different on a huge number of important policy issues in 2024 than it was in 2010 when this narrative started. They have not "sat in place" waiting. [Incidentally the idea I'd be a Democrat voter back in 2010, for an even more liberal Dem party would have been unthinkable to me, but I also didn't expect the GOP to go full fash just 6 years later. When the alternative is fascism it is odd the political party you will throw your lot in with.]
Was listening to a podcast which interviewed Ruy Teixeira who wrote the book I think you're thinking about "The Emerging Democratic Majority" back in 2002 - which yes, basically predicted that demographics would lead to increasing numbers of Democratic voters.
He freely admitted that the problem with the thesis is the voting patters of various groups has changed - that non-college educated whites which used to vote Democratic at at least 40% has broken strongly for the Republicans, so that even though there are more blacks and other voters of colour (he didn't like those terms) that hasn't led to the democratic majority he once predicted.
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2024, 05:30:43 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 14, 2024, 10:24:24 AMThe idea the left, at least in America, is "sitting and waiting on demographic change" is not supported by any evidence. It all stems from articles that came out in the early 2010s with titles like "Demographics is Destiny" and then people mapped that onto their assumptions / feelz about politics.
The Democratic party is hilariously different on a huge number of important policy issues in 2024 than it was in 2010 when this narrative started. They have not "sat in place" waiting. [Incidentally the idea I'd be a Democrat voter back in 2010, for an even more liberal Dem party would have been unthinkable to me, but I also didn't expect the GOP to go full fash just 6 years later. When the alternative is fascism it is odd the political party you will throw your lot in with.]
Was listening to a podcast which interviewed Ruy Teixeira who wrote the book I think you're thinking about "The Emerging Democratic Majority" back in 2002 - which yes, basically predicted that demographics would lead to increasing numbers of Democratic voters.
He freely admitted that the problem with the thesis is the voting patters of various groups has changed - that non-college educated whites which used to vote Democratic at at least 40% has broken strongly for the Republicans, so that even though there are more blacks and other voters of colour (he didn't like those terms) that hasn't led to the democratic majority he once predicted.
He not only "freely admitted it" as he points out in his new book, his original book stressed that in order for the thesis to hold, working class voters would need to be kept in the tent. It's just that people didn't (and still don't) pay any attention to that important part of what he was saying.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 14, 2024, 09:48:34 AMI think Jon Stewart's importance is massively exaggerated by the type of people that watch the Daily Show or care what he says / does.
He is basically a figure that was only ever consumed by people well ensconced in Democratic politics (often specifically anti-Republican sentiment), those people aren't important because they don't need influenced. I don't think Stewart ever has, or ever will, affect much of substance because his content is just consumed by people already in alignment with Jon's politics.
I think right wing figures have a lot more influence because of the nature of the right wing. Left of center people aren't looking at a pundit figure like Stewart to "guide them", they are mostly looking for entertainment or to see Republican hypocrisy pointed out. Right wingers on the other hand often decide what issues to care about quite literally by watching right wing pundits, this is how issues that don't actually affect most people's lives (like the border) have become so important to this group of people.
I think there is a big divergence in how lefties and righties consume media, and it makes partisan agents more effective on the right intrinsically. There are certainly left wing propagandists in the mold of Tucker and Hannity, but they tend to have very small audiences, that sort of personality just doesn't capture large viewership or listenership on the left.
What you are saying is that Republican voters are stupid and need to be guided into voting the right way?
Quote from: viper37 on February 18, 2024, 07:51:04 PMWhat you are saying is that Republican voters are stupid and need to be guided into voting the right way?
Eh, I don't think the intelligence difference between the two parties is statistically relevant. Like the GOP has become the party of anti-education and to some degree is heavily embracing people who aren't able or willing to pursue post-secondary education. But a lot of uneducated people vote Democrat. And education is never a perfect indicator of general intelligence.
My take is a lot of Republicans are just revanchists, but they aren't familiar enough with wonky political science terms like that to understand what revanchism is. They know they don't like things that have changed in their lives, and they support things that reverse or impede those changes. They also, mostly, know that some of the things they liked in the past--like being able to slap the secretary on the ass at work, being able to call blacks niggers and everyone at the bar laughs along with them, etc are "not acceptable" in society so they keep it more to themselves. But when pundits and candidates come along who feed into these feelings, they embrace it. To some degree they are actively
seeking out things to be mad about that they can blame on Democrats, because their world view has strongly internalized the idea that it is Democrats and non-conservatives in general who are to blame for "ruining how things were."
There's a lot of closed-minded thinking in the left, that can be just as obnoxious, it just manifests differently. I don't think conservatives gobble up whatever nonsense Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson serve because they are stupider, on average, than Democrats--I think they are just deliberately more interested in feeding negative news to serve their "revenge fantasies" on liberal America.
A majority of Republicans believe that the US is in an existential crisis, and that they are the only heroes who can save it. That's why they absolutely must believe that Trump won the 2020 election, because, if they believe that he didn't, then they have to realize that they are in the minority. They have to believe that they represent the majority of (at least white) America because they think that, if the country was run honestly, they'd never lose an election. So their superhero task is to eliminate the dishonest office-holders who don't share their, and America's, viewpoint.
A belief in being "the silent majority" combined with a belief that American democracy has been subverted, so therefore they need to subvert American democracy to save it?
You all know I waver back and forth between worrying about Putin's schemes to destroy Western democracy being actually effective on one hand, and thinking we shouldn't give him too much credit and ascribe super villain powers to him on the other hand.
... but it's certainly the ideal situation from his perspective.
If someone was to take the threat of a significant number of GOP voters (and the party itself) wanting destroy American democracy to "save it", what are strategies that could be taken counter that?
Say if you were a multi-billionaire, and you wanted to devote your time to save American democracy, what could you do? If you could influence the Democrats, what should they do to effectively take the edge off the threat?
Surely though there's a key in the "white" part of the equation.
All the proper (white) Americans voted for Trump. Biden won because the Dems allow in bazillions of illegals and they somehow are able to vote.
For Putin's powers... Surely both can be true? He has a massive impact though he doesn't have super powers. The thing is it just doesn't need that much junk thrown in certain gears to bring everything crashing down.
When your only goal is destruction rather than building something different, things usually do become a lot easier.
Quote from: Josquius on February 19, 2024, 04:22:48 AMSurely though there's a key in the "white" part of the equation.
All the proper (white) Americans voted for Trump. Biden won because the Dems allow in bazillions of illegals and they somehow are able to vote.
For Putin's powers... Surely both can be true? He has a massive impact though he doesn't have super powers. The thing is it just doesn't need that much junk thrown in certain gears to bring everything crashing down.
When your only goal is destruction rather than building something different, things usually do become a lot easier.
I think it is better to risk underestimating Putin's influence than risking overestimating it. The reactionary nihilists will not go away even if somehow all Russian influence could be blocked but if you convinced yourself that it wasn't half your countrymen being complete retards but it's all the evil foreign influence, then at best you will end up becoming complacent at worst you will end up with two sides each convinced the other is a foreign agent.
But to answer Jacob's question: I do not know. It is tempting to say we on the progressive side should try to reach out and engage in discourse but it seems like any ground given to the reactionaries is being interpreted as a sign of weakness and a cue for them to dial up the crazy. They also seem to dial up the crazy if they don't get any concessions.
I think the only way out of it is a slow grind. The slow grind of piecemeal cultural progress. In the meantime perhaps it would be good to reign in the identitard edge of the left but that again runs the risk of curtailing the rights of minorities just so reactionaries get free to move back to harassing minorities they have given up on.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2024, 11:06:02 PMA majority of Republicans believe that the US is in an existential crisis, and that they are the only heroes who can save it. That's why they absolutely must believe that Trump won the 2020 election, because, if they believe that he didn't, then they have to realize that they are in the minority. They have to believe that they represent the majority of (at least white) America because they think that, if the country was run honestly, they'd never lose an election. So their superhero task is to eliminate the dishonest office-holders who don't share their, and America's, viewpoint.
I don't know about the hero angle - but I think the thing that I find worrying is that Democrats also, I think, believe the US is in an existential crisis and that it's democratic politics is under imminent threat. The trouble is, I think they're right.
My general view is that no-one's made money betting agains the US. But I think there is a crisis of legitimacy on both sides - that democracy/American governance is at risk, that politics has become existential, that the other side cannot legitimately win - is, I think, really worrying. As I say I generally think the Democrats' views on that are correct and I share them. But that is the sort of twin entrenching of positions and breakdown that I think has echoes of pre-civil war politics or pre-coup politics in other American states (either from the Presidency, or some form of guardian coup, or suspension of politics). And I don't know how you get out of that spiral - off the top of my head I can't think of many examples of countries pulling themselves out of that spiral.
My theory was that the only way was ultimately to make the system work which I thought was challenging because the political incentives for the other side are to stop the system working (I think the US is the country that really has a "good chap" theory of constitutionalism in that sense). I think Biden has done far better on that than I expected, he has genuine legislative achievements with a very difficult Congress - and I think they are broadly working substantively. I don't think that's worked politically but it's still the best idea I have.
QuoteIf someone was to take the threat of a significant number of GOP voters (and the party itself) wanting destroy American democracy to "save it", what are strategies that could be taken counter that?
Say if you were a multi-billionaire, and you wanted to devote your time to save American democracy, what could you do? If you could influence the Democrats, what should they do to effectively take the edge off the threat?
This is very narrow and I have no idea. I think Biden's given a good shot of what I thought would work.
I mentioned earlier the Latino vote, though, because I think that is important I think since at least 2020 if not earlier there's been clear signs of parts of the Latino vote moving to the GOP in the Trump era - and I think they are increasingly the key swing voters in some states (though perhaps they "matter" less nationally now that Florida's become properly Republican?). Latino Democratic Representatives have been ringing this bell for a while - I'm not convinced, at least four years in, that there's a strategy to keep and win back those voters which I think is a bit concerning.
Also what if the Russian meddling and data-mining theory is true, but of the Democrats? Not so much the Russian bit obviously. But I wonder if the Democrats went down a wrong path politically because of a misreading of 2008 (particularly from Clinton aides, as Clinton 2016 picked up Obama's data infrastructure). I remember reading in 2008 lots about the Obama capaigns very impressive, innovative use of data and micro-targeting etc. It's all stuff we'd view (post-2016) with deep suspicion but was seen as the future. And I wonder if the Democrats perhaps over-committed on that. The actual story of 2008 was broad appeals as well as the data-driven stuff; it was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, Obama's speeches and rallies which had very broad coverage and interest, the nature of Obama's campaign itself and on the ground activists (again bolstered by Dean's strategy since 2005).
Part of the reason I wonder about that is that I think the internet and the right-wing media space etc matters, but in a lot of ways Trump's a very old media, broad campaign. I think the coverage given to Trump rallies on all (old media) news channels probably mattered more than the social media side of things - that you had CNN cutting into normal programming to run a Trump speech in its entirety (because he will say something "newsy") is extraordinary free coverage that most candidates would never get because they're not that interesting. Obama would becuase he was a great orator who gave "important" speeches and was a historic candidate; Trump does because he will create controversy. And I wonder if the success of Trump v the Republican party (2016 and 2020 v 2018 and 2022) is precisely his ability to reach a broader audience through the old media. That actually the successful strategy in every presidential election since 2008 (and possibly before) was not the micro-targeting, data-driven stuff that drives NYT profiles of young data savants holding parties; but who is best at getting time on broad mass media channels and using it best?
My main thought watching the news from here is that I think the American mainstream media - the CNNs and NYTs etc - have still not got any idea how to cover Trump.
Quote from: Tamas on February 19, 2024, 04:40:50 AMIn the meantime perhaps it would be good to reign in the identitard edge of the left but that again runs the risk of curtailing the rights of minorities just so reactionaries get free to move back to harassing minorities they have given up on.
It is also hard because the reactionaries get up in arms about things they never previously cared about. Hard to know what will suddenly become a focal point of rage.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2024, 05:53:22 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 19, 2024, 04:40:50 AMIn the meantime perhaps it would be good to reign in the identitard edge of the left but that again runs the risk of curtailing the rights of minorities just so reactionaries get free to move back to harassing minorities they have given up on.
It is also hard because the reactionaries get up in arms about things they never previously cared about. Hard to know what will suddenly become a focal point of rage.
Yeah.
I am tempted to say the correct approach is contain and ignore. By contain I mean make sure laws are applied to them especially when it comes to fighting their attempts to overtake the state. By ignore I mean carry on without compromising basic values, including, importantly, feeling free to challenge the extremists on the left end of the spectrum instead of feeling a tribal obligation to entertain and empower them. The latter was done by the conservatives in regards to their fringe and it has destroyed them completely.
Quote from: Tamas on February 19, 2024, 04:40:50 AMI think it is better to risk underestimating Putin's influence than risking overestimating it. The reactionary nihilists will not go away even if somehow all Russian influence could be blocked but if you convinced yourself that it wasn't half your countrymen being complete retards but it's all the evil foreign influence, then at best you will end up becoming complacent at worst you will end up with two sides each convinced the other is a foreign agent.
Surely there's two angles to tackle it. There's the combatting the foreign influence angle obviously, but then there's also the general improvement of education standards and overall quality of life to stop people being so susceptible to falling down that pit.
QuoteBut to answer Jacob's question: I do not know. It is tempting to say we on the progressive side should try to reach out and engage in discourse but it seems like any ground given to the reactionaries is being interpreted as a sign of weakness and a cue for them to dial up the crazy. They also seem to dial up the crazy if they don't get any concessions.
I think the only way out of it is a slow grind. The slow grind of piecemeal cultural progress. In the meantime perhaps it would be good to reign in the identitard edge of the left but that again runs the risk of curtailing the rights of minorities just so reactionaries get free to move back to harassing minorities they have given up on.
Easy enough to say, but define identitard.
For all the bad faith politicisation nonsense there are valid issues with for instance where to draw the lines around trans women in sport, how to get your legal gender change etc...
I do think tactically its best for the left to just not engage with these issues much and to quietly push forward peoples rights without a song and dance. But again easier said than done.
Ultimately, the US problem boils down to a poor educational system, brought down by the decisions by all the stakeholders to value personal issues far above the supposed mission. People believe the social media bullshit because they've never been effectively taught any media literacy.
If I was a billionaire, I'd focus my reform money on creating some sort of online media literacy campaign that appeals to those most in need of media literacy. One which entertains (so the audience will stay interested) as it educates (so as to accomplish the mission). I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but if I had billions I could hire the people that could tell me.
Rashida Tlaib urges Michigan Democrats to vote "uncomitted" in upcoming primary.
The congresswoman from the great state of Palestine can go fuck herself.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2024, 09:31:36 AMUltimately, the US problem boils down to a poor educational system, brought down by the decisions by all the stakeholders to value personal issues far above the supposed mission. People believe the social media bullshit because they've never been effectively taught any media literacy.
If I was a billionaire, I'd focus my reform money on creating some sort of online media literacy campaign that appeals to those most in need of media literacy. One which entertains (so the audience will stay interested) as it educates (so as to accomplish the mission). I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but if I had billions I could hire the people that could tell me.
Schoolhouse rock for this generation. I like it.
I'm not sure I understand the uncommitted protest in Michigan where people unhappy with Biden's policy with regards to Israel, voted uncommitted in Dem primsry to a tune to of 20%.
Unless they are threatening they will vote for Trump, or third party, or stay home, which in all cases would increase Trump's likelihood of winning - I'm not sure why this protest would matter. Would they be open to Trump victory to achieve their aims?
Palestinians engaging in self-defeating acts? That's unpossible!
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2024, 08:30:34 AMI'm not sure I understand the uncommitted protest in Michigan where people unhappy with Biden's policy with regards to Israel, voted uncommitted in Dem primsry to a tune to of 20%.
Unless they are threatening they will vote for Trump, or third party, or stay home, which in all cases would increase Trump's likelihood of winning - I'm not sure why this protest would matter. Would they be open to Trump victory to achieve their aims?
Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/28/if-biden-loses-in-november-dont-blame-voters-who-are-angry-over-gaza
"yeah I know Trump is bad, but PALESTINE"
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/us/politics/biden-young-voters-trump-michigan.html
QuoteSalma Hamamy, a student at the University of Michigan who has organized pro-Palestinian protests there, said that despite supporting Mr. Biden in 2020, she would not do so again.
"For me, he is beyond redemption — he has lost my vote because voting for him is basically me saying that I am OK with his actions," said Ms. Hamamy, 22. "If that means Trump is elected, I blame the Democratic Party for allowing that to happen."
LOL, even pro-Palestinian students at Michigan are into suicide bombing.
College was so much easier when it just meant binge drinking and date raping.
Great to see you, Seedy. This is not the first generation of college students that has claimed that "I am going to act, but the responsibility for the results of my action belongs to someone else."
I suspect that most of this is just virtue-signaling, and that these Arabs will vote in their own interests in the end.
Looks more like vice-signaling to me.
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2024, 08:30:34 AMI'm not sure I understand the uncommitted protest in Michigan where people unhappy with Biden's policy with regards to Israel, voted uncommitted in Dem primsry to a tune to of 20%.
Unless they are threatening they will vote for Trump, or third party, or stay home, which in all cases would increase Trump's likelihood of winning - I'm not sure why this protest would matter. Would they be open to Trump victory to achieve their aims?
I think yes, that's the point. There are a bunch of people who feel very strongly about Palestine who also think Biden is simply the worst.
There seems to be part of the online sphere who are channelling their anti-Israeli rage into animus against non-Conservative parties in the West. Biden is absolutely a target in that regard, I think. I'm not sure how effective it is, but I guess this shows there's at least some impact.
It's simple really. For some Muslims, pan-Muslim concerns are above their national-level concerns. They are not the first group of people with concerns and personal priorities reaching over borders, it is what it is. And then they get latchers-on from the far left who just want to be against everything and keep riding their moral high horse without the risk of being in power.
Far-left progressives have been practicing moral superiority suicide vest politics since Eugene McCarthy, that's nothing new.
Quote from: Tamas on February 28, 2024, 11:00:24 AMIt's simple really. For some Muslims, pan-Muslim concerns are above their national-level concerns. They are not the first group of people with concerns and personal priorities reaching over borders, it is what it is. And then they get latchers-on from the far left who just want to be against everything and keep riding their moral high horse without the risk of being in power.
Yes.
But I do wonder how much thinking they're putting into this.
That they see the Palestinians survival as more important than the US' wellbeing - OK.
But that they'd see Trump as a better option for this thing that they do care about rather than Biden?
...hmm. Biden's pro-Israel stance certainly isn't perfect to their eyes, but its a hell of a lot more balanced than the usual stance of US presidents. In contrast to this Trump swung too far the other direction with the Jerusalem recognition et al.
I would hope its all wailing and gnashing that Biden sucks but when it comes to it faced with a choice between a moderate conservative and someone banging on the door to being a literal fascist...
Trump's party has been blocking aid to Israel and Muslim Americans tend to be quite conservative on social issues. This story ran last summer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned
The most sympathetic spin I can put on this is they are playing a game of chicken.
I tend to rate the effectiveness of propaganda and social media manipulation higher than most folks here - so it's probably no surprise that I think successful propaganda and social media manipulation campaigns are a key contributor here.
Last year a Palestinian-sympathizing friend treated me to an IMO rather unhinged rant about how Biden was fucking himself by not stopping Israel that then detoured through "they (politicians) are all equally corrupt" through "Epstein" to "Clinton is probably a pedophile".
I think the line of reasoning - or maybe rather the emotional through-line - for the anti-Biden Palestine sympathizers, basically follows that path:
1) There's no real difference between either party, the whole system is corrupt!
2) Biden is insufficiently pure, therefore he must be punished.
3) There's no real negative consequence to 2) because of 1).
If Putin's Gaza diversion is what gets him the presidency in 2024 due to Michigan being the decisive swing state, then I'll just have to conclude that God really hates democracy and freedom.
Quote from: DGuller on February 28, 2024, 01:23:30 PMIf Putin's Gaza diversion is what gets him the presidency in 2024 due to Michigan being the decisive swing state, then I'll just have to conclude that God really hates democracy and freedom.
I'll say we get what we deserve... :(
Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2024, 11:54:56 AMTrump's party has been blocking aid to Israel and Muslim Americans tend to be quite conservative on social issues. This story ran last summer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned
Sure but we also saw Trump's love in when he was president. Doesn't really matter Republican stance now but rather how he would feel in office.
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2024, 12:38:43 PM1) There's no real difference between either party, the whole system is corrupt!
2) Biden is insufficiently pure, therefore he must be punished.
3) There's no real negative consequence to 2) because of 1).
If the whole system is corrupt, then Trump is also insufficiently pure.
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2024, 01:38:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2024, 11:54:56 AMTrump's party has been blocking aid to Israel and Muslim Americans tend to be quite conservative on social issues. This story ran last summer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned
Sure but we also saw Trump's love in when he was president. Doesn't really matter Republican stance now but rather how he would feel in office.
White conservatives have a long history of fucking themselves over to get at Blacks. Why can't Muslims do the same thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 28, 2024, 01:45:12 PMIf the whole system is corrupt, then Trump is also insufficiently pure.
Unfortunately, that is not the message that people are rallying around and propagating :(
Quote from: Jacob on February 28, 2024, 12:38:43 PMI tend to rate the effectiveness of propaganda and social media manipulation higher than most folks here - so it's probably no surprise that I think successful propaganda and social media manipulation campaigns are a key contributor here.
Last year a Palestinian-sympathizing friend treated me to an IMO rather unhinged rant about how Biden was fucking himself by not stopping Israel that then detoured through "they (politicians) are all equally corrupt" through "Epstein" to "Clinton is probably a pedophile".
I think the line of reasoning - or maybe rather the emotional through-line - for the anti-Biden Palestine sympathizers, basically follows that path:
1) There's no real difference between either party, the whole system is corrupt!
2) Biden is insufficiently pure, therefore he must be punished.
3) There's no real negative consequence to 2) because of 1).
Those holding the three lines of reasoning are Trump supporters, anyway. If there's no difference between the two parties, then there is no downside to supporting Trump and his war against the horrifying trans/gay people. It's hard for an outsider to see that there's no difference between the two regarding issues Arab-Americans care about, given Trump's order to ban all Muslim travel to the US, but nutty people see things differently.
Illinois judge just kicked Donald off the ballot.
Well hopefully he gets kicked off the ballot in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia as well.
Caught a bit of Biden speaking about the border.
He isn't a great speaker is he.
But how did this "Lets do our fucking jobs" land?
Voted in the primary. Man that was a tough decision even though it was a totally symbolic vote.
I wanted Joe to do a bunch of things during his first two years and he did those:
Pandemic relief
Federal Marijuana reform
Student debt relief
Infrastructure
and Energy/Climate change
And hey he even got a gay marriage bill passed.
On the other hand he said he was there to be a bridge to the next generation of leaders, with the understanding he would serve just one term. But he hasn't been that bridge and he hasn't groomed a successor. That seems to me a pretty big betrayal of his mandate and puts us in danger once again. Now granted he didn't explicitly promise he would only serve on term but he did basically everything but.
So I went in there planning on voting for Dean Phillips, who basically agrees with Joe on everything anyway, just to kind of send a message that Joe is steering us wrong by trying to win re-election. But man it was tough once I actually got in the voting booth. Because basically he did what I wanted him to do back before he got a Republican House. It doesn't really matter what I actually did end up doing, but I feel conflicted about it.
I sure hope things start looking up at some point politically.
Fortunately the down ballot races I felt much better about. Hope we can do well locally in November.
Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2024, 08:30:34 AMI'm not sure I understand the uncommitted protest in Michigan where people unhappy with Biden's policy with regards to Israel, voted uncommitted in Dem primsry to a tune to of 20%.
Unless they are threatening they will vote for Trump, or third party, or stay home, which in all cases would increase Trump's likelihood of winning - I'm not sure why this protest would matter. Would they be open to Trump victory to achieve their aims?
95% of the protest voters will rally to Joe in the General. The problem in a state like Michigan is that 5% could make a difference.
Quote from: grumbler on February 28, 2024, 07:44:54 PMIt's hard for an outsider to see that there's no difference between the two regarding issues Arab-Americans care about,
You look at it rationally. They don't. These are the same kind of people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 because "she was just like Trump."
I've been weighing if I should post in any of the politics threads outside of a short comment or two and finally decided to make a go at it. :unsure:
Voting uncommitted in a primary with an incumbent is a signal, to me at least, that you'll still vote for them but don't approve of some of their policies and want that to be known. I think it is actually a great concept. I definitely feel a lot of frustration and anger toward the administration myself and would have voted uncommitted if I were still a registered Democrat here in NY (I switched to Working Families Party when I moved most recently). I'll still vote Biden (despite it not really being necessary here due to the huge Democratic dominance) as I know that Trump winning is basically a death sentence for me and people like me. I still feel like I should have some outlet to voice my displeasure with certain things, though, and really, really don't like being told to shut up and toe a party line that doesn't align with my own beliefs simply because the alternative is absolutely awful. I'm tired of Democrats running as "not Republicans" instead of actually running on specific policies they plan to implement and not just "oops" away as things wear on. Being better than Republicans still leaves a whole lot of room for being pretty bad. This is highlighted by the response toward those who voice disappointment in the Biden and the party and those who voted/will vote uncommitted in the primary. Instead of taking the opportunity to listen and make said people feel appreciated, they are attacked, belittled, and treated terribly. It seems the only groups that Democrats bend over backward to please and work with are the mythical "undecided" voter and Republicans. They always work with the Right while freezing out the Left. It is exhausting and incredibly disheartening.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 02, 2024, 03:20:08 AMI've been weighing if I should post in any of the politics threads outside of a short comment or two and finally decided to make a go at it. :unsure:
Voting uncommitted in a primary with an incumbent is a signal, to me at least, that you'll still vote for them but don't approve of some of their policies and want that to be known. I think it is actually a great concept. I definitely feel a lot of frustration and anger toward the administration myself and would have voted uncommitted if I were still a registered Democrat here in NY (I switched to Working Families Party when I moved most recently). I'll still vote Biden (despite it not really being necessary here due to the huge Democratic dominance) as I know that Trump winning is basically a death sentence for me and people like me. I still feel like I should have some outlet to voice my displeasure with certain things, though, and really, really don't like being told to shut up and toe a party line that doesn't align with my own beliefs simply because the alternative is absolutely awful. I'm tired of Democrats running as "not Republicans" instead of actually running on specific policies they plan to implement and not just "oops" away as things wear on. Being better than Republicans still leaves a whole lot of room for being pretty bad. This is highlighted by the response toward those who voice disappointment in the Biden and the party and those who voted/will vote uncommitted in the primary. Instead of taking the opportunity to listen and make said people feel appreciated, they are attacked, belittled, and treated terribly. It seems the only groups that Democrats bend over backward to please and work with are the mythical "undecided" voter and Republicans. They always work with the Right while freezing out the Left. It is exhausting and incredibly disheartening.
From my point of view, I see the uncommitted movement as naive at best. It is not the case that everyone voting for Biden in primaries/planning to do so in the general is doing so because they are so enamored of his policies. Voting for Biden will for many be a vote to keep at bay the madness at Trump. In fact for many voting for the Dems is a vote against the madness of the Republicans. So those who feel the need to express their displeasure through protest votes aren't all that unique in their feelings toward Biden. We also have things like approval rating polling that can show us the level of Dems who are unhappy (just checked and that's at about 17%).
On the other hand, it could be actively harmful if people who lodge those protest votes/those observing protest votes spend so much time mired in their displeasure at Biden that they start actively viewing him as basically as awful as Trump. They then might not vote at all in the general or spend their vote on a worthless third party candidate (worthless given the realities of presidential elections in America). It is all to easy if one starts to imbibe narratives that Biden is a promoter of genocide to make it impossible one to support him over Trump.
So overall, it feels like a symbolic gesture by people who falsely think they are unique in being disaffected that adds to the risk of that orange loser coming back to power.
I should add that I'm not particularly worried by what any individual voter chooses to do in a primary but rather coordinated efforts like we saw in Michigan. Based on the article, Tamas posted from the Guardian and the comments on that, it is all to easy for efforts to spawn groupthink that then say they don't really have agency in whether Trump wins ('don't blame progressives if Biden loses').
Quote from: Valmy on March 01, 2024, 01:02:32 PMThat seems to me a pretty big betrayal of his mandate and puts us in danger once again. Now granted he didn't explicitly promise he would only serve on term but
It is. And I feel like, either there are issues with Kamala Harris, or there are issues with the party at whole.
What Grab On said. I don't belittle Michigan Arabs for wanting a cease fire, or the end of aid to Israel. I belittle them for subscribing to a course of action which, if successful, will lead to a worse outcome from their point of view.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/trump-confuses-obama-biden-virginia-rally
Trump prepares again to fight Obama for the presidency while Biden mistakes Ukraine with Gaza.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2024, 04:47:34 PMWhat Grab On said. I don't belittle Michigan Arabs for wanting a cease fire, or the end of aid to Israel. I belittle them for subscribing to a course of action which, if successful, will lead to a worse outcome from their point of view.
People of course have the right to cast a "protest vote", I just think that in the era of hyper partisanship, it is almost always the wrong game theory move to make. When your choice is between a center-lefty and a center-righty, and you're say, far left, and just fucking
loathe some specific decisions of the center-lefty, it isn't a terrible move to advance your influence to vote third party or something as a "signal" to the left party leadership.
When the choice is between a mainstream liberal and a far right fascist who says he wants to establish a "One Day dictatorship", lock up opposition media and politicians, and any number of other things, I think the rationality of casting a protest vote for some third party goes down a lot.
Unfortunately though, a common trait of people on the political extremes is they have a hard time distinguish between a mainstream politician who is at least obviously on their side, and a dangerous extremist on the other. Extremists tend to view everyone else as some extremist enemy of theirs and to them Biden is no worse than Trump.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 03, 2024, 05:33:33 PMPeople of course have the right to cast a "protest vote", I just think that in the era of hyper partisanship, it is almost always the wrong game theory move to make. When your choice is between a center-lefty and a center-righty, and you're say, far left, and just fucking loathe some specific decisions of the center-lefty, it isn't a terrible move to advance your influence to vote third party or something as a "signal" to the left party leadership.
When the choice is between a mainstream liberal and a far right fascist who says he wants to establish a "One Day dictatorship", lock up opposition media and politicians, and any number of other things, I think the rationality of casting a protest vote for some third party goes down a lot.
Unfortunately though, a common trait of people on the political extremes is they have a hard time distinguish between a mainstream politician who is at least obviously on their side, and a dangerous extremist on the other. Extremists tend to view everyone else as some extremist enemy of theirs and to them Biden is no worse than Trump.
It's hard to imagine an issue a left of center would be worse on than a right of center from the progressive POV. That certainly doesn't describe idiot Berniebots voting for Trump over Hillary.
And I would have much less problem with Michigan Arabs voting for Trump or sitting it out if Trump was softer on Israel than Biden. He's not. He uses moving the embassy to Jerusalem in his stump speeches. That's what makes their move delusional and self defeating.
Had this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 04, 2024, 07:28:37 AMHad this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
But we already know people are angry. Protests of Palestinian marches have gotten coverage even here in the UK. I also just saw that Biden was at a new low in approval ratings. It isn't a secret that people are happy with the policy.
And as I said, primaries don't happen in isolation. Articles like the below (unintentionally), highlight the potential damage this coordinated protest votes can have. They can make people lose sight of what's at stake in November either leading voters to not show up or vote third party.
So again the uncommitted voters are voicing something we a) already know and b) could have the pernicious influence of getting people not to vote for Biden in the general.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/28/if-biden-loses-in-november-dont-blame-voters-who-are-angry-over-gaza
QuoteI'll put my cards on the table: I'm a permanent resident of the US which means I'm not allowed to vote. (I'm not sure what happened to the whole no taxation without representation idea.) But if I could vote and the election were tomorrow I would not be able to bring myself to support Biden. And I'd feel betrayed by my American wife if she voted for Biden. As someone of Palestinian heritage I have watched aghast as Biden has given Israel a green light to do whatever it wants in Gaza, international law and civilian deaths be damned. I have watched in horror as the entire population of Gaza starves and the US vetoes ceasefire resolution after resolution. And I have watched in disbelief as Biden has cast doubts on the number of Palestinians who have died, repeated inflammatory misinformation and ignored the suffering of Palestinians in official statements on the conflict.
I'm sorry but I simply could not bring myself to cast a vote for a man who doesn't seem to believe that people like me are fully human. I cannot support a man who seems to think that it's OK that babies in Gaza are needlessly starving to death. A vote for Biden is not just a vote against Trump, it is a vote endorsing his clear disdain for Palestinians, his dehumanization of Arabs, and his complicity in what many experts have termed a plausible genocide.
But, Arwa, Trump would have been even worse on Gaza! I know that. But, let me tell you something, that argument loses a lot of its potency when Gaza looks like hell on earth as its.
That whole line of Palestinian reasoning is predicated on an entire "pyramid of lies", and that seems to be typical of how Palestinians and their allies in the West view the conflict.
No Democrat who was sane enough and who has broad enough appeal to win election was ever going to side with Hamas as they continue to hold Israeli hostages in a war they started. That appears to be the position these people expect.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2024, 07:37:34 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 04, 2024, 07:28:37 AMHad this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
But we already know people are angry. Protests of Palestinian marches have gotten coverage even here in the UK. I also just saw that Biden was at a new low in approval ratings. It isn't a secret that people are happy with the policy.
And as I said, primaries don't happen in isolation. Articles like the below (unintentionally), highlight the potential damage this coordinated protest votes can have. They can make people lose sight of what's at stake in November either leading voters to not show up or vote third party.
So again the uncommitted voters are voicing something we a) already know and b) could have the pernicious influence of getting people not to vote for Biden in the general.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/28/if-biden-loses-in-november-dont-blame-voters-who-are-angry-over-gaza
QuoteI'll put my cards on the table: I'm a permanent resident of the US which means I'm not allowed to vote. (I'm not sure what happened to the whole no taxation without representation idea.) But if I could vote and the election were tomorrow I would not be able to bring myself to support Biden. And I'd feel betrayed by my American wife if she voted for Biden. As someone of Palestinian heritage I have watched aghast as Biden has given Israel a green light to do whatever it wants in Gaza, international law and civilian deaths be damned. I have watched in horror as the entire population of Gaza starves and the US vetoes ceasefire resolution after resolution. And I have watched in disbelief as Biden has cast doubts on the number of Palestinians who have died, repeated inflammatory misinformation and ignored the suffering of Palestinians in official statements on the conflict.
I'm sorry but I simply could not bring myself to cast a vote for a man who doesn't seem to believe that people like me are fully human. I cannot support a man who seems to think that it's OK that babies in Gaza are needlessly starving to death. A vote for Biden is not just a vote against Trump, it is a vote endorsing his clear disdain for Palestinians, his dehumanization of Arabs, and his complicity in what many experts have termed a plausible genocide.
But, Arwa, Trump would have been even worse on Gaza! I know that. But, let me tell you something, that argument loses a lot of its potency when Gaza looks like hell on earth as its.
My favourite line is he'd get offended if his wife voted Biden. Know your place, woman!
At one hand I want to give this guy a pass. He is a Palestinian, he clearly does not give a damn where US politics end up. But that's still incredibly stupid. He and his family live there. How can he not think further than a UN ceasefire resolution? How can he not consider how life is going to be for an Arab without citizenship if Trump's line of politics become dominant?
The Democrats, and also Labour over here, must make a stand on this because if this madness is not nibbed in the bud now we'll forever be hostage of Middle Eastern sectarian violence.
Arwa, the writer, is a woman. ;)
Ah right.
The ice cream fuss is just insane.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 04, 2024, 08:01:59 AMThat whole line of Palestinian reasoning is predicated on an entire "pyramid of lies", and that seems to be typical of how Palestinians and their allies in the West view the conflict.
No Democrat who was sane enough and who has broad enough appeal to win election was ever going to side with Hamas as they continue to hold Israeli hostages in a war they started. That appears to be the position these people expect.
Don't be daft. Nobody wants anybody to side with Hamas.
Again stop conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians.
Quote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 08:56:11 AMThe ice cream fuss is just insane.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 04, 2024, 08:01:59 AMThat whole line of Palestinian reasoning is predicated on an entire "pyramid of lies", and that seems to be typical of how Palestinians and their allies in the West view the conflict.
No Democrat who was sane enough and who has broad enough appeal to win election was ever going to side with Hamas as they continue to hold Israeli hostages in a war they started. That appears to be the position these people expect.
Don't be daft. Nobody wants anybody to side with Hamas.
Again stop conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians.
:rolleyes: Lots of people side with Hamas. Including a significant number of Palestinians. Lots of Westerners too, you know, like when people projected "glory to our martyrs" on buildings on US campuses.
Supreme Court ruled states can't use 14th amendment to kick Trump off ballots.
QuoteThe Supreme Court was united on the idea that Donald Trump will remain on the ballot in Colorado and that the state cannot unilaterally dump him off the ballot, in their opinion issued Monday.
But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – with four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.
The slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2024, 09:03:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 08:56:11 AMThe ice cream fuss is just insane.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 04, 2024, 08:01:59 AMThat whole line of Palestinian reasoning is predicated on an entire "pyramid of lies", and that seems to be typical of how Palestinians and their allies in the West view the conflict.
No Democrat who was sane enough and who has broad enough appeal to win election was ever going to side with Hamas as they continue to hold Israeli hostages in a war they started. That appears to be the position these people expect.
Don't be daft. Nobody wants anybody to side with Hamas.
Again stop conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians.
:rolleyes: Lots of people side with Hamas. Including a significant number of Palestinians. Lots of Westerners too, you know, like when people projected "glory to our martyrs" on buildings on US campuses.
You vastly overestimate their numbers and conflate them to anyone who says "Israel is being a bit bad in Gaza isn't it?"
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2024, 10:26:29 AMSupreme Court ruled states can't use 14th amendment to kick Trump off ballots.
The least-surprising USSC ruling in years. That provision of the 14th Amendment was one of the most poorly-thought-out-and-written provisions in a document crammed with such. Passive voice in law-writing is moronic.
So much for state's right then eh? Of course that only applies if it suits their agenda.
I only just encountered this meme.
"But they are both so old!"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGOHP3PXwAANszu?format=jpg&name=large)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGOHP3XXwAAFoQZ?format=jpg&name=large)
Quote from: PJL on March 04, 2024, 11:32:43 AMSo much for state's right then eh? Of course that only applies if it suits their agenda.
It only indirectly relates but this reminded me of a neat summary of Trump-like populists (or: post-truth populists) I have heard: dishonest politicians lie to the electorate. Post-truth populists enter into a co-conspiracy with a portion of the electorate that let go of the difference between lies and truth, i.e. internal coherence.
Quote from: Tamas on March 04, 2024, 11:00:22 AMThe slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Alabama says an embryo is a person. Georgia passes bill allowing police to arrest anyone suspected of being in country illegally, ie "we don't like your face".
Get out while you can, folks.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 04, 2024, 11:00:22 AMThe slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Alabama says an embryo is a person. Georgia passes bill allowing police to arrest anyone suspected of being in country illegally, ie "we don't like your face".
Get out while you can, folks.
I don't think
many here were ever in danger in living in those states. :hmm:
The rot will reach federal levels if it hasn't already.
Quote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 11:07:02 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2024, 09:03:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 08:56:11 AMThe ice cream fuss is just insane.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 04, 2024, 08:01:59 AMThat whole line of Palestinian reasoning is predicated on an entire "pyramid of lies", and that seems to be typical of how Palestinians and their allies in the West view the conflict.
No Democrat who was sane enough and who has broad enough appeal to win election was ever going to side with Hamas as they continue to hold Israeli hostages in a war they started. That appears to be the position these people expect.
Don't be daft. Nobody wants anybody to side with Hamas.
Again stop conflating Hamas and Palestinian civilians.
:rolleyes: Lots of people side with Hamas. Including a significant number of Palestinians. Lots of Westerners too, you know, like when people projected "glory to our martyrs" on buildings on US campuses.
You vastly overestimate their numbers and conflate them to anyone who says "Israel is being a bit bad in Gaza isn't it?"
How many people do you think side with Hamas in this conflict in Palestine? How many in the Muslim world? How many in the Rest of the World?
I'd say most of the people that side with Hamas don't even know they do.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 04, 2024, 11:00:22 AMThe slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Alabama says an embryo is a person. Georgia passes bill allowing police to arrest anyone suspected of being in country illegally, ie "we don't like your face".
Get out while you can, folks.
Never. I will never concede to those assholes. I will go to the gas chambers first. This is our country to.
Quote from: Josquius on March 04, 2024, 08:56:11 AMThe ice cream fuss is just insane.
Van Leeuwen is good ice cream though.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2024, 02:21:56 PMQuote from: Zoupa on March 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 04, 2024, 11:00:22 AMThe slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Alabama says an embryo is a person. Georgia passes bill allowing police to arrest anyone suspected of being in country illegally, ie "we don't like your face".
Get out while you can, folks.
Never. I will never concede to those assholes. I will go to the gas chambers first. This is our country to.
I'm still on the fence.
Do I lobby the
Bloc Québécois for a wall, or do I support an underground railroad? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2024, 01:07:45 PMQuote from: Zoupa on March 04, 2024, 01:01:55 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 04, 2024, 11:00:22 AMThe slow-burn fascist coup continues.
But who cares, when there's a UN resolution over Gaza is at stake.
Alabama says an embryo is a person. Georgia passes bill allowing police to arrest anyone suspected of being in country illegally, ie "we don't like your face".
Get out while you can, folks.
I don't think many here were ever in danger in living in those states. :hmm:
We have Texans, we have Republicans, and we have expats.
Besides, the thing with fire, is, once the house is on fire, it can pretty much go anywhere. Actual firewall only delay the inevitable if there's no fire units.
Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:50:18 PMWe have Texans, we have Republicans, and we have expats.
Besides, the thing with fire, is, once the house is on fire, it can pretty much go anywhere. Actual firewall only delay the inevitable if there's no fire units.
Yeah, my state basically treats human beings as if they are wild animals. Well ok Texas probably wouldn't treat animals as badly as it treats immigrants.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 04, 2024, 07:28:37 AMHad this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
I have heard several Muslims interviewed on NPR say that they will do the same in the general election if their demands are not met. That is not low stakes. That is not benign.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2024, 02:53:40 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 04, 2024, 07:28:37 AMHad this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
I have heard several Muslims interviewed on NPR say that they will do the same in the general election if their demands are not met. That is not low stakes. That is not benign.
Agreed. And if we give in to their demands then Israel supporters might do something similar.
There is no winning being involved in this Israel/Palestine business. It is a toxic issue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2024, 02:53:40 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on March 04, 2024, 07:28:37 AMHad this been the general election, I would agree. It was not. It was the primary where there is basically zero chance for any outcome other than Biden winning in absolutely dominant fashion. If not voicing one's displeasure with policy in such a zero stakes situation is wrong, how can people do it? It seems like no matter how people try to signal they are not happy with things, no matter how benign, is met with anger, mockery, and attacks. I fear it will only lead to people turning their back on the system in apathy or much more damaging ways of voicing their displeasure.
I have heard several Muslims interviewed on NPR say that they will do the same in the general election if their demands are not met. That is not low stakes. That is not benign.
Oh, come now. It's not like Palestinians have ever affected an American presidential election.
(https://i.imgur.com/WqY3aB9.jpeg)
Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:48:19 PMI'm still on the fence.
Do I lobby the Bloc Québécois for a wall, or do I support an underground railroad? :hmm:
The rot will reach Canada if it hasn't already.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2024, 02:53:40 PMI have heard several Muslims interviewed on NPR say that they will do the same in the general election if their demands are not met. That is not low stakes. That is not benign.
that's what they do on every issue: always with threats, veiled or otherwise.
Quote from: PJL on March 04, 2024, 11:32:43 AMSo much for state's right then eh? Of course that only applies if it suits their agenda.
The US Constitution explicitly places federal elections under federal jurisdiction.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2024, 03:43:29 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 02:48:19 PMI'm still on the fence.
Do I lobby the Bloc Québécois for a wall, or do I support an underground railroad? :hmm:
The rot will reach Canada if it hasn't already.
I think it has, unfortunately. :(
Unanimous decision from the USSC - Trump back on the ballet.
Yeah... and even if the rot didn't reach Canada, the US is still our neighbour and is massively important to us. If the US acts rotten, we will feel it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 04:18:58 PMUnanimous decision from the USSC - Trump back on the ballet.
(https://i.imgur.com/dvFqXqp.jpeg)
Ha, best typo ever!
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 04:18:58 PMUnanimous decision from the USSC - Trump back on the ballet.
What about States' rights? :) Surely the GOP would oppose such unlawful intrusion into State power by a Federal authority? :sleep:
Quote from: Jacob on March 04, 2024, 04:20:52 PMYeah... and even if the rot didn't reach Canada, the US is still our neighbour and is massively important to us. If the US acts rotten, we will feel it.
It's here. You've seen it with all those Truckers quoting the US Constitution for their defense.
Agreed that it's already here.
Quote from: viper37 on March 04, 2024, 05:54:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 04, 2024, 04:18:58 PMUnanimous decision from the USSC - Trump back on the ballet.
What about States' rights? :) Surely the GOP would oppose such unlawful intrusion into State power by a Federal authority? :sleep:
In this particular case the states were doing it using the Federal Constitution I think. If they were kicking off the ballot using a state constitution I don't know if the USSC would have jurisdiction but I will leave that up to the law talkers.
So if next the USSC rules that the President has absolute immunity while in office, can Biden then send SEAL Team Six to kill the justices he doesn't like?
Quote from: Solmyr on March 05, 2024, 01:53:27 AMSo if next the USSC rules that the President has absolute immunity while in office, can Biden then send SEAL Team Six to kill the justices he doesn't like?
Who's being naive, Kay?
The Globe and Mail is reporting that American evangelicals are flocking to Trump in even greater numbers. The criminal prosecutions are being characterized as the work of the Devil and a signifier of the end times.
We're fucked, aren't we?
Appears that way
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 10:22:29 AMThe Globe and Mail is reporting that American evangelicals are flocking to Trump in even greater numbers. The criminal prosecutions are being characterized as the work of the Devil and a signifier of the end times.
:unsure:
Flocking to him in ever greater numbers...from where?
Weren't they already his base?
I honestly can't see how Trump can lose this now. Only possible option would be for Biden to say he won't run for president again ASAP and allow someone else to step in somehow.
Trump will lose.
I wonder whether Biden actually arguing along the lines of "A potato would be a better president than Trump" could work :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2024, 11:43:34 AMTrump will lose.
.. . and may still end up being president. :P
Quote from: PJL on March 05, 2024, 11:36:07 AMI honestly can't see how Trump can lose this now. Only possible option would be for Biden to say he won't run for president again ASAP and allow someone else to step in somehow.
But who?
Gavin Newsome (Governor of California)gets mentioned, but you know the GOP will attack him for, well, being the governor of California and being an out-of-touch woke monster. Plus the Dem base will almost surely insist the candidate is a woman and/or a minority - which is how we got Kamala Harris as VP.
Short of getting Michelle Obama to run I don't know that anyone else would do any better, and might do a lot worse.
Gretchen Whitmer would be my go-to. She's younger, effective, has high level (governor of Michigan) experience, and could bring in key votes in the Mid-West swing states.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 05, 2024, 04:34:03 PMGretchen Whitmer would be my go-to. She's younger, effective, has high level (governor of Michigan) experience, and could bring in key votes in the Mid-West swing states.
OK, fair enough name.
Problem though is we have seen promising governors who crashed and burned on the national stage. Heck we just saw it with Ron de Santis. I remember when I thought Scott Walker would make a great President.
It would be pretty risky for Biden to just step down and Whitmer is somehow appointed without having gone through a primary process.
Say Biden announces he won't run afterall due to ill health... Then what?
Dems do primaries late?
How much of a disadvantage would it be to start campaigning now when you've not really got an image yet?
Biden claiming to be ill? Boomers trying to use youth language is cringe.
Yeah. The Democrats really shot themselves in the foot in terms of letting Biden stay on this late if there is any plan to replace him. The amount of time left and the mess of a second/one and a half primaries would be weird. I think at this point, most people know which party they're voting for, so it is merely a matter of who can get the most people to the polls for Democrats. I've never met anyone in-person who is excited by Biden, but I presume there must be some people like that out there. I still think he would have been best served running in 2016 when he was the funny and kind of cool Obama meme partner guy. Alas, we'll never know what might have been. Now we have the Biden we all know and... tolerate. :mellow:
Quote from: Josquius on March 05, 2024, 04:42:43 PMSay Biden announces he won't run afterall due to ill health... Then what?
Dems do primaries late?
How much of a disadvantage would it be to start campaigning now when you've not really got an image yet?
No idea. Dems are in the midst of primaries already. Joe Biden won in New Hampshire, for example. There was a small controversey that in Michigan several thousand people voted "uncommitted" in the Dem primary, in protest over Biden backing Israel too strongly (Michigan has a large arab-american population).
It's still early in the primaries. I believe there is precedent for Robert Kennedy entering the primaries late.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2024, 10:22:29 AMThe Globe and Mail is reporting that American evangelicals are flocking to Trump in even greater numbers. The criminal prosecutions are being characterized as the work of the Devil and a signifier of the end times.
85% of evangelicals voted for him in the last election. Not much room for flocking left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2024, 05:00:25 PMIt's still early in the primaries. I believe there is precedent for Robert Kennedy entering the primaries late.
That was in 1968 though.
The problem is the primary schedule is now so much more compressed. I mean Super Tuesday is (checks) today. It includes states like California. If you might recall, right before RFK was assassinated he ended his speech with "and now on to California" - which had the next primary. He was assassinated June 6, 1968.
36% of all delegates are up for today.
You might also remember that the 1968 Democratic convention (which ultimately nominated Humphrey) was famously a disaster.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2024, 05:00:25 PMIt's still early in the primaries. I believe there is precedent for Robert Kennedy entering the primaries late.
LBJ didn't bow out until the end of March in 1968, when primaries had already been held.
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 05:13:48 PMThat was in 1968 though.
The problem is the primary schedule is now so much more compressed. I mean Super Tuesday is (checks) today. It includes states like California. If you might recall, right before RFK was assassinated he ended his speech with "and now on to California" - which had the next primary. He was assassinated June 6, 1968.
36% of all delegates are up for today.
You might also remember that the 1968 Democratic convention (which ultimately nominated Humphrey) was famously a disaster.
That was in 1968. The Democratic convention that year was not a "disaster" because LBJ bowed out, it was a disaster because the US was mired in a hugely unpopular war. In terms of just the delegate elections, it was smooth sailing for Humphrey. Humphrey lost the presidential election by six-tenths of one percent in the popular vote, in large part because the pro-McCarthy Democratic voters largely stayed home. None of that applies now.
Also, RFK had won the California primary and was assassinated just after his victory speech.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2024, 05:36:20 PMAlso, RFK had won the California primary and was assassinated just after his victory speech.
I stand corrected. Assassinated shortly after midnight the day after the California primary.
But the point was that the California primary was in June, not March, in 1968.
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 05:41:29 PMI stand corrected. Assassinated shortly after midnight the day after the California primary.
But the point was that the California primary was in June, not March, in 1968.
I don't think that anyone was arguing that the 1968 California primary was not in June, but, if they were, you showed 'em.
Seems like Super Tuesday is a done deal for the Donald.
All hail President Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2024, 05:20:47 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 05, 2024, 05:13:48 PMI mean Super Tuesday is (checks) today.
Well shit.
I did my part and voted for Joe. :)
Almost voted for Haley (in Virginia you don't register your party so in primary elections, you pick a ballot), but I asked my kids and they wanted me to vote blue.
The Fairfax Dems had a table outside the polling place for volunteers, but not the GOP. We'll see if the GOP has volunteers outside in November, they haven't done well in this district.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 05, 2024, 11:32:03 PMThe Fairfax Dems had a table outside the polling place for volunteers, but not the GOP. We'll see if the GOP has volunteers outside in November, they haven't done well in this district.
Rich men north of Richmond. :ultra:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/us/politics/trump-elon-musk.html
QuoteDonald Trump, Seeking Cash Infusion, Meets With Elon Musk
It's not clear whether Mr. Musk will spend any of his billions on the former president's behalf. If he does, he could erase Mr. Trump's financial disadvantage in the 2024 race.
Donald Trump, who is urgently seeking a cash infusion to aid his presidential campaign, met on Sunday in Palm Beach, Fla., with Elon Musk, one of the world's richest men, and a few wealthy Republican donors, according to three people briefed on the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private discussion.
Mr. Trump and his team are working to find additional major donors to shore up his finances as he heads into an expected general election against President Biden. Mr. Trump has praised Mr. Musk to allies and hopes to have a one-on-one meeting with the billionaire soon, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.
It's not yet clear whether Mr. Musk plans to spend any of his fortune on Mr. Trump's behalf. But his recent social media posts suggest he thinks it's essential that Mr. Biden be defeated in November — and people who have spoken to Mr. Musk privately confirmed that is indeed his view.
With a net worth of around $200 billion, according to Forbes, Mr. Musk could decide to throw his weight behind Mr. Trump and potentially, almost single-handedly, erase what is expected to be Mr. Biden and his allies' huge financial advantage over the former president.
Aides to Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Musk did not respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Musk has long portrayed himself as independent-minded, and like many business leaders he has donated to candidates from both parties over the years. Unlike other U.S. billionaires, he has not spent heavily on a presidential election, and his donations have been fairly evenly split over the years between Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Musk's businesses, Tesla and SpaceX, have benefited from federal government contracts and subsidies.
A person close to Mr. Musk said his relationship with the government had historically made him wary about identifying too closely with one political party over the other. In 2017, the billionaire famously stepped away from two business advisory councils when Mr. Trump was president over Mr. Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
"Climate change is real," Mr. Musk posted on Twitter in June 2017. "Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world."
The two have had other moments of friction. A few months before the midterm elections, in the summer of 2022, he and the former president traded insults, with Mr. Trump calling him an expletive and Mr. Musk saying it was time for the former president to "sail into the sunset."
At the same time, however, Mr. Musk was becoming more open about his preference for the Republican Party.
On the eve of the midterms, he told his more than 100 million followers on X — the website that was called Twitter until Mr. Musk bought it in 2022 — that they should vote for a Republican Congress. He has railed against what he describes as the left's "woke" agenda and has attacked Mr. Biden over the record number of migrants who have entered the United States during his presidency.
Mr. Musk's comments about immigration have grown increasingly alarmist. He has suggested that the president's immigration policies threaten the existence of America itself and have pushed American democracy to the brink. He has suggested that Democrats are "ushering in vast numbers of illegals" to cheat in elections. There is no evidence to support his claim of mass voter fraud.
"America will fall if it tries to absorb the world," Mr. Musk posted on X on Tuesday. Earlier in the day, he posted that the Biden administration's immigration policies amounted to "treason."
The person close to Mr. Musk, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that if he does get behind Mr. Trump, his views about immigration will have been a significant motivator.
Mr. Musk has previously raised questions over Mr. Biden's age and once echoed one of Mr. Trump's favorite jabs by claiming the president was "still sleeping" after Mr. Biden failed to congratulate one of his companies. Mr. Musk has also held a grudge against the president after the White House did not invite Tesla to an event on electric vehicles in August 2021.
"Let's not forget the White House giving Tesla the cold shoulder, excluding us from the EV summit," Mr. Musk, the Tesla chief executive, posted on X in December.
Mr. Musk visited the White House in September to discuss matters around artificial intelligence, according to NBC News, which obtained visitor logs. Mr. Biden and Mr. Musk did not meet during the visit.
After buying Twitter in October 2022, Mr. Musk reinstated Mr. Trump's account. The former president had been barred from the platform after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a decision that Mr. Musk had previously suggested was a mistake.
Still, it was far from clear that Mr. Musk would support Mr. Trump's presidential bid. Mr. Musk had indicated before the Republican nominating contest that he was leaning toward backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. Mr. DeSantis kicked off his formal candidacy in a live-streamed audio discussion with Mr. Musk on X last May, and there was widespread speculation that a donation from Mr. Musk to the super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis would follow. But it never did.
On Monday, Mr. Musk appeared to criticize the television host Bill Maher, who said in a clip posted to X that he would vote for Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump in most any circumstance.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a very real disease," Mr. Musk wrote in response on X.
Even if Mr. Musk does not ultimately decide to donate to a pro-Trump super PAC or spend money in other ways to help Mr. Trump, his own megaphone is substantial. Mr. Musk has 175 million followers on X and has an ability like few others in America to shape news coverage.
Haley is dropping out.
Not a big surprise there.
Trump II: The revenge.
Also in the news: Trump surrounded by Black fans to influence the vote. Fake AI images for the gullible.
The United States is genuinely going to be ruled by a Trump-Musk Axis.
It's just like season 4 of Succession.
Quote from: viper37 on March 06, 2024, 06:36:03 AMHaley is dropping out.
Not a big surprise there.
Trump II: The revenge.
Also in the news: Trump surrounded by Black fans to influence the vote. Fake AI images for the gullible.
Big question is now will she endorse Trump?
Or maybe even Joe Biden?
She signed an agreement to support the eventual GOP nominee early in the process, but that's never been really enforceable and she's backed away from it more recently. But it depends what she thinks her political future is. Her more recent attacks on Trump make it hard to go back (and she certainly won't be the vice-presidential candidate), but Trump has had no problem welcoming some former critics into the fold, like Cruz or Graham, if they're willing to kiss the ring.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 12:17:06 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 06, 2024, 06:36:03 AMHaley is dropping out.
Not a big surprise there.
Trump II: The revenge.
Also in the news: Trump surrounded by Black fans to influence the vote. Fake AI images for the gullible.
Big question is now will she endorse Trump?
Or maybe even Joe Biden?
She signed an agreement to support the eventual GOP nominee early in the process, but that's never been really enforceable and she's backed away from it more recently. But it depends what she thinks her political future is. Her more recent attacks on Trump make it hard to go back (and she certainly won't be the vice-presidential candidate), but Trump has had no problem welcoming some former critics into the fold, like Cruz or Graham, if they're willing to kiss the ring.
Her opposition to Trump was on the principle that he couldn't win against Biden.
Having seen what mettle the modern Republicans are made of, I won't bet against here rallying to support Trump. He might make her VP.
Quote from: viper37 on March 06, 2024, 12:32:03 PMHer opposition to Trump was on the principle that he couldn't win against Biden.
Having seen what mettle the modern Republicans are made of, I won't bet against here rallying to support Trump. He might make her VP.
No - as the campaign went on she became much more pointed in her criticism.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-donald-trump-president-campaign-donation-will-he-2024-3
QuoteElon Musk says he's not donating money to Trump. Does that settle it?
Peter Kafka Mar 6, 2024, 11:20 AM CST
News that Elon Musk met with former President Donald Trump on Sunday raised the obvious question: Is Trump, who needs money, going to get some from one of the world's richest men?
Absolutely not, said Musk on Wednesday.
That settles that. Right?
Sure.
Except that Musk is ... not a reliable narrator.
There's a long list of examples, but let's pick a few:
In 2018, Musk said he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private but didn't.
In 2022, Musk said he was acquiring Twitter shares as a "passive" investor — and then bought the whole company.
In 2022, Musk said he wanted to buy Twitter in part to rid it of bots, then tried to get out of the deal to buy Twitter, claiming it had too many bots.
In 2022, Musk sold billions of dollars in Tesla stock to finance his Twitter deal, then announced that he had "No further TSLA sales planned," and then sold billions more in Tesla stock throughout the year.
So. Maybe Musk really isn't going to donate to Trump.
Or maybe Musk really thinks he's not going to donate to Trump but could change his mind. Or maybe Musk thinks he's crafted a clever tweet about "not donating money to either candidate for US President," and what he really means is he's "not donating RIGHT NOW." Or maybe he's going to be extra clever and donate the money to a Trump-related political action committee and then claim that donating to a Trump PAC is different from donating to Trump.
We're all just guessing here.
But while we are here: On Tuesday night, after news of the Trump-Musk meeting broke, Teddy Schleifer, who covers the intersection of Silicon Valley and politics for Puck, said a Musk donation to Trump was unlikely. Musk, Schleifer argued, seems to enjoy giving political candidates the idea that he might donate to them and then not actually doing that.
To hammer the point home, Schleifer noted a 2023 piece he'd written where then-candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's team was convinced that Musk was going to donate to his long-shot campaign. That donation never materialized.
Schleifer's skepticism looks extra smart now — that is, if Musk truly isn't going to back Trump.
That said: Just because Musk didn't want to throw money at a candidate who was never going to be president doesn't mean that he wouldn't give money to a famously transactional guy who is ahead in most presidential polls.
So this may be worth revisiting in the future.
So there it is. Musk will not donate to either Biden or Trump...maybe.
The thing about Musk - he's not very liquid, as I understand it.
He has a huge net worth from his stock in Tesla and SpaceX. But he leveraged himself pretty good to buy Twitter/X - which has turned out terribly.
I mean he's not exactly looking in the couch for spare change - but he doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars to just give to Trump. Not without selling more stock.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 03:41:50 PMThe thing about Musk - he's not very liquid, as I understand it.
He has a huge net worth from his stock in Tesla and SpaceX. But he leveraged himself pretty good to buy Twitter/X - which has turned out terribly.
I mean he's not exactly looking in the couch for spare change - but he doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars to just give to Trump. Not without selling more stock.
Yeah.
I wish there was a recording of their meeting.
I can imagine this is something trump didn't get and kept trying to weedle cash out of Musk who in turn was trying to look good without spending a penny.
Plus of course it'd be interesting to see them laugh about the nonsense they don't actually believe themselves but recognise as useful.
Musk seems to be a true believer.
Trump is a bullshitter who will say anything, and then convince himself of it.
Anyways - Mitch McConnell endorses Trump.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2024, 03:06:02 PMQuoteElon Musk says he's not donating money to Trump. Does that settle it?
And Putin said he wouldn't invade Ukraine (again)... prrffft
Looks like Trump has to find a new Crassus.
Trump as president for the next decade and Musk as a billionaire cheerleader who controls social media... yeah it's over folks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-i-dont-need-anybodys-money/2015/10/19/160176f2-7668-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_video.html
Can you guys chill? Only 10 out of 45 former presidents failed to win reelection.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2024, 06:47:38 PMCan you guys chill? Only 10 out of 45 former presidents failed to win reelection.
As one of the 10 he has a chance to rectify that :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2024, 06:47:38 PMCan you guys chill? Only 10 out of 45 former presidents failed to win reelection.
Be glad you are a ocean away.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2024, 12:38:09 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 06, 2024, 12:32:03 PMHer opposition to Trump was on the principle that he couldn't win against Biden.
Having seen what mettle the modern Republicans are made of, I won't bet against here rallying to support Trump. He might make her VP.
No - as the campaign went on she became much more pointed in her criticism.
In any case, while not endorsing him, she said "he has to win the hearts and minds of every Republicans". That's not exactly a rallying cry towards Biden, nor a condemnation of Trump.
I kinda see a woman who likes to keep her options open and avoid the witch hunt.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2024, 06:47:38 PMCan you guys chill? Only 10 out of 45 former presidents failed to win reelection.
If nothing else the last 8 years have given me a certain zen detachment. I keep up the struggle but I don't get upset anymore. I now know who these people are, in the past I thought they were better than this so it didn't upset me.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/723401854179868702/1215096494013554748/430346533_392849100113198_1641563928773460604_n.png?ex=65fb81cb&is=65e90ccb&hm=f15366efb58242eabd4feb80ed0a0be1986cfdfc55b060582d65dbaaaa4ba0ed&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=550&height=320)
:lmfao:
Yeah...
I wonder if there's also the attitude that I saw from some in the UK about Brekshit. "If it doesn't happen there'll be some serious trouble from some people- so better support it as its going to happen anyway and it might as well be sans violence."
I hate to say it but an increase in my interactions with online lefties who are Hamastans has me seriously considering just going back to voting straight ticket Republican. Like if this is what the opposition looks like I may just accept fascism, and try to boost it so the GOP hurts those people as much as possible.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:42:16 AMI hate to say it but an increase in my interactions with online lefties who are Hamastans has me seriously considering just going back to voting straight ticket Republican. Like if this is what the opposition looks like I may just accept fascism, and try to boost it so the GOP hurts those people as much as possible.
For both left and right I try to look at what the actual politicians are saying, not online supporters.
Because otherwise I'd be voting straight Sweet Meteor O' Death ticket.
That's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:42:16 AMI hate to say it but an increase in my interactions with online lefties who are Hamastans has me seriously considering just going back to voting straight ticket Republican. Like if this is what the opposition looks like I may just accept fascism, and try to boost it so the GOP hurts those people as much as possible.
The Democratic Party is still very much pro-Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
I hear you man. I still describe myself as a small-c conservative - my ideals haven't changed. Federally I still am a big-C Conservative, supporting the Conservative Party, though I dislike what some online supporters say.
Provincially I voted left-wing NDP, because I didn't like some of the things the right-wing United Conservatives were saying (despite me actually being a member). Now I will say that so far they've been all bark, no bite. They haven't messed with the Canada Pension Plan, they haven't used their unconstitutional "Sovereignty Act" and when they messed with hot-button issues like trans kids they did it with a little more nuance than I had expected. But they still have 3 more years to go.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
Don't interact with them?
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2024, 12:16:31 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
Don't interact with them?
Many of the hard left have more in common with Trumpists than centrists and more likely to vote Trump than Biden anyway.
I won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
And I will not vote Conservative if they go full anti-Ukraine aid.
I keep meaning to email my MP to that effect.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2024, 12:16:31 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
Don't interact with them?
:yes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:42:16 AMI hate to say it but an increase in my interactions with online lefties who are Hamastans has me seriously considering just going back to voting straight ticket Republican. Like if this is what the opposition looks like I may just accept fascism, and try to boost it so the GOP hurts those people as much as possible.
... but aren't those Hamastans anti-Democrat and anti-Biden too?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
I know there's a concerted effort by Hamastans to get the Democrats on their side (and punish them if they don't). But are they successful in that endeavour, beyond a few outliers?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
So you'd be taking their side in punishing Biden.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
Fair. But we are not even close to that point right now.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 12:36:10 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
I know there's a concerted effort by Hamastans to get the Democrats on their side (and punish them if they don't). But are they successful in that endeavour, beyond a few outliers?
No, not yet. But the polls show they are successful with the under 30 crowd. The over 30 crowd, the people who remember the last intifada aren't as keen on seeing another one though.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:54:44 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 12:36:10 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
I know there's a concerted effort by Hamastans to get the Democrats on their side (and punish them if they don't). But are they successful in that endeavour, beyond a few outliers?
No, not yet. But the polls show they are successful with the under 30 crowd. The over 30 crowd, the people who remember the last intifada aren't as keen on seeing another one though.
The current Gaza business is in everybody's face right now. Once things simmer down the under 30 crowd will move on.
What is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
A typo? :P Should be Hamastani, if one wants a more accurate Near/Middle East flavour.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
The online left can be pretty obnoxious, yes, and the more radical parts of it can be downright repulsive. As you may recall, I've spent a good part of my life on the left and I've found myself questioning a lot of the BS.
On voting etc - I'd suggest that the Trumpist right is a clear and present danger to the rule of law and democracy, having compromised a number of institutions, states and process; and with a clearly stated intent to further damage the Republic. The Hamastan left and allies are very obnoxious and sometimes dangerous in individual cases, but poses no danger to the nation, to the international system, or to the rule of law.
Not that I don't sympathize with the emotional response, but they are problems of entirely different magnitudes IMO.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
I'm assuming it's a portmanteau of Hamas and -stan. Someone stanning for Hamas. A Hamas fan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:52:09 AMThat's probably smart, to be honest it is just an emotional response to annoyance. The issue for people like me is I was a life long Republican / conservative, and really in a meta sense I think I am still a conservative--I'm just not an extremist, which is what the GOP has become. But I don't find it easy to walk with the Democrats on many issues, particularly the online left.
Surely that's the key difference.
GOP have the shit for brains psychos in charge, sensible people shouting from the sides.
Dems have the sensible people in charge, shit for brains psychos shouting from the sides.
I'm a committed socialist. But if the choice was a binary between a tankie nutter whose policies spelled disaster at best or a moderate conservative... I'd be doing something that under normal circumstances would appear a sign of mental illness and voting conservative.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2024, 12:57:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:54:44 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 12:36:10 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2024, 12:30:18 PMI won't vote Democratic if goes full antisemitism.
I know there's a concerted effort by Hamastans to get the Democrats on their side (and punish them if they don't). But are they successful in that endeavour, beyond a few outliers?
No, not yet. But the polls show they are successful with the under 30 crowd. The over 30 crowd, the people who remember the last intifada aren't as keen on seeing another one though.
The current Gaza business is in everybody's face right now. Once things simmer down the under 30 crowd will move on.
Trouble is, key to why it blew up when it did was in part Russia and Iran seeing it as very useful to them.
I can't see them letting it go away when they still have eyes on the prize of getting their man installed in Washington.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 07, 2024, 11:42:16 AMI hate to say it but an increase in my interactions with online lefties who are Hamastans has me seriously considering just going back to voting straight ticket Republican. Like if this is what the opposition looks like I may just accept fascism, and try to boost it so the GOP hurts those people as much as possible.
Just vote with your heart dude. Vote for Donald.
No matter what happens, you're an old white male conservative. You are safe in America. Unless violent woke activists seize power, in which case you would be among the first against the wall.
I know it goes against my previously stated optimism, but I am under the impression that Trump is very much like Boris Johnson in that many people want him in power (maybe not admitting even to themselves) because of the entertainment and the thrill ride - after all, people like to watch horror movies.
The US badly needs more than two major parties. :P
The US badly needs a system that doesn't force the political factions to collapse into two parties.
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2024, 03:36:04 AMThe US badly needs a system that doesn't force the political factions to collapse into two parties.
OK Xi.
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2024, 03:39:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on March 08, 2024, 03:36:04 AMThe US badly needs a system that doesn't force the political factions to collapse into two parties.
OK Xi.
:blink:
Or. You know. Your country.
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2024, 03:39:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on March 08, 2024, 03:36:04 AMThe US badly needs a system that doesn't force the political factions to collapse into two parties.
OK Xi.
He said, Xi said...
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
It's Raz way of saying he drank the MAGA Kool Aid.
He just thinks he'll fare better than the others if he shows sympathy to the party.
Lots of people who thought so to died in the camps during WWII.
Then again, Mono might be doing very well for himself these days.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2024, 11:40:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
It's Raz way of saying he drank the MAGA Kool Aid.
He just thinks he'll fare better than the others if he shows sympathy to the party.
Lots of people who thought so to died in the camps during WWII.
Then again, Mono might be doing very well for himself these days.
You nitwit, that wasn't me. Otto is said Hamastan, not me. I haven't become a nationalist.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2024, 12:04:20 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 08, 2024, 11:40:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
It's Raz way of saying he drank the MAGA Kool Aid.
He just thinks he'll fare better than the others if he shows sympathy to the party.
Lots of people who thought so to died in the camps during WWII.
Then again, Mono might be doing very well for himself these days.
You nitwit, that wasn't me. Otto is said Hamastan, not me. I haven't become a nationalist.
Sorry. I confused you two lately, the discourse is so similar.
Biden seems to have shifted his strategy of unconditional, blind support toward Israel.
First, Kamala Harris asking for an immediate cease-fire (with the small caveat that Hamas must respect their conditions, but that's not the headline), then this week-end, saying Bibi did more harm than good for Israel. That's a clear shift. Not attacking Israel, but attacking the government.
Let's see if he regains points with the Arab electorate while not losing anything substantial with the Jewish electorate.
A hopeful sign. Bibi is an opponent of the policy goals of the United States. He is no friend of ours.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:14:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2024, 12:04:20 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 08, 2024, 11:40:27 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2024, 01:15:56 PMWhat is a Hamastan - some weird slur?
It's Raz way of saying he drank the MAGA Kool Aid.
He just thinks he'll fare better than the others if he shows sympathy to the party.
Lots of people who thought so to died in the camps during WWII.
Then again, Mono might be doing very well for himself these days.
You nitwit, that wasn't me. Otto is said Hamastan, not me. I haven't become a nationalist.
Sorry. I confused you two lately, the discourse is so similar.
(https://i.imgur.com/WAxOs19.jpeg)
Yeah, so have you started packing? You know, for the decolonization?
Nope. No one ever contested the establishment of a French colony in Quebec, save for the Iroquois Five (later Six) Nations who wanted the territory from themselves and waged war on the Wendat the Montagnais and the Innus, among others.
The current claims by the Wendat on a part of Quebec city arise from a presumed gift by a religious congregation to the Huron-Wendat nation of Wendake.
Again, if the Federal government wants to give back Southern Ontario to the Iroquois League, to restore the lands cheated by Simcoe, be my guest.
Dude, every inch of North America is First nations. So give it up. You are not indigenous.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:22:05 PMBiden seems to have shifted his strategy of unconditional, blind support toward Israel.
I'd argue that the change isn't his policy, but your (mis)perception of his policy.
QuoteFirst, Kamala Harris asking for an immediate cease-fire (with the small caveat that Hamas must respect their conditions, but that's not the headline), then this week-end, saying Bibi did more harm than good for Israel. That's a clear shift. Not attacking Israel, but attacking the government.
Let's see if he regains points with the Arab electorate while not losing anything substantial with the Jewish electorate.
The Biden Administration has sharpened its rhetoric, but hasn't changed any policies. Biden has never been a Bibi supporter.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 11:22:18 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:22:05 PMBiden seems to have shifted his strategy of unconditional, blind support toward Israel.
I'd argue that the change isn't his policy, but your (mis)perception of his policy.
QuoteFirst, Kamala Harris asking for an immediate cease-fire (with the small caveat that Hamas must respect their conditions, but that's not the headline), then this week-end, saying Bibi did more harm than good for Israel. That's a clear shift. Not attacking Israel, but attacking the government.
Let's see if he regains points with the Arab electorate while not losing anything substantial with the Jewish electorate.
The Biden Administration has sharpened its rhetoric, but hasn't changed any policies. Biden has never been a Bibi supporter.
He's never been a Bibi supporter, but he gave him a carte-blanche to attack Gaza and shut his eyes for everything else happening in the West Bank under the guise that they were being attacked by Hamas from Gaza.
We're far from the previous discourse. Even when other allies were asking for a cease-fire the US was totally opposed to that.
On a lighter note:
A parody of Senator Katie Britt's counter speech to Biden (https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1766689405392109736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1766689405392109736%7Ctwgr%5E6c7d735b45577e084f20a4db7ab00c3afaa7190b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lapresse.ca%2Finternational%2Fetats-unis%2F2024-03-10%2Freponse-au-discours-sur-l-etat-de-l-union%2Fla-republicaine-katie-britt-parodiee-et-accusee-de-mensonge.php)
I love it when SNL goes political :D
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2024, 11:47:54 PMDude, every inch of North America is First nations. So give it up. You are not indigenous.
I don't recall Champlain fighting off the natives to establish Quebec city.
Perhaps you misremember Metacomet's War and its outcome? :)
We didn't fight the indians to exterminate them and sent them packing out of their territory.
It doesn't matter. Saying "there was no person standing right here, so the land must be ours" is silly. You have a bunch of reservations in Quebec, decolonize now! Give the land back.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2024, 12:31:33 PMIt doesn't matter. Saying "there was no person standing right here, so the land must be ours" is silly. You have a bunch of reservations in Quebec, decolonize now! Give the land back.
Hey Viper may have Huron ancestors.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2024, 12:31:33 PMIt doesn't matter. Saying "there was no person standing right here, so the land must be ours" is silly. You have a bunch of reservations in Quebec, decolonize now! Give the land back.
Of course we have a bunch of reservations in Quebec.
The Abenakis, refugees expelled by the Iroquois and the British.
Mohawks, Catholics expelles by the Iroquois and the British.
Malecites (can't spell their official name, sorry), refugees expelled by Maine's colonists. Some went back to New-Brunswick and Maine after the war.
Hurons-Wendat of Wendake. Refugees of attempted genocide from the Iroquois, allied with the English.
Innus and Montagnais, leftovers of the Beaver Wars with the Iroquois, supplied with English and later British weapons. Negotiations still under way.
Inuits: British Territory, Hudson Bay Company. Rapatriated to Quebec much later.
Cree: Negotiated settlement with the James Bay treaty.
You should really try harder. :)
In any case, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, with the Indian Act.
We can only deal with the current situations within our own sphere of responsibilities. Any territorial arrangement has to go through the Federal government. I'm more than willing to discuss equal to equal, without Federal govt interference. Not sure Justin is ok with that.
So you are saying there was not ONE native American in the confines of Quebec until the British came?
Quote from: Valmy on March 10, 2024, 12:43:49 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2024, 12:31:33 PMIt doesn't matter. Saying "there was no person standing right here, so the land must be ours" is silly. You have a bunch of reservations in Quebec, decolonize now! Give the land back.
Hey Viper may have Huron ancestors.
It's a distinct possibility on my maternal grandmother's side, though unconfirmed. I may be descended from Étienne Brûlé (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Br%C3%BBl%C3%A9).
I don't have the family tree from my grandmother's family, on my grandfathers. A tv documentary about the first families of New France says that my grandma's family comes in part from Étienne Brûlé, through adoption (kids where sent to adoption, some became the family of my grandmother, but there are other branches too. Impossible to know which branch for sure if I don't command a family tree).
On my dad's side, we come from a small town in Normandy, 13-14th century. Might be why I so much like the Mass Effect series :P
Viper, I don't think the biggest obstacle to direct negotiations between various First Nations and Quebec has anything to do with Trudeau. I'm pretty sure the main challenge is that the First Nation's see themselves as having a direct relationship with the crown, not the province or nation of Quebec.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2024, 01:30:19 PMViper, I don't think the biggest obstacle to direct negotiations between various First Nations and Quebec has anything to do with Trudeau. I'm pretty sure the main challenge is that the First Nation's see themselves as having a direct relationship with the crown, not the province or nation of Quebec.
The Federal government keeps interfering in everything and sabotaging every attempts.
Then again, the current government is very apt at sabotaging its own attempts.
But there are issues that endure, like the Oka crisis that isn't yet solved, even though a private owner wants to give his lands to the Mohawks.
In Quebec city, the Feds decided they would split the lands in two: give half to the Hurons, and half to the Innus who were never there and have a conflict with the Hurons. Divide and conquer. Let Quebec city and the Quebec government deal with the mess after that.
Quebec did many mistakes, but we agreed long ago on the principle that we would deal with First Nations as equals. Not as dependants. However, what we won't allow, is Federal interference.
Sounds like some dudes came in a while ago, took control of land to which the previous inhabitants never agreed to, and now the newer dudes are deciding what do with these older dudes, above their heads. This calls for a from the forest to the sea, Turtle Island will be free chant.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2024, 02:47:39 PMSounds like some dudes came in a while ago, took control of land to which the previous inhabitants never agreed to, and now the newer dudes are deciding what do with these older dudes, above their heads. This calls for a from the forest to the sea, Turtle Island will be free chant.
Some dudes were in these lands a while ago.
Some dudes came to visit them. And claim their lands in the name of their great King. They tried to establish a colony. It did not really work out. They quarrelled. They left. These visiting duded forgot about this particular place and these particular people and instead put up a trading post somewhere else downriver that they visited only in the summer, trading with some other dudes who happened to have in common only they were of the same skin colour as the previous dudes.
As for the previous dudes who were visited, they may have been chased by other dudes of the same colour. Or died from diseases due to contact with unclean duded from the lands across the Great Sea. Whatever is the case, is that some 75 years later, some other dude came back to the trading post, smoke something with some of the dudes there, and they told him all the lands belong to them because there was no one here and he could very well build a great city, if only he would destroy these nasty dudes that were always making trouble.
So this bearded came and saw a great cape, as described by some other bearded dude, and he saw no one. No camps, no trace of anyone ever living there. He decided it was a good place to build a great city with tall skyscrapers a huge port, a cycling way, a railroad... Ah, that would come later.
What he did was build a few houses, went back to his King, announced the great news: he had found allies, built a city, found furs, and needed weapons to defend the friendly dudes against the evil dudes from New York.
So he came back with men and weapons. And he went to Upper New York State. And he fought valiantly with an army of Hurons, Innus and Ottawas against the rabbles of scary Iroquois and defeated them.
So no one ever bothered to claim this part of the territory, it was given.
Some dudette later came and decided to build another city on an island, higher up on the river. She wanted a place for herself so she could bring all these nice people to light of her one true God, a place closer to the friendly people they had already met, and at the same time, close to the nasty people they had previously defeated so that the power of God would protect them from their evil ways.
And then you know what happened? Well, you are trapped between and immovable object and an unstoppable force. This was a battleground between two groups of brown dudes. So the English speaking brown dudes attacked the French speaking brown dudes saying the French ones should bow to them and pay them to trade.
And the French whites ones wanted to hold the trade rights over everyone instead of the evil English ones who were abusing all the peace loving brown people of the northwest.
So war ensued. And the English speaking and Dutch speaking white dudes gave weapons and whisky to their brown people so they would kill the French speaking white people. The Good ones were also stubborn in their ways and refused to give weapons to the locals unless they prayed to their God. So their version of Megatron encouraged them to destroy the good brown people, forcing them away from their lands into far away Quebec city.
Seeing this, the French asked for a military regiment and first destroyed the evil brown people's supply cache and made their peace.
Then the militia was sent to scalp the evil speaking two tongue people and the good brown people took their white women with them. So, for a time, there was peace, and every one knew not to raid one another and a Great Peace was signed between all the Brown People and good White People, leaving the Evil Cobra skulking on their side of the Valley, waiting for revenge.
Meanwhile, the English-as-a-second-language speaking brown people expelled more of their own people who worshipped differently than the Evil White People, so they were granted lands near Montreal and they basked in the light of the One True Language.
Later, these good people were re-assimilated by their Evil Cousins, spoke the wrong language despite keeping the Good Faith, and they decided to claim large chunks of territories that never belonged to them.
Its funny how black and white some people can be.
Like the only options are continued injustice for natives or...white people all move to Europe?
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 04:01:14 AMIts funny how black and white some people can be.
I was born this way.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 04:01:14 AMIts funny how black and white some people can be.
Like the only options are continued injustice for natives or...white people all move to Europe?
Well, the injustice against the natives is that they don't have their land.
Handful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:36:51 PMHandful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Mh, better be careful. Polls said Hillary would win too
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 03:40:58 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:36:51 PMHandful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Mh, better be careful. Polls said Hillary would win too
He said it means nothing.:o
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2024, 07:29:51 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 03:40:58 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:36:51 PMHandful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Mh, better be careful. Polls said Hillary would win too
He said it means nothing.:o
It bears repeating and reinforcing. This is, after all, not the best timeline apparently
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 07:36:08 AMQuote from: garbon on March 13, 2024, 07:29:51 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 03:40:58 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:36:51 PMHandful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Mh, better be careful. Polls said Hillary would win too
He said it means nothing.:o
It bears repeating and reinforcing. This is, after all, not the best timeline apparently
I don't think any of us think this will be an easy election. :huh;
Quote from: garbon on March 13, 2024, 07:43:40 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 07:36:08 AMQuote from: garbon on March 13, 2024, 07:29:51 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 13, 2024, 03:40:58 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:36:51 PMHandful of polls show a Biden lead: https://www.newsweek.com/presidential-election-latest-polls-biden-trump-1877928
We're eight months out and all that, so it means nothing... but sometimes you need a bit of hope.
Mh, better be careful. Polls said Hillary would win too
He said it means nothing.:o
It bears repeating and reinforcing. This is, after all, not the best timeline apparently
I don't think any of us think this will be an easy election. :huh;
Anywhere, with European elections coming up as well. But that's another thread
Biden's polling vs Trump for this cycle has shown him up previously, too, if you go back into 2023. The reality remains, whether positive or negative for Biden, polling has not been found to be strongly predictive this far away from the election.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 13, 2024, 09:45:29 AMBiden's polling vs Trump for this cycle has shown him up previously, too, if you go back into 2023. The reality remains, whether positive or negative for Biden, polling has not been found to be strongly predictive this far away from the election.
I was listening to a podcast the other day - with respect I think a lot of people are still shook by 2016. Polling is pretty accurate. In 2016 Trump managed to pull an inside straight to win the election despite losing the popular vote - of which the polls were pretty accurate.
People should be incredibly concerned that, unlike both 2016 and 2020, Trump is leading the opinion polls in March of an election year.
Obviously lots of time to go, nothing is etched in stone, but those polls are meaningful.
Every election is incredibly concerning.
I wasn't concerned in 2008 and 2012. I actually liked McCain and Romney wasn't some kind of monster.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 13, 2024, 09:28:34 PMI wasn't concerned in 2008 and 2012. I actually liked McCain and Romney wasn't some kind of monster.
2010 was a disaster we have never completely recovered from though.
But I meant every election since 2015. Every one, even the mid-terms, is a close high stakes battle.
You fuckers need to stop all your esoteric navelgazing and come to the realization that this ignorant knuckledragging mouthbreather from Queens is never going to see a single verdict of consequence in any criminal court, and it is all going away forever once he becomes Chief Bwana for Life.
That is a very likely outcome.
Quote from: Barrister on March 13, 2024, 10:28:45 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 13, 2024, 09:45:29 AMBiden's polling vs Trump for this cycle has shown him up previously, too, if you go back into 2023. The reality remains, whether positive or negative for Biden, polling has not been found to be strongly predictive this far away from the election.
I was listening to a podcast the other day - with respect I think a lot of people are still shook by 2016. Polling is pretty accurate. In 2016 Trump managed to pull an inside straight to win the election despite losing the popular vote - of which the polls were pretty accurate.
People should be incredibly concerned that, unlike both 2016 and 2020, Trump is leading the opinion polls in March of an election year.
Obviously lots of time to go, nothing is etched in stone, but those polls are meaningful.
I never said polling wasn't accurate--I said it isn't predictive this far out. Every bit of analysis, commentary, study etc I have ever seen saying polling is accurate (and that it has been decently accurate in several recent cycles) are all concerned with polling in the final weeks of an election, not polling 8 months out. They are not the same thing.
There was a common belief 75 years ago that people's opinions get set very early in a campaign and don't change. This is why Truman was considered "cooked" and a lot of the higher quality pollsters quit running regular polls in the 1948 election. It ends up they were wrong, that sentiment changes up until election day--and a lot of Truman voters broke for him in the final month.
In 2016 there was a clear polling break of a few points away from HRC to Trump in the final weeks, which was almost certainly decisive. It is also why polling in March of 2016 was not very predictive, it has no way to know that there will be a significant shift in the final 14 days of the campaign.
I wonder if this Biden would work. Trump has been nuts even for him of late. Giving a speech about how Biden beat Obama in an election.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/17/biden-jokes-about-trumps-mental-illness-at-traditional-washington-dinner
"One candidate is too old and mentally unfit to be president. The other one is me,"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2024, 08:15:15 AMYou fuckers need to stop all your esoteric navelgazing and come to the realization that this ignorant knuckledragging mouthbreather from Queens is never going to see a single verdict of consequence in any criminal court, and it is all going away forever once he becomes Chief Bwana for Life
He can't post a bond for the fraud appeal, so he's about to have a real bad time.
Institutions may fail, the criminal justice system may disappoint, but you can always count on plaintiff's lawyers to exact their pound of flesh.
I've heard of some signs not being good for trump. Small donations have fell off a cliff due to him and house and senate gop candidates are being made to self fund.
I wonder how much pence not endorsing is having an impact too
It's not related to the election in itself.
But I often heard the joke that the best way to achieve gun control in the US was to give every Black men in the US a gun.
The US Federal court kinda did something like that. A judge ruled that illegal immigrants could legally possess guns.
Illegal immigrants can possess guns under Second Amendment, federal judge rules (https://local21news.com/news/nation-world/illegal-immigrants-can-carry-guns-under-second-amendment-federal-judge-rules-heriberto-carbajal-flores-chicago-district-judge-sharon-johnson-coleman-obama-ice-southern-border-2a-rights-illinois)
I wonder if it will incite Republicans to move forward with gun control measures now. :hmm:
(just kidding).
It's likely to reinforce their paranoia about illegal immigrants storming the US.
Interesting thread from John Burn-Murdoch on possible signs of a re-alignment in voting patterns by race in the US - there's also follow up article by Nate Silver on this in actual elections, particularly in New York and Texas:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767198788689465639
I doubt it'll have an impact this election but feels like something Democrats should be thinking about. The thing that's really interesting is that (as in the UK) while I'm not keen on the politics, the possible causes may actually, in a way, be reflective of positive social trends like people mixing more, minority conservatives voting their ideology/beliefs more.
And less positive ones, like going full retard.
When I see right wing minorities I can't help but put it in the same box as transphobic gay people.
The minute the pitch fork waving mob that was after them finds a new target they're picking up a flaming torch and joining in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2024, 04:01:03 AMAnd less positive ones, like going full retard.
Isn't that more general conservatives in America, of which some are minorities?
Not sure why we'd expect black or Latino or any other minority American conservatism to be more starchily, country club, old school conservatives than any other American conservative.
Edit: Especially as part of it seems to be socialisation - for example, black conservatives who have mainly black social networks are still indicating support for Democrats, while if they have diverse social networks they're more likely to support Republicans. It would seem very odd if there seems to be a socialisation element if their conservatism was radically different than the white conservatives they're mixing with.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 04:30:22 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2024, 04:01:03 AMAnd less positive ones, like going full retard.
Isn't that more general conservatives in America, of which some are minorities?
Not sure why we'd expect black or Latino or any other minority American conservatism to be more starchily, country club, old school conservatives than any other American conservative.
Edit: Especially as part of it seems to be socialisation - for example, black conservatives who have mainly black social networks are still indicating support for Democrats, while if they have diverse social networks they're more likely to support Republicans. It would seem very odd if there seems to be a socialisation element if their conservatism was radically different than the white conservatives they're mixing with.
I'd like to imagine people could be socially conservative without debasing themselves and everyone connected with them.
Not that I would like them to be socially conservative but there should be a path to doing so that does not mean going full idiot.
Lots from fiercely bigotted religious (or if you want to put it nicely, socially conservative) family/cultural backgrounds, low income with little to no access to quality education, if these minorities happened to be whites they'd be considered the quintessential target audience for the Right. It's almost racist to be surprised they are tilting that way.
Quote from: garbon on March 21, 2024, 04:58:19 AMI'd like to imagine people could be socially conservative without debasing themselves and everyone connected with them.
Not that I would like them to be socially conservative but there should be a path to doing so that does not mean going full idiot.
For sure.
But I think political views are likely to be socially constructed - either shaped by or in reaction against the social environment someone's in. American conservatism is a pretty debased pool at the minute, but I'd expect that to shape 90% of self-identified conservatives in the US whatever their race or ethnicity.
There are absolutely people who self-create their beliefs or who are able to stand apart, but I think it's pretty rare.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 04:30:22 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2024, 04:01:03 AMAnd less positive ones, like going full retard.
Isn't that more general conservatives in America, of which some are minorities?
Not sure why we'd expect black or Latino or any other minority American conservatism to be more starchily, country club, old school conservatives than any other American conservative.
A very fine GOP person recently made the very fine comment: ""Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel."
Deep below the grotesquely offensive commentary is a point: if the GOP is pro-Israel, if it is sufficiently PC enough to give lip service to "Judeo-Christian" values, if it offers economic policies that should be of interest of a group with significantly higher than average income and wealth, why do American Jews tend to shun the GOP like the plague?
IMO there are two big causes. Number 1 is that the right-wing of the GOP has a Nazi problem. Nazis are a big deal-breaker. I can live with an Ilhan Omar or two flailing about on the left singing about river to the sea; I can't stomach the Jewish Space Laser caucus picking the Speaker of the House. I can't stomach the US President very fine peopling the guys with swastikas and bedsheets.
Number 2 is related. No matter how tolerant American society seems, there is always the feeling that Jews in some sense are still viewed as an Other. A tolerated accepted Other perhaps, but an Other nonetheless. And so rhetoric about subhuman animals crossing the border makes us nervous. In a politics of Us versus Them, no matter how it starts, history proves over and over that the Jews will always end up in the Them column. And again we can already see this cropping up on the alt right.
The same logic IMO should apply for other historical minority groups. The GOP has a Nazi problem, a Klan problem, a racism problem broadly. I get why there are Black folks, Latinos, Asians etc. that may like family values, entreprenurship, and other traditional core GOP principles. But no tax break is worth letting the bedsheets back into political influence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 03:40:22 AMInteresting thread from John Burn-Murdoch on possible signs of a re-alignment in voting patterns by race in the US - there's also follow up article by Nate Silver on this in actual elections, particularly in New York and Texas:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767198788689465639
I doubt it'll have an impact this election but feels like something Democrats should be thinking about. The thing that's really interesting is that (as in the UK) while I'm not keen on the politics, the possible causes may actually, in a way, be reflective of positive social trends like people mixing more, minority conservatives voting their ideology/beliefs more.
Valmy was disputing this notion a few days ago.
I think it's a worrying trend.
Saw an interview on CNN where they talked to an illegal immigrant who supported Trump. He said that Trump loves this country and wants it to better while the economy has been a disaster under Biden.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2024, 10:51:39 AMthe economy has been a disaster under Biden.
He heard this from Trump himself, no doubt.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2024, 10:51:39 AMSaw an interview on CNN where they talked to an illegal immigrant who supported Trump. He said that Trump loves this country and wants it to better while the economy has been a disaster under Biden.
People often wonder why the Republicans are so difficult to defeat. Their political prowess and ability to get their message out, even among a group they are publicly determined to destroy, is impressive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2024, 10:01:39 AMA very fine GOP person recently made the very fine comment: ""Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel."
Yeah they do that to white men all the time. "A white man voting for the Democrats is like a sheep voting for wolves." Because the Democrats hate and want to destroy and oppress us. Despite, you know, Joe Biden being President and stuff.
It works to. I have heard more than once how we white men are the most oppressed group in America. Amazing.
I think where parties on the left, within Liberal Democracies, have generally gone wrong is they have lost the ability to give hope that they have a plan to make the lives of wage earners better (I hesitate to say the working poor because with the price of housing these days, the working poor is now the vast majority of the population).
The extreme right steps in and says they have all the solutions. It's all nonsense but they are the only ones giving hope - as false at it might be. Its the totalitarian play book. Everyone on this forum knows their history. We all see it happening again. I used to wonder what people in Germany were thinking when they let it happen. Seeing what is happening now, I think the answer is people just feel powerless to do anything about it.
Oex is correct when he reminds us all, with some urgency, to get involved in politics. But generally people have lost faith in the system.
I think Viper has the right idea - time to go full bunker mode.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 12:29:10 PMPeople often wonder why the Republicans are so difficult to defeat. Their political prowess and ability to get their message out, even among a group they are publicly determined to destroy, is impressive.
On the whole, capital supports the GOP and capital - over time - buys up most social and traditional media. Propaganda works.
This is, IMO, compounded by the fact that both capital and organized foreign actors are putting significant resources into leveraging social media to pursue their various agendas - and those tend to coincide with supporting the GOP.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2024, 10:01:39 AMThe same logic IMO should apply for other historical minority groups. The GOP has a Nazi problem, a Klan problem, a racism problem broadly. I get why there are Black folks, Latinos, Asians etc. that may like family values, entreprenurship, and other traditional core GOP principles. But no tax break is worth letting the bedsheets back into political influence.
I don't disagree - but it looks like there is less a re-alignment than a de-polarisation on the basis of race.
The headline is this shift (which may not show up once we get to a general election and people start paying attention etc). Even if it does tighten, I think the Democrats could probably do with thinking about why the one group their message/strategy really seems to resonate with is the college educated:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIZUmSoXIAAPXrj?format=png&name=small)
In particular it looks like younger minorities have less attachment to the Democrats - which makes me think of what we see in continental Europe where, often, the weakest vote for the far and radical right is the oldest. The people who remember or came to political consciousness in the aftermath of fascism - while there's a weaker individual cordon sanitaire for younger voters. I suspect something similar is happening with the attachment of particularly African-Americans to the Democrats. The other thing is minority conservatives moving to vote Republican - so again polarising on belief/ideology rather than race:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIZYQKZWcAEygMo?format=jpg&name=small)
As I say I think this is bad politically. The ambiguity is that it looks like it's partially driven by social changes that I think are positive. So, for example, the big indicator seems to be whether someone mainly has friends in their own community, or more diverse social networks (and there's a Bowling Alone angle there, perhaps, with declining church attendance etc). But basically if you're, say, a Black conservative who mainly has Black friends/social network then you're likely to still say you'll back the Democrats. So while this is bad politically, it looks like one of the drivers is what Garbon posted about earlier - more Americans live in racially mixed neighbourhoods, the level of segregation between communities is falling.
If that is a driver, perhaps it is possibly a bit like the shift of "white ethnic" voters, with the power of communities with political norms diminishing? And, I wonder if that ties back to Democrats increasingly seem to mainly resonate with the college educated?
QuoteOn the whole, capital supports the GOP and capital - over time - buys up most social and traditional media. Propaganda works.
I don't think capital did in 2016 - I think there was a genuine fear of Trump with Wall Street at that point and they overwhelmingly backed Clinton. But you look at Dimon's comments in Davos, you look at the reception Milei got in Davos and since and I think capital is now fairly comfortable with/thinks they can manage the risk of Trump-ish disruption.
Edit: Altough I'd add that I do also think that something we all said in the last few years is given the pandemic, supply disruptions, cost of living etc it is a very, very challenging time to be an incumbent in any democracy right now almost regardless of your policies. I think Biden has had more success than I expected and delivered better than basically any other Western leader - but, for want of a better phrase, the lived experience of many people will have been a really tough few years. That's still a factor.
I also think - and I know this is my pet theory - that American politics is becoming slightly more parliamentarian. It's more ideologically divided and relatively coherent blocs and I think people increasingly sort ideologically (I'm always unsure whether the culture war is downstream of the political polarisation or vice versa). I think the Democrats still look, still behave and are broadly still led by people who act as if it's mid-twentieth century coalition politics - and I'm not sure that's right anymore.
Those graphs seem to suggest that the Republicans have done better in every subsequent election since 2012 yet in 2012 and 2016 they controlled the House, Senate, and many more state governments than they do today. I feel like there is additional data you are not showing.
Anyway the massive wins for the Republicans among Black and Hispanic voters has been the constant big story for 40 years. It is such a tiresome and constant narrative. Oh and all the poor are now big Republicans. Despite the Republicans winning huge in every demographic for 40 years they still don't manage to constantly win all the elections so color me skeptical. Or it is true but only true in a way that doesn't significantly shift vote totals.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2024, 01:04:40 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 12:29:10 PMPeople often wonder why the Republicans are so difficult to defeat. Their political prowess and ability to get their message out, even among a group they are publicly determined to destroy, is impressive.
On the whole, capital supports the GOP and capital - over time - buys up most social and traditional media. Propaganda works.
This is, IMO, compounded by the fact that both capital and organized foreign actors are putting significant resources into leveraging social media to pursue their various agendas - and those tend to coincide with supporting the GOP.
I'm going to respectfully suggest you are wrong.
You cite "capital" and "social and traditional media".
I mean yes you can point to Fox News, and Elon Musk/Twitter. A few right-wing billionaires too (Hi Peter Thiel!). But pretty strongly the billionaire class, and journalists are left to left of centre. There's a reason college-educated people vote pretty strongly Democrat in the US. There's a reason there's basically no figures in Hollywood or the music industry who support Trump (except country music and Kanye).
What's been going on is very curious - it's basically an inversion of politics of the last 50-100 years or so. The "left" is now supported by the educated elites, while increasingly the "right" is supported by the working class.
This also starts to explain why increasing minorities seem to be supporting the "right", even if you can argue it is against their interests.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 01:21:11 PMThose graphs seem to suggest that the Republicans have done better in every subsequent election since 2012 yet in 2012 and 2016 they controlled the House, Senate, and many more state governments than they do today. I feel like there is additional data you are not showing.
The first one is just comparing latest polls to 2020 - though I believe Nate Silver has added on this using actual votes in New York and Texas to show this happening in real election, if that's helpful.
The second one is showing the margin one way or the other along the ideological spectrum from very liberal to very conservative broken down by race. Broadly it shows that it's converging - at different paces - but broadly minorities who identify as conservative have become more likely to vote Republican in every 2016, 2020 and 2022 than in 2012. Obviously there may be other data in 2014 or 2018, it also looks like white liberals have become more solidly Democrat and it doesn't necessarily say anything about relative turn out.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2024, 01:23:04 PMWhat's been going on is very curious - it's basically an inversion of politics of the last 50-100 years or so. The "left" is now supported by the educated elites, while increasingly the "right" is supported by the working class.
The right always had huge support among the working class. The Presidential Elections of 1972 and 1984 didn't happen because we had millions more educated elites back then. The working class supported them then for the same reasons they support them now.
I'd argue the reason why working class people generally are voting more right these days is that they are generally more socially conservative than middle class educated individuals. This pretty much cuts through racial lines too I would argue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 01:31:04 PMThe first one is just comparing latest polls to 2020 - though I believe Nate Silver has added on this using actual votes in New York and Texas to show this happening in real election, if that's helpful.
Which real election?
Quote from: PJL on March 21, 2024, 01:32:49 PMI'd argue the reason why working class people generally are voting more right these days is that they are generally more socially conservative than middle class educated individuals. This pretty much cuts through racial lines too I would argue.
Which was also true in 1972 and 1984. Wake me when the Republicans win 49 of the states and 60% of the votes again.
I feel like you guys are gaslighting me somehow, trying to sell this false narrative that in the past the left enjoyed overwhelming support. This has not been true since the 1960s. The only reason the Democrats were able to even compete in the 1990s was by basically adopting Reaganomics and tough on crime stuff from the Republicans.
Even in 2020, that was hardly some overwhelming victory and even though the polls don't look great it is hardly the giant shift you guys are talking about. And the Republicans were absolutely crushing us from 2010 until 2018 yet somehow they now have more support now despite the Democrats getting pretty good results in 2022? And what happened in 1994? Did everybody but the upper class elites sit that one out?
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2024, 01:23:04 PMI mean yes you can point to Fox News, and Elon Musk/Twitter. A few right-wing billionaires too (Hi Peter Thiel!). But pretty strongly the billionaire class, and journalists are left to left of centre. There's a reason college-educated people vote pretty strongly Democrat in the US. There's a reason there's basically no figures in Hollywood or the music industry who support Trump (except country music and Kanye).
What's been going on is very curious - it's basically an inversion of politics of the last 50-100 years or so. The "left" is now supported by the educated elites, while increasingly the "right" is supported by the working class.
Again interesting on this from the FT number crunching of ANES data:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIZWg0HXsAAdyey?format=jpg&name=small)
I think part of the question is whether it needs disentangling and it's actually fundamentally about education - and I'm not sure. The other, which might reflect that, is that I think there is maybe something to Piketty's analysis that broadly on purely income terms there's still a bit of a split between a merchant right (Wall Street) and a Brahmin left ("professionals", highly educated types probably including their lawyers). Again I think part of that is probably socialisation.
QuoteThis also starts to explain why increasing minorities seem to be supporting the "right", even if you can argue it is against their interests.
Yes - although I always find "voting against their interests" a bit frustrating because I don't think it's often a charge levied at people like me - or, I imagine many of the people here, who have degrees and solidly middle class jobs but vote for parties that will probably raise our taxes. That is against our material interests and unusual in comparison with a lot of 20th century voting behaviour.
I always feel there's something a little bit "I am nobly voting for causes more important than my own material interests, you are suffering from false consciousness" about it :lol:
QuoteWhich real election?
This was Silver's piece on it:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-are-hemorrhaging-support
QuoteWhich was also true in 1972 and 1984. Wake me when the Republicans win 49 of the states and 60% of the votes again.
Presidentially. Nixon was, and this shocked me, paranoid and angry about his lack of coat-tails at a Congressional level and Reagan famously had Tip O'Neill as Speaker for basically his entire tenure.
Congressionally the Democrats were absolutely dominant from the New Deal until Newt Gingrich (didn't have a majority all the time, but the vast majority). As I say I think that is also possibly a shift from New Deal/coalition building politics to something a little more parliamentary/ideoligical.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2024, 12:36:50 PMI think Viper has the right idea - time to go full bunker mode.
I think Canada can really help out here. It could easily bond Trump's NY judgment. You'd probably screw us on a few trade issues and stick us with a useless pipeline of filthy Canadian tar sand oil, but otherwise we'd do OK in a Trump puppet presidency Act II with Canadians pulling the strings instead of the FSB.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 01:37:54 PMQuote from: PJL on March 21, 2024, 01:32:49 PMI'd argue the reason why working class people generally are voting more right these days is that they are generally more socially conservative than middle class educated individuals. This pretty much cuts through racial lines too I would argue.
Which was also true in 1972 and 1984. Wake me when the Republicans win 49 of the states and 60% of the votes again.
I feel like you guys are gaslighting me somehow, trying to sell this false narrative that in the past the left enjoyed overwhelming support. This has not been true since the 1960s. The only reason the Democrats were able to even compete in the 1990s was by basically adopting Reaganomics and tough on crime stuff from the Republicans.
Even in 2020, that was hardly some overwhelming victory and even though the polls don't look great it is hardly the giant shift you guys are talking about. And the Republicans were absolutely crushing us from 2010 until 2018 yet somehow they now have more support now despite the Democrats getting pretty good results in 2022? And what happened in 1994? Did everybody but the upper class elites sit that one out?
Which is why I mentioned 50-100 years ago.
There was an era of "Rockefeller Republicans" when the true elites were GOP voters. The realignment I mentioned has been going on for 50+ years.
But still the notion continues to exist in some - that the GOP is the party of the elites, while the Democratic Party is the party of the New Deal-little guy. But that's been changing for decades, and is largely dead by now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 01:11:43 PMI don't disagree - but it looks like there is less a re-alignment than a de-polarisation on the basis of race.
I don't disagree with the fact, I just think it confirms the Yi retard theory. If the "race penalty" seems less palpable, it's only because of the hard won institutional gains purchased at great costs over decades, gains which are under assault and eroding.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 01:51:05 PMQuoteWhich real election?
This was Silver's piece on it:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-are-hemorrhaging-support
Ah yes. I remember that stuff from the 2020 election. Yet somehow the Democrats had their best results in Texas since 1976 despite this big shift. Which, needless to say, I found odd if this was indeed happening.
I mean if it happens, it happens. But we'll see. In any case if it is because the Democrats are pro-abortion rights and LGBTQ well there is nothing much that can be done. The Democrats cannot abandon women and LGBTQ.
I was hoping Biden's more protectionist and pro-Union policies would help with the workers but maybe not.
QuotePresidentially. Nixon was, and this shocked me, paranoid and angry about his lack of coat-tails at a Congressional level and Reagan famously had Tip O'Neill as Speaker for basically his entire tenure.
Congressionally the Democrats were absolutely dominant from the New Deal until Newt Gingrich (didn't have a majority all the time, but the vast majority). As I say I think that is also possibly a shift from New Deal/coalition building politics to something a little more parliamentary/ideoligical.
Yes. Back in those days the Democrats had a powerful right wing. The Republicans even had a left wing through the 1970s. So just voting Democratic didn't mean "left" or voting Republican didn't mean "right"...but boy it sure did in the 1972 and 1984 Presidential elections.
Most of you are missing the reason why non college educated people are voting for the far right. The left does not give them any hope for the future.
Quote from: Barrister on March 21, 2024, 02:03:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 01:37:54 PMQuote from: PJL on March 21, 2024, 01:32:49 PMI'd argue the reason why working class people generally are voting more right these days is that they are generally more socially conservative than middle class educated individuals. This pretty much cuts through racial lines too I would argue.
Which was also true in 1972 and 1984. Wake me when the Republicans win 49 of the states and 60% of the votes again.
I feel like you guys are gaslighting me somehow, trying to sell this false narrative that in the past the left enjoyed overwhelming support. This has not been true since the 1960s. The only reason the Democrats were able to even compete in the 1990s was by basically adopting Reaganomics and tough on crime stuff from the Republicans.
Even in 2020, that was hardly some overwhelming victory and even though the polls don't look great it is hardly the giant shift you guys are talking about. And the Republicans were absolutely crushing us from 2010 until 2018 yet somehow they now have more support now despite the Democrats getting pretty good results in 2022? And what happened in 1994? Did everybody but the upper class elites sit that one out?
Which is why I mentioned 50-100 years ago.
There was an era of "Rockefeller Republicans" when the true elites were GOP voters. The realignment I mentioned has been going on for 50+ years.
But still the notion continues to exist in some - that the GOP is the party of the elites, while the Democratic Party is the party of the New Deal-little guy. But that's been changing for decades, and is largely dead by now.
Ok well how come the Democrats do so well in this new re-alignment? Surely a shift that is just most of the people shifting rightwards would have buried us completely.
And again sure the Democrats did better in congress when they had lots of far right southern members to soak up rightwing votes. But the idea that the GOP is the party of the elites when 60% voted for Nixon in 1972 seems...suspect.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2024, 02:11:26 PMMost of you are missing the reason why non college educated people are voting for the far right. The left does not give them any hope for the future.
Maybe. But I don't know what that means exactly. I have certainly never faulted the right from not having strong political skills and messaging, but that doesn't necessarily mean the left gives nothing at all or is failing. It just means the opposition is really good and requires tremendous effort to be successful.
But far right talking points are almost entirely panic mongering and rage inducing. I am not sure a message of hope for a bright future is going to resonate against that.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 12:31:04 PMIt works to. I have heard more than once how we white men are the most oppressed group in America. Amazing.
I mean, "oppressed" is just ludicrous but their cultural dominance has been shaken (practical dominance less so, so far, to put it mildly). They don't have the right to complain about that either but a "fall from grace" impression is to this degree understandable. You grow up thinking it's ok to ass-grab the women at work and to be blatantly racist and then "suddenly" these have become un-cool.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 01:51:05 PMYes - although I always find "voting against their interests" a bit frustrating because I don't think it's often a charge levied at people like me - or, I imagine many of the people here, who have degrees and solidly middle class jobs but vote for parties that will probably raise our taxes.
Yeah well I ended up paying higher taxes under Trump's tax plan :mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2024, 02:11:26 PMMost of you are missing the reason why non college educated people are voting for the far right. The left does not give them any hope for the future.
Although that makes me think of that Macron point about grand narratives. Because I take your point but I'm not sure we're necessarily capable of believing in "hope" or "progress" or any other grand narrative of that nature.
A little more prosaically - I saw something recently and wonder if there's something to it. That the left has broadly moved to a "grow and re-distribute" model, but a lot of their traditional supporters are basically pretty producerist (and I wonder if this is tied to status anxiety). (And I can't help but wonder if the producerists were right all along :ph34r:)
QuoteThere was an era of "Rockefeller Republicans" when the true elites were GOP voters. The realignment I mentioned has been going on for 50+ years.
I can't remember who wrote it but there was a book recently about re-alignments in American politics and I think particularly the sort of party builders who help make them happen (not necessarily the big name leaders but the strategists).
But I think his argument on recent politics is actually exactly that American politics isn't re-aligning. That the historic norm of every thirty years or so one side building a majority coalition that broadly defines the terms of politics hasn't really happened since the late 60s/collapse of the New Deal coalition. So instead you struggle to get things done, everything becomes contested and there's a bit of a doom loop because no-one's (yet) been able to build that durable majority. So the re-alignment is precisely in the re-alignment not happening.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 01:51:05 PM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIZWg0HXsAAdyey?format=jpg&name=small)
That chart is crazy. I had no idea the poorest third was so against Reagan and his policies, and tended to vote for the Republicans in 1960. Wild. Or that the rich really love Barry Goldwater.
but it kind of makes sense things went south for the Democrats with that group once they adopted those policies (and likewise the rich shifting bluewards). Biden has been more worker friendly in a pre-1990s way but it will take awhile to turn that around.
Or the poor just really love right wing social values and nothing can be done but we will see...
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 02:55:02 PMBut I think his argument on recent politics is actually exactly that American politics isn't re-aligning. That the historic norm of every thirty years or so one side building a majority coalition that broadly defines the terms of politics hasn't really happened since the late 60s/collapse of the New Deal coalition. So instead you struggle to get things done, everything becomes contested and there's a bit of a doom loop because no-one's (yet) been able to build that durable majority. So the re-alignment is precisely in the re-alignment not happening.
I guess that is true. Both parties have threatened to do so in the past 50 years but have consistently failed to close the deal. Neither has been able to replicated the dominance of the 1865-1932 Republican coalition or the 1932-1968 Democratic coalition.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 02:57:00 PMThat chart is crazy. I had no idea the poorest third was so against Reagan and his policies, and tended to vote for the Republicans in 1960. Wild. Or that the rich really love Barry Goldwater.
On those particular examples of the 60s and Reagan, I feel like that must in part reflect race and the impact of civil rights?
It is a weird situation and you see it more than in just the US. Increasingly the poor are the ones voting for policies that actively hurt them.
Increased cost of living and frozen wages that will really kill those around minimum wage? I mean that's bad and all... But brown people!
Quote from: Josquius on March 21, 2024, 03:42:31 PMIt is a weird situation and you see it more than in just the US. Increasingly the poor are the ones voting for policies that actively hurt them.
Increased cost of living and frozen wages that will really kill those around minimum wage? I mean that's bad and all... But brown people!
The gender stuff is killing us. Our black and brown people don't care for it.
One thing to keep in mind is, despite common rhetoric, in a vast array of metrics the poor are doing a lot better in the 2020s than they were doing in the 1970s. This goes against certain common tropes / claims, but is born out by the data. I think purely economic appeals may resonate less when people are at a higher level of comfort, e.g. there are just genuinely economic conservative lower income people who don't actually believe the rich should be taxed more (I think that is still a minority position based on polling on that exact topic), and there is almost certainly a lot of poorer working class people who aren't sufficiently motivated by economic issues to care about them more than culture war stuff--which for a lot of them is as core to their identity as "going to church" was for churchgoers 50 years ago (and many of these people have replaced decaying activities like going to Church with enmeshing themselves for hours every day in culture war propaganda, serving as a quasi-religion.)
One other thought is that I always wonder if we make too much of Trump - or tie everything into Trump as an explanation.
So on the shift of minority conservatives which might be happening, it's easy to tie that to Trump. But if it's driven by those more social forces (weakening party loyalty to the Democrats, particularly among the young, and increasingly racially mixed communities and social circles etc) it seems possible to me that what's happening is in spite of Trump. It feels at least equally possible that actually the shift could have been even more pronounced.
It's the other side of the challenge for incumbents at the minute. I think it's absolutely true that any incumbent is going to struggle because of the economic situation people have experienced (not necessarily just numbers on a chart) with the pandemic, supply shocks in China, war supply shocks in energy and food etc. And I think Biden's been a pretty impressive President but I'm not sure he's a particularly strong candidate and clearly lots of people do think he's too old. Again in that context this should be an election the GOP absolutely walk - and the reason it's not looking like that is, I suspect, Trump (and I do think this, which makes me think there's probably something to the idea above that he's actually hindering the de-polarisation on racial lines).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2024, 04:01:32 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 21, 2024, 03:42:31 PMIt is a weird situation and you see it more than in just the US. Increasingly the poor are the ones voting for policies that actively hurt them.
Increased cost of living and frozen wages that will really kill those around minimum wage? I mean that's bad and all... But brown people!
The gender stuff is killing us. Our black and brown people don't care for it.
Yeah well they said the same thing about the gay stuff. I don't think that is the reason.
But even if it is the Democrats can't ever abandon the LGBTQ. That would be disastrous.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2024, 05:35:58 PMIt's the other side of the challenge for incumbents at the minute. I think it's absolutely true that any incumbent is going to struggle because of the economic situation people have experienced (not necessarily just numbers on a chart) with the pandemic, supply shocks in China, war supply shocks in energy and food etc. And I think Biden's been a pretty impressive President but I'm not sure he's a particularly strong candidate and clearly lots of people do think he's too old. Again in that context this should be an election the GOP absolutely walk - and the reason it's not looking like that is, I suspect, Trump (and I do think this, which makes me think there's probably something to the idea above that he's actually hindering the de-polarisation on racial lines).
Yes. That is the thing. We are running a 81 year old man in a shaky situation.
We'll see how many trends hold up going forward, or even if they are trends. Right now they are projections based on some things that happened last time and some polls but while those things can tell us the what they don't really say the why.
It may be true that by a whole lot of metrics the poor are doing better, but I expect that means less when wealth inequality is has continued to grow.
If you can hear me from under the bus that someone wants to throw people like me under, is there any evidence of the claim that "gender stuff is killing us"? Everything I've seen and read seems to suggest that it remains a policy loser for the Republicans and simply red meat to feed to the very red base.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2024, 04:01:32 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 21, 2024, 03:42:31 PMIt is a weird situation and you see it more than in just the US. Increasingly the poor are the ones voting for policies that actively hurt them.
Increased cost of living and frozen wages that will really kill those around minimum wage? I mean that's bad and all... But brown people!
The gender stuff is killing us. Our black and brown people don't care for it.
Perhaps part of it.
But then is the answer to do as the (political, non racial) browns want and have a decent social system with otherwise reactionary social attitudes?
I do agree the left should stop falling for the rights trap of making identity politics such a critical issue.
But throwing trans people under the bus is completely betraying our fundamental values and just isn't acceptable.
Solidarity and egality for all, not just regular old straight cis white folks.
Quote from: Jacob on March 21, 2024, 10:02:02 PMIt may be true that by a whole lot of metrics the poor are doing better, but I expect that means less when wealth inequality is has continued to grow.
Yeah I saw this doing the rounds earlier in the week which was interesting to me not so much because the list of cities is different than now - but because of how small the differences are between them. It's just incredibly even compared to now:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI_qleAWwAAuNNM?format=jpg&name=small)
I think this is where I wonder if the producerist argument was right and the growth plus redistribution wrong. Partly is that people feel their status decline in some way if they're just a recipient of state largesse - either through welfare or the "we're going to regenerate this post-industrial hell hole with a one (1) block arts centre" models - compared to being part of a productive industry. But also that an economy of widget manufacturers is more equally spread with less differences between places than one of the "jobs of the future".
That's on a zoomed out level - though I think people's sense of place and of their community is really important. I often think about the stat that one of the best predictors of whether a rural area in France will vote Le Pen or not is whether there's a village shop - if there is, it's far less likely. But you're absolutely right on an individual level too - poverty (and wealth are experienced relatively).
QuoteIf you can hear me from under the bus that someone wants to throw people like me under, is there any evidence of the claim that "gender stuff is killing us"? Everything I've seen and read seems to suggest that it remains a policy loser for the Republicans and simply red meat to feed to the very red base.
I agree.
But I think the language of activists and social movements can be a trap which the Democrats need to avoid - and possibly serves as a bit of a shibboleth. Again I think Biden is actually pretty good at this. And I think broadly, for whatever reason, the older generation of Democrats are better at this - both Biden and Sanders spring to mind. They're both good at making things universalist (which I think anything from the left needs to be) and expressing things in a relatively straightforwrd, jargon-free language.
Even away from social issues I think you have the same problem in other areas - I saw a clip about Americans' economic pessimism with, I think Chris Hayes or some MSNBC host with a big chart of how much the economy's growing. And I just don't understand the idea that if you beat people over the head with stats enough you'll convince them. It is true but again many people's lived experience of the last few years has been really tough - and I think there's a school of commentators and people in and around the Democrats who think that winning a seminar argument based on abstract facts like GDP or stock market numbers will somehow help. I think if anything it probably alienates people even more. I think it's similar with crime stats.
I know it's different but I always think of one of the town hall debates during the Brexit campaign - when a professor of European Studies (and very good guy who is really interesting) made a point about trade barriers and the impact it would have on GDP. And someone in the audience shouted, to applause, "that's your bloody GDP, not ours".
I thought this ad was pretty good
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1770848104310259749
Sanders is not universalist when it comes to big corporations.
I think people exaggerate the importance of wealth inequality because our political / historical narratives around wealth inequality come from the gilded age, when poor people were living in tenements or being put in work houses in the UK etc whilst the rich were living like Croesus.
I think there is a difference in how well economic socialist / populist arguments auto-win the working class / poor for you when their objective conditions are a lot better. Misery opens one up more to positions that are seen as radical, and America is fundamentally a middle class country at this point. Middle class people have always been less open to radical thinking.
Quote from: Josquius on March 22, 2024, 12:28:28 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2024, 04:01:32 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 21, 2024, 03:42:31 PMIt is a weird situation and you see it more than in just the US. Increasingly the poor are the ones voting for policies that actively hurt them.
Increased cost of living and frozen wages that will really kill those around minimum wage? I mean that's bad and all... But brown people!
The gender stuff is killing us. Our black and brown people don't care for it.
Perhaps part of it.
But then is the answer to do as the (political, non racial) browns want and have a decent social system with otherwise reactionary social attitudes?
I do agree the left should stop falling for the rights trap of making identity politics such a critical issue.
But throwing trans people under the bus is completely betraying our fundamental values and just isn't acceptable.
Solidarity and egality for all, not just regular old straight cis white folks.
So, I looked up black attitudes to LGBT and about a third are opposed to it. That's not great, but not as bad as I thought. So I may have been wrong here.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on March 22, 2024, 12:23:43 AMIf you can hear me from under the bus that someone wants to throw people like me under, is there any evidence of the claim that "gender stuff is killing us"? Everything I've seen and read seems to suggest that it remains a policy loser for the Republicans and simply red meat to feed to the very red base.
Yeah, I retract that.
I would tend to agree LGBTQ issues are actually often a loser for the GOP. It is red meat--it froths up their base, but it does nothing to expand their electorate. There is decent evidence that the GOP was able to weaponize the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election cycle in a strategic way, society was in a different place 20 years ago and it appears in at least some states, it was a winner for the GOP>
I think most anti-LGBTQ stuff has diminished in effectiveness since that time.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 02:22:23 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2024, 02:11:26 PMMost of you are missing the reason why non college educated people are voting for the far right. The left does not give them any hope for the future.
Maybe. But I don't know what that means exactly. I have certainly never faulted the right from not having strong political skills and messaging, but that doesn't necessarily mean the left gives nothing at all or is failing. It just means the opposition is really good and requires tremendous effort to be successful.
But far right talking points are almost entirely panic mongering and rage inducing. I am not sure a message of hope for a bright future is going to resonate against that.
I really like the post about this fair thing a day or two before I posted that post. I don't really feel like repeating it.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 02:22:23 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2024, 02:11:26 PMMost of you are missing the reason why non college educated people are voting for the far right. The left does not give them any hope for the future.
Maybe. But I don't know what that means exactly. I have certainly never faulted the right from not having strong political skills and messaging, but that doesn't necessarily mean the left gives nothing at all or is failing. It just means the opposition is really good and requires tremendous effort to be successful.
But far right talking points are almost entirely panic mongering and rage inducing. I am not sure a message of hope for a bright future is going to resonate against that.
Its basic psychology.
System 1 and system 2 thinking.
The right taps into system 1 thinking. This is your fast emotional reaction. Fear and the threat of losing something really tap into something fundamental in how humans work.
The left meanwhile goes with system 2 thinking. More deliberate drawn-out logical thinking. It takes active effort to engage this part of your brain. This is especially difficult when so much has already been established in system 1.
See also marketing techniques. And scammers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2024, 07:31:45 AMQuote from: CountDeMoney on March 15, 2024, 08:15:15 AMYou fuckers need to stop all your esoteric navelgazing and come to the realization that this ignorant knuckledragging mouthbreather from Queens is never going to see a single verdict of consequence in any criminal court, and it is all going away forever once he becomes Chief Bwana for Life
He can't post a bond for the fraud appeal, so he's about to have a real bad time.
Flush out your headgear, fetus bag. This means nothing.
He's been bankrupt five times before. And yet, look at him now.
What? Seize bank accounts? They'll all be empty by the time the order is delivered to the banks.
Seize buildings? Good luck with that, with all the crossover titles, contradictory values, and hundreds of LLCs, entire forests will be decimated before the judgement gets enforced.
Liens? LOL. Oh no, you have to pay if you sell? So you don't sell, big deal. I've got neighbors with liens on their condos for years.
Real bad time, my black Irish ass.
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. NOTHING EVER HAPPENS. YOU FUCKING MUTTS NEED TO WAKE UP TO THAT FACT.
I'm certain something will happen.
You're a fucking mutt.
Yeah, the sun will rise tomorrow. You're such a high roller.
You just said it wouldn't.
It's not that complicated.
Example: The lease on 40 Wall Street is held by an LLC. Therefore the AG cannot simply seize the leasehold. Instead, they get a charging order. The charging order means that the rent payable to the LLC on the subleases goes to the NYAG instead. They can get the money just not the management authority. But they have effective management authority anyways because Engoron's order keeps Barbara Jones in place as supervisor for another three years. And if 40 Wall LLC is a single member LLC, the AG may also seek to break through the corporate veil, which they can do if the LLC is used to perpetrate a fraud.
This is not the first time a judgment has been entered against a business entity in the State of New York, where there are more than one entity and LLCs are used. The AG's office is not helpless; they deal with this kind of stuff all the time.
Looking at the judgment again, 40 Wall Street LLC is a named defendant and a primary obligor on the judgment. So the AG can proceed directly and foreclose, unless there is some restriction in the ground lease.
How will the Trump branding get treated? If a building is seized, or just the cash flow, does the State of New York own the lettering on the front too?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 07:32:32 PMHow will the Trump branding get treated? If a building is seized, or just the cash flow, does the State of New York own the lettering on the front too?
Using the example of 40 Wall, if the LLC was forced to turn over the leasehold, then whoever took it over would also get the naming rights. If it was just a charging order, existing management would decide so the name would probably stay for the time being.
One some of the buildings, lettering is there because a Trump company acts as the property manager. Since 2016, some buildings in that situation have taken the lettering down because there is a price discount now. The naming rights are a matter of the property management contracts. I don't think the AG would be interested in those arrangements for anything other than the income flow.
I was asking more about what legal rights Donny would retain to the commercial use of his name. Sounds like none?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 07:51:09 PMI was asking more about what legal rights Donny would retain to the commercial use of his name. Sounds like none?
No he would retain all commercial rights to the use of his name. But any income he earned could be seized.
Just found out about a big US political scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_scream
Damn.
Apparently, that was something, and political commentators were saying he lost the primaries because was overly excited on tv to finish 3rd in Iowa. Couldn't even remember the guy had competed with John Kerry before reading the Wikipedia page.
Broadcast 633 times in 4 days. :wacko: Because the guy is happy to be in the 3rd spot.
Crazy 'Mericans. :D ;)
Context: Dean was an outsider-y left-ish figure who the Dems didn't really want to see win. I mean he was a Yale grad and a state governor so not really much of an outsider but he shocked everybody by doing something rather unconventional at the time and launched an internet campaign where he raised tons of money from small donors and bypassed the normal Democratic fund raising apparatus. He was maybe not the first guy to do that, but he was the first one to really make waves doing it.
But this was dismaying to the Democrats, Kerry was already the guy they wanted. They were just sure a military man with a spotless record of heroics like Kerry was who the country would elect in a militarized time. So when Dean did his thing everybody jumped on it to make him seem like a crazy person. If Kerry had screamed it would have been downplayed.
But it wasn't like Dean winning was some kind of sure thing. It was going to be an uphill fight regardless.
Only in Canada would something like the "Dean Scream" be seen as "a big US political scandal." :P For an American politician, his behavior was not at all scandalous.
Well, Dean was made head of the DNC so the Democrats weren't that oppose to him.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 12:59:29 PMWell, Dean was made head of the DNC so the Democrats weren't that oppose to him.
And was very, very good at that job.
It wasn't a scandal at all, it was just a funny meme from a fringy candidate who finished in 3d place.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 12:59:29 PMWell, Dean was made head of the DNC so the Democrats weren't that oppose to him.
Right. As I said he wasn't that much of an outsider.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2024, 12:53:23 PMOnly in Canada would something like the "Dean Scream" be seen as "a big US political scandal." :P For an American politician, his behavior was not at all scandalous.
Just saw a meme about it in a US political forum. Then went to read the Wikipedia page when they said it was some scandal.
But it was later clarified to me that it wasn't really a scandal at the time. More like, modern young liberals looking at it with some nostalgia, thinking he was cheated out of victory by evil medias who destroyed his campaign.
Granted, it was a little weird that he finished in 3rd place and went on with what seemed like a victory speech, but I'm sure he was not the first politician to act like that. There is an equivalent in Quebec of a politician losing the election and calling it a "moral victory". I'm sure it happens in every democracy. :)
:lol: Jeremy Corbyn's article in the Guardian after 2019 election, having led the party to their worst defeat since the 1930s, was that "we won the argument" :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 25, 2024, 07:36:46 PM:lol: Jeremy Corbyn's article in the Guardian after 2019 election, having led the party to their worst defeat since the 1930s, was that "we won the argument" :bleeding:
He didn't stipulate which argument he won, did he? :contract: :P
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 04:22:15 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 25, 2024, 12:53:23 PMOnly in Canada would something like the "Dean Scream" be seen as "a big US political scandal." :P For an American politician, his behavior was not at all scandalous.
Just saw a meme about it in a US political forum. Then went to read the Wikipedia page when they said it was some scandal.
But it was later clarified to me that it wasn't really a scandal at the time. More like, modern young liberals looking at it with some nostalgia, thinking he was cheated out of victory by evil medias who destroyed his campaign.
Granted, it was a little weird that he finished in 3rd place and went on with what seemed like a victory speech, but I'm sure he was not the first politician to act like that. There is an equivalent in Quebec of a politician losing the election and calling it a "moral victory". I'm sure it happens in every democracy. :)
Weren't you on this forum when that happened? I mean, we discussed it back then. It was just a funny thing that happened. A joke.
Appeals court drops bond to 175 million.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 07:40:23 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 04:22:15 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 25, 2024, 12:53:23 PMOnly in Canada would something like the "Dean Scream" be seen as "a big US political scandal." :P For an American politician, his behavior was not at all scandalous.
Just saw a meme about it in a US political forum. Then went to read the Wikipedia page when they said it was some scandal.
But it was later clarified to me that it wasn't really a scandal at the time. More like, modern young liberals looking at it with some nostalgia, thinking he was cheated out of victory by evil medias who destroyed his campaign.
Granted, it was a little weird that he finished in 3rd place and went on with what seemed like a victory speech, but I'm sure he was not the first politician to act like that. There is an equivalent in Quebec of a politician losing the election and calling it a "moral victory". I'm sure it happens in every democracy. :)
Weren't you on this forum when that happened? I mean, we discussed it back then. It was just a funny thing that happened. A joke.
I remember Dean now that I've read about him, but I don't remember his victory speech. It's possible we discussed it here or on Paradox OT.
I wasn't really following American primaries back then, so I might not have noticed if there was a thread about it. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2024, 08:00:49 PMAppeals court drops bond to 175 million.
We should have listened to Seedy.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 08:04:55 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 07:40:23 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 04:22:15 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 25, 2024, 12:53:23 PMOnly in Canada would something like the "Dean Scream" be seen as "a big US political scandal." :P For an American politician, his behavior was not at all scandalous.
Just saw a meme about it in a US political forum. Then went to read the Wikipedia page when they said it was some scandal.
But it was later clarified to me that it wasn't really a scandal at the time. More like, modern young liberals looking at it with some nostalgia, thinking he was cheated out of victory by evil medias who destroyed his campaign.
Granted, it was a little weird that he finished in 3rd place and went on with what seemed like a victory speech, but I'm sure he was not the first politician to act like that. There is an equivalent in Quebec of a politician losing the election and calling it a "moral victory". I'm sure it happens in every democracy. :)
Weren't you on this forum when that happened? I mean, we discussed it back then. It was just a funny thing that happened. A joke.
I remember Dean now that I've read about him, but I don't remember his victory speech. It's possible we discussed it here or on Paradox OT.
I wasn't really following American primaries back then, so I might not have noticed if there was a thread about it. :)
It was discussed but with the pre-2009 forum being nuked we can't go look at it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2024, 08:00:49 PM
Appeals court drops bond to 175 million.
Still on hock for the full amount if he loses the appeal, which he will.
This is just the amount he needs to post to stop the State from seizing his property before the appeal is finished.
It won't make a lick of difference.
The courts will not save you.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2024, 08:11:27 AMIt won't make a lick of difference.
The courts will not save you.
LOL, sez courts.
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIF.qMepK0cXfPhS6r40YdRVlA?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2024, 06:04:08 AMStill on hock for the full amount if he loses the appeal, which he will.
The finding of liability will be upheld on appeal but the disgorgement award maybe not.
The reduction of the bond is a bad sign, because as far as I know, it's never been done before. At least I've never seen it happen and there is no reported case of it happening. So either the Appellate Division is intimidated by Trump's terror tactics or they think the award was too high.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 26, 2024, 08:11:27 AMThe courts will not save you.
On the contrary the US Supreme Court is hanging back just waiting to stick the last knife in the back.
Whose back?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2024, 08:54:49 AMWhose back?
America's. About six entry wounds, I suspect.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2024, 09:01:04 AMAmerica's. About six entry wounds, I suspect.
Five and a concurring wave of the knife from Coney Barret who agrees with the murder but just feels awful about all the blood.
Good, the last thing we need is Trump having financial issues that will hurt his campaign. Now that Joe Biden has thrown his lot in with Islamic terrorism defeating him is a priority of national survival. All of the court cases against Trump should be quashed / thrown out. You don't weaken the fight against someone who is actively seeking to derail America like Biden is.
Never go full Hansmeister.
He's gone too far into the heel character, now I just think he's trolling :D . Otto seemed consistently anti trump. But maybe he's snapped.
Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2024, 10:14:27 AMBut maybe he's snapped.
Or, maybe, he's gotten tired of pretending to be anti-Trump.
I think that emo Otto is probably the real Otto.
What's the end game of pretending? Self delusion? At least with going full Hans (nod to minsky :D ) he gets to mess with people.
You guys seem to struggle with the idea that people can have red lines. Support for Israel is a red line for me, I can tolerate a lot on which I disagree with to vote against the negatives in the modern GOP. Abandoning Israel is not one of them. It really is as simple as that. I won't abide it, I won't vote for it. Neither party is entitled to my vote. And I am one voter, it isn't a matter of great import who I, individually, vote for.
Biden has not "abandoned Israel" and to assert that he has is the worst kind of emo Trumpter bullshit. Anyone triggered by the US acting in its own interest is no patriot.
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2024, 01:06:23 PMBiden has not "abandoned Israel" and to assert that he has is the worst kind of emo Trumpter bullshit. Anyone triggered by the US acting in its own interest is no patriot.
:yes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 12:51:19 PMAnd I am one voter, it isn't a matter of great import who I, individually, vote for.
That's the thing about voting. It is a bunch of voters casting a ballet and each one counts and is of great importance.
Maybe Biden should have reflected on that before elevating the concerns of Hamastans like Rashida Tlaib over one of America's most important allies. Actions have consequences.
It is interesting to watch the formation of a Trumpeter before our very eyes. But I take Grumbler's point, perhaps not so much the formation, but the exposure
of the core beliefs that have been present all along
Full Trump supporter is just played out and boring. Otto should have spiced things up by going full RFK Jr. or Marianne Williamson.
Marjorie Taylor Greene :contract:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:09:23 AMGood, the last thing we need is Trump having financial issues that will hurt his campaign. Now that Joe Biden has thrown his lot in with Islamic terrorism defeating him is a priority of national survival. All of the court cases against Trump should be quashed / thrown out. You don't weaken the fight against someone who is actively seeking to derail America like Biden is.
U ok hon?
If only we had 50 OvBs.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 27, 2024, 02:56:10 PMIf only we had 50 OvBs.
:lol: suffering from the Berkian Collapse.
I just don't see how not veto'ing a pointless UNSC resolution is throwing your lot in with Islamism.
I mean China is actively committing genocide against Muslims and they voted for it.
Andrew Yang's No Labels party admits they are pointless and no one gives a shit.
You have to admire Andrew Yang's ability to fail at so many high profile ventures without ever getting rich or successful first.
I hear all signs on polls are things are shifting with Trump falling behind?
A theory I've read is this is the reality of Trump the candidate/president hitting people and overriding the default "Screw the government" dislike for Biden in many.
Biden has improved in the polls, but it looks like a tossup to me at the moment.
Quote from: celedhring on April 17, 2024, 06:31:29 AMBiden has improved in the polls, but it looks like a tossup to me at the moment.
I still fundamentally think Biden will win. But occasionally have a panic attack :lol: :ph34r:
CIVIL WAR HIJACK!
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-gettysburg-civil-war-historian-1890325
QuoteDonald Trump's Gettysburg Remarks Trashed by Civil War Historian—'Unhinged'
Published Apr 15, 2024 at 10:59 AM EDT
Updated Apr 15, 2024 at 11:29 AM EDT
A Civil War historian has called the remarks Donald Trump made about Gettysburg during a campaign rally "unhinged."
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, T.J. Stiles said the former president's take on the Battle of Gettysburg, which was fought between July 1-3, 1863, and killed an estimated 51,000 people, was "inarticulate" and "reductive."
"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was," Trump said during a Saturday rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, in what was his first campaign event in the battleground state. "It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country," he continued.
"Gettysburg, wow—I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch," he said. "And the statement of Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor. 'Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.' They were fighting uphill, he said, 'Wow, that was a big mistake,' he lost his great general. 'Never fight uphill, me boys,' but it was too late," Trump added.
Stiles said Trump brought up Pennsylvania to "flatter" the audience and that his views were "inarticulate, reductive."
He added that Trump's analysis of Lee, a general in the battle, was wrong as Lee was not known "to have issued downslope-only orders" and that his depiction of what happened was "rambling, unhinged."
Newsweek contacted a representative for Trump by email to comment on this story.
Stiles is not the only figure who has commented on Trump's speech. Author Stephen King, who is also an outspoken Trump critic, wrote a viral tweet calling the Republican "a dimbulb."
"Trump: 'Gettysburg! Wow!' What a dimbulb," he wrote.
Trump has mentioned the Civil War in previous events. Talking at a rally in Iowa in January, the former president said that the war "could have been negotiated" and thus avoided. On that occasion, Trump didn't suggest how he would have avoided the conflict, but said that he found it "so horrible, but so fascinating."
Pennsylvania has 19 electoral votes, the most of any swing state in the country. Trump won the swing state in 2016 by fewer than 45,000 votes over Hillary Clinton, but lost it to Biden in 2020, who won by about 80,000 votes.
EDIT: apparently Trump's "Gettysburg Address" has made it to Kimmel:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dz1zN5L9/image.png)
Quote from: celedhring on April 17, 2024, 06:31:29 AMBiden has improved in the polls, but it looks like a tossup to me at the moment.
Its a toss up in the polls but given that he has twice significantly outperformed the polls I remain very worried.
Biden will lose to Trump--the American voters aren't going to support a President that stands with Islamic terror.
And once Trump comes in the Hamastans will find out they aren't able to influence American politics.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 09:23:38 AMBiden will lose to Trump--the American voters aren't going to support a President that stands with Islamic terror.
And once Trump comes in the Hamastans will find out they aren't able to influence American politics.
We once thought Americans wouldn't stomach a president who stands with Russia.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 09:23:38 AMBiden will lose to Trump--the American voters aren't going to support a President that stands with Islamic terror.
Aka Donald Trump.
The Saudis are Trump's best friends.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 17, 2024, 10:09:30 AMThe Saudis are Trump's best friends.
At least no Saudis were involved in terrorist acts, like 9/11.
/s
I still think Trump will win. It won't have anything to do with Biden's stance on anything in foreign policy.
Sorry Otto but your guy Trump is finished. Kiss of death:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68821646
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2024, 10:29:25 AMSorry Otto but your guy Trump is finished. Kiss of death:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68821646
In an age when far right regimes are actively attacking their neighbours
Quote"I want to work with fellow conservatives to take on what I believe is a real threat of Western society and civilization being undermined by left-wing extreme ideas."
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2024, 10:29:25 AMSorry Otto but your guy Trump is finished. Kiss of death:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68821646
I agree with Truss that:
QuoteThe former prime minister said the world was "on the cusp of very, very serious conflict" and needed "a strong America more than ever".
Which is why undermining America by voting in an amoral and corrupt dementia patient who willingly sells out America's interests for personal profit is a bad idea.
Quote from: Syt on April 17, 2024, 08:09:00 AMCIVIL WAR HIJACK!
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-gettysburg-civil-war-historian-1890325
QuoteDonald Trump's Gettysburg Remarks Trashed by Civil War Historian—'Unhinged'
Published Apr 15, 2024 at 10:59 AM EDT
Updated Apr 15, 2024 at 11:29 AM EDT
A Civil War historian has called the remarks Donald Trump made about Gettysburg during a campaign rally "unhinged."
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, T.J. Stiles said the former president's take on the Battle of Gettysburg, which was fought between July 1-3, 1863, and killed an estimated 51,000 people, was "inarticulate" and "reductive."
"Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was," Trump said during a Saturday rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, in what was his first campaign event in the battleground state. "It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country," he continued.
"Gettysburg, wow—I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch," he said. "And the statement of Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor—did you ever notice it? He's no longer in favor. 'Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.' They were fighting uphill, he said, 'Wow, that was a big mistake,' he lost his great general. 'Never fight uphill, me boys,' but it was too late," Trump added.
Stiles said Trump brought up Pennsylvania to "flatter" the audience and that his views were "inarticulate, reductive."
He added that Trump's analysis of Lee, a general in the battle, was wrong as Lee was not known "to have issued downslope-only orders" and that his depiction of what happened was "rambling, unhinged."
Newsweek contacted a representative for Trump by email to comment on this story.
Stiles is not the only figure who has commented on Trump's speech. Author Stephen King, who is also an outspoken Trump critic, wrote a viral tweet calling the Republican "a dimbulb."
"Trump: 'Gettysburg! Wow!' What a dimbulb," he wrote.
Trump has mentioned the Civil War in previous events. Talking at a rally in Iowa in January, the former president said that the war "could have been negotiated" and thus avoided. On that occasion, Trump didn't suggest how he would have avoided the conflict, but said that he found it "so horrible, but so fascinating."
Pennsylvania has 19 electoral votes, the most of any swing state in the country. Trump won the swing state in 2016 by fewer than 45,000 votes over Hillary Clinton, but lost it to Biden in 2020, who won by about 80,000 votes.
EDIT: apparently Trump's "Gettysburg Address" has made it to Kimmel:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dz1zN5L9/image.png)
rambling, unhinged.
Trump?
Nah. Can't be.
Not every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
This delusion of yours that Biden supports Hamas is just bizare.
How do you explain
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/17/as-a-palestinian-american-i-cant-vote-for-joe-biden-any-more-and-i-am-not-alone?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
not supporting Russia would be another easy one.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
The UNSC is not that important. Really, it doesn't matter.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
I have concluded that you are trolling.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 17, 2024, 12:16:35 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
not supporting Russia would be another easy one.
Not expressing a desire to be a dictator is another.
Openly admitting that he wants to be president so he can avenge himself on his "enemies" is another.
Only two kinds of people support Trump: morons and wannabe fascists.
If Trump wins, it will be because people prefer comforting lies ("Biden supports Hamas!") to uncomfortable truths, like the truth that Israel's current foreign (and many domestic policies) policies are a disaster for American interests and Trump will just egg them on.
Quote from: Tamas on April 17, 2024, 02:06:43 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
I have concluded that you are trolling.
That's a real possibility.
If only someone warned you all :whistle:
I think he's serious.
So Trump is really burnishing his anti-woke credentials, what with all the napping he is doing in court...
I was geeked when I heard about the napping on NPR but there's no video, so didn't happen.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 01:15:17 AMSo Trump is really burnishing his anti-woke credentials, what with all the napping he is doing in court...
He's nearly 80. Can't expect him to be awake in the middle of the day.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 01:15:17 AMSo Trump is really burnishing his anti-woke credentials, what with all the napping he is doing in court...
Just owning the libs as usual.
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2024, 10:30:51 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 17, 2024, 02:06:43 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 12:01:10 PMNot every candidate is perfect, you have to make decisions--not supporting Hamas is an easy one.
I have concluded that you are trolling.
That's a real possibility.
I've long decided that trolls and idiots should be treated the same way, ignored. Neither one will ever admit that they were trolling/wrong, so it really doesn't matter to me which it is. It saves a lot of mental effort.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 01:15:17 AMSo Trump is really burnishing his anti-woke credentials, what with all the napping he is doing in court...
Heh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2024, 01:58:41 AMI was geeked when I heard about the napping on NPR but there's no video, so didn't happen.
No video is allowed in the court room. Does that mean that nothing happens there?
If I'm not, you know, lawyering, but have to just sit in a courtroom for some reason (say I'm waiting for my case to be called, or I'm just observing) somedays it can be hard to fight nodding off. It can be pretty boring if you're not directly doing something.
Quote from: frunk on April 18, 2024, 07:13:13 AMI've long decided that trolls and idiots should be treated the same way, ignored. Neither one will ever admit that they were trolling/wrong, so it really doesn't matter to me which it is. It saves a lot of mental effort.
But it is so much fun egging them on to see how stupid they can sound. It doesn't matter for entertainment purposes whether they actually are stupid or just pretend to be stupid.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 10:27:09 AMNo video is allowed in the court room. Does that mean that nothing happens there?
Plenty of video is allowed in the court room.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2024, 02:58:14 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 10:27:09 AMNo video is allowed in the court room. Does that mean that nothing happens there?
Plenty of video is allowed in the court room.
Oh, I guess I was mistaken. I thought I read somewhere that recording was not allowed in this court room.
I'm surprised none of the many reporters recorded this when it happened.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 03:31:25 PMOh, I guess I was mistaken. I thought I read somewhere that recording was not allowed in this court room.
I'm surprised none of the many reporters recorded this when it happened.
I thought you meant all court rooms.
If this particular court does not allow video, then yes, by the rule of pics or it didn't happen, nothing happens in this court. My thesis is that video recording has an impact on people that reports of journalists or chalk drawings does not.
I think your thesis is correct, that video has a larger impact this day and age. It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming deluge of fake video will impact this.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 03:51:33 PMI think your thesis is correct, that video has a larger impact this day and age. It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming deluge of fake video will impact this.
Yeah was listening to something about this. Maybe we're moving out of an age of implicit trust and faith in the image and primacy of the image over the word since photography (not that we ever should have trusted it but...) :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 03:31:25 PMOh, I guess I was mistaken. I thought I read somewhere that recording was not allowed in this court room.
Canada does not allow recording in court rooms. But the US does.
Quote from: Jacob on April 18, 2024, 03:51:33 PMI think your thesis is correct, that video has a larger impact this day and age. It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming deluge of fake video will impact this.
The proverb 'one image says more than a 1000 words' will either be amended to take all the fakery in mind, or it'll lose all meaning.
Alternatively: maybe AI will be equally impressive at determining what is and is not fake but I'm not sure to hat extent we'll be able to trust that too since AI is still programmed, programming can be biased (the Google image AI debacle was quite something) and AI might have it's own reasons to lie once it reaches that level of smart.
Greatest Election Ever!
Joe Biden: CANIBALS ATE MY UNCLE! (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-says-his-uncle-may-have-been-eaten-by-cannibals/ar-BB1lOnfn)
But I do ask you, Mr. and Mrs. America, given the state of the world, the likelihood of thermonuclear holocaust and the inevitable hordes of mutant zombie cannibals that will follow; who would you rather have as president? A man who has already known the heartbreak of losing a close family member to cannibals, or one who hasn't even had an acquaintance devoured by cannibals. I think the choice is clear.
Tough choice, Trump is really meaty with lots of succulent fat, but dangerously high levels of toxins. Biden is stringy, gamey, a bit past its sale date.