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.
Quotethe Australian island of New Guinea
Is this a common use of the term?
April 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a Black Lives Matter activist to be sued by a Louisiana police officer injured during a protest, opens new tab in 2016 in a case that could make it riskier to engage in public demonstrations, a hallmark of American democracy.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rejects-black-lives-matter-activists-appeal-over-protest-2024-04-15/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-to-decline-to-hear-case-on-protestors-rights
OK that's dumb. Was reading through it wondering whether it was the guy who threw the stone being sued, which would be valid, but nope, it'd the organiser.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2024, 11:12:52 PMApril 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a Black Lives Matter activist to be sued by a Louisiana police officer injured during a protest, opens new tab in 2016 in a case that could make it riskier to engage in public demonstrations, a hallmark of American democracy.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rejects-black-lives-matter-activists-appeal-over-protest-2024-04-15/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-to-decline-to-hear-case-on-protestors-rights
A counterpoint:
https://newrepublic.com/article/180739/mckesson-doe-first-amendment-sotomayor
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2024, 11:12:52 PMApril 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a Black Lives Matter activist to be sued by a Louisiana police officer injured during a protest, opens new tab in 2016 in a case that could make it riskier to engage in public demonstrations, a hallmark of American democracy.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-rejects-black-lives-matter-activists-appeal-over-protest-2024-04-15/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-to-decline-to-hear-case-on-protestors-rights
It's a tricky case for the USSC, because the issue before them was whether or not a protest organizer could ever be held civilly liable for actions of someone in the protest, which isn't a ruling they want to make. As Justice Sotomayor points out, the law already bars liability under simple negligence, and anyone suing Mckesson will have to prove that the assault was intended by him. That's a major burden that I don't think that the plaintiffs can met.
I am not sure I share Justice Sotomayor's optimism regarding future rulings of the Fifth Circuit, considering its current ideological outlook.
In any case, until it's brought up again, its work as a deterrent will be done presumably at the time of the next election.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 21, 2024, 11:36:57 AMI am not sure I share Justice Sotomayor's optimism regarding future rulings of the Fifth Circuit, considering its current ideological outlook.
In any case, until it's brought up again, its work as a deterrent will be done presumably at the time of the next election.
Since it does not change the status of anything, I'm not sure what deterrent effect it will have.
Sotomayor's message wasn't directed to the 5th Circuit, it was directed to the District Court judge in the Middle District of Louisiana who initially dismissed the entire case. Her message is that to the extent that the 5th Circuit's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's later ruling, the district court should follow the Supreme Court ruling.
Fill up your granaries now because:
Lara Trump Threatens 'Four Years of Scorched Earth' If Trump Retakes Power (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/lara-trump-threatens-four-years-of-scorched-earth-if-trump-retakes-power/ar-AA1njx7a)
QuoteHe showed us a whole lot that we didn't know was going on — within the media, within Washington, D.C. He exposed a lot of people. So they have to do everything they can to keep him out of that White House 'cause they know Donald Trump gets in for four more years, the jig is up for them. The gloves are off. There are no holds barred here. He is going full-throttle. He's not worried about winning another election. It's four years of scorched earth when Donald Trump retakes the White House.
That's an... uhm... inspirational message.
And, unfortunately, one that's already started to pay dividends:
David Hume Kennerly resigns from Gerald Ford foundation board over refusal to honor Liz Cheney with top award (https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/politics/david-hume-kennerly-gerald-ford-foundation/index.html)
QuoteDavid Hume Kennerly, a Pulitzer-prize-winning photographer who served in the Ford White House, announced his resignation on Tuesday from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation board over its "short-sighted" rejection of former Rep. Liz Cheney for the organization's yearly award.
"Today I am resigning from the Gerald R. Ford board as a trustee. If the foundation that bears the name of Gerald R. Ford won't stand up to this real threat to our democracy, who will?" Kennerly said in a letter to members of the executive committee.
Kennerly slammed Ford's namesake organization for its choice not to honor Cheney, an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump, with the Gerald R. Ford Medal for Distinguished Public Service.
"A key reason Liz's nomination was turned down was your agita about what might happen if the former president is reelected. Some of you raised the specter of being attacked by the Internal Revenue Service and losing the foundation's tax-exempt status as retribution for selecting Liz for the award," he wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Politico.
He continued, "The historical irony was completely lost on you. Gerald Ford became president, in part, because Richard Nixon had ordered the development of an enemies list and demanded his underlings use the IRS against those listed. That's exactly what the executive committee fears will happen if there's a second coming of Donald Trump."
Gleaves Whitney, executive director of the Ford Presidential Foundation, said in a statement that the foundation's executive committee, "guided by legal counsel, concluded that it was not prudent to award the 2024 Ford medal to Liz Cheney."
"At the time the award was being discussed, it was being publicly reported that Cheney was under active consideration for a presidential run by No Labels," the statement said, referring to the group that had dabbled with fielding a third-party ticket only to abandon the idea last week. "Exercising its fiduciary responsibility, the executive committee concluded that giving the Ford medal to Cheney in the 2024 election cycle might be construed as a political statement and thus expose the Foundation to the legal risk of losing its nonprofit status with the IRS."
Kennerly, who served as Ford's chief photographer and provided an intimate glimpse into the White House, claimed in the letter that Cheney, who also serves on the board of the Ford Presidential Foundation, was rejected for the award three times, despite suggesting her for the honor multiple times.
"After two people you selected instead of her demurred, I weighed in again with what I thought was a compelling presentation to some of the nominators where I reiterated Liz's merits. When you rejected her again in favor of a third person, it became crystal clear to me that something else was going on."
The former Wyoming congresswoman has criticized Trump on multiple occasions. Cheney was one of just two Republicans on the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection and Trump's responsibility for the insurrection.
She lost her post in House Republican leadership and, ultimately, her seat in Congress after publicly rejecting for months Trump's lie that he won the 2020 presidential election and voting to impeach him following the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack.
Cheney said in December that she will do "whatever I have to do" to stop the former president from returning to the White House.
"Those of you who rejected Liz join many 'good Republicans' now aiding and abetting our 45th president by ignoring the genuine menace he presents to our country," Kennerly wrote. "America is fortunate to have Liz Cheney still out there on the front lines of freedom vigorously defending our Constitution and democratic way
of life."
The Gerald R. Ford Museum is in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan (I won the 1990 Grand Rapids Citizen Bee there.) My parents are members of the museum and have attended a number of lectures there. Last year they attended one on the 1976 presidential election with one of the scholars from the Ford Museum and one from the Carter Museum. This was filmed for CSPAN. At the end there was a period for questions and answers. One man got up and, instead of asking a question, got onto a rant about 2020, stolen elections, and our democracy was being taken from us. They ended the Q&A period after that, and the scholars said they'd talk to him in private if he liked.
I've seen a number of public lectures, and I know the Q&A period can go a lot of ways (none of them good) but that still surprised me. It's so far from who Ford was; or Carter for that matter.
(Also, do you think David Hume Kennerly's parents were disappointed that he became a photographer rather than a philosopher or historian?)
Quote"At the time the award was being discussed, it was being publicly reported that Cheney was under active consideration for a presidential run by No Labels," the statement said, referring to the group that had dabbled with fielding a third-party ticket only to abandon the idea last week. "Exercising its fiduciary responsibility, the executive committee concluded that giving the Ford medal to Cheney in the 2024 election cycle might be construed as a political statement and thus expose the Foundation to the legal risk of losing its nonprofit status with the IRS."
That is one of the weakest, most pathetic excuses I've ever heard. Note they do not say that Liz Chaney considered being a No Labels candidate because she didn't. What on earth does it matter if No Labels itself considered her, along with Chris Sununnu (twice), Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Larry Hogan, Brian Kemp, Ross Perot, Ferris Bueller, and Gerald Ford's old Michigan football jersey?
If that's the best you got, just say no comment and don't embarrass yourself.
Biden says the quiet part out loud:
;)
https://www.rawstory.com/kristi-noem-dog/
Quote'I hated that dog': Kristi Noem recalls gunning down family's 'worthless' pup
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a frontrunner to be named as Donald Trump's running mate, admitted to killing her family dog for misbehavior.
The Republican governor wrote in her forthcoming memoir, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward, that the female dog Cricket had an "aggressive personality" and proved herself "untrainable," according to excerpts from the book published by The Guardian.
"I hated that dog," Noem wrote, adding that the 14-month-old wirehair pointer was "dangerous to anyone she came in contact with" and "less than worthless ... as a hunting dog".
The governor said she included the story in her political memoir to demonstrate her willingness to take on "difficult, messy and ugly" tasks, and she described an attempt to teach Cricket to hunt with other dogs, but instead the pup ruined the trip by going "out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life."
Noem unsuccessfully attempted to bring Cricket under control using an electronic collar, but she said the dog escaped her truck as she stopped to talk to a local family on the way home and attacked that family's chickens.
"[Cricket] grabbed one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another," she wrote, comparing the dog to "a trained assassin."
"[She] whipped around to bite me," Noem wrote, adding that Cricket was "the picture of pure joy" throughout the incident.
"At that moment," Noem wrote, "I realized I had to put her down."
Noem said she retrieved her gun and led Cricket to a gravel pit.
"It was not a pleasant job," she writes, "but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done."
She then recounts how she killed one of her family's goats, a "nasty and mean" male that had not been castrated, by dragging him to the gravel pit, and afterward she realized a nearby construction crew had watched her slaughter both animals before her children were dropped off by a school bus.
"Kennedy looked around confused," Noem wrote, describing her daughter's reaction. "'Hey, where's Cricket?'"
"I guess if I were a better politician," she added, "I wouldn't tell the story here."
Jesus wept.
Joins Mitt Romneys car ride and Bill Frist playing surgeon in the annals of GOP hatred of pets. :(
If she is prone to shooting "nasty and mean" males that have not been castrated, I don't think it would be a good idea for Trump to make her his running mate :huh:
Near the end, I thought she was going to lead the construction crew into the gravel pit next.
I look forward to hearing from the far right how 'tough' Noem is for killing defenseless animals.
I'm curious why Donald didn't name Junior as veep.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2024, 05:36:38 PMI'm curious why Donald didn't name Junior as veep.
I think they both reside in Florida which could cause a problem under Article II/12th amendment
Any bets on who Trump will name as VP?
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2024, 11:32:34 PMAny bets on who Trump will name as VP?
Matt Gaetz
Why did all of these cases against him somehow only really start this year as opposed to two or three years ago?
In the case involving the hush money to the porn star the Indictment was in March of last year, and his legal team has been delaying as much as possible.
Quote from: Zanza on April 30, 2024, 04:06:16 PMWhy did all of these cases against him somehow only really start this year as opposed to two or three years ago?
The NYS indictment was brought in March 23, as CC indicates above. And yes Trump has pulled out all stops to delay every step of the way and still is. A couple hours of trial time was wasted yesterday because Trump insisted on having live witnesses authenticate basic documents of clear provenance like a C-SPAN tape and his own deposition in the E Jean Caroll case. As to the latter, not only have I never experienced in my legal career having a reporter authenticate a depo transcript (out of hundreds of admissions) I've never seen or heard it being done or referenced in any case report I've read. Pure obnoxious time wasting. It's something you would never see happen because any lawyer that pulls that would piss off the judge, but pissing off judges is an affirmative part of the Trump legal "strategy".
The NYS case was also delayed because a key piece of evidence came from a subpoena to Trump's accountant, and Trump managed to tie up enforcement throughout his entire Presidency until the Supreme Court finally ruled against him near the end of his term.
In the confidential documents case, the crime was not comitted until after Trump left the White House, and then again, the Feds gave him repeated opportunities to come into compliance before resorting to criminal indictment. And again, he has done everything he can to slow that case down, in that case with the open cooperation of the judge he appointed.
The one case where one can accuse the government of taking its time is the Jan 6 case, because the AG was following the strategy of going from the bottom up. But once the Special Prosecutor was appointed, the case moved extremely fast, until Trump enlisted his friends in the Supreme Court to slow it down.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/could-student-protestors-turn-the-2024-election
QuoteCould student protesters turn the 2024 election?
Tensions on university campuses, already high as a wave of pro-Palestinian encampment-style protests sweeps the US, got even higher overnight.
The protests, which have seen students pitch tents or occupy buildings at Columbia, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and others, began as an effort to get universities to ditch investments in companies which provide weapons and equipment to the Israeli military.
But they have since evolved into a full-throated critique of how the Biden administration, in protesters' eyes, has failed to rein in Israel during its war in Gaza. More than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza , and as with other modern conflicts, much of the horror has been shared on social media.
It has made it easy for people on campuses and elsewhere to empathise with the plight of Palestinians – and to grow angry at Biden, who has remained largely supportive of Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks and last week signed a foreign aid package which directed more than $26bn to the country.
Polling averages show Trump with a narrow lead in the seven swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – which are the key to winning the White House. Biden won Wisconsin, where demonstrations continue on campuses in Milwaukee and Madison, by just 21,000 votes in 2020, and has already survived pro-Palestinian protest votes against him in Pennsylvania and Michigan, where he won by similarly small margins.
All this means that, basically, Biden can ill afford to lose any young votes.
"The real threat to Biden is that younger voters, especially college-educated voters, won't turn out for him in the election," Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history of education at the University of Pennsylvania, told me this week.
He added: "In states like Pennsylvania the margins are going to be so small, that it's at least possible that a couple thousand people not turning out, or voting for one of the third party candidates, could swing the election one way or the other."
Although Gaza is not necessarily a front-burner issue among all young voters (the economy remains many Americans' No 1 concern), Biden's popularity with them, well, is not what it was. In April, a Harvard poll found that 60% of 18-29-year-olds believe the country is "off on the wrong track", while only 9% believe things are "generally headed in the right direction". Neither of those numbers sound as if young people are about to sprint down to the polls to cast their vote for Biden.
But the problem goes further than just Biden losing votes among young people. Rightwing media and the GOP have pounced on the issue, claiming that the "out of control" protests are representative of Biden's presidency.
It makes life difficult for Biden. If he sides with the students, Republicans will continue to paint the president as someone unable to reign in chaos. If Biden is too critical of protesters, he risks alienating young people – who he needs in November.
If so, they deserve all the terrible things that will befall them under Trump. :thumbsdown:
From The Atlantic (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-danger-of-a-small-act-of-cowardice/ar-AA1nYsLu?ocid=nl_article_link):
QuoteThe Danger of a Small Act of Cowardice
Story by David Hume Kennerly
The first time I photographed Gerald Ford, he was a day away from being nominated as vice president, after Spiro Agnew had resigned in disgrace. The portrait I made ran on the cover of Time, a first for both of us. Ford was my assignment, then he became my friend. As president, he appointed me, at age 27, as his chief White House photographer, granting me total access. The more I got to know him, the more I admired his humanity and empathy. I remained close to him and his wife, Betty, until the end of their lives. And I was honored to serve as a trustee on the board of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation for more than 20 years.
On April 9, however, I resigned from that position. It was over a matter that might seem trivial on the surface, but that I believe constituted another step in America's retreat from democracy—the failure of an institution bearing the name of one of our most honorable presidents to stand in the way of authoritarianism.
Each year, the foundation awards its Gerald R. Ford Medal for Distinguished Public Service, recognizing an individual who embodies Ford's high ideals: integrity, honesty, candor, strength of character, determination in the face of adversity, among other attributes. Past winners have included John Paul Stevens, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and Bob and Elizabeth Dole. This year, in my capacity as a trustee, I pushed hard for former Representative Liz Cheney to receive the recognition.
After the January 6 insurrection, Cheney famously helped lead the push to impeach President Donald Trump. "The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack," she wrote in a statement a few days after the riot. "There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." Four months later, she was stripped of her House leadership position by an ungrateful and angry Republican caucus. A month and a half later, she joined the House select committee investigating January 6; she soon was named co-chair. The next year, Trump got his revenge: Cheney was defeated in her Wyoming primary by a rival he had backed.
Despite this—and numerous death threats—Cheney has been unwavering in standing against Trump and the risk his 2024 candidacy represents.
Cheney is a friend of mine; I have known her since she was 8 years old and have photographed and spent time with her and her family for decades. But I wasn't alone in my thinking: Many of my fellow trustees also believed she clearly deserved the recognition. Ford himself would have been delighted by the selection. He first met Cheney when she was a little girl, and her father, future Vice President Dick Cheney, was Ford's chief of staff. (Cheney herself is a trustee of the foundation in good standing, but several other trustees have received the award in the past.)
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1nYvvJ.img?w=665&h=642&m=6&x=445&y=236&s=87&d=87)
Yet when the foundation's executive committee received Cheney's nomination, its members denied her the award. Instead, they offered it first to a former president, who did not accept, and then to another well-known person, who also declined. When the door briefly reopened for more nominations, I made another passionate pitch for Cheney. The committee passed on her again, ultimately deciding to give the award to former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, whose last job as a public servant ended more than a decade ago.
To me, the decision was inexplicable; Cheney obviously had been more deserving. Sensing that the foundation's executive committee no longer shared my principles, I resigned from the board, as I wrote in a letter to my fellow trustees.
Shortly after that letter was published by Politico, the foundation's executive director, Gleaves Whitney, issued a public statement explaining the committee's decision and confirming what I had heard from fellow trustees: "At the time the award was being discussed, it was publicly reported that Liz was under active consideration for a presidential run. Exercising its fiduciary responsibility, the executive committee concluded that giving the Ford medal to Liz in the 2024 election cycle might be construed as a political statement and thus expose the Foundation to the legal risk of losing its nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service."
Giving the award to Cheney, Whitney said, would not be "prudent." Translation: The foundation was afraid. In another statement, Whitney said that Cheney could be considered for the award in the future. That was not only totally embarrassing, but too late.
I believe the foundation did what it did because of the same pressures hollowing out many Republican institutions and weakening many conservative leaders across America—the fear of retaliation from the forces of Trumpism, forces that deeply loathe Cheney and the values she represents. Fear that president No. 45 might become No. 47. Fear that wealthy donors might be on Trump's team overtly or covertly and might withhold money from the foundation. Fear of phantom circumstances.
I see Whitney's legalistic tap dance as a cop-out. Cheney has not announced that she is running; she hasn't been a candidate for any elective office since she lost her primary two years ago. What's more, in 2004, the foundation gave its annual recognition to then–Vice President Cheney while he was an active candidate for a second term. In a recent letter to trustees, Whitney wrote, correctly, "We face a very different political environment today than in 2004." He added that, in 2006, the IRS had cracked down on nonprofits supporting political candidates. But again, Cheney is not a political candidate. Two years ago, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation wasn't afraid to pay her tribute with its Profile in Courage Award (granted jointly to her, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and three others).
Mitch Daniels might seem like a safe choice for the recognition, a moderate in the mold of Ford. But he has shown none of the valor that Cheney has in confronting Trump. Despite acknowledging that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Daniels has made only tepid comments about the threat Trump presents to democracy. In 2022, for example, The Bulwark's Mona Charen asked Daniels about a recent warning from President Biden that American democracy was in danger of being subverted by election-denying "MAGA Republicans." Daniels said he had spent 10 years "ducking" such questions. He allowed that he would "make no objection" to Biden's statement, but continued: "I think there are anti-democratic tendencies across our political spectrum, or at least at both ends of it." This was classic both-sides-ism. To me, Daniels in that moment exemplified the kind of passive Republican who is laying brick on the Trump highway to an autocracy.
My resignation is about more than giving one valiant person an award. America is where it is today because of all the people and organizations that have committed small acts of cowardice like that of the Ford presidential foundation's executive committee. I wanted to draw attention to those in the political center and on the right who know better, who have real power and influence, who rail against Trump behind closed doors, yet who appear in public with their lips zipped. They might think of themselves as patriots, but in fact they are allowing our country to be driven toward tyranny. Every now and then, you should listen to your heart and not the lawyers.
Ultimately, the foundation has tarnished the image of its namesake. I was in the East Room of the White House 50 years ago on that hot day of August 9, 1974, when President Ford declared, "Our long national nightmare is over." It was a great moment for America, and a bold statement from the new president, acknowledging that Richard Nixon's actions had threatened the Constitution. Ford could not have envisioned the threat to democracy that America now faces. But he would have been encouraged by a bright light named Liz Cheney—someone who is fighting hard, sometimes alone, for the Constitution that Ford defended just as courageously.
Any thoughts on Trump sleeping during his criminal trial?
So look - I've obviously never been on trial before, but I spend a lot of my life in courtrooms.
Most of that time is as a lawyer. There I'm in the middle of the action. I'm either on my feet asking questions/making submissions, or I'm listening carefully as the other side is doing the same. That's a very "high energy" time.
But I've spent a not insignificant amount of time just sitting in courtrooms too, where I have no direct involvement. I'm either waiting for my case to be called, or trying to observe someone else. And those times can be very, very boring, and I've had to fight off nodding off - and I'm not in my 70s.
No idea if being on trial yourself is closer to being a lawyer, or being a pure observer.
I will note I don't think I've ever seen an Accused person nod off, but then again most crimes tend to be committed by the young.
My sense is that it's, once again, the media focusing on something stupid rather than something important.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2024, 02:21:59 PMMy sense is that it's, once again, the media focusing on something stupid rather than something important.
Agreed. The only utility to such reports would be to show the impact of age on Trump, but that's not the message. The media fixation on reporting every last detail about Trump is what got him elected in 2016 and nearly elected in 2020.
Yeah I am tired of hearing about Trump. I wish he would just go away.
But then I felt that way around 1988 or so.
Michael Sandel on How to fight populism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuMoGbAam-U)
I think that he makes a pretty compelling case for what causes populism (a shift to demeaning those without college degrees) and its solution (reinforcing policies and values that recognize the dignity of labor). He borrows MLK Jr's analogy that garbage collectors prevent more diseases than doctors and should be recognized for their efforts. Not with money, but with respect and acknowledgement.
That sounds like a reasonable hypothesis.
So apparently "real men wear diapers:
(https://www.indy100.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=52165805&width=782&quality=85)
Article here: https://www.indy100.com/politics/trump/trump-supporters-wearing-diapers
Depends, really.
I wonder if the person on the left considers themselves a "real man". They're wearing diapers after all.
Nobody discusses the news that RFK is probably a thrall of Khan Noonien Singh?
Quote from: celedhring on May 08, 2024, 03:13:52 PMNobody discusses the news that RFK is probably a thrall of Khan Noonien Singh?
I mean...why not?
Quote from: celedhring on May 08, 2024, 03:13:52 PMNobody discusses the news that RFK is probably a thrall of Khan Noonien Singh?
I mean, him having had a brain parasite explains so much now. :P
It was a brain-eater and it obviously starved to death.
https://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1788311221776568666
(https://i.imgur.com/wjXrc8n.png)
What a country I live in. If my ancestors had known this is the way things were going to go they would have gone back to England and ride out the Civil War.
Oh great, they've come back :(
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzGREY4WgAoAQEh?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2024, 12:42:25 PMhttps://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1788311221776568666
(https://i.imgur.com/wjXrc8n.png)
I desperately hope this is the low point of US Presidential elections because we seem to be storming toward an Idiocracy scenario at breakneck speed.
Quote from: Tamas on May 14, 2024, 04:14:34 AMQuote from: Syt on May 09, 2024, 12:42:25 PMhttps://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1788311221776568666
(https://i.imgur.com/wjXrc8n.png)
I desperately hope this is the low point of US Presidential elections because we seem to be storming toward an Idiocracy scenario at breakneck speed.
On the other hand, I'm not all that worried about fringe candidates saying strange things.
Sure but in terms of news-time he is number 3 behind the well-meaning slow grandpa and the demented old pervert.
Remember that poll that had RFK at 33% of the vote?
RFK, or RFK, Jr?
RFK is a lot more plausible.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2024, 01:39:40 PMRFK, or RFK, Jr?
RFK is a lot more plausible.
I know I think I might choose the 50 year plus dead corpse for president at this point...
Interesting article on Trump's plans if he loses the election: https://www.salon.com/2024/05/13/ready-for-a-loss/
Crazy to think we could be witnessing the death of American democracy.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2024, 08:49:11 PMInteresting article on Trump's plans if he loses the election: https://www.salon.com/2024/05/13/ready-for-a-loss/
Crazy to think we could be witnessing the death of American democracy.
This is a good example of my concern about people not reading newspapers anymore and getting their news content from places like this. There isn't any actual reporting. This is just a bunch of assertions based on statements mainly pulled from other stories and social media comments.
The funny part is the article makes a job at mainstream media for not doing enough job reporting.
I think we have more than anything else now is a crisis in the way in which people form their opinions. Someone who supports Trump can read this article and say well this is just Terrible reporting. And they're right.
A person who doesn't support Trump will say right on man that's exactly it. And they may be right, Those things might happen.
But all this article is doing is talking to its likeminded readers and not making any attempt at news reporting.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2024, 08:49:11 PMInteresting article on Trump's plans if he loses the election: https://www.salon.com/2024/05/13/ready-for-a-loss/
Crazy to think we could be witnessing the death of American democracy.
Looking at the polling I'm afraid this won't be an issue... But yeah, it is very worrying.
Quote from: celedhring on May 15, 2024, 01:25:02 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 14, 2024, 08:49:11 PMInteresting article on Trump's plans if he loses the election: https://www.salon.com/2024/05/13/ready-for-a-loss/
Crazy to think we could be witnessing the death of American democracy.
Looking at the polling I'm afraid this won't be an issue... But yeah, it is very worrying.
What part of that article did you not already know and is "very worrying"
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2024, 12:59:23 AMQuote from: Jacob on May 14, 2024, 08:49:11 PMInteresting article on Trump's plans if he loses the election: https://www.salon.com/2024/05/13/ready-for-a-loss/
Crazy to think we could be witnessing the death of American democracy.
This is a good example of my concern about people not reading newspapers anymore and getting their news content from places like this. There isn't any actual reporting. This is just a bunch of assertions based on statements mainly pulled from other stories and social media comments.
The funny part is the article makes a job at mainstream media for not doing enough job reporting.
I think we have more than anything else now is a crisis in the way in which people form their opinions. Someone who supports Trump can read this article and say well this is just Terrible reporting. And they're right.
A person who doesn't support Trump will say right on man that's exactly it. And they may be right, Those things might happen.
But all this article is doing is talking to its likeminded readers and not making any attempt at news reporting.
:yes:
Yeah it was a dreadful piece.
Okay CC and garbon, it was a dreadful piece.
My main take aways were:
- Trump (and his associates) are going to attempt to undermine the fairness of the election to a significant degree, using both rampant voter intimidation and their control of state governments.
- If Trump wins, he and his associates has a robust plan to undermine American democracy significantly.
- If Trump loses, there's a high chance of violence and unrest by his supporters.
From your point of view, are those things true and real risks and the shittiness of the article was in how it talked about those real and significant risks?
Or are those risks significantly overblown, and the shittiness of the article is because it's unnecessarily alarmist?
I feel dirty for defending Salon, but it wasn't a "dreadful piece".
OK, it didn't contain any original reporting, but it was well sourced to other primary reporting.
The main point of the article is that in 2020 (even with the powers of incumbency) many Republicans stood up in different ways to prevent Trump from trying to steal the election. Mike Pence was most obvious (God Bless Mike Pence), but from Brad Raffensperger to Mitch McConnell they insisted that the election process go through as normal.
All those voices are now gone. Well, Raffensperger is still in Georgia, but almost all Republicans now support the "big lie", which was not the case in 2020.
What that means in the case of a Trump defeat I don't know. As the Salon article points out in 2024 Trump is not the incumbent. But there's no chance Trump just goes quietly into the night if he loses.
And I'm worried he won't lose. He's polling much better then he did in either 2016 or 2020.
Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2024, 12:19:22 PMOkay CC and garbon, it was a dreadful piece.
My main take aways were:
- Trump (and his associates) are going to attempt to undermine the fairness of the election to a significant degree, using both rampant voter intimidation and their control of state governments.
- If Trump wins, he and his associates has a robust plan to undermine American democracy significantly.
- If Trump loses, there's a high chance of violence and unrest by his supporters.
From your point of view, are those things true and real risks and the shittiness of the article was in how it talked about those real and significant risks?
Or are those risks significantly overblown, and the shittiness of the article is because it's unnecessarily alarmist?
For 1, I am skeptical that Trump and his crew can do much voter intimidation. So far they have been unsuccessful on that front and claims of voter intimidation have been overblown in recent years.
2, is a real worry
3, What are they going to do? The unrest from 2020 while impressive on TV was feeble. Thanks to the arrests of the Jan 6 people the rest of the lot are too scared to protest.
My big concern is Trump loses but they try the mess with the slates of electors again. If Biden wins but Republicans control the house they may declare fraud and try to give it to Trump regardless. Then the shit hit the fan.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2024, 12:46:33 PMMy big concern is Trump loses but they try the mess with the slates of electors again. If Biden wins but Republicans control the house they may declare fraud and try to give it to Trump regardless. Then the shit hit the fan.
So in 2020 things focused on Mike Pence, as his constitutional duty was to "count" the electoral votes. But it was a Democratic-controlled senate.
What if in 2024 it's a GOP controlled senate? What if they refuse to ratify the election?
What if secretaries of state in key states refuse to ratify the election results?
Speaking of trash article, I saw a clickbait article with a title like "8 ways for Trump to lose the election". I clicked on it (what can I say), as I needed a bit of hopium...
It had a few basic ones like "Biden takes enough states to win" (well duh), but it also had things like "he dies of old age", "he's imprisoned and the supreme court says he can't run", and "he's assassinated."
Didn't do much in the hopium apartment, alas :(
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 12:52:18 PMSo in 2020 things focused on Mike Pence, as his constitutional duty was to "count" the electoral votes. But it was a Democratic-controlled senate.
What if in 2024 it's a GOP controlled senate? What if they refuse to ratify the election?
What if secretaries of state in key states refuse to ratify the election results?
Yeah, there's a lot of ways things can get ugly in the US with this election :(
Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2024, 12:54:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 12:52:18 PMSo in 2020 things focused on Mike Pence, as his constitutional duty was to "count" the electoral votes. But it was a Democratic-controlled senate.
What if in 2024 it's a GOP controlled senate? What if they refuse to ratify the election?
What if secretaries of state in key states refuse to ratify the election results?
Yeah, there's a lot of ways things can get ugly in the US with this election :(
Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC. It does have a 6-3 conservative majority. It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.
And really - the thought the election might have to come down to the USSC is scary. People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 12:27:25 PMAnd I'm worried he won't lose. He's polling much better then he did in either 2016 or 2020.
I'm worried too but one of the factors of the better Trump polling this time is that Polling firms have adapted their, well, polling to better capture prospective Trump voters. I read an article that mentioned that they now will ask the who you voting for question as the 1st question. Registering that answer even if the person hangs up right after.
My one hope in the polling is that they may even be overestimating Trump's support. Granted this is only based on polling having overestimated Republican support in the 2022 mid-terms, but it could become a factor.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 01:11:03 PMUltimately it all comes down to the USSC. It does have a 6-3 conservative majority. It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.
It has definitely slanted towards Trump. The scheduling of the immunity case and the handling of the questions presented, are hard to explain absent a motive to deliberately delay the criminal case. It's true that as to substance, the Court will not rule whatever Trump says because they are aware of the implications that such a precedent will set for other Presidents. But there are many things they can do and have done to help Trump short of that.
QuotePeople still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.
Right in what sense? The opinion didn't make a lot of sense in terms of reasoning or precedent, and even the majority was sufficiently embarrassed to take the extraordinary step of declaring it to be non-precedential. The Court got it "right" in that the after of fact recounts didn't support Gore and it's true there wasn't any plausible scenario where Gore would have won the election regardless of how the Court ruled. But it was far from a shining moment of glory for the Court.
One of things that Congress managed to do right was amend the Electoral Count Act. That does not eliminate the possibility of any 2020 style shenanigans but it reduces the risk. It is now unequivocal in statute that the Vice President can't decide to throw away the real count and adopt others. As for Congress, the objections that can made are limited to: (1) the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors (2) the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. I.e. a general objection of "voter fraud" in the underlying election doesn't count. The objection has to be stated in writing without argument so no filibustering. No objection can be sustained unless the House and Senate both jointly agree.
So Minsky, how big is the risk of blatant and significant voter fraud in your view? And if the risk is non-trivial, what are the most likely methods by which it'll happen in your assessment?
Isn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?
I'm so ambivalent on the polling.
On one hand Democrats have over performed polling last time around. There are also reasonable argument why this may still be the case.
On the other hand, there's something very head-in-the-sand like about saying "sure the polls say bad things, but it's the polls that are wrong. Don't worry."
Biden v Trump debates reportedly planned on Jun 27 and Sep 10.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2024, 01:35:44 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 01:11:03 PMUltimately it all comes down to the USSC. It does have a 6-3 conservative majority. It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.
It has definitely slanted towards Trump. The scheduling of the immunity case and the handling of the questions presented, are hard to explain absent a motive to deliberately delay the criminal case. It's true that as to substance, the Court will not rule whatever Trump says because they are aware of the implications that such a precedent will set for other Presidents. But there are many things they can do and have done to help Trump short of that.
Come on Minskey. I said the court wasn't Trump's lackey - not that it wasn't slanted to Trump. To Trump's obvious dismay the court won't just do whatever he wants - but it is more friendly to him,
QuoteQuotePeople still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.
Right in what sense? The opinion didn't make a lot of sense in terms of reasoning or precedent, and even the majority was sufficiently embarrassed to take the extraordinary step of declaring it to be non-precedential. The Court got it "right" in that the after of fact recounts didn't support Gore and it's true there wasn't any plausible scenario where Gore would have won the election regardless of how the Court ruled. But it was far from a shining moment of glory for the Court.
It was "right" first of all in that all subsequent recounts all gave the win to Bush.
But second of all - it's been 23 1/2 years but as I recall all the procedures within Florida had called the state for Bush. The procedures had been followed, and while the result was incredibly close there was no credible accusations of impropriety.
What I most recall though - was Bush was very aware that he was not the winner of the majority vote, and at first attempted to preside as a minority president and knew he lacked that popular legitimacy. Of course 9/11 threw a huge wrench into things.
Trump didn't care less he was elected by a minority vote.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 15, 2024, 02:27:00 PMIsn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?
No.
There are faults with polling, but they have not relied on landlines only for years and years.
Proof: I am somehow on a list of people that answers pollsters, so I get calls pretty regularly. A few years ago we were the Canadian equivalent of Nielson family that tracked our TV viewership.
Anyways - the fact I am regularly called by pollsters, as a middle-aged, middle-class cis-hetero white guy, might reflect a certain bias.
But they only ever call my cell phone.
Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2024, 01:52:03 PMSo Minsky, how big is the risk of blatant and significant voter fraud in your view?
Voter fraud is really rare. I don't think there is much risk there. Voter suppression is a much bigger concern, especially in states controlled by GOP legislatures and governors. Cutting down polling places in Democrat leaning areas, eliminating or reducing absentee ballots, disqualifying voters on bogus pretexts. The other unknown is to what extent there will be effort to intimidate election workers in swing states. There were various efforts in 2020 but not well organized. A more concerted effort could cause real problems, especially if aided and abetted by sympathetic local or state law enforcement.
Also, while the electoral count act reduces the options for nonsense in the Congressional count, it still leaves open a a key vulnerability - the certificate of ascertainment which is issued by the governor of each state. The risk is that a rogue governor simply crosses out the vote in his state and signs a bogus certificate. Looking at the swing states, Democratic governors are in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Brian Kemp is a Republican in Georgia but was not sympathetic to Trump's election stealing efforts in 2020. Joe Lomabrdo was elected governor in Nevada; don't know much about him. He was endorsed by Trump in his election, but hasn't had enthusiastic things to say about his presidential run. I don't see him trying to overturn an election result by transmitting a bogus certificate of ascertainment. So I am cautiously optimistic on this front, but it is a little scary that we have to count heads this way and that so much depends on the personality of individual state governors.
Thanks!
Less dire than I feared, it seems, but still not great.
I'm not in the US and purely looking from far away.... But I get vibes that there's a fair bit of lethargy about the election?
Tinfoil hat on but I do wonder if this is republican tactics. As well as energising the shit bags to get out and vote getting everyone else thinking both candidates are crap and there's no point.
There definitely seems to be a concerted social media effort to depict it as a battle between "two grandpas" with little difference between the two of them.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 03:21:26 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on May 15, 2024, 02:27:00 PMIsn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?
No.
There are faults with polling, but they have not relied on landlines only for years and years.
Proof: I am somehow on a list of people that answers pollsters, so I get calls pretty regularly. A few years ago we were the Canadian equivalent of Nielson family that tracked our TV viewership.
Anyways - the fact I am regularly called by pollsters, as a middle-aged, middle-class cis-hetero white guy, might reflect a certain bias.
But they only ever call my cell phone.
I'm on a list too, I signed up for it. I've never had a land line of my own.
I'm also a middle-aged middle-class cis-hetero white guy and yet our politics are nothing alike.
Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2024, 03:02:02 PMBiden v Trump debates reportedly planned on Jun 27 and Sep 10.
And the rules the Biden team insisted on seem to be aimed at neutering Trump's interruptive/off-the-cuff style...e.g. turning off the opposing microphone when it is not their turn...but I am sure nothing will stop Trump from shouting/haranguing without said microphone.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2024, 07:13:35 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 03:21:26 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on May 15, 2024, 02:27:00 PMIsn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?
No.
There are faults with polling, but they have not relied on landlines only for years and years.
Proof: I am somehow on a list of people that answers pollsters, so I get calls pretty regularly. A few years ago we were the Canadian equivalent of Nielson family that tracked our TV viewership.
Anyways - the fact I am regularly called by pollsters, as a middle-aged, middle-class cis-hetero white guy, might reflect a certain bias.
But they only ever call my cell phone.
I'm on a list too, I signed up for it. I've never had a land line of my own.
I'm also a middle-aged middle-class cis-hetero white guy and yet our politics are nothing alike.
But Sophie's point is a good one, pollsters used to be able to get more randomized samples by using phone books, now people have to opt in in some way so there is more is a selection bias.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2024, 02:06:08 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2024, 07:13:35 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 15, 2024, 03:21:26 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on May 15, 2024, 02:27:00 PMIsn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?
No.
There are faults with polling, but they have not relied on landlines only for years and years.
Proof: I am somehow on a list of people that answers pollsters, so I get calls pretty regularly. A few years ago we were the Canadian equivalent of Nielson family that tracked our TV viewership.
Anyways - the fact I am regularly called by pollsters, as a middle-aged, middle-class cis-hetero white guy, might reflect a certain bias.
But they only ever call my cell phone.
I'm on a list too, I signed up for it. I've never had a land line of my own.
I'm also a middle-aged middle-class cis-hetero white guy and yet our politics are nothing alike.
But Sophie's point is a good one, pollsters used to be able to get more randomized samples by using phone books, now people have to opt in in some way so there is more is a selection bias.
There is, and it is a potential problem.
But with top scale stuff they usually have a decent enough understanding of that to control for it. They understand based on someone's criteria precisely how likely they are to reply so will reach out to more busy 30-somethings than is statistically necessary to make sure they cover that group and don't just get unemployed groups.
Though I do get vibes with this political stuff in particular the selection bias is a very active one of people consciously seeking out these polls to try and play a role in shifting the discourse.
Worth remembering on polls as much as they're criticised for always being wrong et al- Trump's win was well within the margin of error.
"They" don't actually do a good job of it.
QuoteDoes this mean that polls just aren't accurate? Not always, but they can present a different picture than reality. This is largely because "the real margin of error is often about double the one reported," Pew wrote. Many polls typically have a margin of error less than 3%, which "leads people to think that polls are more precise than they really are," the outlet added. But this margin "addresses only one source of potential error: the fact that random samples are likely to differ a little from the population just by chance."
There are at least three other identifiable sources of data errors that can come from poll taking, Pew added, but most polls don't calculate these metrics into their margins of error. The differing approaches in how polls are taken can also have "consequences for data quality, as well as accuracy in elections," Pew added. As a result, a 2016 study from The New York Times showed, the actual margin of error in most historical polls is closer to 6% or 7%, not 3%. This represents an error range of 12 to 14 data points, the Times said.
https://theweek.com/politics/2024-election-polls-accuracy
I'm not convinced Swedish youtubers are an authority.
Trump video references a unified Reich.
From Majorie Taylor Greene's X (https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1793035321451454482)
QuoteI made sure that he knew.
The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light.
Does everyone get it yet???!!!!
What are Republicans going to do about it?
I tried to oust our Speaker who funded Biden's DOJ AND FBI, but Democrats stopped it.
Tragically our deep state is woefully incompetent. :(
Wait, I thought the President had the right to order assassination of his political opponents and it wouldn't be illegal unless he was impeached. Have Trump's lawyers lied to us?
Quote from: Savonarola on May 23, 2024, 04:25:14 PMFrom Majorie Taylor Greene's X (https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1793035321451454482)
QuoteI made sure that he knew.
The Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light.
Does everyone get it yet???!!!!
What are Republicans going to do about it?
I tried to oust our Speaker who funded Biden's DOJ AND FBI, but Democrats stopped it.
Tragically our deep state is woefully incompetent. :(
Yeah, they planned the assassination for a time and place where they knew Trump would not be. :(
Better luck next time!
(https://i.imgur.com/4aMNTQB.png)
That's OvB's kind of guy! Never say anything honesty if you can lie.
Trump found guilty on all chargrs
Alvin Bragg shows how it's done. Try your case in Court not on the cable news. DA Willis please take note.
The GOP won't vote for a convicted felon, right?
J/k
"Interesting" times. <_<
Trump's schtick really falls flat in a place like a courtroom where he simply screaming that it isn't true isn't sufficient. He actually needs evidence and stuff.
He's not screaming for the court, though. He's screaming for his acolytes, to provide them arguments they can deploy to justify keeping their faith.
I am sure the Trump-as-Jesus on the Cross memes are already being pumped out.
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2024, 11:51:41 PMHe's not screaming for the court, though. He's screaming for his acolytes, to provide them arguments they can deploy to justify keeping their faith.
Well yes. His schtick works great with them.
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2024, 11:51:41 PMHe's not screaming for the court, though. He's screaming for his acolytes, to provide them arguments they can deploy to justify keeping their faith.
He tried it in court as well. But the judge shut that down.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 30, 2024, 08:53:39 PMThe GOP won't vote for a convicted felon, right?
J/k
But IT'S RIGGED!!!!!111111111111oneoneone
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2024, 09:43:08 PMTrump's schtick really falls flat in a place like a courtroom where he simply screaming that it isn't true isn't sufficient. He actually needs evidence and stuff.
I think the criminal courts or facing off against the state.
From what I've read about Trump he has very successfully used the civil courts as a weapon throughout his career.
How so?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2024, 08:59:25 AMHow so?
Losing twice to Carroll and once to the NYAG was all part of his cunning plan to flood New York state with his money and cause an inflationary spiral that will take down Biden.
And don't forget his crushing $3 verdict against the NFL.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2024, 08:59:25 AMHow so?
I remember reading a piece about, which I can't find, but he's basically been involved in about 3,500 lawsuits. All with the Roy Cohn style strategy of always attacking. If you're sued counter-claim aggressively, attack every stage in claims you're defending. It's not about winning legally or anything like that but attriting your enemies (especially if they don't have the resources, time and patience of the state).
The same way the law is always a weapon for the rich.
I think that doesn't work against the state and I think it probably doesn't work since 2016 because it will normally be worth it for opponents to keep going (and they may not have the normal motivations of a civil case).
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 31, 2024, 12:22:31 AMI am sure the Trump-as-Jesus on the Cross memes are already being pumped out.
The one I've seen has Jesus putting his hands on Trump's shoulders saying "They called me a criminal too".
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2024, 09:17:48 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2024, 08:59:25 AMHow so?
I remember reading a piece about, which I can't find, but he's basically been involved in about 3,500 lawsuits. All with the Roy Cohn style strategy of always attacking. If you're sued counter-claim aggressively, attack every stage in claims you're defending. It's not about winning legally or anything like that but attriting your enemies (especially if they don't have the resources, time and patience of the state).
The same way the law is always a weapon for the rich.
I think that doesn't work against the state and I think it probably doesn't work since 2016 because it will normally be worth it for opponents to keep going (and they may not have the normal motivations of a civil case).
I think I remember the piece you are talking about. It was not that Trump was able to use the civil law as a weapon so much as he has been able to find lawyers who were willing to be disbarred.
Yeah - but from my understanding if Trump hadn't become President there's no reason to think Michael Cohen (his lawyer for a decade) was about to be disbarred or that any other Trump lawyer really ran that risk. There were always lawyers willing to do the work - and my understanding is the main issue with Trump was his relaxed approach to paying bills.
If the reason the rich can't use law as a weapon is the personal integrity of the legal profession we're in a worse position than I imagined :P (Edit: Or, perhaps, the rich have enough money to override those issues.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2024, 12:18:26 PMYeah - but from my understanding if Trump hadn't become President there's no reason to think Michael Cohen (his lawyer for a decade) was about to be disbarred or that any other Trump lawyer really ran that risk. There were always lawyers willing to do the work - and my understanding is the main issue with Trump was his relaxed approach to paying bills.
If the reason the rich can't use law as a weapon is the personal integrity of the legal profession we're in a worse position than I imagined :P (Edit: Or, perhaps, the rich have enough money to override those issues.)
Yeah it's funny how all of Trump's legal issues can really be traced to becoming President - even the ones that pre-date his Presidency.
He could have easily just stayed in Trump Tower making seasons of The Apprentice every once in a while and keep up with being a B-list celebrity. But no - his ego insisted he try to become the most powerful man in the world, and see where it's led him to.
It was electing Obama that did it. If we had just elected Hillary or McCain back in 2008 this never would have happened. He would have probably been Hillary's biggest fan.
Quote from: Valmy on May 31, 2024, 01:35:35 PMIt was electing Obama that did it. If we had just elected Hillary or McCain back in 2008 this never would have happened. He would have probably been Hillary's biggest fan.
I dunno - Trump did say he was running for President in 2000 under the Reform Party ticket. He dropped out after a few months but it was something obviously on his mind.
He's been talking about running since the 1980s. I remember seeing him on a talk show (Phil Donahue?) and he brought it up as "something people are telling me I should do, but I'm not sure if I want to" or some such bullshit.
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2024, 01:40:53 PMQuote from: Valmy on May 31, 2024, 01:35:35 PMIt was electing Obama that did it. If we had just elected Hillary or McCain back in 2008 this never would have happened. He would have probably been Hillary's biggest fan.
I dunno - Trump did say he was running for President in 2000 under the Reform Party ticket. He dropped out after a few months but it was something obviously on his mind.
Ah. See Trump said he ran because of Obama. He just lies about even the most insignificant things.
I think it's very conceivable that Trump did run because of Obama. Obama's roast of Trump at that dinner may very well have lit the fire in Trump to do this for real, not just talk about it. Obama's gift of eloquently mocking his adversaries unfortunately also came with the curse of fatally underestimating them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2024, 12:18:26 PMYeah - but from my understanding if Trump hadn't become President there's no reason to think Michael Cohen (his lawyer for a decade) was about to be disbarred or that any other Trump lawyer really ran that risk. There were always lawyers willing to do the work - and my understanding is the main issue with Trump was his relaxed approach to paying bills.
If the reason the rich can't use law as a weapon is the personal integrity of the legal profession we're in a worse position than I imagined :P (Edit: Or, perhaps, the rich have enough money to override those issues.)
I was not talking about Cohen, he is not the first of Trump's lawyers to be disbarred.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2024, 09:05:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2024, 08:59:25 AMHow so?
Losing twice to Carroll and once to the NYAG was all part of his cunning plan to flood New York state with his money and cause an inflationary spiral that will take down Biden.
And don't forget his crushing $3 verdict against the NFL.
:D
Donald has proposed cutting all income tax and replacing it with tariffs. Math doesn't work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 14, 2024, 06:35:04 AM
Donald has proposed cutting all income tax and replacing it with tariffs. Math doesn't work.
There's also a distinction from using tariffs for revenue generation as opposed for protectionism. In the latter case - which is Trump's usual rationale - the purpose of the tariff is to reduce or eliminate imports and thus it is not revenue generative at all.
If you want to raise revenue using a tariff, it has to be low enough that significant levels of imports continue; thus, there is little or no protectionist benefit. Since the US imports a wide variety of consumer goods, the economic impact is basically similar to an across the board consumption tax.
The Project 2025 thing keeps making the rounds in recent weeks. How real is it, or rather: if The Orange One wins, how likely is it he his handlers will strive to implement it in full or partly? It seems over the top even for current GOP. Though it could also serve as a moving of goal posts, letting Republicans say "we're not
that bad" while still implementing a watered down version that was not previously plausible?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
QuoteProject 2025: The Trump presidency wish list, explained
12 June 2024
President Joe Biden's Democrats are mobilising against a possible governing agenda for Donald Trump if he is elected this November.
The blueprint, called Project 2025 and produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation, is one of several think-tank proposals for Trump's platform.
Over more than 900 pages, it calls for sacking thousands of civil servants, expanding the power of the president, dismantling the Department of Education and other federal agencies, and sweeping tax cuts.
The Heritage Foundation unveiled its agenda in April last year, and liberal opposition has been ramping up as opinion polls show a tight race between President Biden, a Democrat, and former President Trump, a Republican.
It is common for Washington DC think tanks to propose policy wish lists for potential governments-in-waiting. The liberal Center for American Progress, for example, was dubbed Barack Obama's "ideas factory" during his presidency.
But on Tuesday, California congressman Jared Huffman announced a Stop Project 2025 Task Force.
Mr Huffman said: "Project 2025 is more than an idea, it's a dystopian plot that's already in motion to dismantle our democratic institutions, abolish checks and balances, chip away at church-state separation, and impose a far-right agenda that infringes on basic liberties and violates public will.
"We need a coordinated strategy to save America and stop this coup before it's too late."
Heritage said Mr Biden's party was scaremongering with "an unserious, mistake-riddled press release".
"House Democrats are dedicating taxpayer dollars to launch a smear campaign against the united effort to restore self-governance to everyday Americans," said Kevin Roberts, the foundation's president.
"Under the Biden administration, the federal government has been weaponized against American citizens, our border invaded, and our institutions captured by woke ideology."
The Project 2025 document outlines four main aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.
It is one of several policy papers for a platform broadly known as Agenda 47 - so-called because Trump would be America's 47th president if he won.
Heritage says Project 2025 was written by several former Trump appointees and reflects input from more than 100 conservative organisations.
Here's an outline of several key proposals.
Government
Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as "unitary executive theory".
In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.
The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.
The document labels the FBI a "bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization" and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education.
Immigration
Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border – one of Trump's signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document.
However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers.
Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.
Climate and Economy
The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to "stop the war on oil and natural gas".
Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and security.
The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to exports.
But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.
Abortion
Project 2025 does not call for a nationwide abortion ban.
However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market.
Tech and education
Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content would be shut down.
The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls "woke propaganda".
It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including "sexual orientation", "diversity, equity, and inclusion", "gender equality", "abortion" and "reproductive rights".
The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential of a number of think tanks that has produced policy papers designed to guide a possible second Trump presidency.
Since the 1980s, Heritage has produced similar policy documents as part of its Mandate for Leadership series.
Project 2025, backed by a $22m (£17m) budget, also sets out strategies for implementing policies beginning immediately after the presidential inauguration in January 2025.
Trump has endorsed a number of the Project 2025 ideas in his speeches and on his website, although his campaign has said the candidate has the final say on policy.
Many of the proposals would face immediate legal challenges if implemented.
Quotedismantling the Department of Education
Clever (ironically). Helping to create a future generation of Republican voters.
Quote"Under the Biden administration, the federal government has been weaponized against American citizens, our border invaded, and our institutions captured by woke ideology."
This kind of thing makes a lot more sense if you just cross out woke ideology (or pixies or whatever other make believe they go with in the future) and write Jews.
Quote from: Syt on June 25, 2024, 01:22:25 AMThe Project 2025 thing keeps making the rounds in recent weeks. How real is it, or rather: if The Orange One wins, how likely is it he his handlers will strive to implement it in full or partly? It seems over the top even for current GOP. Though it could also serve as a moving of goal posts, letting Republicans say "we're not that bad" while still implementing a watered down version that was not previously plausible?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
Like all attempts at constructing an ideological project or coherence around Trump I think it probably needs a yes, but.
What Trump is interested in is advancing his personal interests, protecting himself (and loyal allies) from prosecution and patrimonial doling out of spoils. That's it. If any of these projects get in the way of that, then he'll show zero loyalty to them. Similarly if they are not completely loyal and supportive of him (if they try to imagine they have an independent power base, for example).
There's a wishlist, but policy lists can be a bit of a distraction. At best it is the end, especially in a system like the US. I think possibly more important is the recruitment and training and preparation to staff a second Trump administration - not least because the adage is true that personnel is policy. Trump's first administration had plenty venal and flexible enough to be staffed but it was primarily from the (then) traditional Republican institutions that prepare administrative cadres. But they were, in various ways, not necessarily aligned with Trump. I think with the Trumpian march through the GOP's institutions that there is a generation of people ready to be appointed throughout the US government who are on board.
Again if they annoy him, or they criticise him, or anything like that - Trump will dump them. But there are now plausible Trumpian appointees. I've no doubt Heritage are a big part of that (not least because they can't get out-competed in the competition for patronage) - but I think it'll be those appointees and networks working things out that will, to the extent there's any, develop a political agenda for a Trump administration (aware, always, that it may need to pivot at any moment if his whims change).
I would assume that the proposals under the headings Government, Immigration, Climate and Economy will be carried through as indicated, with Trump selecting the tariff alternative over free trade, and with the exception of abolishing the Fed for a gold standard. Trump will not abolish the Fed, but will find the most pliable lapdog he can find and appoint as Fed Chair. Everything else in those categories accords with his own inclinations.
The rest may or may not happen depending on political dynamics of the moment.
Didn't take long for Biden to have a brain cramp
Well this was somehow worse than I thought it would be and I had been having pretty bad anxiety about this ever since I learned Biden was going to run for re-election.
I...I...just don't know how this was allowed to happen.
What'd old man Joe do now?
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2024, 09:00:41 PMWell this was somehow worse than I thought it would be and I had been having pretty bad anxiety about this ever since I learned Biden was going to run for re-election.
I...I...just don't know how this was allowed to happen.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/58/89/bc5889a0ab3a62b05edad96c4dc593e7.gif)
:hug:
They both just look horrible. Trump is a shadow of his 2016 self yet somehow...our dude is barely functional.
What did I miss? Just checked out live now, Biden is sounding painful.
I wonder if they proposed to have a debate in June so that there would be time to switch out Biden if his brain didn't rally?
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2024, 09:26:19 PMI wonder if they proposed to have a debate in June so that there would be time to switch out Biden if his brain didn't rally?
Unless Joe does a LBJ, I don't see how that could happen. I thought he did back in 2021.
But no, and here we are.
Obviously Biden has to be onboard the plan, if you catch him on his good day, and not pull a RBG.
Biden can't even deliver a closing statement without getting confused. Something he must have practiced.
Important take away is Trump said Israel needs to finish the job. I am looking forward to all the Muslim extremists who have been chanting antisemitic shit here in the U.S. finding out what happens when Trump gives Netanyahu a green light to do whatever is necessary in Gaza day 1 of his Presidency.
Well that's worrying :(
From the sober middle of the road European perspective we have to be prepared to deal with a new Trump presidency. Given how fucked both Germany and France will be concomitant with a Trump presidency I can only recommend a tighter Nordic cooperation. :hmm:
People, tell me what happened, don't make me read Twitter (or worse, watch the replay). How badly did Biden do?
It went way less than ideal.
It went Sweden should have a nuclear deterrent. And Finland as well maybe.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2024, 09:46:52 PMPeople, tell me what happened, don't make me read Twitter (or worse, watch the replay). How badly did Biden do?
He just looked terrible. Even if Biden has said good things he still would have lost. But he didn't. Trump refused to answer questions and Biden never attacked him for it.
Biden even let Trump get him on the Border shit.
And he lacked the cocky Uncle Joe energy of 2020, for whatever that was worth.
I don't know what you want me to say.
Just checked PredictIt. Looks like Newsom won the debate.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2024, 09:42:36 PMImportant take away is Trump said Israel needs to finish the job. I am looking forward to all the Muslim extremists who have been chanting antisemitic shit here in the U.S. finding out what happens when Trump gives Netanyahu a green light to do whatever is necessary in Gaza day 1 of his Presidency.
Since this apparently the only issue that matters at all in the entire United States and the world to you, I am glad you will at least be happy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2024, 09:42:36 PMImportant take away is Trump said Israel needs to finish the job. I am looking forward to all the Muslim extremists who have been chanting antisemitic shit here in the U.S. finding out what happens when Trump gives Netanyahu a green light to do whatever is necessary in Gaza day 1 of his Presidency.
If Netanyahu is still dragging this out by January 20 2025, he won't be PM of Israel.
Maybe we should do like a 19th century DNC. Release all the delegates and have like 38 ballots and pull some rando out of obscurity to be President.
"America, we present you Franklin Pierce!"
"Who?"
My usual reminder to get involved heavily in activism and campaigning.
This may involve calling repeatedly your local democrats to have Biden replaced as the candidate.
This may also involve preparing for the likely outcome of Trump being elected. It's not going to be pretty. You will need all the bulwarks you can get.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 10:29:06 PMMy usual reminder to get involved heavily in activism and campaigning.
This may involve calling repeatedly your local democrats to have Biden replaced as the candidate.
This may also involve preparing for the likely outcome of Trump being elected. It's not going to be pretty. You will need all the bulwarks you can get.
You can't afford to treat politics as a spectator sport.
Was it really as bad as all that?
I was looking on Twitter - it sounded pretty bad.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2024, 10:40:13 PMWas it really as bad as all that?
I was looking on Twitter - it sounded pretty bad.
It wasn't all bad. He lost the debate to Trump but I think he beat Medicare.
Only seen the comments and generally I don't really think debates matter very much - but feels like this one might.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2024, 10:54:28 PMOnly seen the comments and generally I don't really think debates matter very much - but feels like this one might.
They matter a lot but for stupid reasons. Vibes mostly.
Bidens vibes were horrendous hence this was very bad.
So again _ I did not watch the debate.
But then most people don't. The perception of who won seems to matter more then the actual performance itself. Which is why in most years both parties flood the zone with spin doctors trying to convince everyone their guy "won".
Debates matter somewhat, but they tend to only have a transient impact on polling. I think with such hard partisan fault lines a majority of voters simply aren't going to change their preference over any debate, no matter what is said.
As someone who isn't pulling for Biden, I think he lost but it doesn't change my overall assessment on the election--basically too close to call with a lot of contradictory polling indicators.
The fact that Biden lost the debate, actually means it being an early one (June is early for a general election debate) helps--lot of time to smooth over the effects of it. It does mean Joe is going to need to be coached--and capable of being coached, on the areas of weakness he showed. The format of these debates, since they don't have the typical Committee debate moderators who have a more interjectory role, favors Trump's typical debating strategy. The Biden team should have had him better prepared--or it is possible he simply lacks the physical or mental ability to take heed of what his team was telling him in prep.
My assessment as to why Trump won:
1. He spewed a ton of nonsense and came off un-Presidential. However, he has never been Presidential. And he spewed nonsense with vigor and force, which matters far more to most low information voters than anything else.
2. Biden had several times where he said something confusing / off, and had a hoarse voice and poor stage presence, both very bad things in a televised debate.
From a meta level, Trump mostly lied and said fake things, and when Biden landed points he was actually landing on real fuck ups of Trump / bad policy weaknesses of the GOP. It is one of those things where if the arguments were submitted in written form, Biden would likely have won just because almost all of Trump's points were nonsensical lies. But it was done verbally, so Biden looked weak, and Biden's meandering and losing the topic, while only for a part of the debate vs Trump's lie fest was for 100% of the debate, hurts Biden a lot more than Trump just lying his ass off--most people expect Trump to lie and don't care that he does.
Neither man is really fit to be President, but when one side is being taken over by actual Muslim terror groups the choice is clear regardless of any debate.
If the conclusion comes to be that Biden really is unfit to run for another term, then I think questions have to be asked about the groupthink on the left about this issue. I haven't been following the political media for years, but from what I did glimpse occasionally, it did seem like almost everyone on the left-leaning media was trying to sell us this story that Joe just misspeaks in public from time to time, like all people do, and like Joe always did. "If you watch him in private, you'll see that he often manages to complete a coherent sentence, and he always successfully makes use of the toilet when he needs to take care of business."
Suppressing critical discussion doesn't make the issue go away, it just it blow up on you with much more force later, at a more inconvenient time.
I don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2024, 11:41:52 PMMy assessment as to why Trump won:
1. He spewed a ton of nonsense and came off un-Presidential. However, he has never been Presidential. And he spewed nonsense with vigor and force, which matters far more to most low information voters than anything else.
2. Biden had several times where he said something confusing / off, and had a hoarse voice and poor stage presence, both very bad things in a televised debate.
From a meta level, Trump mostly lied and said fake things, and when Biden landed points he was actually landing on real fuck ups of Trump / bad policy weaknesses of the GOP. It is one of those things where if the arguments were submitted in written form, Biden would likely have won just because almost all of Trump's points were nonsensical lies. But it was done verbally, so Biden looked weak, and Biden's meandering and losing the topic, while only for a part of the debate vs Trump's lie fest was for 100% of the debate, hurts Biden a lot more than Trump just lying his ass off--most people expect Trump to lie and don't care that he does.
Neither man is really fit to be President, but when one side is being taken over by actual Muslim terror groups the choice is clear regardless of any debate.
I have no idea why given all of your assessments you wind up on a pro-Trump viewpoint.
even given your anti-Islam viewpoint, Trump is far more in the pocket of the Saudis.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2024, 11:48:19 PMIf the conclusion comes to be that Biden really is unfit to run for another term, then I think questions have to be asked about the groupthink on the left about this issue.
Uh...the left doesn't really like Joe Biden. He isn't, and has never been, one of them. The Democratic centrists love the fuck out of him. And it has always been the party propping him up, not leftists.
Every leftwing media I have ever seen will give him credit when he does leftwing things but is hardly enthusiastic.
The Democratic Party pushes him. If you haven't seen people nervous and upset he is running again on the left I don't know what to tell you.
Fuck I have been hand wringing about this for years. I didn't vote for him in the damn primary and my only option was Dean Phillips.
Everything is some grand story of leftist failure to you. Well sometimes it is the institutions that fail. If there had been an open primary with real challenges to Biden, he would have had a hard time. The leftists didn't get the chance to challenge him, at least not the voters.
But if the party was doing its job, Biden never would have been running again in the first place.
In fact one of my huge concerns is that large numbers of leftists who held their nose and voted for Biden in 2020 are going to stay home or protest vote in 2024. Far from them group-thinking that they love Joe.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 11:50:37 PMI don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
I think more liberal. There was an NYT article and I've seen people being chided online for mentioning his age or raising questions about it because it's "repeating right wing talking points".
I think Rory Stewart (former UK politician teaching in the US) has said he's been told off by Democrat friends for saying he thinks it's a concern.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 12:02:23 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 27, 2024, 11:48:19 PMIf the conclusion comes to be that Biden really is unfit to run for another term, then I think questions have to be asked about the groupthink on the left about this issue.
Uh...the left doesn't really like Joe Biden. He isn't, and has never been, one of them. The Democratic centrists love the fuck out of him. And it has always been the party propping him up, not leftists.
Every leftwing media I have ever seen will give him credit when he does leftwing things but is hardly enthusiastic.
The Democratic Party pushes him. If you haven't seen people nervous and upset he is running again on the left I don't know what to tell you.
Fuck I have been hand wringing about this for years. I didn't vote for him in the damn primary and my only option was Dean Phillips.
Everything is some grand story of leftist failure to you. Well sometimes it is the institutions that fail. If there had been an open primary with real challenges to Biden, he would have had a hard time. The leftists didn't get the chance to challenge him, at least not the voters.
But if the party was doing its job, Biden never would have been running again in the first place.
Relax, jeez, I meant the blue in the blue/red divide, not the hard left wing. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC. When I heard from them about this, it was always along the lines of "misleading out-of-context clips of Biden" talking point.
I also voted for Dean Philips because it was the only anti Biden option.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2024, 09:52:12 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2024, 09:42:36 PMImportant take away is Trump said Israel needs to finish the job. I am looking forward to all the Muslim extremists who have been chanting antisemitic shit here in the U.S. finding out what happens when Trump gives Netanyahu a green light to do whatever is necessary in Gaza day 1 of his Presidency.
Since this apparently the only issue that matters at all in the entire United States and the world to you, I am glad you will at least be happy.
Too bad for otto that Trump is de facto an ally of Iran, Hamas, hezbollah and the houtis by reason of Trump sucking putin dick
OvB's points (not his conclusion) are spot on with mine.
Also, extremely cringe-inducing every time they showed both candidates while Trump was speaking. What might be worse for Biden than how he appeared when speaking, was how he looked/facial expressions when he wasn't.
So...trump actually threatened to cook up some phony accusations for Biden.
Really depressing stuff.
QuoteNeither man is really fit to be President, but when one side is being taken over by actual Muslim terror groups the choice is clear regardless of any debate.
I'm not sure about the muslim word in there. But basically yes. The choice is clear indeed.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2024, 11:48:19 PMIf the conclusion comes to be that Biden really is unfit to run for another term, then I think questions have to be asked about the groupthink on the left about this issue. I haven't been following the political media for years, but from what I did glimpse occasionally, it did seem like almost everyone on the left-leaning media was trying to sell us this story that Joe just misspeaks in public from time to time, like all people do, and like Joe always did. "If you watch him in private, you'll see that he often manages to complete a coherent sentence, and he always successfully makes use of the toilet when he needs to take care of business."
Suppressing critical discussion doesn't make the issue go away, it just it blow up on you with much more force later, at a more inconvenient time.
I saw nothing like this.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 11:50:37 PMI don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
Some people here really didn't like that I was raising his age months ago.
Based on the review of y'all I retract my optimism around Trump not winning this election.
Trump in the White House, Le Pen's party leading France, the AFD coming up like sewage after a pipe burst and Nigel Farage as the future leader of the opposition. There may be a rough few years coming for Ukraine and just everyone without properly white skin.
Quote from: Tamas on June 28, 2024, 02:23:27 AMBased on the review of y'all I retract my optimism around Trump not winning this election.
Trump in the White House, Le Pen's party leading France, the AFD coming up like sewage after a pipe burst and Nigel Farage as the future leader of the opposition. There may be a rough few years coming for Ukraine and just everyone without properly white skin.
Not particularly great even for cis straight white guys either.
Putting all your energy into a single pointless thing like oppressing others is terrible for business as the UKs brexit obsession showed.
I can't see the Trump regime doing anything for those decaying towns in the flyover states that provide him with so much of his support. I suppose there will be some entertainment watching him kick down :hmm: ?
Seen on reddit.
(https://i.imgur.com/IHVp1BX.png)
I watched a recap of the debate, but I couldn't get past the first stumble. This is really bad.
Not sure why Biden wanted these debates anyway, he had a lot more to lose. And now he did.
Can Michelle Obama come to the rescue?
If civilised people are to lose, at least lose laughing at the fascists foaming at the mouth of a black woman trying to be President.
Yeah I know Harris is VP but let's be honest she'd never win.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2024, 10:24:17 PMMaybe we should do like a 19th century DNC. Release all the delegates and have like 38 ballots and pull some rando out of obscurity to be President.
"America, we present you Franklin Pierce!"
"Who?"
It would be Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker.
Quote from: Tamas on June 28, 2024, 02:12:37 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 11:50:37 PMI don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
Some people here really didn't like that I was raising his age months ago.
As one of the people who made that complaint to you, I think you took that in the wrong way. My thought it was a mistake to constantly go on about his age when his opponent was only 3 years younger. No need to amplify the right wing talking points. It wasn't like there was any serious challenger to him so no alternative to pivot to.
It also is the case that he has long been stumbly on words and gaffe prone and is one of the things I disliked about him during Obama campaigns.
Now it appears he is doubly fucked as he still has his normally flubs and the infirmities of old age are getting to him.
None of this though is like what DGuller is talking about as I don't know anyone personally who thought Biden was the best candidate but just the one we had.
Dguller's bizarre comment aside, the point is that Democrats have been derelict in their duty to their party and the country in not realizing Biden is washed, and they haven't done anything to lay the ground work for another candidate.
I suspect that is changing, uh, right fucking now.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2024, 11:36:07 PMSo again _ I did not watch the debate.
But then most people don't. The perception of who won seems to matter more then the actual performance itself. Which is why in most years both parties flood the zone with spin doctors trying to convince everyone their guy "won".
Yeah but also spin is limited.
I think debates don't change anyone's mind and probably have relatively limited impact. I think this one might have shifted elite opinion in a way that might make it matter.
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 28, 2024, 06:06:23 AMDguller's bizarre comment aside, the point is that Democrats have been derelict in their duty to their party and the country in not realizing Biden is washed, and they haven't done anything to lay the ground work for another candidate.
I suspect that is changing, uh, right fucking now.
I have tried to correct this narrative a number of times. There isn't really any such thing as "Democrats" or the "Democratic party" when it comes to selecting Presidential candidates (or really candidates for any office.) The party has County and State committees, the party has a national convention, the party has campaign committees etc. However, the way the American political parties are operated, none of these "bodies" have much power over the nominating process.
They once did, and I think in the popular consciousness, people still think they do. They think there is a smoke filled room etc. But there isn't. Whoever can win a primary gets to be the nominee.
For lesser known races, like House / Senate, where there is an incumbent backed by the campaign arms of the party, and where other prominent Democrats will always endorse the incumbent, the party has some "leverage" and does protect incumbents. But even then it is a "soft power", Elliot Engel and Joe Crowley would still have their seats right now if that soft power was absolute--but they don't, having lost insurgency primaries to Jamal Bowman and AOC respectively.
At the Presidential level, when you are talking about "big personality" candidates who have national prominence, the party has even less control. When you are talking about the
sitting President, then there's a whole other wrinkle--both parties intrinsically treat a sitting President as the leader of their party. Which means the sitting President gets to appoint some of the highest members of the governing committees and their allies largely take over most of the State / County committees during their term.
The only way to force a sitting President out would have been to have someone beat them for the nomination
with Democratic voters, and you could never leverage party resources to do it because an incumbent President
also runs the party itself through proxies and allies.There was quite simply never any way to "dump Biden." The only way was a super longshot primary battle wins, or Biden chose not to run. Those are the two options. There are no others.
I think it's pretty clear that the only hope is for Biden to pull out and release his delegates.
Although if you wanted to hit home to Biden and people close to him that he needs to step down, and to avoid it just being Harris you could do a lot worse than a very early pre-convention debate.
Edit: Also some absolutely incredible examples from senior Dems of people being loyally disloyal.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2024, 02:58:53 AMI can't see the Trump regime doing anything for those decaying towns in the flyover states that provide him with so much of his support. I suppose there will be some entertainment watching him kick down :hmm: ?
No, in fact he will empower forces doing the decaying.
But wedge issues and culture war keep them onside.
QuoteNo, in fact he will empower forces doing the decaying.
But wedge issues and culture war keep them onside.
Yeah, this is what really gets me about this kind of shit. Its not just a difference of opinion, right vs. left. Its people who want the same things... but who vote against them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2024, 10:38:51 AMAlthough if you wanted to hit home to Biden and people close to him that he needs to step down, and to avoid it just being Harris you could do a lot worse than a very early pre-convention debate.
Edit: Also some absolutely incredible examples from senior Dems of people being loyally disloyal.
Rest is politics had an episode today where they suggested maybe thats why they had the early debate. A dem schemer plot to give Biden a chance and open the door to someone else
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2024, 05:09:25 AMNone of this though is like what DGuller is talking about as I don't know anyone personally who thought Biden was the best candidate but just the one we had.
:rolleyes: I was not even in the same zip code of saying that anyone thought Biden was the best candidate. Maybe I should just write placeholder posts, people seem to read what they want to read anyway and not feel too constrained by what I write.
What I was talking about is not having a candid discussion among the non-detractors about Biden's basic fitness for being a candidate, best or otherwise. The talking points I'm familiar with were all of the "misleading editing" or "yeah, he's bad in public, but he's lucid most days in private" variety.
I get the desire to not play into the image of Biden as dementia-riddled vegetable that the right created, but it seems like the shock at yesterday's performance indicates that many of the left didn't want to truly contemplate the possibility that there was something to it other than stupid memes. I myself didn't entertain that possibility until the Mitterrand gaffe.
Quote from: Tamas on June 28, 2024, 02:12:37 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 11:50:37 PMI don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
Some people here really didn't like that I was raising his age months ago.
Who were those "some people?" Biden's age has been a concern expressed here many times, without any dissenting voices that I recall.
The reluctance of the Democrats to dump Biden in favor of a younger candidate (and, indeed, the reason I think Biden himself decided to run again) boils down to:
1. The lack of a suitable alternative (mostly due, IMO, to the geriatric Democratic leadership suppressing challengers), and
2. The acknowledged, and significant, advantages that incumbency confers.
I think that the idea that it is, instead, the result of "groupthink on the left about this issue" is laughable.
Quote from: grumbler on June 28, 2024, 11:38:01 AMQuote from: Tamas on June 28, 2024, 02:12:37 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on June 27, 2024, 11:50:37 PMI don't know where that groupthink existed, but nowhere in the leftist circles I was in.
Some people here really didn't like that I was raising his age months ago.
Who were those "some people?" Biden's age has been a concern expressed here many times, without any dissenting voices that I recall.
The reluctance of the Democrats to dump Biden in favor of a younger candidate (and, indeed, the reason I think Biden himself decided to run again) boils down to:
1. The lack of a suitable alternative (mostly due, IMO, to the geriatric Democratic leadership suppressing challengers), and
2. The acknowledged, and significant, advantages that incumbency confers.
I think that the idea that it is, instead, the result of "groupthink on the left about this issue" is laughable.
All the comparisons of Biden to other candidates are only relevant if you consider Biden to be fit to run for office again. The question of the perception of Biden's fitness on the left was what my post was about. I think a lot less people would be making the arguments above if Biden's performance last night was in line with their perception of Biden's fitness to run again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2024, 08:50:49 AMQuote from: Barrister on June 27, 2024, 11:36:07 PMSo again _ I did not watch the debate.
But then most people don't. The perception of who won seems to matter more then the actual performance itself. Which is why in most years both parties flood the zone with spin doctors trying to convince everyone their guy "won".
Yeah but also spin is limited.
I think debates don't change anyone's mind and probably have relatively limited impact. I think this one might have shifted elite opinion in a way that might make it matter.
I also don't think it matters who won the debate. What mattered last night is Biden didn't meet the low bar of showing he is mentally competent. That is what is going to penetrate through to the general public.
I'm seeing some suggesting blinken as the substitute?
Quote from: Josquius on June 28, 2024, 01:12:49 PMI'm seeing some suggesting blinken as the substitute?
Anthony Blinken seems like a very reasonable and sensible person. I have no issue with the man. I'm amused by the fact he apparently introduces himself as A. Blinken (say it out loud).
But the man has never run for public office in his life. We've seen it before where local/regional politicians shrink on the national stage (think Ron de Santis, or maybe a Michael Dukakis) - you want to put someone with no experience whatsoever at the top of the ticket?
I'd rather see Pete Buttigieg - even though wildly unqualified, he at least has the political skills.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2024, 10:38:51 AMAlthough if you wanted to hit home to Biden and people close to him that he needs to step down, and to avoid it just being Harris you could do a lot worse than a very early pre-convention debate
Biden's not stepping down. And swapping out Biden for Harris is a political impossibility. Plus she'd be Hillary 2.0 so might as well run with Biden, he's still likelier to win. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2024, 02:11:11 PMI'd rather see Pete Buttigieg - even though wildly unqualified, he at least has the political skills.
Pete is far more qualified than pre-2016 Trump was, though. <_<
Quote from: Legbiter on June 28, 2024, 03:40:02 PMBiden's not stepping down. And swapping out Biden for Harris is a political impossibility. Plus she'd be Hillary 2.0 so might as well run with Biden, he's still likelier to win. :hmm:
I really wish Biden had picked Pete to be his running mate. Sure, it's bad optics for the Democrats to run two white guys these days, but it's not like the Republicans weren't already doing the same and at least Pete's gay so he fits into one 'minority' bracket.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8vyIrPszf-/?igsh=MWZlZ2dzdDN0cWtiMg==
I think Gretchen Whitmer remains my top pick in terms of actual electability. I'd love to see someone closer to where I am on the Left, but I know such a candidate would be unelectable in America.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 28, 2024, 04:35:28 PMI think Gretchen Whitmer remains my top pick in terms of actual electability.
I actually agree and a Michigander politician would be ideal. But I am not even sure if she wants to be President.
At least with Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg we know they both desperately want to be President.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 05:26:37 PMAt least with Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg we know they both desperately want to be President.
Which is why I desperately *don't* want them to be President. Well, one of the reasons why.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 28, 2024, 05:28:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 05:26:37 PMAt least with Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg we know they both desperately want to be President.
Which is why I desperately *don't* want them to be President. Well, one of the reasons why.
Yeah that is one of the problems with our system. Becoming President is such an onerous process that only sickos who really want it will put up with it...and if you really want to be President that badly it kind of makes you suspect that you should be...
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 05:31:10 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on June 28, 2024, 05:28:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 05:26:37 PMAt least with Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg we know they both desperately want to be President.
Which is why I desperately *don't* want them to be President. Well, one of the reasons why.
Yeah that is one of the problems with our system. Becoming President is such an onerous process that only sickos who really want it will put up with it...and if you really want to be President that badly it kind of makes you suspect that you should be...
I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent. It's fashionable to be a cynic and assume that every politician with an ambition is a crook. Eventually where that gets you is that only crooks will have ambition to become a politician, because they'll be least bothered by people assuming by default that they're crooks.
New York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
The Dinosaurs predicted it in 1992
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8vyIrPszf-/?igsh=MTRqaHJ5dWtubTJ2OQ==
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 28, 2024, 05:28:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on June 28, 2024, 05:26:37 PMAt least with Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg we know they both desperately want to be President.
Which is why I desperately *don't* want them to be President. Well, one of the reasons why.
Newsom's two biggest hits against him are:
1. Pretty sketchy/politically-targetable personal life.
2. Governor of California.
#1 is a non-factor due to the current opponent...level playing field.
#2 will mostly just play into the right-wing "woke/decadent Californians" playbook that mostly will only work on the solid part of the GOP base.
But tend to agree...going to be skeptical of people who seem to want it too much. But he is playing it smart...he has made it very clear he stab Biden in the back, only take an empty chair. Probably the smartest play to make for the DNC bigwigs/super delegates.
You lefties wanting Biden out are dreaming--America is not going to vote for the Hamas-lovers who would replace him. Biden is wretched, but the rest of the Dem lineup is basically in bed with the idea of Israel not having a right to exist.
It is a sad state that the Dems have let themselves become so hijacked by Hamas that the only good option is voting for the GOP (which itself is a terrible party these days.)
Sure, Jan. :rolleyes:
Otto, you sound unhinged. I'm aware of two junior Congressmen who are on record supporting any action against Israel. One of whom just got unseated.
I seriously wonder from where this lunacy is being piped into his "brain" .
At some point, the brain starts producing lunacy on its own.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 29, 2024, 02:53:06 AMAt some point, the brain starts producing lunacy on its own.
"Its"? :yeahright:
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2024, 06:47:22 PMNew York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
Eh, wait a week and it will die down. Having the country run on autopilot is preferable to a Trump presidency for many.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2024, 09:14:25 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 28, 2024, 06:47:22 PMNew York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
Eh, wait a week and it will die down. Having the country run on autopilot is preferable to a Trump presidency for many.
Sure as hell is for the Ukrainians.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2024, 09:14:25 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 28, 2024, 06:47:22 PMNew York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
Eh, wait a week and it will die down. Having the country run on autopilot is preferable to a Trump presidency for many.
For many, yes. I'd vote for Joe over Trump even if he were in a nursing home. The question is, is it preferable to enough people? To the voters who were born with dementia, the ones who go "Donald has more energy, sure, I'll vote to end the democracy" or "both sides are shit, I'm voting third party", would that be preferable?
Quote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2024, 09:14:25 AMEh, wait a week and it will die down.
I agree. In fact it looks like CNN is already working on a redemption arc: See Biden's transformation from debate to campaign rally (https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/video/debate-rally-biden-difference-axelrod-source-digvid)
This is a risk in my opinion, Biden does do better in a scripted, controlled environment; but even then he has gone off the rails: speaking gibberish, mumbling, reading the teleprompter cues, or going into rambly, improbable stories. In the past most of our left of center news sources have ignored this behavior or gone into a "But Trump" ending to the story. After Biden's debate performance, I'm not sure that this will still work; but I don't think Biden will step aside.
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2024, 10:51:10 AMQuote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2024, 09:14:25 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 28, 2024, 06:47:22 PMNew York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
Eh, wait a week and it will die down. Having the country run on autopilot is preferable to a Trump presidency for many.
For many, yes. I'd vote for Joe over Trump even if he were in a nursing home. The question is, is it preferable to enough people? To the voters who were born with dementia, the ones who go "Donald has more energy, sure, I'll vote to end the democracy" or "both sides are shit, I'm voting third party", would that be preferable?
Yeah its insane. There is nothing special about Biden. If he is a liability in any way he should be tossed for somebody who is less of a liability, given the stakes.
2012 vs 2024 debates
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlyterrifying/comments/1dr7btg/american_presidentials_debates_2012_vs_2024/
The world is truly on a downward trajectory
Quote from: Josquius on June 29, 2024, 01:05:03 PM2012 vs 2024 debates
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlyterrifying/comments/1dr7btg/american_presidentials_debates_2012_vs_2024/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRRfwOhasAAAT1i?format=jpg&name=small)
;)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 28, 2024, 09:25:44 PMYou lefties wanting Biden out are dreaming--America is not going to vote for the Hamas-lovers who would replace him. Biden is wretched, but the rest of the Dem lineup is basically in bed with the idea of Israel not having a right to exist.
It is a sad state that the Dems have let themselves become so hijacked by Hamas that the only good option is voting for the GOP (which itself is a terrible party these days.)
:lmfao: The most amazing thing about this demented trolling is that you are not trolling. You are okay with Putin calling the shots in American foreign policy if it means that sane policies in the Middle East are thwarted.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2024, 01:00:38 PMQuote from: DGuller on June 29, 2024, 10:51:10 AMQuote from: Legbiter on June 29, 2024, 09:14:25 AMQuote from: DGuller on June 28, 2024, 06:47:22 PMNew York Times editorial board called on Biden to GTFO. I wonder if that will get the avalanche going. Until that piece no significant entity went on record asking him to get out.
Eh, wait a week and it will die down. Having the country run on autopilot is preferable to a Trump presidency for many.
For many, yes. I'd vote for Joe over Trump even if he were in a nursing home. The question is, is it preferable to enough people? To the voters who were born with dementia, the ones who go "Donald has more energy, sure, I'll vote to end the democracy" or "both sides are shit, I'm voting third party", would that be preferable?
Yeah its insane. There is nothing special about Biden. If he is a liability in any way he should be tossed for somebody who is less of a liability, given the stakes.
Nothing is special about Biden the man, what is special about him is his policy positions. Due to basically an accident of history, he is the "last man standing" for the Democrats who can conceivably win a national election in the swing states. That is why I think Dems are foolish to replace him--the replacements are all further left, and simply will never win states like AZ / GA / PA, and would struggle to win MI / NV / WI.
If the Dems had a viable non-Biden who was 30 years younger but had the same policy positions, strategy wise, yeah that would be the move to replace Biden with that person. But they don't. They have guys like Gavin Newsom who is simply unacceptable to swing state voters.
https://journa.host/@w7voa/112706126374214898
Note you can already see the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrats are attempting to make this into their big power grab.
Mark my words, by 2028 the Democratic party will be calling for Israel's cleansing "from river to sea" and voting with Russia and China to delegitimize Israel as a country in the UN.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2024, 11:01:11 AMhttps://journa.host/@w7voa/112706126374214898
Note you can already see the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrats are attempting to make this into their big power grab.
Mark my words, by 2028 the Democratic party will be calling for Israel's cleansing "from river to sea" and voting with Russia and China to delegitimize Israel as a country in the UN.
I thought Biden was a Hamas terrorist tho?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2024, 11:01:11 AMhttps://journa.host/@w7voa/112706126374214898
Note you can already see the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrats are attempting to make this into their big power grab.
Mark my words, by 2028 the Democratic party will be calling for Israel's cleansing "from river to sea" and voting with Russia and China to delegitimize Israel as a country in the UN.
That would be just my luck. Here I am wanting the Democrats to be radical in breaking up monopolies and cartels that are hurting both workers and consumers in this country. Curbing the power and destructive influence of unscrupulous financial organizations. Ensuring our economy is immune to countries like China or Russia using economic leverage to control us.
Instead what they would get radical on is some endless foreign policy quagmire at the other end of the planet that benefits nobody here.
But I just don't see that cause getting much traction among most Democrat voters. Even those who get worked up about Palestinian civilian casualties whenever that conflict gets hot.
I admit I don't care for Newsom. I'm not keen on the "only sell electric cars by 2030" thing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2024, 11:01:11 AMMark my words, by 2028 the Democratic party will be calling for Israel's cleansing "from river to sea" and voting with Russia and China to delegitimize Israel as a country in the UN.
Mark my words: in 2028 this post will still look moronic and shrill. But, in 2028, you'll likely be trying to nail yourself to a different cross.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 30, 2024, 11:01:11 AMhttps://journa.host/@w7voa/112706126374214898
Note you can already see the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrats are attempting to make this into their big power grab.
Mark my words, by 2028 the Democratic party will be calling for Israel's cleansing "from river to sea" and voting with Russia and China to delegitimize Israel as a country in the UN.
You mean the GOP will, since Trump is in Russia's pocket.
Right on cue:
Pelosi: Some health experts think Trump has dementia (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/06/30/sotu-pelosi-on-trump.cnn)
How time flies, it seems like only last week that "Whataboutism" was a terrible thing.
One problem with Nancy's line is that CNN (where this interview was conducted) has covered Trump's senior moments extensively. In addition, prior to last week's debate, every article that they ran that covered Biden's gaffes featured coverage of similar behavior from Trump.
A second problem is that, as I'm sure Nancy's parents told her many, many years ago; (perhaps as they were listening to the Jack Benny Show or the Andrew Sisters on their radio), you can't build yourself up by tearing other people down and I think the same thing goes for friends or colleagues. Even if some health care experts do think Trump suffers from dementia, that doesn't make Biden's behavior any less worrisome.
What exactly is the take away here Sav? Nancy Pelosi should have said something else?
I guess he means at this stage this comes off as "but the other guy is also demented"
But I kinda agree with you, what else is there to say?
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2024, 09:01:34 AMWhat exactly is the take away here Sav? Nancy Pelosi should have said something else?
Not necessarily; so long as Biden stays in the race this is the sort of thing that leading Democrats will say. The part about CNN not covering Trump's senior moments is false. The part about health care experts thinking that Trump has dementia is an attempt to dodge Biden's issues. As I said there will be a redemption arc of some sort in the media; and here is one version of it. I think it's important to realize how the story is being spun and how we are being manipulated (what William Burroughs referred to as the long newspaper spoon.)
The problem with the Trump has dementia line is it conflicts with the more obvious observation that he is a pathological liar and extreme narcissist.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 01, 2024, 09:51:23 AMI think it's important to realize how the story is being spun and how we are being manipulated (what William Burroughs referred to as the long newspaper spoon.)
I guess. Nothing the media could say would ever convince me that Biden running for a second term was a good idea. Certainly nothing like "but Trump is also and old demented fool!" as if Trump being an older and more demented fool than Biden is why I am not going to vote for him.
But, you know, have to vote for Biden. So I hope at least somebody who was going to vote for Trump finds that nonsense convincing and switches their vote. But highly doubtful :lol:
I suspect it is just copium for us Democrats to feel more at ease as we sail into this iceberg in November than actual effective propaganda.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2024, 09:56:12 AMThe problem with the Trump has dementia line is it conflicts with the more obvious observation that he is a pathological liar and extreme narcissist.
Right? Him being demented might actually be a good thing if he gets elected.
Trump with dementia would be hard to tell apart from normal trump.
I said long ago that mental issues are a much bigger issue for someone running on a platform of competency than Trump whose entire thing is chaos.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2024, 09:56:12 AMThe problem with the Trump has dementia line is it conflicts with the more obvious observation that he is a pathological liar and extreme narcissist.
And has been for his entire adult life. If he is senile, how could anyone tell?
Edit: as Josq just pointed out.
The story from the Biden ally that Biden is considering his options feels like the beginning of the dam breaking. This seems like on of those cases that the moment you acknowledge your weakness, you're as good as done.
New Ipsos poll says Michelle Obama is only democrat who would smash Trump.
So I am definitely not a Kamala Harris fan. She really seems like the Peter Principle made flesh - someone accomplished enough to have made California Attorney General, then Senator then VP - but at some point she is well past her actual abilities.
But When I went #NeverTrump I meant it. I'm starting to come around to the idea that as flawed as Harris might be, I think she still might be a better candidate than Biden in order to beat Trump.
Sometimes I forget Kamala is VP or even running on the ticket.
I say we nominate Andy Brashear. Maybe he can at least win us Kentucky.
Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2024, 02:03:59 PMI say we nominate Andy Brashear Beshear. Maybe he can at least win us Kentucky.
No thanks, I would like to keep him. He's literally the only thing holding this state back from going full Republictard.
Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2024, 02:03:59 PMSometimes I forget Kamala is VP or even running on the ticket.
I say we nominate Andy Brashear. Maybe he can at least win us Kentucky.
I think she is the prototypical VP who stays silent on the sidelines.
I've never heard of that person. :o
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2024, 02:14:32 PMI've never heard of that person. :o
He's my governor. Good guy. We love him.
Are people wanting Michele Obama herself, or are they assuming that she'll be a front for another term or two for Barrack, like with that mafia lawyer's wife in Vegas?
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2024, 01:53:39 PMSo I am definitely not a Kamala Harris fan. She really seems like the Peter Principle made flesh - someone accomplished enough to have made California Attorney General, then Senator then VP - but at some point she is well past her actual abilities.
But When I went #NeverTrump I meant it. I'm starting to come around to the idea that as flawed as Harris might be, I think she still might be a better candidate than Biden in order to beat Trump.
I mean if nothing else I think she'd be more energetically campaigning which is not to be sniffed at.
I find Harris fascinating because she's someone I really like the idea of and thought sounded like a really impressive candidate on paper. But then everything I saw of her seemed fairly underwhelming.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2024, 02:39:58 PMI find Harris fascinating because she's someone I really like the idea of and thought sounded like a really impressive candidate on paper. But then everything I saw of her seemed fairly underwhelming.
Bingo. Back in 2019 I was like "tough cop Democrat, that might get some traction among moderate voters"
But then in the initial Primary debates she just wanted to discuss ending of school busing way back in the ancient times as a way to attack Joe Biden. Very weird. And she didn't really do much during the 2020 campaign and it seemed like was kind of lame in her debates with Pence. And has kind of disappeared as VP. I know VP isn't the most visible office but it sure seemed like we saw more of Mike Pence, VP Joe Biden, and Al Gore than we have of Kamala. Obviously Cheney is a special case.
Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2024, 02:47:26 PMObviously Cheney is a special case.
He was ahead of his time. Thanks to the USSC a shooting in the woods by someone in the Executive Branch won't be news anymore.
Joe bringing Hunter into his inner circle for meetings, advice, and campaign strategy is... certainly a choice. I'm not sure the Biden campaign could do a better job of collapsing and handing the election to Trump than it is doing now. We really, really need a replacement and fast.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 03, 2024, 03:01:44 PMJoe bringing Hunter into his inner circle for meetings, advice, and campaign strategy is... certainly a choice. I'm not sure the Biden campaign could do a better job of collapsing and handing the election to Trump than it is doing now. We really, really need a replacement and fast.
No member of the President's family should be in the inner circle. Him surrounding himself with his family now is concerning. Rather Trumpian.
Like I am sure Hunter and Jill are very supportive and all but he needs political people giving him advice not people who love Joe Biden.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2024, 01:53:39 PMSo I am definitely not a Kamala Harris fan. She really seems like the Peter Principle made flesh - someone accomplished enough to have made California Attorney General, then Senator then VP - but at some point she is well past her actual abilities.
But When I went #NeverTrump I meant it. I'm starting to come around to the idea that as flawed as Harris might be, I think she still might be a better candidate than Biden in order to beat Trump.
I don't think much of Harris either, and my concern is that by picking Harris, Democrats will again play to not lose. Playing to not lose is a good way to lose. I think Trump has shown that giving people reasons to vote for you will generally overpower reasons to not vote for you; energy beats caution.
Newsom, Shapiro and Whitmer look like the best options. Joe should get out of the race ASAP to give enough time to sort it out. Electability should be sole criterion at this point. If Joe really cares about family first, this is the best option; either way, when the election ends, he can pardon Hunter without any fallout.
I really wonder what's going on with Biden. I've heard some blaming his wife for deluding him.
He really needs to think about how he wants to be remembered.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2024, 03:46:44 PMNewsom, Shapiro and Whitmer look like the best options. Joe should get out of the race ASAP to give enough time to sort it out. Electability should be sole criterion at this point. If Joe really cares about family first, this is the best option; either way, when the election ends, he can pardon Hunter without any fallout.
Let's save Shapiro for the times when the anti-ahem-Zionist part of the left is less activated by current events.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2024, 03:46:44 PMNewsom, Shapiro and Whitmer look like the best options. Joe should get out of the race ASAP to give enough time to sort it out. Electability should be sole criterion at this point. If Joe really cares about family first, this is the best option; either way, when the election ends, he can pardon Hunter without any fallout.
It's about what is possible though.
It's one thing for Joe to step down. When it comes down to who his successor would be though Harris is the most obvious one as VP. Problem is if you're trying to pass the nomination to any of Newsome, Shapiro or Whitmer (who I agree are probably better campaigners) all without any kind of vote.
My post was not an endorsement of Harris - I think it was pretty obviously not. But I think even Harris probably stands a better chance to beat Trump than Biden.
It would not be without a vote. The democratic convention has not yet been held. If Biden releases his delegates then it will become an open convention where anyone could be elected to be the party's candidate for President.
The vote to elect the candidate hasn't happened yet, so Biden stepping down now doesn't invalidate any election.
I'll still pull for Mayor Pete as the new candidate. He's a great stump speaker and a debate between him and Trump would be be both a rout and a riot. He's been on Fox News several times and just crushed their various hosts.
Those who would not vote for him because he's gay weren't voting Democratic anyway.
Post debate polling confirms fears. Trump ahead by 9 points!
Gifted link for full article
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/02/opinion/thepoint?unlocked_article_code=1.4U0.NngL.e3zK4Rtcll0H&smid=url-share
I mean the polling was horrendous anyway. We were already headed to probable defeat even if Biden did a good job debating.
Pete would do just fine; the one knock I see is that his highest elective office is mayor of a small city.
Whitmer and Shapiro are governors who have proven they can win in key states the Democrats need to win.
Newsom brings no geographic advantage but he is poised and proven he can take the heat of a national election.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2024, 10:30:52 PMPete would do just fine; the one knock I see is that his highest elective office is mayor of a small city.
Whitmer and Shapiro are governors who have proven they can win in key states the Democrats need to win.
Newsom brings no geographic advantage but he is poised and proven he can take the heat of a national election.
I heard a political commentator on tv saying that Kamala Harris stood the best chance because she was a known quantity, while anyone else would be unknown to the general public and would have great difficulty getting itself known to the general public by election time.
I find it strange, given the allegations against Harris about her workplace environment.
But what do I know.
Is she a known quantity? The fact she has been all but invisible during this campaign speaks volumes to me. She isn't even good at doing political stuff as VP. With all these questions about Biden having her out there doing rallies and telling everyone what an amazing president Joe is would be useful. To get some energy behind the ticket.
But she is nowhere to be found. Biden clearly doesn't think much of her.
Yeah. Something definitely feels off there. Biden doesn't like her, the Democratic leadership doesn't like her, or maybe both. It is very strange, though, and adds to the unease I feel about the whole Biden team at this point.
Not to be a cynic but if you're Biden, in your eighties, or his team - do you really want your VP out there getting some energy behind the campaign (or your administration)? Wouldn't it just draw a sharper contrast and, even if unintended (but inevitable), feel like someone trying to showboat or overshadow the president/nominee?
Biden has to have a VP. They almost certainly have to be younger. That's always going to be a challenging relationship.
Maybe? But it isn't like her disappearing is a recent thing. She has barely been seen or utilized the entire term. When he was running for the nomination in 2019, there was a lot of coverage with heavy suggestions of him not seeking a second term and grooming a successor with his VP pick, apparently two things that very much have not happened>
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129
I think our expectations have been warped by Cheney. VPs are historically invisible. If it wasn't for Burisma and Hunter Joe would have been invisible. AlGore was invisible except when he claimed to invent the internet and got busted for making a fund raising call on an official phone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2024, 10:30:52 PMNewsom brings no geographic advantage but he is poised and proven he can take the heat of a national election.
He does have a gorgeous head of hair.
Michelle Obama is needed because otherwise skipping a black woman has terrible optics.
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2024, 12:00:42 AMIs she a known quantity? The fact she has been all but invisible during this campaign speaks volumes to me. She isn't even good at doing political stuff as VP. With all these questions about Biden having her out there doing rallies and telling everyone what an amazing president Joe is would be useful. To get some energy behind the ticket.
But she is nowhere to be found. Biden clearly doesn't think much of her.
Yeah, I found the comment strange and can't get it from my head. We haven't seen her during Biden's mandate, we haven't seen her during the campaign except one tiny comment, so really, what does he mean?
Besides, Democrats are going to vote for her. That's roughly 40% of the people there. You need the swing vote.
Who can get those swing voters? And who are the swing voters?
I see the swing voters as:
1) the far left concerned that Biden isn't progressive enough
2) the pro Palestinians, mostly Muslims concerned that Biden isn't doing enough toward Palestine / against Israel
3) disillusioned Republicans who don't want Trump
4) people who vote Republican one election and Democrat the other, depending on issues
On #1 and #2, Harris will be seen as the same as Biden. On #3, I'm not so certain Harris can make her mark there. She's a black-Asian woman and these people would still prefer a white male, but they'll go with anyone who's seen as competent. Kamala does not look like she is.
On #4, this is where it hurts: she seems like she has a baggage and she can easily be attacked.
Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2024, 07:03:39 AMMichelle Obama is needed because otherwise skipping a black woman has terrible optics.
Is she even interested by the job?
Quote from: viper37 on July 04, 2024, 11:27:42 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 04, 2024, 07:03:39 AMMichelle Obama is needed because otherwise skipping a black woman has terrible optics.
Is she even interested by the job?
Her name was floated back in 2016, and again in 2020. Both times she expressed zero interest in running. She does have zero actual experience as a politician of course, although she's been good in doing stump speeches for Barack.
Trump had zero experience in 2016 too.
Quote from: Zanza on July 04, 2024, 12:42:54 PMTrump had zero experience in 2016 too.
Bullshit. Trump had been a celebrity for 30+ years in 2016 and a TV star for 12 years.
He had no experience governing, sure - but he had the skills for running for office.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2024, 12:44:50 PMQuote from: Zanza on July 04, 2024, 12:42:54 PMTrump had zero experience in 2016 too.
Bullshit. Trump had been a celebrity for 30+ years in 2016 and a TV star for 12 years.
He had no experience governing, sure - but he had the skills for running for office.
Sadly the skill set for running for office and the skill set for governing don't overlap much.
Normally I would say that Michelle's total lack of experience should be disqualifying. I've never bought into the infantile notion that being a US president is a low skill job that should be given only to someone who doesn't want it. That said, her husband is still around, I'm sure he can bring connections and pointers to help onboard her. I just hope that today's Barrack Obama is different from the law professor who walked into a knife fight and kept thinking for 8 years that it's a debate club gathering.
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2024, 01:23:10 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 04, 2024, 12:44:50 PMQuote from: Zanza on July 04, 2024, 12:42:54 PMTrump had zero experience in 2016 too.
Bullshit. Trump had been a celebrity for 30+ years in 2016 and a TV star for 12 years.
He had no experience governing, sure - but he had the skills for running for office.
Sadly the skill set for running for office and the skill set for governing don't overlap much.
And a weird claim by BB given he is the one who was talking about "actual experience as a politician". The he literally calls bullshit on someone saying Trump didn't either. He didn't have any actual experience as a politician.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2024, 06:17:16 AMI think our expectations have been warped by Cheney. VPs are historically invisible. If it wasn't for Burisma and Hunter Joe would have been invisible. AlGore was invisible except when he claimed to invent the internet and got busted for making a fund raising call on an official phone.
No recall for the legendary Gore-Chernomyrdin commission? And I thought you had pretensions to wonkery.
The Harris thing is no mystery. Her approval numbers are bad and have always been bad. The one national campaign she ran was a flop where she ran behind expectations. Politics, like baseball, is a numbers game. Nothing personal. If you can't put up good numbers, you aren't going to stick. Harris is like the prospect who had success in AAA but lost the strike zone when promoted to the majors and started giving up gopher balls. If the Dems have to take their starter out because of fatigue, they want to put in an ace.
The downside to that analogy is they only have one shot at it. Cannot cycle through a bunch of minor leaguers during the dregs of mid-season and hope one shines.
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2024, 01:23:10 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 04, 2024, 12:44:50 PMQuote from: Zanza on July 04, 2024, 12:42:54 PMTrump had zero experience in 2016 too.
Bullshit. Trump had been a celebrity for 30+ years in 2016 and a TV star for 12 years.
He had no experience governing, sure - but he had the skills for running for office.
Sadly the skill set for running for office and the skill set for governing don't overlap much.
This is the eternal struggle with democracy, sadly.
Michelle all but certainly is very genuine in just not wanting the job. She has experienced the Presidency at a very close level, and IMO clearly doesn't want it. It is interesting that she seems likely to win, but she is almost a blank slate--First Ladies other than Hillary are usually not very political. I don't know how well that facade would hold up to the partisan scrum that a First Lady generally lives above.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2024, 06:17:16 AMAlGore was invisible except when he claimed to invent the internet and got busted for making a fund raising call on an official phone.
Urban legend taken out of context by Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology#Urban_legend_that_Gore_claims_to_have_invented_the_Internet)
Gore was a pretty well known Democrat Senator from a Southern State, he was considered fairly electable going into 2000.
Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2024, 01:25:07 PMNormally I would say that Michelle's total lack of experience should be disqualifying.
It's a double edged sword in this day and age, isn't it?
If you are experienced, you are part of the swamp.
If you are not, you don't really have the time needed to confront the Republicans right now.
Right now, I feel the Dems best best is to rely on someone who has political experience, like a State Governor. Campaigning for a governorship and campaigning for the Presidency, with the right team, must not be too dissimilar, and it must happen fast.
I feel like Biden has lost the faith of the electors, from the center to the left and it will be hard to regain it. Only hardcore Democrat voters are likely to vote again, those who would vote for the party no matter what happens or who is at the head.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 04, 2024, 02:29:16 PMGore was a pretty well known Democrat Senator from a Southern State, he was considered fairly electable going into 2000.
Yeah I feel like Gore had a much more prominent role as VP than other contemporaries like Quayle - or even Biden.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2024, 05:16:07 PMYeah I feel like Gore had a much more prominent role as VP than other contemporaries like Quayle - or even Biden.
Besides the things I mentioned, can you name anything Gore is known for as VP?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2024, 06:28:43 PMBesides the things I mentioned, can you name anything Gore is known for as VP?
VPs aren't known for things as VP, they are known for whatever happened during their President's administration. George H.W. wasn't running on his record as a Congressman from 20 years prior in '88, he was running as Ronald Reagan's VP, that is basically what a VP candidate is.
Gore had a more impressive pre-Vice Presidential political career than H.W., for what it is worth.
I'd think one of the advantages of a well-known but blank slate candidate like Michelle Obama is that folks can project what they want on her.
She had that terrible line after Barak won about "for the first time in my I feel proud to be American."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2024, 03:55:52 AMShe had that terrible line after Barak won about "for the first time in my I feel proud to be American."
This is truly an event in my.
QuoteDuring an interview on Thursday with Philadelphia's WURD radio station, Biden defended his competency following his poor debate performance last week.
In the conversation, Biden at one point said, "By the way, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first vice-president, first black woman, to serve with a black president," referring to his vice-president, Kamala Harris, and former president Barack Obama.
He added, "I had a bad debate ... But 90 minutes on stage does not erase what I have done in three and a half years."
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/deja_q_hd_046_resized_6484.jpg)
QuoteIn a fiery post on Truth Social, Donald Trump attacked ABC host George Stephanopoulos ahead of his interview with Joe Biden on Friday, saying:
The meanest and most vicious Interviewer out there is George Slopadopoulos of FAKE NEWS ABC, one of the worst and most vile Broadcasters in the business – In fact, the home of disgraced 'reporter' Brian Ross whose reporting on the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax was so outlandish that ABC, after defending him at levels not seen before, was forced to put him, and their reputation, out to pasture.
Now ABC, and Liddle' George, a tiny, angry man, can make up for their past indiscretions and journalistic failures by doing a real interview with Crooked Joe, not a cut up promotion with only his few coherent answers released to the public.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_tIZnfHjVkNFnCtCqgxmg2odASYOpa2tiFllwU2koTgXmDBWROCzDUBBOgY_CphPh1OE&usqp=CAU)
What kind of a timeline I am in FFS?!
It's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2024, 02:03:37 PMIt's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Countries fucked anyway, might as well enjoy the ride.
I am pretty zen about it at this point, just stating the truth.
Besides, I live in Texas where insanity has been slowly amping up for awhile now.
Quote"If you stay in and Trump is elected and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?" Stephanopoulos asked Biden.
"I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all, and I did as good a job as I know I can do, that's what this is about," the president responded.
Indeed, what is truly important, is Biden's feelings of having given it a shot.
Quote from: Valmy on July 06, 2024, 02:03:37 PMIt's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Sorry to break it to you but only a huge narcissist would ever want to be POTUS. That's why I would rather have a monarch for head of state. You might get a crazy narcissist, but sometimes you might actually get a great leader (e.g. Liz II). With an elected Presidency, you are GUARANTEED to get a crazy narcissist.
Right? It's alright if you do a reckless thing that puts your country in danger, so long as you give it your best.
He talks as if he, Joe Biden, matters. Like he is the only person who can run in this election. The chosen one. You don't matter Joe. You are replaceable, and you should be replaced if you become a liability.
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2024, 02:15:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 06, 2024, 02:03:37 PMIt's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Countries fucked anyway, might as well enjoy the ride.
That last Supreme Court ruling kinda knocked the wind out of my sails. If Trump had better organized his fake electors plot, and it had gone the SC, I suspect they would have backed him. Hell, if Trump decides he is owed a third term I imagine they will back him.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2024, 06:08:46 PMQuote from: HVC on July 06, 2024, 02:15:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 06, 2024, 02:03:37 PMIt's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Countries fucked anyway, might as well enjoy the ride.
That last Supreme Court ruling kinda knocked the wind out of my sails. If Trump had better organized his fake electors plot, and it had gone the SC, I suspect they would have backed him. Hell, if Trump decides he is owed a third term I imagine they will back him.
There's nothing to worry about. You are over reacting.
What's the worst that could happen? A Republican government changing the Constitution to get a better hold on power? Declaring Democrats enemy of the States, seizing their homes and razing them to replace them with villages of loyal Republicans?
It would be for the better, as it was shown elsewhere in the world. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2024, 06:08:46 PMQuote from: HVC on July 06, 2024, 02:15:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 06, 2024, 02:03:37 PMIt's not about you Joe. It is about the country. A true leader would drop out now.
Countries fucked anyway, might as well enjoy the ride.
That last Supreme Court ruling kinda knocked the wind out of my sails. If Trump had better organized his fake electors plot, and it had gone the SC, I suspect they would have backed him. Hell, if Trump decides he is owed a third term I imagine they will back him.
Who would have thought giving doomsday-ists political power would be a bad idea. But hey, they almost stopped a black guy from being president. That's something I guess.
Quote@POTUS mistakenly refers to President Zelenskiy as "President Putin" before correcting himself at NATO event. (The room gasped.)
https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1811517625467367831 (https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1811517625467367831)
You guys are fucked. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on July 11, 2024, 05:30:01 PMYou guys are fucked. :hmm:
(https://y.yarn.co/e1481ffb-bbca-4489-9113-6c72193ddb40_text.gif)
We are all fucked.
From the other leaders. Not great:
QuoteJosh Wingrove
@josh_wingrove
Fellow leaders are shrugging off Biden's Putin/Zelenskiy misspeak.
Macron 🇫🇷 told reporters that we all make lapses.
Scholz 🇩🇪: "Slips of tongue do happen."
Starmer 🇬🇧 urged people to "look at the substance of what's been achieved" and said Biden "deserves credit" as host.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 11, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote@POTUS mistakenly refers to President Zelenskiy as "President Putin" before correcting himself at NATO event. (The room gasped.)
https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1811517625467367831 (https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1811517625467367831)
You guys are fucked. :hmm:
Is that less bad, as bad, or worse than Trump claiming that he beat Barack Obama in the 2016 election?
Far worse.
Because it's clear from all the polling that this is something that's a concern for voters and Biden's party is divided. I'm also not sure they have covered themselves in glory letting it get to this stage.
My own feeling is that it's very, very sad for Biden on an individual but pretty grim that senior Democrats, White House aides, his inner circle let it get to this stage. Because - tragically - I don't think there's a dignified way out any more.
Biden talks about his record and feels he is entitled to run because of that - and it is impressive and would be remembered. But ultimately voters can't get past these gaffes and the questions of competence (in all senses) to listen to the stuff about the record. And I think that'll also be the historic memory - not the impressive first term, but this ending.
Yeah Trump has long been accepted as insane and dumb, even and perhaps especially by his fans, I think.
Speaking of Trump another gaffe from the same event was Biden calling Harris vice president Trump - because he was talking about the two in the same sentence, yes, but still a sorry state of affairs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2024, 07:24:55 PMBiden talks about his record and feels he is entitled to run because of that - and it is impressive and would be remembered. But ultimately voters can't get past these gaffes and the questions of competence (in all senses) to listen to the stuff about the record. And I think that'll also be the historic memory - not the impressive first term, but this ending.
It would be tragic if it wasn't so obvious that this would be a problem. My Party saw the cliff and instead of making a turn at some point just decided to drive right off it and are eager to take the country with them. For no reason.
It is just political suicide, a unforced error, unforgiveable stupidity. Supposedly we all need to fight hard for our country and its future but our political leaders will not even do the most obvious and easiest things.
Whatever. I will show up in November and vote for whomever the Democrats have up there. But after it took a damn miracle to get Trump out of the White House in 2020, the Democrats just seem so amazingly complacent and chill about just letting him walk back in.
How long can someone have laryngitis?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2024, 07:24:55 PMFar worse.
Because it's clear from all the polling that this is something that's a concern for voters and Biden's party is divided. I'm also not sure they have covered themselves in glory letting it get to this stage.
My own feeling is that it's very, very sad for Biden on an individual but pretty grim that senior Democrats, White House aides, his inner circle let it get to this stage. Because - tragically - I don't think there's a dignified way out any more.
Biden talks about his record and feels he is entitled to run because of that - and it is impressive and would be remembered. But ultimately voters can't get past these gaffes and the questions of competence (in all senses) to listen to the stuff about the record. And I think that'll also be the historic memory - not the impressive first term, but this ending.
I quite agree that it is a disaster that Biden's campaign was allowed to come to this, but what the media seems to be ignoring is that we have two candidates cognitively impaired to about the same degree. The choice the voters have is which administration will be better for them given that the president (no matter who is elected) will be enfeebled.
Trump certainly has an immovable base that actually likes the fact that he's a felon, rapist, thief, and would-be dictator. The way he can claim in consecutive sentences that he's never heard of something but likes parts of it should be a clue to the rest of the country, though. But the press largely doesn't care about that.
Again, Trump being a senile idiot has been priced in, back in 2016.
Yeah if I was American I'd vote for Biden regardless.
But I don't think the media's ignored all of Trump's various issues, scandals, investigations or convictions (including mental impairment - which was also covered during his presidency). I think there are many criticisms of the way the media has reported on Trump - I'm not sure under-coverage is one of them.
Biden's condition is salient for voters, including Biden supporters. I'm not sure a lot of those issues etc have been particularly relevant to Trump's support - however much we might wish they were and think they should be and I don't think just covering them even more would make people care any more (I actually half suspect the opposite is the case).
He needs to go. He isn't going to be able to turn this perception around.
Oddly, yesterday before this happened, I was wondering why I need to see daily a new article that he was facing pressure to resign.
Even if Biden was perfectly healthy, he is doing a terrible job of pinning the blame for inflation where it belongs.
Reading a fair bit that the price rises are being labelled as his fault.
Where does the blame truly lie?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2024, 03:01:28 AMWhere does the blame truly lie?
Greed, well Capitalism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2024, 03:01:28 AMWhere does the blame truly lie?
It's complicated. But the notion the current president conjured current global economic conditions out of thin air is a tad absurd. Bill Clinton's doing.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2024, 10:13:06 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2024, 03:01:28 AMWhere does the blame truly lie?
Greed, well Capitalism.
Inflation predates capitalism. And greed is part of human nature.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2024, 10:13:06 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2024, 03:01:28 AMWhere does the blame truly lie?
Greed, well Capitalism.
Well I think those are two related issues.
One is that the US economy (and maybe the world economy? IDK) is increasingly being concentrated into the hands of a few cartels and monopolies that are working hard to use their market share to suppress wages and increase prices. So that's a problem. So people who want to point to greed certainly have some things to point out.
On the other hand we just are (were?) in an inflationary moment in the world economy due to the fallout from Covid. Governments spent a lot to offset the impacts of the lockdowns and supply chains were disrupted, hence inflation.
I would be interested in knowing where exactly to "pin" inflation. I just love simple explanations. The less factors considered, the better.
I don't think the inflation was a huge mystery, it was global phenomenon, arising from the impact of the pandemic and the subsequent lifting of restrictions.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2024, 12:42:01 PMOn the other hand we just are (were?) in an inflationary moment in the world economy due to the fallout from Covid. Governments spent a lot to offset the impacts of the lockdowns and supply chains were disrupted, hence inflation.
This.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2024, 02:23:18 PMI don't think the inflation was a huge mystery, it was global phenomenon, arising from the impact of the pandemic and the subsequent lifting of restrictions.
Also major fossil fuel exporter invading major agriculture centre.
I think there is also evidence, in the US, of sellers' inflation/"greedflation". I think it's less a factor in Europe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 12, 2024, 02:29:23 PMI think there is also evidence, in the US, of sellers' inflation/"greedflation". I think it's less a factor in Europe.
Maybe but if there's a difference it isn't clearly reflected in the overall rates in the two areas.
Invoking my inner Yi, I'd say there's a very fine line between "greedflation" and businesses in a market economy setting prices reflective of actual market supply and demand conditions. Perhaps so fine it's not really a line at all.
Quote from: Norgy on July 12, 2024, 01:35:55 PMI would be interested in knowing where exactly to "pin" inflation. I just love simple explanations. The less factors considered, the better.
Who the hell are you?
:D
Quote from: Norgy on July 12, 2024, 01:35:55 PMI would be interested in knowing where exactly to "pin" inflation. I just love simple explanations. The less factors considered, the better.
Excess money supply.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2024, 04:30:25 PMQuote from: Norgy on July 12, 2024, 01:35:55 PMI would be interested in knowing where exactly to "pin" inflation. I just love simple explanations. The less factors considered, the better.
Excess money supply.
Not necessarily, it could be increased money velocity.
Forgot about this thread, transferring this post from the Trump thread to here.
https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1811799775550841202
QuoteWith good new polling over the past few days Biden is now at 271 in the 538 election forecast model 3/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSTOPQAXIAIf1t2?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2024, 07:24:55 PMFar worse.
Because it's clear from all the polling that this is something that's a concern for voters and Biden's party is divided. I'm also not sure they have covered themselves in glory letting it get to this stage.
My own feeling is that it's very, very sad for Biden on an individual but pretty grim that senior Democrats, White House aides, his inner circle let it get to this stage. Because - tragically - I don't think there's a dignified way out any more.
Biden talks about his record and feels he is entitled to run because of that - and it is impressive and would be remembered. But ultimately voters can't get past these gaffes and the questions of competence (in all senses) to listen to the stuff about the record. And I think that'll also be the historic memory - not the impressive first term, but this ending.
He's always been like this
https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1811531634321068066?t=YqmvsnKQjV3qNbUzv-ahow&s=19
QuoteFlashback 2008: Senator Biden introduces Senator Obama as "Barack America."
Tim, stop it. Was he also staring blankly and talking very slowly when doing it in 2008?
Quote from: Tamas on July 13, 2024, 02:23:25 AMTim, stop it. Was he also staring blankly and talking very slowly when doing it in 2008?
Overall he has definitely declined but it is fair to say the current fuss focussed on the misspeaking is just Joe as usual.
I do think he's getting treat harsher than he deserves over his speaking problems. I can sympathise as a shit speaker.
But with the way things he absolutely is being painted this way and it's sticking. It is clear he should step aside.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2024, 07:12:55 PMHe's always been like this
I know that. I just don't think it matters (and if anything comes across as gaslighting to voters' clear concern).
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2024, 07:20:02 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2024, 07:12:55 PMHe's always been like this
I know that. I just don't think it matters (and if anything comes across as gaslighting to voters' clear concern).
I think it does matter. There's a narrative being built up that Biden is significantly less capable now than in the past, where both the magnitude and severity of that decline is being severely overstated.
But as I say his party's split, the public clearly consider it an issue and regardless of the level of decline it is visible. I think that's the reality the Democrats are in now.
On that narrative I think we're in a spiral. I think the end is probably inevitable and obvious and for everyone's sake it would be best to get there quickly and try to do it with some dignity for Biden.
There are huge problems with it, I admit. If Biden steps down then every senior Democrat will (rightly) be asked if they ever had any suspicions, how was he in private meetings, when did they know and why didn't they raise it publicly. I think it could even be challenging if it's framed as a health issue to carry on as President (this is possibly why you maybe need elected Democrats to speak out so he can do it in the LBJ way - "it's clear I don't have the support of my party"). But I think all of those problems are better than carrying on as currently - and hoping either it'll just go away or that it's possible to convince the public what they can see isn't happening/doesn't matter.
"He's been in a cognitive decline for 20 years" doesn't seem like a great selling point :D
Quote from: HVC on July 13, 2024, 08:11:44 AM"He's been in a cognitive decline for 20 years" doesn't seem like a great selling point :D
Given that isn't the argument...
Biden being the safe option is simply scary.
Quote from: frunk on July 13, 2024, 08:02:04 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2024, 07:20:02 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2024, 07:12:55 PMHe's always been like this
I know that. I just don't think it matters (and if anything comes across as gaslighting to voters' clear concern).
I think it does matter. There's a narrative being built up that Biden is significantly less capable now than in the past, where both the magnitude and severity of that decline is being severely overstated.
Not so sure. In 2020 he had no trouble with Trump in their debate. Now he was a trainwreck.
His cognitive decline might be at the expected rate for an 80 year old man. What I find extremely worrying is that he seems extremely weak and easily tired.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2024, 02:36:22 PMHis cognitive decline might be at the expected rate for an 80 year old man. What I find extremely worrying is that he seems extremely weak and easily tired.
Early form of dementia. Which is why they tested him for Parkinson. Can't differentiate both without a deep brain scan, and he likely won't submit to this.
And not all 80 yo have cognitive decline like that.
Quote from: Norgy on July 13, 2024, 09:51:26 AMBiden being the safe option is simply scary.
It's quite funny, there is no conceivable way a very visibly senile 81 year old would ever be trusted with high office in national politics in the Nordic countries. It would rapidly be remarked on by members of the public when interacting with him and his own party would swiftly remove him.
Still, a Jill Biden regency will be preferable to perhaps a majority of Americans when they vote. :hmm: It's going to be a coin toss basically.
I also think the surrounding system has now had at least 2 presidential terms to adjust to a weak and fickle president. Biden's term was quite good, the administration was more Trump than Trump ever was in terms of domestic industrial policy for instance. A mummified second term Biden will probably be good for the US. It's an incredible flex if you think about it. Our consul is a vegetable but we're still gonna crush it. :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2024, 02:36:22 PMHis cognitive decline might be at the expected rate for an 80 year old man. What I find extremely worrying is that he seems extremely weak and easily tired.
He's working full days as president of the United States. Of course he's going to be tired by that.
Much younger men have been tired by that. Bush 43 went to bed a 9pm everyday and he was 55 when he became president.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/13/elon-musk-endorses-trump-after-shots-were-fired-at-former-president-.html
QuoteElon Musk endorses Donald Trump shortly after ex-president injured by shots fired at rally
Elon Musk posted on X that he "fully" endorses Donald Trump moments after the former president and presumptive Republican nominee was rushed off stage by secret service members following gunshots at a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday.
"I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk wrote on X, which he owns.
Trump was taken to a local medical facility, where he is receiving care. His spokesman said the former president "will be fine." Trump had what appeared to be blood on the side of his head and his ear.
In a separate post, Musk, the CEO of Tesla and defense contractor SpaceX, shared a photo showing Trump pumping his fist into the air with the American flag behind him and with secret service members scrambling to protect him. Musk also compared Trump to Theodore Roosevelt, who survived an assassination attempt while campaigning for president in 1912.
One spectator from the rally is dead, and a second is in serious condition, according to the district attorney in Butler County, where the rally took place. The shooter is dead, NBC News confirms.
While Musk hadn't directly endorsed Trump prior to Saturday's event, he had made clear that he was opposing President Joe Biden's return to the White House. He claimed in a post in March that he was not going to donate money to either candidate for president.
Musk met with Trump earlier this year at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach and said at Tesla's 2024 annual shareholder meeting that he has "had some conversations" with Trump. Musk also said at that event that Trump "does call me out of the blue for no reason."
On Friday, Bloomberg reported that Musk has donated a "sizable" but undisclosed amount to a pro-Trump super PAC called America PAC.
Musk is the wealthiest person in the world, with an estimated net worth of about $250 billion, according to Forbes.
So the CCP has finally announced its choice.
Is anyone surprised? When not busy slating Fauci, Musk has always found time for other weird ideas.
I'm not surprised.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2024, 07:59:13 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on July 13, 2024, 02:36:22 PMHis cognitive decline might be at the expected rate for an 80 year old man. What I find extremely worrying is that he seems extremely weak and easily tired.
He's working full days as president of the United States. Of course he's going to be tired by that.
Much younger men have been tired by that. Bush 43 went to bed a 9pm everyday and he was 55 when he became president.
Well exactly. Which is why he probably shouldn't be running for President. This is not an old man's job.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2024, 07:12:55 PMHe's always been like this
Believe me, I know. He always was good for hilarious gaffs and misspeaking. But it would usually be in the middle of an otherwise well delivered speech and Joe always had this swagger about him that inspired confidence. But he doesn't have that anymore.
But this isn't about him. Maybe Biden is a genius micro-manager who has the government of the nation under his puppet-master control or maybe he plays shuffleboard all day and the government runs on his staff and cabinet. I don't know. But you know what? It doesn't matter. I do not care about how senile or not senile Joe Biden is.
This is about keeping the country safe from Donald Trump and his supporters. It was obvious years ago that Biden running for re-election put everything in jeopardy, he was polling well below generic Democrats in 2022, and with the whole Israel-Palestine thing that was only getting more problematic. But we are doing it anyway and while Joe Biden still had the fortitude to run a pretty decent campaign in 2020, he has only made the situation worse in 2024.
So hey let's run Biden again and turn the country over to Donald Trump and the Republicans when running somebody else might have saved the day.
So don't come to me with bullshit about how his brain is actually great, because I do not care. He needs to win. I don't care if he gets to leave office in 2025 with a functioning brain or not.
I am just putting this out here: Henry Ford had Dearborn Independent. Musk has X or Twitter.
A lesson for the future is not letting car tycoons own media outlets.
I am sure some Tesla owners will find "The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion" in their spankingly clean new car made by non-unionised labour.
Quote from: Norgy on July 16, 2024, 10:03:11 AMI am just putting this out here: Henry Ford had Dearborn Independent. Musk has X or Twitter.
A lesson for the future is not letting car tycoons own media outlets.
I am sure some Tesla owners will find "The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion" in their spankingly clean new car made by non-unionised labour.
I hope not since I'm not a big fan of russian literature...
Quote from: Norgy on July 16, 2024, 10:03:11 AMI am just putting this out here: Henry Ford had Dearborn Independent. Musk has X or Twitter.
A lesson for the future is not letting car tycoons own media outlets.
I am sure some Tesla owners will find "The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion" in their spankingly clean new car made by non-unionised labour.
Unrelated side note: apparently 65,000 coffee cups have disappeared from the Tesla factory in Germany. Which would be ca. 5 cups per worker.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-tesla-factory-missing-65000-coffee-mugs/a-69628263
QuoteWhen Tesla plant manager Andre Thierig took the podium toward the end of a rowdy staff meeting, Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper reported, he did not mention the bitter conflict between the workers' council and the IG Metall union that had dominated discussion until then.
"I'm just going to give you a figure," Thierig said at the Tesla factory, which employs some 12,000 people in a sprawling complex southeast of Berlin. "We've bought 65,000 coffee mugs since we started production here. 65.000! Statistically speaking, each of you already has five Ikea coffee cups at home.
"I'm really tired of approving orders to buy more coffee cups," he said to laughter and applause, promising there would be no cutlery in break rooms if the thefts didn't stop.
:lol:
Is this some kind of attempt at sabotage because of Tesla's anti-Union policies or do Germans just steal shit from work?
Ebay probably
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2024, 12:03:55 PMIs this some kind of attempt at sabotage because of Tesla's anti-Union policies or do Germans just steal shit from work?
Probably the latter :P (I don't think it's common, esp. on this scale, but usually speaks to how happy you are with your employer)
"My job sucks, my boss is a jerk, and I have little hope for things getting better... but at least I can get a small jolt of satisfaction from stealing this coffee cup."
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2024, 12:26:14 PM"My job sucks, my boss is a jerk, and I have little hope for things getting better... but at least I can get a small jolt of satisfaction from stealing this coffee cup."
Oddly enough, the only place I've worked so far where I thought this didn't provide coffee cups (or coffee...). :P <_<
In my experience factory workers will steal anything that is not bolted down (and often even that). Not just from their employer, also from each other.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 16, 2024, 12:46:04 PMOddly enough, the only place I've worked so far where I thought this didn't provide coffee cups (or coffee...). :P <_<
Same :lol:
I do have some mugs from previous employees and I'm not sure how I got them but I don't think it was just theft. I feel there was some expectation you could take them home :ph34r:
I'd forgotten when I made the post, but I did end up with a mug from Raytheon, kinda: it was given to me by one of the programs I worked on. Also have one from Bloomberg and two from Twitter. They were all swag, though.
My workplace provides coffee & tea but no mugs. Gotta bring your own.
I wonder how many toasters have gone missing.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 16, 2024, 01:37:32 PMI'd forgotten when I made the post, but I did end up with a mug from Raytheon, kinda: it was given to me by one of the programs I worked on. Also have one from Bloomberg and two from Twitter. They were all swag, though.
same here, we've got some swag mugs from previous jobs.
But stealing ikea mugs... why? You'd need to steal six to have a set... Meaning that guy at the plant needs to put in another order!
Quote from: Habbaku on July 16, 2024, 02:01:33 PMI wonder how many toasters have gone missing.
:lmfao: :hug:
I might have just convinced someone to vote Democrat! :w00t:
Waitress at the diner I go to all the time.
This is the most exciting political season I've ever seen. We haven't had one like this since the 1960's. It's not really a good thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2024, 07:33:48 PMI might have just convinced someone to vote Democrat! :w00t:
Waitress at the diner I go to all the time.
:cheers: :hug:
Anyways, apparently Trump's chance of winning is declining: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-polling-data-five-thirty-eight-1926226
QuoteDonald Trump's chances of winning the November 2024 presidential election are declining, according to a new aggregation of polls.
FiveThirtyEight's poll tracker, which was originally published on July 8 and updated on July 16, shows Joe Biden with a 53 percent chance of winning the election, while Trump has a 46 percent chance.
According to the tracker, Biden is favored to win in 534 out of 1,000 of FiveThirtyEight's simulations of how the election could go, while Trump wins in 462. The poll also shows that the simulations indicate that Biden is on track for a three-point win.
The polling website said its forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign "fundamentals," such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency.
It comes after a Presidential Voting Intention poll of 3,601 swing state voters by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, found that Trump's margins over President Joe Biden have narrowed since June in two key swing states: Florida and North Carolina.
Trump previously defeated Biden in both states in 2020, while he held a six-point lead over Biden in Florida in a Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll from that June.
However, he now only leads the current president by four points in Florida. The poll shows that 45 percent of participants plan to vote for Trump, compared to Biden's 41 percent.
It is not the only recent poll to give Trump only a four-point lead in Florida. A June Fox News survey gave Trump 50 percent of the vote, compared to 46 percent for Biden.
However, poll aggregator Race to the White House has Trump on average 7.2 points ahead of Biden in the state, with Biden at 41.9 percent and Trump at 49.1 percent, while the FiveThirtyEight poll shows Biden has a 50 percent chance of winning in the state compare to Biden's 45.
Meanwhile, Trump's margin is also narrowing in North Carolina, where he had a three-point lead over Biden in June. According to Redfield & Wilton Strategies' poll, his lead was slashed to only two points, with 44 percent of those polled saying they would vote for Trump, compared to Biden's 42 percent.
The FiveThirtyEight tracker is similarly close, with Trump at 48 percent and Biden at 46 percent.
In a post on their website, FiveThirtyEight said their latest predictions can be explained by the flurry of swing-state polls that show Biden is encroaching upon Trump's lead.
"The average swing-state poll published since July 6 has Trump leading Biden by 1 point, compared to his 2.2-point lead in national polls today," the post added.
The latest poll represents the worst result for Trump since May 20, according to FiveThirtyEight's prediction model.
All the above polls were conducted or started before the assassination attempt on the former president on Saturday.
However, polls published after the assassination attempt have suggested his support base is not getting any larger.
A poll, conducted by Morning Consult of 2,045 registered voters on Monday, reveals that Trump is leading Joe Biden by just one percentage point with 46 percent, compared to the president's 45 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.
The findings also reveal that Trump's lead has narrowed slightly since the firm's previous survey, conducted between July 12 and 14, which put Trump two percentage points ahead with 44 percent to Biden's 42 percent.
In the week before the shooting, national polls had Trump as the favorite to win the White House, leading narrowly in the six key battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
An ABC News/Ipsos/Washington Post poll released Thursday found Biden and Trump are tied among registered voters.
However, that poll also shows 67 percent think Biden should withdraw from the race, while 85 percent say Biden is too old to serve as president, up from 81 percent in April and 68 percent just over a year ago.
Biden's fitness for office has been called into question since his shaky debate performance against Trump in June in which he muddled his words and appeared to lose his train of thought.
I feel like maybe it's too early for senior democractic leaders to resign themselves to a Trump presidency.
My hunch is that we'll see some of those undecideds and "other candidate" voters come back to Biden/Dems as we get closer to the election. Generally, their negative attitudes towards the Dems appear more malleable than their negative attitude towards Trump.
Plus if the Fed cuts rates, we'll have an economic boost that should help the incumbent.
That said, this is all just observation and vibes, nothing concrete.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 17, 2024, 08:25:33 PMMy hunch is that we'll see some of those undecideds and "other candidate" voters come back to Biden/Dems as we get closer to the election. Generally, their negative attitudes towards the Dems appear more malleable than their negative attitude towards Trump.
Plus if the Fed cuts rates, we'll have an economic boost that should help the incumbent.
That said, this is all just observation and vibes, nothing concrete.
If he gets the nomination, everybody will rally. We will make the best of it and go all out.
But...you know.
Seems like the "step down" movement is gathering a bit of momentum.
The risks as I see it is:
Will a potential replacement candidate drive attendance lazy Trump voters (e.g. they'll stay home vs Biden, but will come out to vote for Trump against a non-white Woman, for example)?
Will a potential replacement candidate provide new lines of attack and conspiracy theory that will invigorate Trump voters to show up and/ or depress democratic turnout? Biden's negatives have basically been priced in at this point. The replacement candidate's negatives will be new and fresh.
The new candidate will have less name recognition than Biden. How much does that matter, and how quickly can it be remedied?
Possible upsides include:
There is a substantial number of people who have bought into the negatives about Biden such that they stay home (instead of voting for him), or come out (to vote for Trump).
Neutralish:
Maybe turnout is mostly about voting for or against Trump and the Democrat candidate doesn't matter?
I don't know... it's definitely a fraught situation. I'd be interested in understanding the risk-analysis of the Democratic leadership in this situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2024, 07:33:48 PMI might have just convinced someone to vote Democrat! :w00t:
Waitress at the diner I go to all the time.
I'm sure that'll make a huge difference in... Iowa.
But keep up the good fight Yi. :hug:
If Iowa swings Dem, I will personally credit Yi. I will also buy him a meal next time I see him in person.
Biden definitely seems to be on the way out, his odds on PredictIt cratered from 70 to 40 today. It seems like all the Democratic leaders got on the same page now and had a chat with Biden. I always thought that Biden would be as good as gone as soon as he showed anything other than total conviction to stay on, and today he let up on it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2024, 08:48:48 PMI'm sure that'll make a huge difference in... Iowa.
But keep up the good fight Yi. :hug:
You patronizing Canucklehead wig wearing Timbits eating fuck.
I did my little bit in fighting back against the existential Trumpian threat. Show me your dick if you're going to make fun of mine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2024, 11:07:11 PMQuote from: Barrister on July 17, 2024, 08:48:48 PMI'm sure that'll make a huge difference in... Iowa.
But keep up the good fight Yi. :hug:
You patronizing Canucklehead wig wearing Timbits eating fuck.
I did my little bit in fighting back against the existential Trumpian threat. Show me your dick if you're going to make fun of mine.
#NeverTrump
You sensed sarcasm where none was intended. Iowa is absolutely certain to go for Trump, but I appreciate you fighting the good fight. :hug:
The issue was never about Trump making gains so much as Biden losing support. Trump's total is pretty much set. Biden's (or another Democrat's) total is not. That variable is what will win or lose the election. Motivating and appealing to potential voters to be actual voters. I don't see Biden being able to improve those numbers anymore. There is simply too much baggage, real or imagined, between his age, Hunter, his past, and his general capacity to do the job. I think a different candidate will be a major improvement in that regard. All of the ammo that Republicans have built up against Biden will be useless. They'll have to either manufacture new outrages and attacks against the replacement to dissuade possible voters or try to win them over to voting for Trump. The first I feel takes too much effort to offset the bump Democrats will get and the second I just don't see happening at all. As I said, his numbers are set and won't see any big changes up or down.
I watched about 5 minutes of the RNC yesterday by accident. i saw some supporters wearing bandages on their ear I guess to support Trump or something. I lol'd. These were the same people who wouldn't put on a mask in the grocery store for 10 minutes.
Makes sense. They want to be able to speak freely, but they don't want to listen to others or hear the truth. :P
Quotet comes after a Presidential Voting Intention poll of 3,601 swing state voters by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, found that Trump's margins over President Joe Biden have narrowed since June in two key swing states: Florida and North Carolina.
Trump previously defeated Biden in both states in 2020, while he held a six-point lead over Biden in Florida in a Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll from that June.
However, he now only leads the current president by four points in Florida. The poll shows that 45 percent of participants plan to vote for Trump, compared to Biden's 41 percent.
It is not the only recent poll to give Trump only a four-point lead in Florida. A June Fox News survey gave Trump 50 percent of the vote, compared to 46 percent for Biden.
Weird to see talk of Florida. I thought it was accepted it was no longer a swing state and had embraced insanity.
So Biden's Covid announcement followed his indication that if he were told to, would resign due to health reason. Are we already seeing his face-saving resignation unfold?
I think that's still up in the air but it would be a sensible step 1.
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2024, 10:23:01 AMSo Biden's Covid announcement followed his indication that if he were told to, would resign due to health reason. Are we already seeing his face-saving resignation unfold?
One might hope so. At least he has so far not suggested drinking chlorine.
I hope he doesn't try to save face. I hope he goes "I really thought I could go for another term, and I still do, but I'm convinced now that rightly or wrongly I'm not the best person to stop Trump. I can't put the future of my country at risk." He should bow out in a way that tries to save the country, not his face.
I think I have only heard this from Republicans but I must admit him allegedly wanting to stick around to pardon his junkie son makes sense.
I don't think it makes sense. Dropping out as a candidate doesn't necessitate resigning as president. He can pardon him during the winter regardless.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2024, 12:20:25 PMI don't think it makes sense. Dropping out as a candidate doesn't necessitate resigning as president. He can pardon him during the winter regardless.
Could Trump revoke the pardon?
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2024, 12:22:29 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 18, 2024, 12:20:25 PMI don't think it makes sense. Dropping out as a candidate doesn't necessitate resigning as president. He can pardon him during the winter regardless.
Could Trump revoke the pardon?
The Constitution doesn't allow it, but I don't see why he wouldn't be able to if he wanted to.
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2024, 12:17:38 PMI think I have only heard this from Republicans but I must admit him allegedly wanting to stick around to pardon his junkie son makes sense.
I don't believe he has been sentenced yet, so it might be a moot point if the sentence is pretty lenient.
My bigger concern are the people who are going to feel disenfranchised by a bunch of pressure being applied to the Democratic nominee to withdraw. I think a much bigger chunk of them are likely to change their vote than the theoretical people that might be pulled in by whoever the new nominee is (which isn't supported by any polling).
Quote from: frunk on July 18, 2024, 12:31:38 PMMy bigger concern are the people who are going to feel disenfranchised by a bunch of pressure being applied to the Democratic nominee to withdraw. I think a much bigger chunk of them are likely to change their vote than the theoretical people that might be pulled in by whoever the new nominee is (which isn't supported by any polling).
Are there Biden "ride or dies"?
Don't know if there are die hard Bideners (Bidenites?), but admitting defeat, even in self sacrifice, would probably dishearten some. Maybe more then are brought in by Kamala .
I think it's best just to cough a bit and call in a sickie. Best of both worlds.
Quote from: frunk on July 18, 2024, 12:31:38 PMMy bigger concern are the people who are going to feel disenfranchised by a bunch of pressure being applied to the Democratic nominee to withdraw. I think a much bigger chunk of them are likely to change their vote than the theoretical people that might be pulled in by whoever the new nominee is (which isn't supported by any polling).
That seems like a pretty insignificant concern in this case. There was no primary, really. So there was never really an effort to enfranchise people on who the nominee was going to be. If there had been a real competitive primary where Biden has beaten off serious challengers I could see this but in this situation?
And the man has had an approval rating in the 30s for years.
Yeah, in this particular case, the primaries de facto never happened, so there is no franchise to dis. I think everyone understands that this isn't the case of insiders overruling the voters.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2024, 01:02:25 PMThat seems like a pretty insignificant concern in this case. There was no primary, really. So there was never really an effort to enfranchise people on who the nominee was going to be. If there had been a real competitive primary where Biden has beaten off serious challengers I could see this but in this situation?
And the man has had an approval rating in the 30s for years.
It wasn't competitive because no one had a chance of beating Biden in the primary, not because the primary wasn't held. If it was a competitive primary that would argue more for Biden to withdraw in favor of whoever was in contention, rather than "this guy won overwhelmingly, now we are going to get rid of him".
Yeah - they're not Biden backers necessarily but there has been a bit of "why are you mentioning this? Back the team" and some stuff about how sharp and on the ball he is in private online. I imagine as those people are, I assume, just hard-core Democrats so probably fine, but I think it might be worth Democrats thinking how to manage them and what sort of messaging might work.
Thinking of potential VP candidates....
If one were to assume Harris would be the nominee were to Biden to step aside...Gov. Newsom might be a terrible idea as a running mate...two Californians on the ticket would not be terribly helpful.
Could easily foresee a Harris/Whitmer ticket, and let the right-wing chauvinism run amok.
A cunning option might be Liz Cheney...but I would highly doubt the possibility.
Two Californians on the ticket would be unconstitutional.
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2024, 09:55:16 PMTwo Californians on the ticket would be unconstitutional.
And we desperately need Wisconsin and Michigan anyway.
I've read chatter about Harris/Buttigieg. The Democrats are such losers.
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2024, 09:55:16 PMTwo Californians on the ticket would be unconstitutional.
Forgot that part, thanks for the reminder. :)
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2024, 10:29:47 PMI've read chatter about Harris/Buttigieg. The Democrats are such losers.
I like Buttigieg quite a bit...and from what I have seen, he is best in an technical/executive-type position...something a cabinet secretary (or mayor/governor) can be, but a VP cannot. But he would not be able to help the Democrats turn over Indiana...but Whitmer would help with Michigan.
Wisconsin and Michigan are the new Florida.
Though Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia are right there as well.
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/07/1200/675/Hulk-Hogan3.jpg)
:bleeding:
Not really surprising
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 18, 2024, 08:19:40 PMThinking of potential VP candidates....
If one were to assume Harris would be the nominee were to Biden to step aside...Gov. Newsom might be a terrible idea as a running mate...two Californians on the ticket would not be terribly helpful.
Could easily foresee a Harris/Whitmer ticket, and let the right-wing chauvinism run amok.
A cunning option might be Liz Cheney...but I would highly doubt the possibility.
America voting for two women? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 01:07:37 AMQuote from: Tonitrus on July 18, 2024, 08:19:40 PMThinking of potential VP candidates....
If one were to assume Harris would be the nominee were to Biden to step aside...Gov. Newsom might be a terrible idea as a running mate...two Californians on the ticket would not be terribly helpful.
Could easily foresee a Harris/Whitmer ticket, and let the right-wing chauvinism run amok.
A cunning option might be Liz Cheney...but I would highly doubt the possibility.
America voting for two women? :yeahright:
Oh, I share your skepticism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 19, 2024, 01:11:00 AMQuote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 01:07:37 AMQuote from: Tonitrus on July 18, 2024, 08:19:40 PMThinking of potential VP candidates....
If one were to assume Harris would be the nominee were to Biden to step aside...Gov. Newsom might be a terrible idea as a running mate...two Californians on the ticket would not be terribly helpful.
Could easily foresee a Harris/Whitmer ticket, and let the right-wing chauvinism run amok.
A cunning option might be Liz Cheney...but I would highly doubt the possibility.
America voting for two women? :yeahright:
Oh, I share your skepticism.
Might as roll out Hillary then. Make the defeat momentous.
Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2024, 11:55:51 PM(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/07/1200/675/Hulk-Hogan3.jpg)
:bleeding:
Isn't he like a 100 now?
Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2024, 11:55:51 PM(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/07/1200/675/Hulk-Hog3.jpg)
:bleeding:
Truly up there with Rolf Harris for disappointing childhood heroes.
https://thehill.com/newsletters/4781345-republican-convention-biden-trump/
QuoteCongressional leaders, meanwhile, expect that Vice President Harris will become the nominee if Biden drops his reelection bid. The talk among high-level strategists and donors has now turned to who is best positioned to serve as Harris's running mate, with a short list of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D).
Seems like a waste of a swing state Senator or governor to be VP.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 19, 2024, 08:15:17 AMSeems like a waste of a swing state Senator or governor to be VP.
Feels like grab a straight, white guy in a swing state to balance out the diversity. Which in America is sound.
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 08:17:00 AMFeels like grab a straight, white guy in a swing state to balance out the diversity. Which in America is sound.
Oh, for sure. I just think there must be less valuable ones to use. There should be more than enough.
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 08:17:00 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on July 19, 2024, 08:15:17 AMSeems like a waste of a swing state Senator or governor to be VP.
Feels like grab a straight, white guy in a swing state to balance out the diversity. Which in America is sound.
Didn't work for Hillary
Quote from: HVC on July 19, 2024, 08:21:16 AMQuote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 08:17:00 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on July 19, 2024, 08:15:17 AMSeems like a waste of a swing state Senator or governor to be VP.
Feels like grab a straight, white guy in a swing state to balance out the diversity. Which in America is sound.
Didn't work for Hillary
I mean...she did win Virginia. If you consider Virginia a swing state.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 19, 2024, 08:15:17 AMSeems like a waste of a swing state Senator or governor to be VP.
Roy Cooper is being term limited anyway, he is ready for the next thing. He would be a good choice.
Also I think there were many other issues with Hillary's campaign and candidacy which were quite specific to her.
Electing a black woman as President would be an incredibly sweet revenge on the MAGA bastards. And in a way I suspect an opponent like Trump is needed to have a chance doing that.
On the other hand, there will be a lot of misogynistic and racist strings the GOP will be able to play.
Quote from: Tamas on July 19, 2024, 08:34:45 AMElecting a black woman as President would be an incredibly sweet revenge on the MAGA bastards. And in a way I suspect an opponent like Trump is needed to have a chance doing that.
On the other hand, there will be a lot of misogynistic and racist strings the GOP will be able to play.
I'd like to hope this would count against them if they tried it- the racist sexists already being firmly in the Trump camp, whilst getting out the black vote was vital to the 2020 win in close states
Quote from: HVC on July 19, 2024, 12:13:12 AMNot really surprising
Peter Thiel owns him ever since the Gawker incident. And Thiel's agenda is to foment a complete collapse of the United States so he can implement his libertarian "free state" fantasies. Trump is the perfect candidate.
Quote from: Syt on July 18, 2024, 11:55:51 PM(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/07/1200/675/Hulk-Hogan3.jpg)
:bleeding:
Yeah, not the sort of thing I would've thought to see at a RNC event, well. at least before they had Clint Eastwood talking to a chair.
But one thing you have to give the Republicans, they have identified the population who don't normally vote and got their attention.
Quote from: Josquius on July 19, 2024, 09:18:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 19, 2024, 08:34:45 AMElecting a black woman as President would be an incredibly sweet revenge on the MAGA bastards. And in a way I suspect an opponent like Trump is needed to have a chance doing that.
On the other hand, there will be a lot of misogynistic and racist strings the GOP will be able to play.
I'd like to hope this would count against them if they tried it- the racist sexists already being firmly in the Trump camp, whilst getting out the black vote was vital to the 2020 win in close states
Yeah. The black vote is the most important part of the Democratic base. If they don't turn out...you are in trouble. So whatever we do go with, enthusiasm from that voting block is vital.
Quote from: Tamas on July 19, 2024, 08:34:45 AMOn the other hand, there will be a lot of misogynistic and racist strings the GOP will be able to play.
Yeah.
I wonder if, in retrospect, replaceing the old white dude with concerns about his age with non-white woman will turn out to be a clever move pushing giving the Democrats a solid boost, or whether it'll be seen as an own goal.
Feels more like a Hail Mary at this point. Hope to be wrong.
Quote from: celedhring on July 19, 2024, 11:03:27 AMFeels more like a Hail Mary at this point. Hope to be wrong.
It is July. The election is in November. If the British can do the whole election in a month, we can work this out.
Besides in the old days we wouldn't have candidates at all until July before the November election and if that was enough time to run a whole campaign in the era of horses and printing presses, we can do it in the era of the internet.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could to the election in a month?
Quote from: Valmy on July 19, 2024, 09:37:56 AMYeah. The black vote is the most important part of the Democratic base. If they don't turn out...you are in trouble. So whatever we do go with, enthusiasm from that voting block is vital.
Surely college educated women are the most important part of the base.
Quote from: celedhring on July 19, 2024, 11:03:27 AMFeels more like a Hail Mary at this point. Hope to be wrong.
A Hail Mary is thrown when there is no other option. There are a number of options currently but time is running out.
The better football analogy is sticking with a game plan you know the other side has thoroughly scouted, has practiced against and will soundly defeat you as a result. But you go stick with it anyway.
The Republican's entire election strategy is built on a Biden is weak and Trump is strong message, that was developed before the debate. The debate and the assassination attempt have played perfectly into the Republican strategy.
The Dems would be reckless to just stick to their game plan in these circumstances.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2024, 11:35:06 AMQuote from: Valmy on July 19, 2024, 09:37:56 AMYeah. The black vote is the most important part of the Democratic base. If they don't turn out...you are in trouble. So whatever we do go with, enthusiasm from that voting block is vital.
Surely college educated women are the most important part of the base.
They Dems are not going to win with college educated voters only. They need to get back to their working class base, and the Republicans are eating their lunch with that group.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers working class. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
To me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Does purple mean mentally challenged?
Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Well we aren't going to get energy out of Biden. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 12:17:38 PMQuote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Well we aren't going to get energy out of Biden. :lol:
Fortunately Biden isn't the only person in the party, and I assume someone else is actually running his campaign.
Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:22:09 PMQuote from: garbon on July 19, 2024, 12:17:38 PMQuote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Well we aren't going to get energy out of Biden. :lol:
Fortunately Biden isn't the only person in the party, and I assume someone else is actually running his campaign.
Are you suggesting they keep him on a diet of pharmaceuticals to prop him up?
Of course implicit in all of this - which will come up very quickly - is whether Biden is fit to be US President currently and to an extent, who is running the country/administration right now?
I think Democrats need to be thinking about the answers to those questions now because they will come and they'll be justified.
Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Could be a function of Biden being on the ticket. How do you get motivated to really sell the guy who's dying in front of your eyes? This is why I also don't believe that polling numbers alone should drive the decision on Biden's replacement, the polling numbers in November would reflect the future campaign over the last few months. We don't know how the strong the campaign would be for any of the replacements, but we know that there would be no energy coming from Joe.
Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:22:09 PMFortunately Biden isn't the only person in the party, and I assume someone else is actually running his campaign.
It's true, but energy at the top matters a great deal. It's hard to have a high performing team when the leader barely performs at all.
Quote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Everyone is polling better than Biden. Shapiro, Whitmer, Harris...
I still think replacing Biden would be a momentous mistake. Polling doesn't mean much against name recognition and incumbency. The Dem higher-ups are freaking out over one debate. It didn't really move the needle.
It's not just the Dem higher-ups who are concerned about what happened at the debate. And it did in fact move the needle considerably by nine points immediately after the debate.
And as I said in an earlier post, Biden's mental incompetence at the debate played very well in the Republican narrative for the election.
If there is a new candidate, the Republicans will need to create a different narrative.
Donald J. TargEARian.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 19, 2024, 02:41:26 PMQuote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Everyone is polling better than Biden. Shapiro, Whitmer, Harris...
I still think replacing Biden would be a momentous mistake. Polling doesn't mean much against name recognition and incumbency. The Dem higher-ups are freaking out over one debate. It didn't really move the needle.
The man has no energy left.
Imagine Denis Coderre pas d'énergie. Même face à marde et des paroles sans contenu mais pas aucune passion pour les appuyées. C'est sa Biden en 2024.
Guardian referenced a Politico articles suggesting there are now concerns that New York is in play. :wacko: He needs to GTFO.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/biden-new-york-trouble-00167198
I thought Biden was dragging down the party to the extent that certain congressional districts were now in play for GOP, not the whole state.
But either way, things are going pretty disastrously. We need to make this the defenders of Democracy against Project 2025, not vote for old man Biden.
Trump suggesting he'd be okay with China taking Taiwan:
QuoteThe United States has always adopted a posture of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan — which is to say it has supported Taiwan's defense without formally committing itself to go to war in the event of an invasion. That strategy, while far from perfect, has succeeded in maintaining Taiwan's independence and preventing war.
Trump, however, is blowing it to smithereens. In an interview with Bloomberg, he implied the United States under his presidency would not defend the island from a Chinese attack. "Taiwan is 9,500 miles away," he explained. "It's 68 miles away from China."
And he fleshed out his reasons for refusing to defend Taiwan using his familiar gangster logic:
"Taiwan took our chip business from us. I mean, how stupid are we? They took all of our chip business. They're immensely wealthy ... I don't think we're any different from an insurance policy. Why? Why are we doing this?"
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-invites-china-to-invade-taiwan-if-he-returns-to-office.html
Its a curious one.
Will the America first, don't give a shit about anyone else, side of people's thinking overcome the China hating side?
I can really see how not caring about Taiwan is quite an easy sell to populist folks who don't think beyond immediate cause and effect.
Quote from: Josquius on July 20, 2024, 02:38:52 PMWill the America first, don't give a shit about anyone else, side of people's thinking overcome the China hating side?
I was thinking the same thing. Biden sucks China's dick has been a major campaign talking point.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 19, 2024, 10:24:18 PMQuote from: Zoupa on July 19, 2024, 02:41:26 PMQuote from: frunk on July 19, 2024, 12:02:38 PMTo me the problem isn't Biden, it's the rather bland and lackluster campaign that has been run. Nobody is polling above Biden, so I don't expect the replacement to do any better without serious changes in focus and energy from the Democratic Party.
Everyone is polling better than Biden. Shapiro, Whitmer, Harris...
I still think replacing Biden would be a momentous mistake. Polling doesn't mean much against name recognition and incumbency. The Dem higher-ups are freaking out over one debate. It didn't really move the needle.
The man has no energy left.
Imagine Denis Coderre pas d'énergie. Même face à marde et des paroles sans contenu mais pas aucune passion pour les appuyées. C'est sa Biden en 2024.
DENIS POUR PM!!! RIGHT F* NOW!!! :showoff: :showoff:
:D:lol:
Face à marde, paroles sans contenu, aucune passion, that's about your average provincial Liberal right now :P
Quote from: Josquius on July 20, 2024, 02:38:52 PMIts a curious one.
Will the America first, don't give a shit about anyone else, side of people's thinking overcome the China hating side?
I can really see how not caring about Taiwan is quite an easy sell to populist folks who don't think beyond immediate cause and effect.
I don't think they're necessarily opposed.
This feels very carefully worded:
QuoteKamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
As Vice President, I see @JoeBiden when the cameras are on and when the cameras are off—in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room, and on the campaign trail.
Joe Biden is a leader who fights for the American people.
A pity Kamala is not the only one who gets to vote in November, then.
Joe, please get that diagnosis and hurry up with your considering. We're under a time constraint here.
It's done.
We have one month to get all the ducks in a row before the convention.
Holy crap, Biden dropped from 33 to 1 on PredictIt.
So what's up with him delaying his endorsement?
First person Sky News quotes for reaction? Nigel Farage. :bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on July 21, 2024, 01:07:22 PMSo what's up with him delaying his endorsement?
Oh he has fixed it and now declared his support for Harris.
Thank fuck for that.
OvB looking like a real dumbass now. :lmfao:
So... some things are unchanged then?
Hot take: tomorrow morning Joe wakes up having forgotten he stepped aside and proceeds to hit the campaign trail
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/21/joe-biden-has-dropped-out-of-the-presidential-race-what-happens-next
Looking around for articles on actual rules to choose a new nominee I got this. Executive summary, there are no rules. Except that 300 delegate signatures are needed to nominate.
Chaos baby.
Or maybe someone proposes Harris, unanimous vote by the delegates, everyone leaves to get drunk.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 21, 2024, 01:26:54 PMOvB looking like a real dumbass now. :lmfao:
Kamala sound vaguely Islamic, he'll be fine.
Bad show from Biden in keeping it 100% definite until suddenly it's off. Was there any positive reason for him to do this? Seems bad to me.
But fingers crossed America can be saved...
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 01:48:21 PMBad show from Biden in keeping it 100% definite until suddenly it's off. Was there any positive reason for him to do this? Seems bad to me.
But fingers crossed America can be saved...
If this means what I think it means, he didn't.
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 01:48:21 PMBad show from Biden in keeping it 100% definite until suddenly it's off. Was there any positive reason for him to do this? Seems bad to me.
Handing off the loss to someone else so he's not remembered as the last president who lost before the trump-ocalypse :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 01:52:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 01:48:21 PMBad show from Biden in keeping it 100% definite until suddenly it's off. Was there any positive reason for him to do this? Seems bad to me.
But fingers crossed America can be saved...
If this means what I think it means, he didn't.
If what means what you think it means?
Seems he was pretty gung ho no addressing any doubts he's definitely running until suddenly it turns out all the chatter from others was right.
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 02:00:15 PMIf what means what you think it means?
Seems he was pretty gung ho no addressing any doubts he's definitely running until suddenly it turns out all the chatter from others was right.
He got sick and realized he couldn't effectively run. Done.
On to the next candidate.
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 01:48:21 PMBad show from Biden in keeping it 100% definite until suddenly it's off. Was there any positive reason for him to do this? Seems bad to me.
But fingers crossed America can be saved...
If Biden wanted to stay in the race, he had no choice but to be 100% definite until the end. The moment he signaled hesitation would be the moment the avalanche of pressure would come down on him. That's exactly what happened when eventually he conceded he might bow out if some health reasons surfaced. Politics plays by the laws of the jungle.
The republicans have been putting a lot of energy into attacking Bidens age.... Hopefully now this will bite them in the arse as people realise at that age a sudden mental decline can come at any moment - and look who else is that old.
I know this puts my party into a state of crisis that has a tight timeline to be resolved in a way that unites the party and appeals to independents and anti-Trump conservatives as much as possible.
However...wow am I relieved. We might not be heading straight off a cliff after all. I will pretend this means the day is saved for a few hours before I start hand wringing again tomorrow.
I think the good thing is that this forces a lot of attention on Democrats now, which is something they haven't been able to generate with Biden. I think the big problem for Democrats is the enthusiasm gap.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2024, 02:08:01 PMI know this puts my party into a state of crisis that has a tight timeline to be resolved in a way that unites the party and appeals to independents and anti-Trump conservatives as much as possible.
However...wow am I relieved. We might not be heading straight off a cliff after all. I will pretend this means the day is saved for a few hours before I start hand wringing again tomorrow.
Amen!
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 02:00:15 PMIf what means what you think it means?
Seems he was pretty gung ho no addressing any doubts he's definitely running until suddenly it turns out all the chatter from others was right.
"It"
He said he would consider dropping out after checking with a doctor. Considering dropping out is not the same thing as being definite you will stay in.
I don't know if Kamala will win, but for the first time in months I feel hopeful. I don't know how long that will last, but gods does it feel nice to finally left out a little of the breath I wasn't fully aware I was holding.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 21, 2024, 02:27:16 PMI don't know if Kamala will win, but for the first time in months I feel hopeful. I don't know how long that will last, but gods does it feel nice to finally left out a little of the breath I wasn't fully aware I was holding.
I think you speak for us all
Quote from: Josquius on July 21, 2024, 02:00:15 PMIf what means what you think it means?
Seems he was pretty gung ho no addressing any doubts he's definitely running until suddenly it turns out all the chatter from others was right.
As DG says he has to.
And I think he probably believed it - and maybe still does. I suspect him and his people will resent this hugely and probably still think they are best placed to win.
All that chatter was the sound of various other forces in the Democratic party - grandees like Clinton and Obama, their teams, other elected officials, donors etc - trying to persuade Biden otherwise and, occasionally, having to leak to increase the pressure.
Edit: Also interesting to see how he'll describe this. Given how effectively they squashed other primary challengers I don't think he can use the same sort of line LBJ did and if it is health it will raise the (fair) question of who's running the administration now? It's something I've wondered just seeing him on the news clearly (like most other people of his age) have good and bad days.
I think purely politically it might help Harris too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 03:00:47 PMGiven how effectively they squashed other primary challengers
:huh: What in the world are you talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 03:14:13 PM:huh: What in the world are you talking about?
There was lots of talk about Biden's age and even though he'd announced he would run again, of primary challengers (like 1980 and 1968).
Biden's team and the Democrats were very effective in shutting that down and convincing anyone who might have considered it not to. (Arguably - as with Clinton in 2016 - the Democrats don't make their best decisions when they're in "get on the team" mode...)
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 21, 2024, 01:26:54 PMOvB looking like a real dumbass now. :lmfao:
Just now?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 03:22:10 PMBiden's team and the Democrats were very effective in shutting that down and convincing anyone who might have considered it not to.
What in the world are you talking about?
Were there actual conversations where some random dude said "I'm thinking about running in the primary" and Teh Team and Teh Democrats said "you should not b/c of X, Y, and Z?" Or maybe "there's a possible cabinet seat in it for you wink wink?"
Or are we relitigating Bernie v Clinton in which Teh Democrats cheated Bernie out of the nomination?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 03:22:10 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 03:14:13 PM:huh: What in the world are you talking about?
There was lots of talk about Biden's age and even though he'd announced he would run again, of primary challengers (like 1980 and 1968).
Biden's team and the Democrats were very effective in shutting that down and convincing anyone who might have considered it not to. (Arguably - as with Clinton in 2016 - the Democrats don't make their best decisions when they're in "get on the team" mode...)
I think you may know something. The rest of us don't because I didn't hear anything about anyone thinking about running who was subsequently dissuaded from doing so.
It's more accurate to say that nobody did step up to potentially challenge him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 03:28:04 PMWhat in the world are you talking about?
Were there actual conversations where some random dude said "I'm thinking about running in the primary" and Teh Team and Teh Democrats said "you should not b/c of X, Y, and Z?" Or maybe "there's a possible cabinet seat in it for you wink wink?"
All I'm saying is literally what was being reported a year or two ago. Most Americans didn't want Biden to run again. There were people talking about his age then as well. There was lots of "chatter" about it.
It was also reported that Biden's team were strongly pushing against anyone even thinking of challenging before Biden's decision was made public and once he announced he was running the Democrats were very good at dissuading anyone from challenging - for good reasons like it's bad for a President for re-election, it would divide the party etc.
But I also think it would have probably exposed Biden's weaknesses earlier and if one of them had done a bit better than expected have provided him with the LBJ route out. It is more difficult after having spent the last week saying him stepping down would be an insult to millions of primary voters to now say it's obvious he doesn't have the support of his party - which leaves health (and "are you fit to do the job now?").
QuoteOr are we relitigating Bernie v Clinton in which Teh Democrats cheated Bernie out of the nomination?
No I don't know where you got the idea I was a Bernie fan.
But generally the Clinton campaign was very, very effective at dissuading lots of potential nominees with their inevitability and "it's her turn" - which is what they tried to do in 2008 until Obama announced. In 2016 it worked and it was smart politics for them - but I think not having a full field (which is what you'd expect at the end of a two-term presidency with the VP not standing) did lead to choosing a very poor candidate.
If anything, I'm relitigating Martin O'Malley :P
Edit: All of which makes me think that having made a catastrophic decision a year ago and then told everyone to get on board. The Democrats might be better to have an open convention than a fait accompli - despite quite liking Harris. I think it's quite striking that, unlike Biden's statement or the Clintons', Obama's doesn't endorse Harris but calls for the party to "create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges".
I think this is a disastrous decision, but I'll be absolutely elated if I'm wrong.
So... Harris/Cooper 2024?
Quote from: frunk on July 21, 2024, 03:55:24 PMI think this is a disastrous decision, but I'll be absolutely elated if I'm wrong.
I'm obviously no political genius (definitely not even a normal kind :lol: ) but I have some trepidations too. Kamala doesn't seem to be particularly liked. Seems like a replay of 2016. Unliked and unlikable female candidate against trump. She doesn't even seem to have a strong African American following that could bring in votes. At least Biden had a winning record.
But what do I know.
Yeah I worry that Kamela will collapse, but I hope I'm wrong.
I really disliked it when in 2020 Biden declared that his VP would be a woman, and I guess it keeps reverberating now. When you're this old, you should pick a candidate that is strongest on their own merits, because they may well have to run for the next term. Disqualifying every male from consideration from the outset doesn't help you with making the best decision for that goal.
I agree that Kamala Harris is not a good candidate, and is a preferred option only because the default one was so hopeless. I really wish there were a way to debate and choose the strongest candidate, and not just go with a candidate that most probably feel is accidental.
You'd think though the Democrats would have one competent woman amongst them.
That said, if reporting is to be believed, Trump feared going up against Harris. If there is one thing that Trump is legitimately good at in a non-backhanded way, it's understanding his political threats. I remember many were wondering, including myself, why Trump would go to the trouble of smearing Joe Biden in the Ukraine affair, surely the guy in his late 70ies isn't a threat to him? Turns out he was, and hopefully Trump is just as correct now about Harris as he was about Biden.
Yeah I'm not sure on Harris.
I liked the idea of her based on her record and was underwhelmed in the primary and couldn't really work out what campaign she was trying to run. That question's pretty easily answered for her if she becomes the nominee straight away. And I quite like the clip of her campaigning that I've seen this year - I think she seems pretty effective to me.
That is encouraging if true.
@Shelf: I think I get it now.
Some people said if a candidate runs in the primary against Biden it will weaken Biden in the general. I don't know, because I haven't seen the interviews, if any of them worked in the White House. I suppose they could be Teh Democrats, whatever the hell that means, because a Democrat would naturally be interested in a Democrat winning the general election. I believe this statement to be true. I may have said it out loud, or posted about it. But I didn't squash a goddamn thing. And neither did Teh Team or Teh Democrats.
Now under this thick veneer of quasi conspiracy theory you have a counter thesis: that a vigorous primary challenge is actually productive (instead of self destructive) because it exposes the weaknesses of the principle candidate which can then be fixed. However Biden's principle weakness is that he is a drooling decrepit wreck. That can't be fixed. That can't be fixed. So it's ammunition for the opposition, not constructive criticism.
Similarly with Hillary. I thought she was a deeply flawed candidate. I also thought she was a shoo-in. I said it out loud, I posted about it, but I did not squash a damn thing.
So if you're unhappy that more candidates did not run against these two, don't blame Teh Team or Teh Democrats, blame every natural born US citizen over the age of 35. Those are the people who had full agency to run or not run.
I
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 21, 2024, 03:56:57 PMSo... Harris/Cooper 2024?
I really like what I've seen of Cooper. He has the potential of putting NC very much in EC play. Also feels very much like the Biden-VP pick was for Obama.
Heard part of an interview on NPR. The only criteria right now for veep is white, male, brings a battleground state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 04:50:39 PMHeard part of an interview on NPR. The only criteria right now for veep is white, male, brings a battleground state.
Sounds like Shapiro vs. Cooper then.
Quote from: DGuller on July 21, 2024, 04:55:44 PMSounds like Shapiro vs. Cooper then.
Cooper is AZ? Then those are the two names the talking head chick mentioned.
No, NC not AZ. so different dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 04:35:32 PMNow under this thick veneer of quasi conspiracy theory you have a counter thesis: that a vigorous primary challenge is actually productive (instead of self destructive) because it exposes the weaknesses of the principle candidate which can then be fixed. However Biden's principle weakness is that he is a drooling decrepit wreck. That can't be fixed. That can't be fixed. So it's ammunition for the opposition, not constructive criticism.
Can't quite work out how politics possibly involving politics is somehow a quasi conspiracy theory.
For a long time there was a bit of an omerta on talking about Biden's age. People would do "whataboutery" about it, the NYT had that piece on comments about Biden's age were often reflect "misinformation" and there'd be lots of saying that even talking about it was just not helpful. We saw that in this thread. But that issue is a fact. It was always going to come out and be ammunition for the opposition. What clarified things and made it a huge issue leading to Biden stepping down was the debate which made it (I think tragically) obvious to everyone and all of those arguments evaporated.
My point is just that moment comes earlier if there's a robust primary competition and the Democrats have more time to sort themselves out - and, possibly, Biden can go with more dignity - rather than it spilling out a few weeks before the convention. I think similarly that campaigns generally expose flaws and a broader field would have exposed Clinton's too (whether she could fix them or not I don't know).
(If you want my conspiracy theory on this it's why Biden's team wanted a very, very early pre-convention debate?)
QuoteSimilarly with Hillary. I thought she was a deeply flawed candidate. I also thought she was a shoo-in. I said it out loud, I posted about it, but I did not squash a damn thing.
I don't think you're a senior Democrat or part of the Clinton or Biden campaigns :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 04:58:41 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 21, 2024, 04:55:44 PMSounds like Shapiro vs. Cooper then.
Cooper is AZ? Then those are the two names the talking head chick mentioned.
Mark Kelly (Senator from AZ) is not a bad choice either, as AZ is a swing-ish state (if not a critical one).
And he has Pres. Whitmore vibes. Veteran fighter pilot and astronaut.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 05:06:36 PMMy point is just that moment comes earlier if there's a robust primary competition and the Democrats have more time to sort themselves out - and, possibly, Biden can go with more dignity - rather than it spilling out a few weeks before the convention. I think similarly that campaigns generally expose flaws and a broader field would have exposed Clinton's too (whether she could fix them or not I don't know).
Why would you risk that with an incumbent ? If he wins you leave open attacks of "not even the democrats want him, but he refuses to leave". Plus all the other attacks where the GOP can just use sound bites of other democratic candidates at least. You take whatever benefits an incumbent has and trash them for a very limited benefit that only materialize if the incumbent loses.
I sort of tuned out the radio when I heard Shapiro b/c I started thinking about the ramifications in the current context of a Jewish Democratic veep.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 05:06:36 PMI don't think you're a senior Democrat or part of the Clinton or Biden campaigns :P
You are correct. That's my point. How does a job title change the exact same act to "squashing?"
Quote from: HVC on July 21, 2024, 05:13:50 PMWhy would you risk that with an incumbent ? If he wins you leave open attacks of "not even the democrats want him, but he refuses to leave". Plus all the other attacks where the GOP can just use sound bites of other democratic candidates at least. You take whatever benefits an incumbent has and trash them for a very limited benefit and only if the incumbent loses.
I agree it made perfect sense for him as an incumbent and I absolutely believe that he very sincerely believed himself to be the best placed to run. I think other figures in the party should have pushed back more and encouraged a competition.
To be clear I do not think he would be the candidate in that situation. I think where we are because of his physical state is inevitable and it would always be a question of how and when we got here. I think the election - like the debate - would have exposed that he wasn't going to be able to run properly so either he would lose or pressured to pull out like now. It might not be a loss it could just be, as in 68, a rebel candidate doing surprisingly well providing Biden with a dignified exit based on not having the support of his party not this one.
I don't really know what the plan was with him in place - and I really like Biden so I think this whole situation is a little tragic and will be his defining moment. I think he's been really let down by people around him. His closest aides, his loved ones should have been telling him this wasn't possible a long time ago.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 05:23:16 PMI really like Biden so I think this whole situation is a little tragic and will be his defining moment. I think he's been really let down by people around him. His closest aides, his loved ones should have been telling him this wasn't possible a long time ago.
It's only tragic if Harris wins. If she loses he'll be the guy who won once and could have won again but was pushed out by fickle democrats to their and americas doom. History is written by the victors, but even the losers get different epitaphs based out outcomes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 05:21:51 PMYou are correct. That's my point. How does a job title change the exact same act to "squashing?"
If I chat with people at a similar level in my industry we're networking and chatting. If my boss talks with other media company bosses there's a strong risk it's collusion and possibly anti-competitive behaviour.
Power matters (I actually think more job titles). Look at all the articles about the decisive, consequential role Nancy Pelosi has played in getting Biden to step down - as far as I can see she's barely made any public statement on it. It's conversations outside the public eye.
We've all talked about Biden stepping aside in this thread and it's been just that - talk. But when Nancy Pelosi is talking about it with, say, elected Democrats, party officials, campaign teams, the Clintons and Obama etc, she is not just talking about it.
Quote from: HVC on July 21, 2024, 05:27:31 PMIt's only tragic if Harris wins. If she loses he'll be the guy who won once and could have won again but was pushed out by fickle democrats to their and americas doom. History is written by the victors, but even the losers get different epitaphs based out outcomes.
Yeah - but I think I mean on a personal level. Biden has a lengthy, distinguished career. He's a fantastic vice-president and I think a surprisingly effective president. And I think the abiding memory of him will be the debate, the pressure to step down and this moment.
I think the debate even means that in November there will be relatively few people saying he was the guy who could have won again.
As I say I think the people around him let him down.
How the hell are the Clinton's still powerful? Bill last ruled over 20 years ago and Hillary was a loser. It'd be like (zombie) bob dole pulling strings for the republicans Democrats need new and younger blood.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 05:30:01 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 05:21:51 PMYou are correct. That's my point. How does a job title change the exact same act to "squashing?"
If I chat with people at a similar level in my industry we're networking and chatting. If my boss talks with other media company bosses there's a strong risk it's collusion and possibly anti-competitive behaviour.
Power matters (I actually think more job titles). Look at all the articles about the decisive, consequential role Nancy Pelosi has played in getting Biden to step down - as far as I can see she's barely made any public statement on it. It's conversations outside the public eye.
We've all talked about Biden stepping aside in this thread and it's been just that - talk. But when Nancy Pelosi is talking about it with, say, elected Democrats, party officials, campaign teams, the Clintons and Obama etc, she is not just talking about it.
It's....squashing? Collusion?
I imagine she says the exact same thing we say here. Joe, we have a better chance with someone else. The public has turned against you. Blah blah blah.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 21, 2024, 05:35:07 PMQuote from: HVC on July 21, 2024, 05:27:31 PMIt's only tragic if Harris wins. If she loses he'll be the guy who won once and could have won again but was pushed out by fickle democrats to their and americas doom. History is written by the victors, but even the losers get different epitaphs based out outcomes.
Yeah - but I think I mean on a personal level. Biden has a lengthy, distinguished career. He's a fantastic vice-president and I think a surprisingly effective president. And I think the abiding memory of him will be the debate, the pressure to step down and this moment.
I think the debate even means that in November there will be relatively few people saying he was the guy who could have won again.
As I say I think the people around him let him down.
That's the history because the only people liberals like tearing down more than conservatives is other liberals. They're like a bunch of hamster eating their young the moment they get spooked. The people around him might have been naive but media and his colleagues did the damage. Trump isn't and wasn't any more there than Biden. Conservatives just shut up about it.
On the upside, it really opens up the "look... the man is a demented old idiot, anyone can see it" line of attack against Trump.
Quote from: frunk on July 21, 2024, 03:55:24 PMI think this is a disastrous decision, but I'll be absolutely elated if I'm wrong.
Same
So, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:13:09 PMSo, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
:Joos :osama: :ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on July 21, 2024, 06:32:45 PMOn the upside, it really opens up the "look... the man is a demented old idiot, anyone can see it" line of attack against Trump.
Yes, exactly. The Americans no longer have to choose between two incoherent old men. And focus can be directed back on how dangerous Trump is.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:13:09 PMSo, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
I'd say Roy Cooper. He's on the tail-end of his second of two terms as governor of North Carolina, a winnable state for the Democrats. I think Pennsylvania will go blue once again and, possibly, depriving the state of its governor wouldn't be great. Not as bad as taking Kentucky's Democrat governor away, mind, but still not the best move.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 21, 2024, 08:31:38 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:13:09 PMSo, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
I'd say Roy Cooper. He's on the tail-end of his second of two terms as governor of North Carolina, a winnable state for the Democrats. I think Pennsylvania will go blue once again and, possibly, depriving the state of its governor wouldn't be great. Not as bad as taking Kentucky's Democrat governor away, mind, but still not the best move.
The Lt. Governor is a fascist, no way in hell are they choosing Cooper.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:35:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on July 21, 2024, 08:31:38 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:13:09 PMSo, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
I'd say Roy Cooper. He's on the tail-end of his second of two terms as governor of North Carolina, a winnable state for the Democrats. I think Pennsylvania will go blue once again and, possibly, depriving the state of its governor wouldn't be great. Not as bad as taking Kentucky's Democrat governor away, mind, but still not the best move.
The Lt. Governor is a fascist, no way in hell are they choosing Cooper.
Why not? Cooper is term-limited out anyway (and the NC gubernatorial is this year as well), and no reason he needs to resign prior to the election.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 21, 2024, 09:22:16 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:35:47 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on July 21, 2024, 08:31:38 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2024, 08:13:09 PMSo, Shapiro is obviously the best strategic choice for VP right?
He's governor of Pennsylvannia and a striaght, white man, so I have to think he's at the top of their list.
I'd say Roy Cooper. He's on the tail-end of his second of two terms as governor of North Carolina, a winnable state for the Democrats. I think Pennsylvania will go blue once again and, possibly, depriving the state of its governor wouldn't be great. Not as bad as taking Kentucky's Democrat governor away, mind, but still not the best move.
The Lt. Governor is a fascist, no way in hell are they choosing Cooper.
Why not? Cooper is term-limited out anyway (and the NC gubernatorial is this year as well), and no reason he needs to resign prior to the election.
If he leaves the state, Lt. Gov assumes the mantel of temp. Governor, and so Cooper never leaves the state to prevent him from fucking everything up
Let him. The Lt Gov is the GOP candidate for the upcoming race. If he does something too fascist-crazy, he'll likely backfire on himself, and Cooper will just come back to overturn it. And it will automatically become a national story and make the national GOP look nutty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2024, 05:40:55 PMIt's....squashing? Collusion?
I imagine she says the exact same thing we say here. Joe, we have a better chance with someone else. The public has turned against you. Blah blah blah.
I imagine it's pretty similar in content. Possibly a little more fruity and less polite than we are :lol:
Again on how the exact same thing can be different things. Two junior employees who know each other well making an off-colour joke could be banter, a CEO making the same joke to an employee may well be harassment. Power matters, personal credibility/authority matters (I've totally forgotten it but there is a specific word for all of this) - it's not just what the content of the message is that's all equal for all 350million Americans.
QuoteOn the upside, it really opens up the "look... the man is a demented old idiot, anyone can see it" line of attack against Trump.
Yeah - it might open up some uncomfortable questions but I think it is something you can do now. The way to do it might actually just be through events in a way. Get Harris out there day in, day out doing multiple events and drawing a visible contrast of energy v Trump. I also think that is one of the benefits of Biden stepping aside is simply having a nominee who can maintain a really active campaign schedule.
As Grumbler noted some of the economic numbers have turned a bit - so there is real wage growth and the numbers success may be starting to be felt by people in their lives. I wonder the extent to which Harris can associate with that and (in effect) associate Biden with the negative numbers of the last few years. I suppose it will be like the VP running at the end of a two term presidency in terms of balancing taking ownership of the previous record and trying to signify change - but it feels different because we know Biden wanted to carry on, but also he didn't win two elections which normally means things have gone pretty well (and I think they have on policy but the politics didn't work). I wonder if that means Harris has more space and maybe needs to be a bit more of a change candidate?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-reaction-biden-drops-out-kamala-harris/
QuoteTrump says he thinks Harris is "no better" than Biden in 2024 matchup
Former President Donald Trump told CBS News in a phone conversation on Sunday night that while he won't face President Biden on the ballot in November, the former president doesn't think it changes the race if he instead faces Vice President Kamala Harris, who Mr. Biden has backed for the nomination.
"I think she is no better than him," Trump said. "She could be far less competent, which is hard to believe."
Trump insisted that Harris is still tied to the Biden administration policies, which he believes are unpopular with Americans.
"The policies whether it's him or her wouldn't be any different," Trump said. "She was in charge of the border. She was the border czar, she was the worst ever. The worst ever. We had the worst border ever so that wouldn't matter."
Mr. Biden announced Sunday afternoon on social media that he is dropping out of the 2024 race, throwing his support behind Harris. Harris said it is her "intention is to earn and win this nomination."
The unprecedented announcement came after weeks of uncertainty after Mr. Biden's disastrous debate against Trump.
Trump called Mr. Biden's decision a "shock to our country," but added "we have a man in there that shouldn't be in there" so he believes it would overall be a "good thing for the country."
Trump also posted several times on social media on Sunday after Mr. Biden's announcement, writing that "we are forced to spend time and money" running against Mr. Biden and "now we have to start all over again."
"Shouldn't the Republican Party be reimbursed for fraud in that everybody around Joe, including his doctors and the Fake News Media, knew he was not capable of running for, or being, President?" Trump wrote.
Trump also said he would no longer be participating in the planned September debate. Harris had already committed to a vice-presidential debate on CBS News in August, although the Trump campaign would not do the same, saying last week that they had no idea who the vice-presidential nominee would be.
A Trump campaign official said Sunday that Democrats are "in chaos," and the campaign is ready and full speed ahead for the November election.
I take it more Trumpish bleating?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 06:29:05 AMI imagine it's pretty similar in content. Possibly a little more fruity and less polite than we are :lol:
Again on how the exact same thing can be different things. Two junior employees who know each other well making an off-colour joke could be banter, a CEO making the same joke to an employee may well be harassment. Power matters, personal credibility/authority matters (I've totally forgotten it but there is a specific word for all of this) - it's not just what the content of the message is that's all equal for all 350million Americans.
But Teh Team and Teh Democrats are not talking to subordinates. They're talking to peers. More often superiors, if a White House operative is talking to a Congressman, Senator, or Governor, which is the nominee pool
This is reassuring. Black women are the heart of the democratic party
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/joe-biden-drops-out-of-presidential-race-live-updates.html#a
https://x.com/kat__stafford/status/1815231785501966388
QuoteCannot overstate how impactful this is: About 40,000 Black women on the Win with Black Women zoom call in support of Vice President Kamala Harris.
I'll give Trump that he is awfully quotable. There really is no filter or media advisor, is there?
I remember us arguing about Fox News back in the day. Now here we are. Thanks!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2024, 07:07:27 AMBut Teh Team and Teh Democrats are not talking to subordinates. They're talking to peers. More often superiors, if a White House operative is talking to a Congressman, Senator, or Governor, which is the nominee pool
In a legal or a formalist sense but I think that's very narrow and not how politics works, even in, for example working in a private company that is "political".
Power's fluid and situational - it's why a lame duck President can do less. The job description doesn't change, but they've got less power - they're not the coming thing, they won't have patronage to exercise, their networks will be looking to move on. It's also why, say, a retiring Representative or Senator might ironically in some ways have more power - they're less dependent.
But also politics is fundamentally relational. It's why LBJ is possibly the most effective Senate Majority Leader and legislatively one of the most effective Presidents. Those jobs weren't different for him than other officeholders. Instead, he had a genius for knowing how to get people to do things - who needed flattery and love, or respect and deference, or a threat, or just a brow-beating. It's also the genius of Robert Caro because that stuff is the core of politics but it's not in the minutes and Caro has managed to capture it for him.
And there's the sort of machine side to it. The Clintons are still influential in Democratic politics not because of any formal role they hold but because of their networks of former aides and staffers larded through the party, also their connections with other senior leaders formed over decades and donors. Similarly I've read a big part of McConnell's effectiveness is that he has one of the most effective fundraising machines in American politics. Similarly we don't know about J Edgar Hoover's personal files (burned by his secretary within hours of his death) so it may all have been blackmail, but he encouraged FBI men who were shaped by him and loyal to him to absolutely take up jobs as lawyers or aides to, say, the Senate Judiciary Committee or key Senators or Congressmen. That network was a key part of his power politically which was often more than his boss's formally/legally.
It's why the most important thing for Secretary of State is their relationship with the White House even though the job is unchanged. When they go abroad are they understood as someone who is truly speaking on behalf of the Administration and able to shape policy (I think this is true of Blinken, for example) or not (Colin Powell).
Incidentally looks like they are all rallying around Harris for a coronation v some form of competition.
Might be the right decision in the context - although my instinct is that Obama's right and they should have tried to create some process to have a form of open competition and let others come forward.
Yeah I guess I thought there would be a competition. The Democrats almost seem scared to see what their base wants.
I think Kamala would probably win anyway but let's at least spend the weeks before the convention discussing the options.
I don't see many benefits to a competition. As in if a candidate defeats Kamala then we just fsll into division and angst. We need to minimize this limbo period. Also she was on the ticket when people voted for Biden in the primary so it isn't like she wasn't part of that.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2024, 12:21:54 PMI don't see many benefits to a competition. As in if a candidate defeats Kamala then we just fsll into division and angst. We need to minimize this limbo period. Also she was on the ticket when people voted for Biden in the primary so it isn't like she wasn't part of that.
Yeah, I hope the party just rallies around her and pushes toward defeating Trump. This is not the time for self promotion of other would be candidates.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2024, 12:21:54 PMI don't see many benefits to a competition. As in if a candidate defeats Kamala then we just fsll into division and angst. We need to minimize this limbo period. Also she was on the ticket when people voted for Biden in the primary so it isn't like she wasn't part of that.
I think the legitimation stuff is nonsense and only really being mentioned by people on the right.
I think it would allow at least a bit more of how she campaigns (2020 wasn't a great success for her). It would also allow the Democrats to see if maybe a line that is less tied to Biden's record might help. I think it's tough on whether the benefits outweigh the negatives - but my instinct is that Obama is probably right and it would be a good idea.
There is another very big reason. There's a story in the WSJ today about Biden trying to persuade congressional Democrats to back his proposal - he "spoke disjointedly" and "failed to make a concrete ask of lawmakers" (according to attendees). When he left "a visibly frustrated Pelosi told the group she would articulate what Biden had been trying to say". That was in October 2021 and the last time Biden met with the House Democratic caucus about legislation (in itself striking given that under Obama, Biden was often the contact point with Congress because of his relationships there). If the Democrats think - or know - that there are any other stories like that to come out, they should assume they will - and they will dog Harris through the campaign as his VP who saw it. And I think bluntly I think if they know there's anything else, they should ditch her now.
Democrats seem to be fully in "get on board"/"don't be divisive" mode and folks online are memeing themselves into her inevitable victory. There will be adversity and bumps on the road and I'm not seeing much of anyone thinking or explaining how she's the best candidate to face those. This type of decision making in the past I don't think has helped the Democrats - either with Hillary or, apparently, believing that somehow Joe Biden could run again without people noticing his age.
Edit: Also frankly I think there'd be a benefit in just taking a minute and pausing, thinking through how this plan or others work in different scenarios. There's a month before the convention. I think "chaos" or "limbo" now will have a smaller impact on the campaign than choosing the wrong candidate. I don't think there is any need to rush especially in this rush, shut down any dissent and call for everyone to rally - I don't generally think that's a good decision making process.
Those would have been great things to work out before he stood down. They would deserve to lose if they were working out who should be the candidate with this limited amount of time left.
Also, wtf is a rush about the President stands down and his running mate continues on?
Last thought I think this idea that they find the 'right' candidate is all a bunch of bull. That's no an objective reality until you see if they won or lost.
Sheilbh, I don't follow... Biden had a hard time articulating himself to a bunch of Democratic representatives and this is going to dog Harris? How?
The line for anything related to Biden being old is:
"Yes, Biden is old and shouldn't run for president. This is an argument from the past. He isn't running. Speaking of senile, Trump is senile and unfit for office. This matters today."
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 03:32:30 PMSheilbh, I don't follow... Biden had a hard time articulating himself to a bunch of Democratic representatives and this is going to dog Harris? How?
The line for anything related to Biden being old is:
"Yes, Biden is old and shouldn't run for president. This is an argument from the past. He isn't running. Speaking of senile, Trump is senile and unfit for office. This matters today."
Democrats have been saying about how sharp and in command Biden is in private and it's just the odd bad moment - and anyway he's always fluffed words and made gaffes. The debate made that line unsustainable.
There's now this story which is basically that he was visibly incapable of running a meeting of fellow Democrats. If there's more of that to come or if senior Democrats were, in private, been talking about whether Biden's fit to run again, then I think you have to assume it will come out. And the natural next questions will be when did you know, what signs did you see is he/was he capable of serving as President, who was making decisions for him etc.
All of those, I think, are particularly pertinent and high risk for his VP (perhaps unfairly as my understanding is they weren't really that close). That isn't a question from the past - it clarifies down to did you know the President was in no state to serve and did you cover it up?
I think lots of Democrats online are talking about Biden as a hero and it's a great moral gesture to step down. I'm not sure that's how the wider public will receive it (though it's the right thing to do) or that it will provide a neat end to the story.
Edit: And as I say it might not happen - but it feels like something they should at least kick the tires on. Let things settle down - look at some polls. Even if they ultimately decide to crown Harris, I don't think there's any need to make that decision in the emotional high of the first 24 hours.
Maybe you guys are not used to this because you haven't head Trump around nearly as long as I have seen Orban around, but... it doesn't matter. you remove Harris because she was close to Biden and nominate some other senator/congressmen, well they were still in the same party the same legislature weren't they? How DARE they keep Biden's condition secret from the American People?
I get the argument Sheilbh but you are trying to have them prepare for a contest against an opponent having at least cursory links to truth and at least with some holds barred. But that's not Trump and his cult.
What the Democrat candidate needs to show is being better at leading the country than Trump and having less negative impact on people's lives than Trump. The first one should be easy for anyone less demented than poor Biden. The second one may be more tricky with all the crap about immigration, transgered children and other vile nonsense that's gonna be brought up by Trump but it's not like there's a candidate out there against which he and his team won't try those things. And who would it work less against? The gay guy? The Jew?
The way I see it the choice is clear. A capable but not at all exciting normal person, or Trump. Honestly if Trump wins maybe that's what the US deserves.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4786610-harris-breaks-fundraising-record/
QuoteHarris breaks 24-hour fundraising record after Biden drops out
Vice President Harris raised $81 million in the first 24 hours after President Biden stepped aside and endorsed her as the Democratic nominee, her campaign said, touting it as the highest 24-hour fundraising haul of any presidential candidate in history.
"The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections," campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement. "Already, we are seeing a broad and diverse coalition come together to support our critical work of talking to the voters that will decide this election."
The campaign said it brought in more than 888,000 contributions from individual grassroots donors, 60 percent of whom had not donated before in the 2024 cycle. Roughly 43,000 donors have signed up to give weekly to the campaign.
And the campaign saw its rapid response social media account, which was rebranded from "Biden HQ" to "Kamala HQ" double its following overnight.
...
The big impression I get is not even about the dem convincing people they're better than Trump.
That's a given for anyone who cares about such things.
The challenge is getting people to care enough to actually vote.
I do have my fingers crossed on Harris that she could draw out black and Asian voters (heard today apparently swingy Virginia has a lot of Indians whet this could matter?).
Also a woman candidate seems very good considering how much of a kicking the republicans got over the abortion shit and their general Gilead hints of late.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 03:46:14 PMAll of those, I think, are particularly pertinent and high risk for his VP (perhaps unfairly as my understanding is they weren't really that close). That isn't a question from the past - it clarifies down to did you know the President was in no state to serve and did you cover it up?
Ah I see what you're saying.
I guess I disagree as I don't think those kind of questions are going to resonate particularly, nor do I think they'll stick particularly to Harris as opposed to the Democrats in general - and therefore they'll seem either as sore-loserism or as partisan rhetoric.
I think the sore-loserism is going to subside fairly quickly, and as partisan rhetoric goes "you knew your guy was old and senile, why didn't you say anything" is not particularly juice. One because Trump is old and senile, two because it's in the past, and three because there's no clear narrative about what anyone should've done. It's too complicated and nuanced to really sell, and it's a "whatif" from the past with a clear line to more impactful and still relevant "whatif"s about Trump.
I mean, go ahead and kick the tires and whatnot - but I don't think it's something that has legs.
I guess we'll see.
So yeah... I was against Biden stepping down, mostly because I don't like changing horses midstream and fear of backlash and all that. But now I'm cautiously optimistic about Harris.
I guess we'll see soon enough.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2024, 04:00:19 PMhttps://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4786610-harris-breaks-fundraising-record/
QuoteHarris breaks 24-hour fundraising record after Biden drops out
Vice President Harris raised $81 million in the first 24 hours after President Biden stepped aside and endorsed her as the Democratic nominee, her campaign said, touting it as the highest 24-hour fundraising haul of any presidential candidate in history.
"The historic outpouring of support for Vice President Harris represents exactly the kind of grassroots energy and enthusiasm that wins elections," campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement. "Already, we are seeing a broad and diverse coalition come together to support our critical work of talking to the voters that will decide this election."
The campaign said it brought in more than 888,000 contributions from individual grassroots donors, 60 percent of whom had not donated before in the 2024 cycle. Roughly 43,000 donors have signed up to give weekly to the campaign.
And the campaign saw its rapid response social media account, which was rebranded from "Biden HQ" to "Kamala HQ" double its following overnight.
...
That should end the discussion
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 04:04:06 PMI guess I disagree as I don't think those kind of questions are going to resonate particularly, nor do I think they'll stick particularly to Harris as opposed to the Democrats in general - and therefore they'll seem either as sore-loserism or as partisan rhetoric.
I think the sore-loserism is going to subside fairly quickly, and as partisan rhetoric goes "you knew your guy was old and senile, why didn't you say anything" is not particularly juice. One because Trump is old and senile, two because it's in the past, and three because there's no clear narrative about what anyone should've done. It's too complicated and nuanced to really sell, and it's a "whatif" from the past with a clear line to more impactful and still relevant "whatif"s about Trump.
Maybe - as I say it's only a risk and the other possible risks (not checking how she'll perform in a campaign or if it might resonate more to have someone a bit distant from Biden's administration) may also not be anything. My view is the same as Obama's - there's no need to rush in an emotional state when everyone's feeling massive relief that a really bad decision has been unwound - I still haven't really seen an argument for why the decision needs to be made now.
And on the VP risk specifically I'm not sure it comes across as partisan. Biden's age didn't become an issue because of GOP talking points making something out of whole cloth, but because it was an issue and people could see it on stage (and if anything it was the Democrats saying there's nothing to see here). But I also don't think it's complicated, I think it's very human and something anyone who has ever had an elderly relative will recognise and understand. That's partly why I think it could resonate way beyond partisan boundaries - as Biden's debate performance did.
Similarly on attacking Trump for age - I think that's open now. But I think for many non-partisan people it will come across as tricksy, given the Democrats were one week saying Biden was sharp and on top of the detail etc.
QuoteI mean, go ahead and kick the tires and whatnot - but I don't think it's something that has legs.
I guess we'll see.
I think you could be right. I think they are rallying so it won't happen. And I don't know on balance which is right.
But I think it could be a mistake - and I think Obama was right to call for a process rather than immediately endorse. This just feels very endorphin-driven decision making - everyone feeling massive relief (because they may have avoided the damage caused by their previous catastrophic decision).
Why do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
Also disingenuous to say you haven't seen anyone argue why there shouldn't be "a process".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
The dispassionate Obama didn't agree.
Quote from: garbon on July 22, 2024, 04:52:36 PMAlso disingenuous to say you haven't seen anyone argue why there shouldn't be "a process".
What is the positive case? All I've seen is that she is the VP and avoids limbo or division - none of those are arguments for why Harris is the best candidate and I feel that should be the question given the stakes. And I think coming up with some form of expedited process ahead of the convention would be a good way of flushing out those positive reasons (and risks). It could be the right choice - but actively make the choice not just by default.
I can't see a single good reason for making this decision in 24 hours beyond "well we have".
QuoteWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
And may well be objectively the best person for it - it's worth taking a moment and maybe having a process to work out who is best placed.
But from the Atlantic: "Democrats' prevailing mood since Sunday has been overwhelming relief, as if the entire party just passed a kidney stone". All of the reporting talks about feelings of overwhelming relief, joy, excitement - and that fundraising chart. It's very up and down.
Getting this wrong matters more than a few weeks of "division" before the convention.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
I don't see what that follows. Most of the delegates were pledged to vote for her as VP not as President. With Biden out, my understanding is that the delegates are free to act in accordance with their own judgment.
As a practical matter, I agree that Biden's endorsement gave her immediate momentum out the gate. If someone else wants to contest, they really needed to have said something by now. AP is now reporting Pelosi is backing her and she has support from a majority of the delegates. If that's true, it is pretty much over.
Also in the AP report
QuoteOn Sunday afternoon, Biden's campaign formally changed its name to Harris for President, reflecting that she is inheriting his political operation of more than 1,000 staffers and a war chest that stood at nearly $96 million at the end of June. She added $81 million to that total in the first 24 hours after Biden's endorsement, her campaign said — a presidential fundraising record — with contributions from more than 888,000 donors.
That's really big, I can see why Pelosi rallied behind her, whatever misgivings. Anyone else who wants to challenge would have to build a national operation from scratch in a matter of days. Very daunting to face off with that against an already stocked, loaded, and fully staffed operational campaign. With Newsom, Whitmer, Pritzker, Shapiro, Moore, etc. already endorsing Harris, there doesn't appear to be viable challenge possible.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 04:05:52 PMSo yeah... I was against Biden stepping down, mostly because I don't like changing horses midstream and fear of backlash and all that. But now I'm cautiously optimistic about Harris.
I guess we'll see soon enough.
Don't let the Americans fool you, they really don't need a 1 year campaign. 50 days before the election would be fine.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
Furthermore, it is impressive how quickly Harris was able to rally support around her nomination.
The Dems know that they need a first-ballot nomination because they (foolishly, IMO) scheduled the convention so close to many state filing deadlines. There's no time for a contentious nomination process.
Harris only needs to be moderately effective on the stump. She's got plenty of people who can campaign effectively for her and she's got a strong economic wind behind her.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 03:46:14 PMAll of those, I think, are particularly pertinent and high risk for his VP (perhaps unfairly as my understanding is they weren't really that close). That isn't a question from the past - it clarifies down to did you know the President was in no state to serve and did you cover it up?
I don't think that many people will find your question compelling. No one is claiming that Biden is in no fit state to govern except the some right-wing nutjobs that have been claiming that since he got the nom in 2020. Multiple presidents have continued to serve in office without running for re-election.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2024, 10:57:00 AMYeah I guess I thought there would be a competition. The Democrats almost seem scared to see what their base wants.
I think Kamala would probably win anyway but let's at least spend the weeks before the convention discussing the options.
The base seems to want her
Seems like a good sign
https://x.com/TrumpsTaxes/status/1815473121643913597
QuoteWait, what?!
Of the 888,000 donors who gave to Kamala Harris in the last 24 hours, *60%* made their *first* contribution.
That's roughly *532,800* Americans who went out of their way to donate to Kamala's campaign.
I'm speechless.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2024, 05:12:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
I don't see what that follows. Most of the delegates were pledged to vote for her as VP not as President. With Biden out, my understanding is that the delegates are free to act in accordance with their own judgment.
As a practical matter, I agree that Biden's endorsement gave her immediate momentum out the gate. If someone else wants to contest, they really needed to have said something by now. AP is now reporting Pelosi is backing her and she has support from a majority of the delegates. If that's true, it is pretty much over.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2024, 05:12:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
I don't see what that follows. Most of the delegates were pledged to vote for her as VP not as President. With Biden out, my understanding is that the delegates are free to act in accordance with their own judgment.
As a practical matter, I agree that Biden's endorsement gave her immediate momentum out the gate. If someone else wants to contest, they really needed to have said something by now. AP is now reporting Pelosi is backing her and she has support from a majority of the delegates. If that's true, it is pretty much over.
It is the fact that time is too short to go through a selection process that makes the VP objectively the best choice.
Hand wringing over a lack of process will do the election campaign no benefit.
The party needs to rally as quickly as possible around Harris and just get on with the business of defeating Trump.
Is it perfect? No. Is perfection in this circumstance, the enemy of the good? Absolutely!
Saw someone quoting AP News that more than half of the pledged delegates have already endorsed Harris.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2024, 06:03:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2024, 04:48:16 PMWhy do you think this is just an emotional decision? The VP seems objectively the obvious person.
Furthermore, it is impressive how quickly Harris was able to rally support around her nomination.
The Dems know that they need a first-ballot nomination because they (foolishly, IMO) scheduled the convention so close to many state filing deadlines. There's no time for a contentious nomination process.
Harris only needs to be moderately effective on the stump. She's got plenty of people who can campaign effectively for her and she's got a strong economic wind behind her.
Yeah, good points
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PMI think Obama was right to call for a process rather than immediately endorse.
What kind of process would you or Obama like?
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 07:06:28 PMSaw someone quoting AP News that more than half of the pledged delegates have already endorsed Harris.
https://x.com/BNONews/status/1815527144170156480?t=yuLzhx6HASuInpy9-iJVPQ&s=19
QuoteKamala Harris has secured 75% of the delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2024, 07:09:06 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PMI think Obama was right to call for a process rather than immediately endorse.
What kind of process would you or Obama like?
Well we had a process. All the viable candidates endorsed Harris. You can't force people to oppose the leading candidate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2024, 08:04:37 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2024, 07:09:06 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PMI think Obama was right to call for a process rather than immediately endorse.
What kind of process would you or Obama like?
Well we had a process. All the viable candidates endorsed Harris. You can't force people to oppose the leading candidate.
Obviously the Democrats are well trained to take their turn.
Which, you know, fair enough I guess. That helps keep the party organized and cohesive. Guess we are going with Harris.
Hope she wins. It will take a week or two to see if this improves our position.
Shockingly well coordinated for the democratic party
https://x.com/Taniel/status/1815550506129056102
QuoteHarris is almost there.
The addition of all of New York delegates (not yet reflected in this Ap count at this moment) just now gets her to roughly 1900 delegates.
That's within 100 of the number needed to clinch the nomination on the first ballot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2024, 08:04:37 PMWell we had a process. All the viable candidates endorsed Harris. You can't force people to oppose the leading candidate.
I agree. I don't see the point of holding a model UN when everyone has already made up their mind. But I asked the question of someone in favor of a process in hopes they would provide a perspective I had not already considered.
Is anyone else seeing any anti Kamala memes yet? I expected them to come gushing out the second Joe announced.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2024, 08:23:12 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2024, 08:04:37 PMWell we had a process. All the viable candidates endorsed Harris. You can't force people to oppose the leading candidate.
I agree. I don't see the point of holding a model UN when everyone has already made up their mind. But I asked the question of someone in favor of a process in hopes they would provide a perspective I had not already considered.
Well we need enthusiasm from the public. I hoped one of our Dem governors was secretly a charismatic superstar who would rally everyone around him/her. Or at least rally Michigan and Wisconsin.
But Harris plus some competent governor might do the trick.
My unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
He is certainly a certified badass.
But...he sure is valuable as a Senator.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
That will really piss off the flat Earth crowd.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2024, 09:02:57 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
That will really piss off the flat Earth crowd.
Yeah well, fuck that crowd.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2024, 09:02:15 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
He is certainly a certified badass.
But...he sure is valuable as a Senator.
Is he valuable personally, or as valuable as anyone with a D to their name? Arizona has a Democratic governor now, so I assume the seat is safe in Democrat hands as long as he wins the Senate election. It's quite normal for veep candidate to keep running for their existing seat while also being part of the presidential campaign.
Quote from: DGuller on July 22, 2024, 11:26:57 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 22, 2024, 09:02:15 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
He is certainly a certified badass.
But...he sure is valuable as a Senator.
Is he valuable personally, or as valuable as anyone with a D to their name? Arizona has a Democratic governor now, so I assume the seat is safe in Democrat hands as long as he wins the Senate election. It's quite normal for veep candidate to keep running for their existing seat while also being part of the presidential campaign.
He's not up for re-elction this term. He'll stay in the senate no matter what happens.
Oh right, didn't realize it's Sinema's seat that's in play.
https://dailyboulder.com/elon-musk-accused-of-election-interference-by-blocking-kamala-harris-followers-on-x/
QuoteElon Musk Accused of Election Interference by Blocking Kamala Harris Followers on X
Following Kamala Harris's presidential campaign announcement, users on Elon Musk's platform, X (formerly Twitter), discovered they were unable to follow the vice president's political campaign account.
Attempts to follow @KamalaHQ, Harris's official rapid response page, resulted in an error message stating "something went wrong" or that users had reached their follow limit, preventing them from following any more accounts.
Musk responded by posting a screenshot of the error message accompanied by a gloating remark: "Sure did."
The use of follow limits typically prevents spam, but in this case, it appears the restriction is specifically targeting the Harris campaign account, rather than the users themselves.
dditionally, users reported issues with playing most of Kamala Harris's videos.
These actions raise concerns, especially in light of Elon Musk's public support for Donald Trump. Just recently, Musk pledged substantial financial support to aid Trump's re-election efforts.
In recent days, Musk has continued to share right-wing and pro-Trump content, including criticisms aimed directly at Kamala Harris. His tweets and retweets reflect a stance that aligns more closely with Republican perspectives.
This series of actions and statements by Musk has sparked allegations of election interference, as his platform limitations and public comments appear to target a prominent Democratic candidate, potentially influencing the electoral process.
Quote from: Jacob on July 22, 2024, 08:58:10 PMMy unscientific research on the internet suggests Kelly is a good VP nom.
Never heard of him but a quick Google and yes. Let's have an astronaut in the white house.
Definitely beats the republican offering of a space cadet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 05:08:04 PMQuote from: garbon on July 22, 2024, 04:52:36 PMAlso disingenuous to say you haven't seen anyone argue why there shouldn't be "a process".
What is the positive case? All I've seen is that she is the VP and avoids limbo or division - none of those are arguments for why Harris is the best candidate and I feel that should be the question given the stakes. And I think coming up with some form of expedited process ahead of the convention would be a good way of flushing out those positive reasons (and risks). It could be the right choice - but actively make the choice not just by default.
I can't see a single good reason for making this decision in 24 hours beyond "well we have".
There is a general election to run. The more time the better to get on message, get the ground game out, get voters enthused. Time is a luxury, why waste it?
On the side, and what I think Yi sort of raised, what process are you imagining? At the convention the people who matter are the state electors and delegation by delegation they've made their choice. Would it be better to have that process drawn out over weeks?
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2024, 01:31:20 AMhttps://dailyboulder.com/elon-musk-accused-of-election-interference-by-blocking-kamala-harris-followers-on-x/
QuoteElon Musk Accused of Election Interference by Blocking Kamala Harris Followers on X
Following Kamala Harris's presidential campaign announcement, users on Elon Musk's platform, X (formerly Twitter), discovered they were unable to follow the vice president's political campaign account.
Attempts to follow @KamalaHQ, Harris's official rapid response page, resulted in an error message stating "something went wrong" or that users had reached their follow limit, preventing them from following any more accounts.
Musk responded by posting a screenshot of the error message accompanied by a gloating remark: "Sure did."
The use of follow limits typically prevents spam, but in this case, it appears the restriction is specifically targeting the Harris campaign account, rather than the users themselves.
dditionally, users reported issues with playing most of Kamala Harris's videos.
These actions raise concerns, especially in light of Elon Musk's public support for Donald Trump. Just recently, Musk pledged substantial financial support to aid Trump's re-election efforts.
In recent days, Musk has continued to share right-wing and pro-Trump content, including criticisms aimed directly at Kamala Harris. His tweets and retweets reflect a stance that aligns more closely with Republican perspectives.
This series of actions and statements by Musk has sparked allegations of election interference, as his platform limitations and public comments appear to target a prominent Democratic candidate, potentially influencing the electoral process.
I remember all the outrage when he took over and how this and that platform will take over, then everyone went the lazy route and stayed under the thumb of an insane South African aristocrat.
Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2024, 02:38:25 AMI remember all the outrage when he took over and how this and that platform will take over, then everyone went the lazy route and stayed under the thumb of an insane South African aristocrat.
Because that would have inconvenienced them. They didn't want that.
Nice little bit from Harris.
Quote'Before I became a Senator, I was an attorney general & a prosecutor. In those roles I took on perpetrators of all kinds. Predators..... Fraudsters.... Cheaters ....I know Donald Trump's type'
:lol:
https://x.com/carolvorders/status/1815607254558834869
Harris is going viral on social media, getting the attention of younger voters in a way Biden could never do.
Quote from: Josquius on July 23, 2024, 03:40:33 AMNice little bit from Harris.
Quote'Before I became a Senator, I was an attorney general & a prosecutor. In those roles I took on perpetrators of all kinds. Predators..... Fraudsters.... Cheaters ....I know Donald Trump's type'
:lol:
https://x.com/carolvorders/status/1815607254558834869
Yeah the prosecutor vs the felon is a great way to frame this election.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 05:08:04 PMBut from the Atlantic: "Democrats' prevailing mood since Sunday has been overwhelming relief, as if the entire party just passed a kidney stone". All of the reporting talks about feelings of overwhelming relief, joy, excitement - and that fundraising chart. It's very up and down.
Yeah with a good VP pick (well-liked governor from a swing state) she can white-knuckle her odds of winning to about 50-50. :hmm:
https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/kamala-harris-biden-campaign-polling
QuoteHarris Is Uniting and Energizing Democratic Voters — and Polling Better Against Trump
65% of Democrats support Harris replacing Biden atop the ticket, where she's more competitive against Trump
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A Morning Consult survey conducted after President Joe Biden ended his re-election campaign found that 65% of Democratic voters support Harris to lead the party's ticket, more than double the level of support she had in a hypothetical look at the same question late last month following the first presidential debate.
Former President Donald Trump leads Harris by 2 percentage points, 47% to 45%, in our survey conducted after Biden announced his decision to step aside, marking an improvement from the 6-point margin Biden faced in our surveys conducted ahead of his exit from the race.
Democratic voters are more likely than Republicans (27% to 24%) to say they're "much more motivated" to participate in the political process this election season following Biden's decision, mirroring the gap between Biden's and Trump's respective 2020 supporters (26% to 23%).
Most voters (63%) say Biden should serve out the remainder of his term, compared with 30% who said he should resign now. When it comes to Trump, Biden's exit appears to have prompted soul-searching among some GOP voters: 27% said Trump should be replaced as the GOP nominee, up slightly from a week ago.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 23, 2024, 08:16:09 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2024, 05:08:04 PMBut from the Atlantic: "Democrats' prevailing mood since Sunday has been overwhelming relief, as if the entire party just passed a kidney stone". All of the reporting talks about feelings of overwhelming relief, joy, excitement - and that fundraising chart. It's very up and down.
Yeah with a good VP pick (well-liked governor from a swing state) she can white-knuckle her odds of winning to about 50-50. :hmm:
So Shapiro?
Seems promising
https://x.com/bobcesca_go/status/1815521178787995864
QuoteMSNBC just now: Kamala Harris has 94% support among Democrats, that's 5-points more than Hillary Clinton on Election Day 2016.
Holy shit, are those videos available?
Can the Dems use them in ads?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kfile-jd-vance-believed-donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-2016/index.html
QuoteOhio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, repeatedly indicated in 2016 that he believed Donald Trump had committed sexual assault, even suggesting in one TV segment that in a "he said, she said" situation Trump was less credible than one of his accusers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2024, 08:47:25 AMHoly shit, are those videos available?
Can the Dems use them in ads?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kfile-jd-vance-believed-donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-2016/index.html
QuoteOhio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, repeatedly indicated in 2016 that he believed Donald Trump had committed sexual assault, even suggesting in one TV segment that in a "he said, she said" situation Trump was less credible than one of his accusers.
Even if they are not allowed should still do it and swallow the fine.
It was on MSNBC
https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20161012_230000_Hardball_With_Chris_Matthews/start/2700/end/2760
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kfile-jd-vance-believed-donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-2016/index.html
QuoteVance appeared on a MSNBC segment in October 2016 on Trump's alleged sexual misconduct in which an interview with Jessica Leeds, a former salesperson who accused Trump of groping and forcibly kissing her during a flight in the 1970s, was played. Vance said it was hard to believe Trump's denials over Leeds.
"At a fundamental level, this is sort of a 'he said, she said,' right? And at the end of the day, do you believe Donald Trump, who always tells the truth? Just kidding," said Vance sarcastically. "Or do you believe that woman on that tape?" he said, referring to Leeds.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2024, 08:47:25 AMHoly shit, are those videos available?
Can the Dems use them in ads?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kfile-jd-vance-believed-donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-2016/index.html
QuoteOhio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, repeatedly indicated in 2016 that he believed Donald Trump had committed sexual assault, even suggesting in one TV segment that in a "he said, she said" situation Trump was less credible than one of his accusers.
What would that do? Vance would say he "fell for the lies of the mainstream media" but now knows better.
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2024, 09:00:31 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2024, 08:47:25 AMHoly shit, are those videos available?
Can the Dems use them in ads?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/politics/kfile-jd-vance-believed-donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-2016/index.html
QuoteOhio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, repeatedly indicated in 2016 that he believed Donald Trump had committed sexual assault, even suggesting in one TV segment that in a "he said, she said" situation Trump was less credible than one of his accusers.
What would that do? Vance would say he "fell for the lies of the mainstream media" but now knows better.
It's not Trumpians they need to convince but the (Hod knows why) still undecided, that the Trump team is a far bigger shitshow than they paint the Dems to be.
I think having an ad of Vance ripping Trump would be effective.
Watching CNN spontaneously combust with joy over Kamala Harris is amusing. My favorites so far:
First on CNN: George Clooney Endorses Harris (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kamala-harris-biden-trump-election-07-23-24#h_031828f78423dccad4f2c433f5a0a654) At last the endorsement that really matters; it's all over but the shouting now.
Charli XCX called Kamala Harris 'brat.' Why that's Powerful. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/entertainment/charli-xcx-kamala-harris-brat-meme/index.html) POWERFUL!
Fortunately (or maybe not) this honeymoon phase only lasts a short period.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 23, 2024, 09:46:24 AMCharli XCX called Kamala Harris 'brat.' Why that's Powerful. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/entertainment/charli-xcx-kamala-harris-brat-meme/index.html) POWERFUL!
:lol:
Quote from: Savonarola on July 23, 2024, 09:46:24 AMFortunately (or maybe not) this honeymoon phase only lasts a short period.
Give it a week for new polling to become available and the pundits will be back to puking blood. :hmm:
The Democrats needed to be energized, they are now, and cynical internet denizens need to do their best to shit all over it.
I really need to update my personal urban dictionary for "brat" to mean a positive thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2024, 09:57:08 AMThe Democrats needed to be energized, they are now, and cynical internet denizens need to do their best to shit all over it.
Yeah, it is really odd. How dare people get excited and thus maybe feel like voting?
Looking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2024, 10:45:29 AMLooking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.
Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had. So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2024, 11:28:37 AMQuote from: Valmy on July 23, 2024, 10:45:29 AMLooking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.
Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had. So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?
Yes, after the convention I want a nice lead in the swing states.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2024, 11:43:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2024, 11:28:37 AMQuote from: Valmy on July 23, 2024, 10:45:29 AMLooking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.
Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had. So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?
Yes, after the convention I want a nice lead in the swing states.
That would be nice, but probably unrealistic. Trumpism has taken hold of about half your nation. From what I understand the key to victory in this election is getting people who would not normally vote, interested in voting this time around.
And despite the fact old folks like us need to update our definitions of "brat" by all reports Harris is taking over the social media battle where it counts - appealing to people who normally pay no attention to politics, wouldn't care about Sheilbh's careful analysis of all the reasons holding a better process would have been better, and will come out and vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2024, 07:09:06 PMWhat kind of process would you or Obama like?
No idea - it'd need to be worked out. I think have different campaigns, a few debates, lots of polling and focus groups and maybe do something like state level conventions for a few key states before the convention.
Just some things to test the candidates and let everyone make an informed decision. Harris may be the best candidate to beat Trump - but at the minute all we know is the 2020 campaign which wasn't great and her debate with Pence which was fine (not great, not terrible). Take a look at the options, preview the lines of attack, kick the tires on her national campaign strategy - all the normal reasons you'd want a selection process.
QuoteThere is a general election to run. The more time the better to get on message, get the ground game out, get voters enthused. Time is a luxury, why waste it?
On the side, and what I think Yi sort of raised, what process are you imagining? At the convention the people who matter are the state electors and delegation by delegation they've made their choice. Would it be better to have that process drawn out over weeks?
There was a really bad decision in Biden running again and it was leading to catastrophe. The Democrats got a reprieve and had a chance for a do-over. I just think you should take the chance to really try to work out who is the best placed candidate to beat Trump not rush to a decision.
I think getting this pick wrong will have a bigger impact between the convention and election day than wasting a month before the convention. Obviously I really hope that hasn't happened.
And on the delegates, I think in this scenario more than any other it would be a case of the party decides.
QuoteI remember all the outrage when he took over and how this and that platform will take over, then everyone went the lazy route and stayed under the thumb of an insane South African aristocrat.
It's still the platform journalists use - so if you need to communicate to journalists or want to read what's going on via social media then it serves its perhaps. Meta do not want that near Threads and Substack haven't been able to make Notes into something.
QuoteI don't think that many people will find your question compelling. No one is claiming that Biden is in no fit state to govern except the some right-wing nutjobs that have been claiming that since he got the nom in 2020. Multiple presidents have continued to serve in office without running for re-election.
I'd find that more convincing if it wasn't very similar to the line about him running for president before the debate.
Of those presidents how many stepped down as their party's nominee because of their health? Again I think at an earlier stage Biden could have positioned this more easily as "I've served as a bridge, it's time to hand on to the next generation" or "I don't have my party's support". After that debate and three weeks of speculation, we know why he's stepping down. I think there will be questions about how he's performing and has performed as president given that he's had to step down from his campaign because of the visible state of his health.
If it is just that one story in the WSJ, or the one in Politico about him basically being really sharp from 9-4 but not great out of hours, then it's not a risk. If there is a drip drip drip of stories, I think there's a risk it becomes like Clinton's emails and Harris is the candidate least able to disown it/distance herself.
And the issue isn't the right-wing talking points. That bit of the electorate is gone - it's the press read by the reality-based community the Democrats need to win (just like with the emails, it was the NYT etc - and like with Clinton I slightly worry they'll go out of their way because they feel they maybe dropped the ball on investigating this pre-debate).
QuoteAnd despite the fact old folks like us need to update our definitions of "brat" by all reports Harris is taking over the social media battle where it counts - appealing to people who normally pay no attention to politics, wouldn't care about Sheilbh's careful analysis of all the reasons holding a better process would have been better, and will come out and vote.
I'm not totally sure on social media. I think you can be too online as a campaign. It can be very up and down and mean you're speaking to an engaged but small audience - I think the big surge in people volunteering is a better sign.
And FWIW my point isn't that it would swing one single vote. It's that the party had the chance and should have taken it to make sure, confidently and actively that they've got the best candidate possible to beat Trump and not rallied, loyally, for the easiest default option. I think it's a risk - it may work out and I hope it does. I think the Trumpy candidates have lost every election since 2016 so I really hope that holds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 02:32:56 PMNo idea - it'd need to be worked out. I think have different campaigns, a few debates, lots of polling and focus groups and maybe do something like state level conventions for a few key states before the convention.
Just some things to test the candidates and let everyone make an informed decision. Harris may be the best candidate to beat Trump - but at the minute all we know is the 2020 campaign which wasn't great and her debate with Pence which was fine (not great, not terrible). Take a look at the options, preview the lines of attack, kick the tires on her national campaign strategy - all the normal reasons you'd want a selection process.
Other candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 02:40:38 PMOther candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.
Oh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 02:44:01 PMOh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.
These things are all proxies for the will of the people. The same thing surveys measure. It appears to me surveys are being conducted at a furious pace.
The only thing missing then is in house opposition research. Things about Kamala that are not broadly known but which could negatively impact her in the general. She ran a child sex ring in California. She sold heroin to get through law school.
Except the negatives on Clinton and Biden were not secrets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 02:44:01 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 02:40:38 PMOther candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.
Oh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.
Why? What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice? And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?
Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.
:wacko:
They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2024, 03:10:07 PM:wacko:
They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.
Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.
My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"
We need people who want the office to run in order for there to be a process though. Nobody is fighting for it.
As I said, the Democrats are well trained. So off we go.
Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2024, 03:19:06 PMQuote from: garbon on July 23, 2024, 03:10:07 PM:wacko:
They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.
Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.
My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"
I don't see any signs they are being complacent about the threat Trump poses.
Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2024, 03:19:06 PMMy only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"
I think Kamala is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary. Kamala as veep is sort of a default if we don't agree on anyone else. She has overwhelming support and a huge organizational and fundraising advantage. Endorsements have piled in. She's polling well. Exactly like Hillary, why would anyone in their right mind run against her? You're guaranteed to lose.
In terms of "process" the only concrete step I could see taking is not automatically handing over the Biden organization and funds to Harris. Which is maybe not a terrible thing to do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2024, 03:09:55 PMWhy? What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice? And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?
Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.
I think delegates are following their leaders - I think more than selection in 50 years this a "party decides" moment. Had those leaders gone the Obama route and talked about a process to select an outstanding candidate, I think we'd have other candidates declaring an interest and it would be worked out at or by the convention.
I think the actual mechanics for doing that would basically just be a formality - as designed by party leaders.
QuoteYeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.
I disagree I think you can run a truncated primary style campaign of campaign events and debates in a month (I'm fairly certain at least Newsome had things set up to run :lol:). You won't get a long-shot candidate who needs to build momentum, but you can at least work out who is the best of the possible candidates.
And I think there's been stories about the risk of convention chaos (particularly for the Democrats) in every open election I can remember. My view is that absent the ressurrection of Richard J Daley the negatives of navel gazing and pre-convention "narratives" are vastly lower than getting the candidate wrong - in the debates, in the three months of campaigning afterwards etc.
It's been a choice not to do that and I think it's a risk that I really hope we don't regret.
QuoteMy only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"
And that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 03:50:08 PMAnd that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.
So you want a process in which you can say which candidate would be better and in which candidates themselves say they would be better, but Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney and the delegates and survey respondents are not allowed to say which candidate would be better.
Everything is far, far, far easier if Harris is the nominee legally. If they try to force in another primary, it would be an absolute disaster legally and, I think, politically. The Republicans are already looking for any loopholes or means to get Biden back or force a primary which, once again to me, shows how bad those options are.
I mean we haven't had the convention yet. Biden was not yet the nominee.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 03:56:32 PMSo you want a process in which you can say which candidate would be better and in which candidates themselves say they would be better, but Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney and the delegates and survey respondents are not allowed to say which candidate would be better.
We can all have opinions regardless :P
I think party leaders will make the decision in this sort of scenario regardless - so it would be like the "invisible primary" before the primaries except instead of the primaries. The choice was do it quickly rallying behind Harris as the VP to avoid division and project unity, or take that risk and, for want of a better word, have a job interview.
But I think it was a choice not an inevitability (any technicality could have been worked out). Both sides have risk - my view is simply that they went for the riskier one and I just hope we don't regret it.
Edit: I should add that I think the GOP reaction to her is really unpleasant in a way that I think people will notice. Trump is often funny with his insults, it's why they work. "Childless cat lady" isn't funny - it's just mean and misogynist. And I think this does show why it was right for Biden to step aside as the sheer energy and sharpness she can already bring on the campaign trail is what a non-Biden (non-octogenarian) candidate brings that Biden couldn't.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2024, 04:11:04 PMI mean we haven't had the convention yet. Biden was not yet the nominee.
Legal Eagle did a video on it. He definitely makes it sound like Biden is not officially locked in, but he was on the ballots of all of the primaries already held. As such, anyone not on those ballots invites a host of potential issues to arise. Harris *also* being on those same ballots makes it far easier, smoother, and less of a nightmare to have her take over as opposed to any other option.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPt-4Eqr35I&t=870s&ab_channel=LegalEagle
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 04:13:37 PMWe can all have opinions regardless :P
I think party leaders will make the decision in this sort of scenario regardless - so it would be like the "invisible primary" before the primaries except instead of the primaries. The choice was do it quickly rallying behind Harris as the VP to avoid division and project unity, or take that risk and, for want of a better word, have a job interview.
Unless too many people have the same opinion, as with Hillary, in which case it is squashing and hurting the country.
"The Choice?" It's that kind of thing that leads me to call your thinking quasi conspiratorial. There was no single choice. The Trilateral Commission did not meet in secret holy conclave, give the secret handshake then decide it will be handled quickly. Nancy Pelosi made
a choice to give an early endorsement. A large number of delegates made
a choice to express support for Harris early. Any possible alternate candidate made
a choice not to contest at this point.
Similarly with "the Democrats." There are registered Democratic voters. There are Democratic leaning voters. There is the DNC. There are Democratic elected officials and ex officials. None of them can give orders to anyone else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 04:33:06 PMUnless too many people have the same opinion, as with Hillary, in which case it is squashing and hurting the country.
"The Choice?" It's that kind of thing that leads me to call your thinking quasi conspiratorial. There was no single choice. The Trilateral Commission did not meet in secret holy conclave, give the secret handshake then decide it will be handled quickly. Nancy Pelosi made a choice to give an early endorsement. A large number of delegates made a choice to express support for Harris early. Any possible alternate candidate made a choice not to contest at this point.
I mean a choice as opposed to an inevitability - that there was agency here and options.
But also I think of all people in the world politicians are political animals. They talk, strategise, plan, get aligned, read the room etc. I imagine they have not stopped talking to each other since they were informed that Biden was planning to step aside (which some would have known in advance) and that includes talking to other potential candidates over whether it's the right time, they're willing to support them or if they should sit back and get behind Harris. And, always looking over each other's shoulders, sometimes they'll just join the herd because they don't want to get left behind.
I think the leaders of the party, from the second Biden stepped down (and I think in advance for at least the Clintons, Obama - I'd imagine Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries etc), have been trying to work out how to handle this in the best interests of the party and, in their view, the best odds to beat Trump. And I think this is their shared, collective conclusion.
I don't think that's bad or evil or a conspiracy - I think it's how most organisations work but particularly political parties. I just worry they've reached the wrong decision.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 03:50:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2024, 03:09:55 PMWhy? What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice? And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?
Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.
I think delegates are following their leaders - I think more than selection in 50 years this a "party decides" moment. Had those leaders gone the Obama route and talked about a process to select an outstanding candidate, I think we'd have other candidates declaring an interest and it would be worked out at or by the convention.
I think the actual mechanics for doing that would basically just be a formality - as designed by party leaders.
QuoteYeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.
I disagree I think you can run a truncated primary style campaign of campaign events and debates in a month (I'm fairly certain at least Newsome had things set up to run :lol:). You won't get a long-shot candidate who needs to build momentum, but you can at least work out who is the best of the possible candidates.
And I think there's been stories about the risk of convention chaos (particularly for the Democrats) in every open election I can remember. My view is that absent the ressurrection of Richard J Daley the negatives of navel gazing and pre-convention "narratives" are vastly lower than getting the candidate wrong - in the debates, in the three months of campaigning afterwards etc.
It's been a choice not to do that and I think it's a risk that I really hope we don't regret.
QuoteMy only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"
And that is my worry - that that's exactly what's happened.
I just don't see the upside with what you are proposing.
The reason primaries are held so far in advance of an election is to give the eventual winner time to recover from all the attacks that were made on them during the primaries.
It would be lunacy to hold a primary competition this close to an election.
Sheilbh the problem with your proposal is that there already is a process in place. There were elections to select delegates and those delegates have been selected. There is an existing process in place by which they officially register their choice. That process unquestionably favors Harris given that the vast majority of delegates were already pledged to support her for VP and given that the guy they were pledged to support for President endorsed her.
To do what you would like to see happen and make it effective - i.e. to create a sufficiently level playing field this late in the game to entice competitors in - there would have to be a massive change to the rules. And to do that would understandably infuriate the Harris supporters. It would amount to changing the rules at the last minute for the specific purpose of lowering Harris' chances.
The root problem is that the time for alternative Democratic candidates to get into the race isn't now and it wasn't two days ago. It was about a year ago, enough time to prepare for and contest Iowa, NH, etc. We knew back them that Biden was a compromised candidate, based on the numbers alone if nothing else. But nothing happened because of the move along, nothing to see hear attitude of the party and because none of the potential challengers wanted to take the onus of being the first to stick the knife in. That reticence leads inevitably to where we are now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2024, 05:09:35 PMSheilbh the problem with your proposal is that there already is a process in place. There were elections to select delegates and those delegates have been selected. There is an existing process in place by which they officially register their choice. That process unquestionably favors Harris given that the vast majority of delegates were already pledged to support her for VP and given that the guy they were pledged to support for President endorsed her.
To do what you would like to see happen and make it effective - i.e. to create a sufficiently level playing field this late in the game to entice competitors in - there would have to be a massive change to the rules. And to do that would understandably infuriate the Harris supporters. It would amount to changing the rules at the last minute for the specific purpose of lowering Harris' chances.
I think that's probably fair - and there almost certainly has been an invisible primary going on in the last three weeks because I think Biden going was inevitable. And I certainly think some of the alternatives were doing their best efforts to audition while appearing loyal (Newsom :lol:). Although practically many people - as suggested on the NYT podcast (far, far more negative on Harris than I would be) - may have actually just thought that in this context it's not the time and would hurt the party with key voters they need this autumn to challenge a Black woman who is VP so it is "her turn". I accept that unless it's done by Biden and Harris, the optics would be very bad.
Especially because, as I say, the Trumpy candidates have lost in every election since 2016 - so the attitude should be this should be winnable (without Biden).
The actual blitz primary suggestion was mad. But without the mad elements, that would basically be my "process" - I don't know what Obama had in mind when he said "I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges". This is not the scenario imagined when those primary voters were voting. So have people launch campaigns, make a pitch, do some forums and debates and then delegates vote (but the top brass would basically be shaping that convention).
QuoteThe root problem is that the time for alternative Democratic candidates to get into the race isn't now and it wasn't two days ago. It was about a year ago, enough time to prepare for and contest Iowa, NH, etc. We knew back them that Biden was a compromised candidate, based on the numbers alone if nothing else. But nothing happened because of the move along, nothing to see hear attitude of the party and because none of the potential challengers wanted to take the onus of being the first to stick the knife in. That reticence leads inevitably to where we are now.
Yeah I totally agree with this.
Although the Democrats more broadly (:o) tried to fiddle with the primary calendar broadly to help avoid challenges/strengthen Biden and closed their eyes to problems with his campaign.
I'd need to see Kamala come out strongly in favor of Israel and against Hamas to consider voting for her instead of Trump; but I do think the Democrats increased their chances by putting her in over Biden.
Do I think she was the best theoretical Democratic candidate to beat Trump? Nope.
But she is the best possible one--because it would be nearly impossible to have skipped over her due to how our convention process works and the fact all the delegates are selected already and they aren't a neutral group of people they were people selected by the Biden campaign.
Any mechanism one could dream up to push her aside would be incredibly damaging to party cohesion. And given virtually every element--from the Clintonian old guard, the Congressional leadership, the "rabble rousers" like the far lefties in the Squad, the Bernie people etc have coalesced behind her I think the positives of trying to bypass her are low. None of the major constituencies are mad she has been selected. All but certainly a couple of the major constituencies would be furious if they engineered a way to dump her.
So while I think a candidate like Andy Beshear probably comfortably beats Trump, while Kamala IMO is not > 50% likely to win, there has never been a good mechanism for a guy like Beshear to become the nominee. Even if Biden had announced he wasn't running a year ago and there had been an open primary, people like Beshear wouldn't survive the Democratic primary process. Most likely the primary process, as it stands today, would produce a less electable person further to the left, so while there are better theoretical Democrats than Kamala, none that I can imagine who would have won the primaries, frankly. The Democratic primaries came very close to pushing a loser back in 2020, and I am not sure Jim Clyburn could save them from themselves again in 2024.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2024, 04:52:48 PMI just worry they've reached the wrong decision.
Is this your way of saying there is another (non) candidate who has a better chance of beating Trump?
Back to the Hillary case, there was a full blown primary, process up the wazoo, and she lost. So process by itself does not guarantee winning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 05:59:35 PMIs this your way of saying there is another (non) candidate who has a better chance of beating Trump?
No. I genuinely don't know - and my worry is I'm not sure anyone else does. I'm relatively sympathetic to Harris and I felt they were far too harsh on her prospects but the NYT podcast today did slightly concern me.
I think as Tamas said, with Hillary too many people in the party basically went "well it's her turn. And it's Trump. Job done" and closed their eyes to her flaws. I think a similar process happened around Biden deciding to run again - closed their eyes, criticism hurts the campaign, mentioning his age is right-wing misinformation, get behind the candidate.
I really want the Democrats to beat Trump. And I think there's a risk they're repeating mistakes they've made before - it might be the best strategy at this moment because of where they are and she might well be the best candidate. It's a judgement call and I'm unsure - maybe take the risk of party disunity just to triple check that her 2020 primary campaign isn't her ceiling as a national politician.
QuoteBack to the Hillary case, there was a full blown primary, process up the wazoo, and she lost. So process by itself does not guarantee winning.
But again - I know you think this is conspiracy-mongering - but I think the invisible primary before the primary shutting down other candidates was very effective for Hillary and disastrous for the party/country/world.
I think Otto's analysis is sound - that Kamela may be the best actually possible candidate.
Sheilbh, you're talking about what is missed about not doing the process - but you're completely discounting the risk of kicking over the hornet's nest that it is "yeah Kamela is the heir apparent, but fuck her we'll see if there's someone better out there... excuse me, what I mean it's only fair we have a process to see if she's actually the best" there could be some constituencies who'll be really upset, Bernie Bros style.
You're making the argument that "a process" would produce a "better candidate" (or even "the best"). That may or may not be true (because the correlation between "more process" and "therefore better" is not ironclad), but even if it's true it's a whole different thing to get everyone to agree to that.
Bernie mounted a very effective challenge to HRC, he won about 40% of the delegates. I can't think of anyone else at the time who could have mounted that effective a challenge other than Biden, and Biden had personal issues at the time. HRC's dire shittiness as a candidate dominates our thought now through the clarity of 20-20 hindsight. But at the time she declared, she had a record as a popular Senator from New York, and a reputation as a tough and flinty Secretary of State. I don't think anyone else wins that primary, and had someone else come in from the moderate wing, the only likely alternative result would be Bernie winning.
Otto is certainly right that someone like Beshear would probably beat Trump in a cakewalk and he's also right that there is little chance that someone like him would ever win a Dem primary.
@Shelf:
I do agree people can choose based on criteria other than will they win. For example I suspect many people supported Hillary because she was a woman. But the desirability of this type of thinking has nothing at all to do with whether they are The Democrats or whether they are a Democrat. Third party voters almost by definition vote for someone they think will not win. Blame them all or blame none of them. For the record I have no recollection of a anyone saying "it's her turn." If anything it wasn't her turn. She was a one term senator after being first lady. That doesn't shoot her to the top of the seniority list. But that's besides the point.
An invisible primary didn't shut down opposition to Hillary. Hillary's obvious popularity shut down opposition to Hillary. Harris' obvious popularity is shutting down opposition to Harris. The way to fight massive popularity is to make the case for someone else, not whine about The Democrats picking badly for you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2024, 03:38:56 PMI think Kamala is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary. Kamala as veep is sort of a default if we don't agree on anyone else. She has overwhelming support and a huge organizational and fundraising advantage. Endorsements have piled in. She's polling well. Exactly like Hillary, why would anyone in their right mind run against her? You're guaranteed to lose.
In terms of "process" the only concrete step I could see taking is not automatically handing over the Biden organization and funds to Harris. Which is maybe not a terrible thing to do.
The Biden organization and funds are the Biden-Harris organization and funds. Harris inherits them automatically.
While there are things that the Biden campaign could do to get those funds back into play had there been a non-Harris candidate, those would almost certainly have led to legal challenges which, while almost certainly unsuccessful, would have tied up that money at an awkward time.
Harris is not the optimal candidate but she's the only practical one.
Harris has nowhere near the level of hate/baggage that HRC had. When she ran in 2016, the right wing tv and radio had been poisoning their audience for over 2 decades about how she was the devil incarnate.
You also had the Kremlin, who had a personal distaste of her, flooding social media for years with disinfo.
Harris has no real skeletons in her closet, as all I can see so far from GOPtards are racism & misogyny. The dog-whistles about her laugh (loud black woman) are cringeworthy. That's all you got folks?
russia also didn't seem to have planned for the Harris candidacy, and their usual mouthpieces are relaying low-level efforts like "IS BIDEN DEAD? WHERE IS HE?" and "this is not legal!!!!".
We're 3 months out. I predict 300+ EV victory for Harris, with +10 million votes minimum.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the Democrats are not the only party with difficulties picking the most electorally optimal candidate. The GOP has selected Donald Trump as a candidate three times in a row despite ample evidence that he is the electoral equivalent of skunk shit.
Average net rating for a VP after the convention is +19
Vance has a net rating of -6
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1815905253793095967
QuoteJD Vance is making history as the least liked VP nominee (non-incumbent) since 1980 following his/her party's convention. He's the first to have a net negative favorable rating.
Not surprising given how weak he ran in Ohio in 2022. Far worse than the average Ohio Republican.
Not impressed with the cat lady line of attack. GOP already has one prominent governor who murdered her dog; not smart to alienate the cat people too. I don't think there are enough hamster owners to win a national election.
I did have a laugh this morning when the crowd was shouting 'lock him up' at what I guess was the first rally.
The attack on Harris and buttigieg for being childless does carry a big whiff of the Elon musk school of "thinking" fascist. The only valid kids are your genetic off spring. A true man spreads his seed as far and wide as possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2024, 11:51:45 PMIt's also worth keeping in mind that the Democrats are not the only party with difficulties picking the most electorally optimal candidate. The GOP has selected Donald Trump as a candidate three times in a row despite ample evidence that he is the electoral equivalent of skunk shit.
Is he though?
He did win against Clinton. He does have a unique ability to appeal to idiots in swing states.
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2024, 06:43:33 PMI think Otto's analysis is sound - that Kamela may be the best actually possible candidate.
Sheilbh, you're talking about what is missed about not doing the process - but you're completely discounting the risk of kicking over the hornet's nest that it is "yeah Kamela is the heir apparent, but fuck her we'll see if there's someone better out there... excuse me, what I mean it's only fair we have a process to see if she's actually the best" there could be some constituencies who'll be really upset, Bernie Bros style.
You're making the argument that "a process" would produce a "better candidate" (or even "the best"). That may or may not be true (because the correlation between "more process" and "therefore better" is not ironclad), but even if it's true it's a whole different thing to get everyone to agree to that.
Maybe - I don't think I'm discounting that as much as reading the risk differently. Or, perhaps, being a bit more worried based about Harris as candidate based on 2020 which could be totally unfair as she'll be different, have a better team, maybe a clearer message etc. As I say I think the NYT podcast was far more negative than I would be, but also flagging real concerns.
I suppose my thing - not to put a dampener on everyone's mood - is that I think lots of people are quite excited, there's lots of stanning (which I get). But clinching the nomination and the convention are probably the best news cycles a candidate will get. There will be moments of adversity in the campaign. It all feels a little bit swingy/sugar-rushy and brittle at the minute - hopefully it'll balance. We don't have much more (at a national level) than 2020 or her role as VP to go on. I think people are maybe not considering that risk enough.
I get people's point that it would be difficult and you'd be inventing a parachute as you're jumping. But I think it is absolutely do-able, as Obama suggested. Had other leaders taken Obama's approach of praising Joe, but not immediately endorsing we'd already be having the "process" (as I say I think the technicalities of how you do it don't really matter, you work something out because you need to) - that was also open with Biden's first message which didn't have an endorsement. Biden then updating that to endorse Harris, other leaders doing an endorsement in their message praising Biden's decision foreclosed that avenue that Obama suggested. I hope we don't regret it.
And while I absolutely think that the legitimacy stuff is nonsense and only coming from the right. But I could see it becoming a bit of an issue when there are those moments of adversity in the campaign - and they may themselves regret not having some form of legitimating "process".
QuoteBernie mounted a very effective challenge to HRC, he won about 40% of the delegates. I can't think of anyone else at the time who could have mounted that effective a challenge other than Biden, and Biden had personal issues at the time. HRC's dire shittiness as a candidate dominates our thought now through the clarity of 20-20 hindsight. But at the time she declared, she had a record as a popular Senator from New York, and a reputation as a tough and flinty Secretary of State. I don't think anyone else wins that primary, and had someone else come in from the moderate wing, the only likely alternative result would be Bernie winning.
I read that slightly differently.
The fact that even someone like Bernie could win about 40% of the delegates indicates that there were plenty of people looking for any alternative and that her shittiness as a candidate was kind of a known quantity - both the case in 2008. I'm sure a chunk were keen for a candidate of the left but I think a chunk were probably just looking for someone, anyone, other than Clinton. Sadly Martin O'Malley was a disappointment who let us all down.
I get that Yi disagrees but I think without the Clinton machine (especially with Obama's side not contesting it, which I think was negotiated) you would have had many more candidates. It was an open field coming at the end of a relatively popular two-term presidency when the VP wasn't running. I don't think it was her overwhelming personal popularity, but her effectiveness at politics and the Clinton team around her. The exact stuff they tried and failed to do in 2008, they were able to do in 2016. And it was a huge mistake.
QuoteI suppose my thing - not to put a dampener on everyone's mood - is that I think lots of people are quite excited, there's lots of stanning (which I get). But clinching the nomination and the convention are probably the best news cycles a candidate will get. There will be moments of adversity in the campaign. It all feels a little bit swingy/sugar-rushy and brittle at the minute - hopefully it'll balance. We don't have much more (at a national level) than 2020 or her role as VP to go on. I think people are maybe not considering that risk enough.
Possible advantage to her campaign starting so late?
Sheilbh, if Labour had a public leadership contest with candidates tearing into Starmer and each other a few months before the GE, do you think that would had improved or hurt Labour's chances?
Sheilbh, I think you are overreading Obama's one mention of a process.
Maybe you're right but I think the lack of endorsement is the key point. You raised it in Biden's first post because I think it changes the situation.
There's been lots of people here challenging on process and I think that's the heart of the periphery. It doesn't matter what it looks like or how it works formally. What matters is do we need to endorse ASAP or do we indicate we'll take a look - and once you're on either of those tracks they'll take their own course.
On the other hand I suppose either of them would be decisive for Harris. Quick endorsements from across party leadership closes down the opportunity to assess other candidates. And while I take JR's point that in order to create a level playing field you'd have to re-jig things. It might not even have mattered or got to that stage if basically all the party leadership are deliberately withholding their endorsement from the VP in this scenario. That feels like it would be a huge blow/vote of no confidence for her.
So, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?
But "taking a look" is not without its own implications. If you need to "take a look" at Harris why was she VP for 4 years?
I think you are just projecting your own uncertainty about her viability as a candidate. Which I understand, I am worried too, it feels like the euphoria over Biden resigning has resulted in the same kind of inward-turning confidence that they had with Hillary Clinton.
But a restarted primary process to ask the question: "do we really, REALLY want this Black Vice President as our next President?" would not exactly help with that inward focus.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 24, 2024, 03:54:51 AMSo, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?
Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.
Where would those campaign funds go, and what's stopping whoever gave them to Biden from giving them again to Harris?
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:19 AMI think you are just projecting your own uncertainty about her viability as a candidate. Which I understand, I am worried too, it feels like the euphoria over Biden resigning has resulted in the same kind of inward-turning confidence that they had with Hillary Clinton.
How so? Because she's a woman? Because the Dem side has shown some excitement for the first time this year? Beyond a few opinion columnists, I haven't seen anyone saying it is now a cakewalk. Just that there are now avenues like abortion that Biden was loathe to talk about that Harris can champion (and was apparently doing so recently as VP).
Quote from: Solmyr on July 24, 2024, 03:57:48 AMwhat's stopping whoever gave them to Biden from giving them again to Harris?
Nothing given how I believe she has outraised the funds that she got from Biden campaign.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 03:59:46 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:19 AMI think you are just projecting your own uncertainty about her viability as a candidate. Which I understand, I am worried too, it feels like the euphoria over Biden resigning has resulted in the same kind of inward-turning confidence that they had with Hillary Clinton.
How so? Because she's a woman? Because the Dem side has shown some excitement for the first time this year? Beyond a few opinion columnists, I haven't seen anyone saying it is now a cakewalk. Just that there are now avenues like abortion that Biden was loathe to talk about that Harris can champion (and was apparently doing so recently as VP).
It's just a mix of vibe and anxiety. Although the whole "brat" thing I found very cringeworthy, a British pop "star" latches on to the news bandwagon and people handle it like the Yout of America have pledged undying support to Harris.
Will see how it goes. I am defo not on Sheilbh's side of starting a public contest between candidates for a facade of supposed legitimacy, though. I am just on the side of recognising the war hasn't been won and the Dems as per latest data are still the losing side.
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:19 AMBut "taking a look" is not without its own implications. If you need to "take a look" at Harris why was she VP for 4 years?
I think you are just projecting your own uncertainty about her viability as a candidate. Which I understand, I am worried too, it feels like the euphoria over Biden resigning has resulted in the same kind of inward-turning confidence that they had with Hillary Clinton.
But a restarted primary process to ask the question: "do we really, REALLY want this Black Vice President as our next President?" would not exactly help with that inward focus.
Yeah. I think that's definitely a large part of it.
I said I'm unsure this is the right decision because I am, but I think my main point now is actually that there was a choice here. Because I think that's what people seem to be disagreeing with - not least because "you're wrong" would be an insane response to someone saying they're uncertain :lol:
On the decision, as I say I don't know which was the right option. But people were making decisions - it was contingent not a mechanical inevitability.
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:51 AMQuote from: Solmyr on July 24, 2024, 03:54:51 AMSo, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?
Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.
Would backfire as it would likely galvanise the undecided public more against trumpler
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 04:12:19 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:19 AMBut "taking a look" is not without its own implications. If you need to "take a look" at Harris why was she VP for 4 years?
I think you are just projecting your own uncertainty about her viability as a candidate. Which I understand, I am worried too, it feels like the euphoria over Biden resigning has resulted in the same kind of inward-turning confidence that they had with Hillary Clinton.
But a restarted primary process to ask the question: "do we really, REALLY want this Black Vice President as our next President?" would not exactly help with that inward focus.
Yeah. I think that's definitely a large part of it.
I said I'm unsure this is the right decision because I am, but I think my main point now is actually that there was a choice here. Because I think that's what people seem to be disagreeing with - not least because "you're wrong" would be an insane response to someone saying they're uncertain :lol:
On the decision, as I say I don't know which was the right option. But people were making decisions - it was contingent not a mechanical inevitability.
But, a decision has been made as per party rules, the delegates have confirmed they want Harris. Trying to coup the party process by some sort of popular vote would have been very divisive I am sure.
And there is the "small" fact that Harris has been slated to become President in the "extremely" unlikely even his 81 years old boss died. So publicly proclaimed lack of trust in her by the party would have raised at least as many questions as her clean march to candidacy, and more severe ones.
Quote from: Josquius on July 24, 2024, 02:19:00 AMThe attack on Harris and buttigieg for being childless does carry a big whiff of the Elon musk school of "thinking" fascist. The only valid kids are your genetic off spring. A true man spreads his seed as far and wide as possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 23, 2024, 11:51:45 PMIt's also worth keeping in mind that the Democrats are not the only party with difficulties picking the most electorally optimal candidate. The GOP has selected Donald Trump as a candidate three times in a row despite ample evidence that he is the electoral equivalent of skunk shit.
Is he though?
He did win against Clinton. He does have a unique ability to appeal to idiots in swing states.
On point 1, it goes deeper than that. The 2025 project explicitly plans to close the border and make up the population deficit by causing American women to have more children.
On the second point, skunk shit might have some use as a fertilizer, but you really gave to hold your nose to the point you lose your sense of smell. The analogy is perfect.
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 04:04:21 AMIt's just a mix of vibe and anxiety. Although the whole "brat" thing I found very cringeworthy, a British pop "star" latches on to the news bandwagon and people handle it like the Yout of America have pledged undying support to Harris.
You are holding it against the Dems that the news decided to play up a celebrity endorsement and Kamala's campaign has leaned into embracing memes by excited youth?
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 04:04:21 AMWill see how it goes. I am defo not on Sheilbh's side of starting a public contest between candidates for a facade of supposed legitimacy, though. I am just on the side of recognising the war hasn't been won and the Dems as per latest data are still the losing side.
Sure but where is it coming from that the Dems are now out of the woods?
These feels like some sort of goldilocks request that they should get people excited but not too excited. Have you considered that maybe you just don't like it when the Dems are showing excitement? :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 04:12:19 AMOn the decision, as I say I don't know which was the right option. But people were making decisions - it was contingent not a mechanical inevitability.
Cool, so a truism?
Tamas, the most recent polls have Harris two points up over Trump. But as Garbon points out, I see no indication the Dems think they are out of the woods. It's just that everyone is thrilled that they no longer have the feeling of inevitable defeat.
And no one is going to forget what happened when it was accepted that Hillary would win.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 06:12:38 AMSure but where is it coming from that the Dems are now out of the woods?
These feels like some sort of goldilocks request that they should get people excited but not too excited. Have you considered that maybe you just don't like it when the Dems are showing excitement? :D
Because it's triggering :lol: :ph34r: RBG totebags, I'm Still With Her, Biden's pre-debate energy drink post.
Get people excited but don't get too into the online hype cycles (not least because there will be bad days and adversity in a campaign which you need people to be level-headed about and not spiralling into utter despair after all the euphoria). As Neil Warnock put it: by all means enjoy it, but enjoy it by being fucking disciplined :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 06:44:55 AMQuote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 06:12:38 AMSure but where is it coming from that the Dems are now out of the woods?
These feels like some sort of goldilocks request that they should get people excited but not too excited. Have you considered that maybe you just don't like it when the Dems are showing excitement? :D
Because it's triggering :lol: :ph34r: RBG totebags, I'm Still With Her, Biden's pre-debate energy drink post.
Get people excited but don't get too into the online hype cycles (not least because there will be bad days and adversity in a campaign which you need people to be level-headed about and not spiralling into utter despair after all the euphoria). As Neil Warnock put it: by all means enjoy it, but enjoy it by being fucking disciplined :P
Okay, so this is all about your own psychodrama. :hug:
I would suggest that perhaps in the first week, one shouldn't get so emotional and see how things play out rather than jump to panic stations. ;)
:lol: :P
"Siri, please show the psychological impact of wanting to beat the Tories for 14 years."
Admirable American optimism that any Democrats can have any type of confidence ever after 2016.
The simple truth is Kamala can campaign, if you had been following Biden closely, he no longer could. Kamala is an upgrade over Biden, it isn't blind optimism by the Dems to see that. And it is quite obvious the Trump campaign is both upset and worried about the switch, and feel far less confident.
Trump despite his many personal negatives, has decent political instincts. He has well known that while you have to ape pro-life views to be a Republican elected official, many of the more extreme pro-life views are far outside the mainstream of American society, and are politically damaging. Trump knows that Roe being overturned was a case of a dog finally catching the car, and not a political positive for the GOP. He has been trying to distance himself from that ruling for years, it was apparently one requirement of his VP selections that all of them be willing to water down their pro-life views. I've heard rumors one reason Tim Scott was passed over is he wasn't willing to be flexible on his.
JD Vance's views are on the other hand very malleable, his website removed a lot of abortion stuff after he was selected. If you follow JD's progression as a public figure, his views also changed dramatically when he decided to go from being a conservative author to an actual politician in 2022. Tim Scott on the other hand is from a religious background where he deeply believes in the pro-life stuff, it isn't just politics for him.
Kamala is far better situated to attack trump over abortion than Biden was--remember Biden was often a lukewarm figure on abortion for most of his career.
Trump also was quite obviously worried about losing suburban women in 2020, but a big problem Trump has always had is none of his political instincts or rhetorical habits are good at appealing to suburban women. I think a big issue his campaign is going to have is the typical attack lines Trump will want to use against a female candidate are not going to help on that front, and may even cause more losses.
Trump has never been able to capture as many suburban women as he did in 2016, and it is an open question if the math works for him winning the EC at all without them, Trump has broadened his appeal to "independents" vs 2020, but only a touch, Trump's polling is still mostly stuck around where it has been since the 2020 cycle. Which means there has always been an opportunity for the Democrats to just scoop up the voters that were out there but Biden-skeptical.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 07:07:27 AM:lol: :P
"Siri, please show the psychological impact of wanting to beat the Tories for 14 years."
Admirable American optimism that any Democrats can have any type of confidence ever after 2016.
I have never seen you this far out of touch with what is actually happening. The Democrats did after all win the 2020 election. The Democrats know that they lost in 2016 when they thought they had it in the bag. The Democrats just one week ago were about to throw in the towel because they had a presidential candidate that was clearly incapable of being president. All that has now changed But you keep denying the facts on the ground In favour of your pet project, that there should've been a different process.
I think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?
I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.
Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.
My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.
So it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.
This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 09:43:31 AMI think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?
I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.
Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.
My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.
So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.
There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails. It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders. It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you. That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently. In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.
Quote from: Norgy on July 24, 2024, 09:58:04 AMSo it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.
This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.
Rose colored much?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:07:56 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 09:43:31 AMI think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?
I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.
Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.
My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.
So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.
There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails. It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders. It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you. That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently. In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.
I have been feeling a little toward his argument as I believe he feels to NYTimes coverage of British politics. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:07:56 AMSo now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.
There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails. It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders. It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you. That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently. In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.
I think Biden endorsing Harris very shortly after withdrawing more or less ended any alternative - and those candidates deciding either it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a chance (which I think was basically inevitable after Biden's decision - unless there was a huge reaction against Harris in the immediate aftermath).
But I don't think they're just individuals. I think those decisions will have been in the context of senior Democrats talking to each other constantly every day since the debate about how to get Biden to step down and what to do if he does. I think in part, with previous discussions of blitz primaries, they concluded they needed to do it quickly, unity and avoiding the risk of division was very important and Harris is a good enough candidate (and has been vetted).
The thing I started with is that I think if that last assessment turns out to be wrong, they might regret the other two. And I don't know if it will but I think the last one is more important and will have more of an impact than the other two.
Edit: I've realised I've accidentally been channelling Kamala Harris - the presidential nomination didn't fall out of a coconut tree :P
Quote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:51 AMQuote from: Solmyr on July 24, 2024, 03:54:51 AMSo, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?
Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.
They aren't Biden's funds. They are the funds of the Biden-Harris campaign. They've always been as much her funds as his.
The USSC is unlikely to get involved because no one who would file such a suit has any standing.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 10:48:56 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 24, 2024, 03:56:51 AMQuote from: Solmyr on July 24, 2024, 03:54:51 AMSo, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?
Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.
They aren't Biden's funds. They are the funds of the Biden-Harris campaign. They've always been as much her funds as his.
The USSC is unlikely to get involved because no one who would file such a suit has any standing.
You are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 10:13:31 AMI have been feeling a little toward his argument as I believe he feels to NYTimes coverage of British politics. :D
God I'm very sorry :ph34r:
Although I think I am in line with the NYT ("How Democrats learned to love the smoke-filled room again") or, say, Axios (https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/inside-harris-sprint-democratic-nomination). I don't think that stuff is bad or perjorative - in this situation it's necessary (and any other process would be the same).
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:52:56 AMYou are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.
It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1. The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling. That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th. Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court. Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.
I don't think it's "conspiracy theory" to suggest senior leaders in an organization have had discussions for weeks on an important issue and then made a consensus decision.
Conspiracy theory is when a person connects falling off their bike to INFLATIONARY BIDENOMICS and Canada doing well in Copa America.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 10:11:25 AMQuote from: Norgy on July 24, 2024, 09:58:04 AMSo it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.
This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.
Rose colored much?
I suppose.
I think I have seen a lot of politicians and parties going down the wrong path in my lifetime. Don't mistake that for me not supporting Harris.
The world needs the US. And it needs a United States not run by Project 2025 and a felon. I think most of us are just as invested in this as you are, garbon.
My political views, well, they are probably suspect to many here. But this is not a political view. It is an existential one. I support Harris. And I really hope she can win. At this point, after watching the RNC clips and reading the speeches, I would support a fucking living doll instead of Trump.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 11:14:25 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:52:56 AMYou are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.
It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1. The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling. That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th. Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court. Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.
Hypothetically (because so far there is only an FEC complaint on file), the case would be initiated along with a request for emergency injunctive relief demanding to freeze the funds. That could receive expedited treatment if put before a sympathetic judge. Depending on the outcome a motion seeking an emergency injunctive order can be obtained outside the Supreme Court term by directing it for the Justice responsible for the judicial circuit where the case is pending.
I agree there doesn't seem like there is a viable procedural or substantive basis for such an order, but if a court were inclined to act, it could be done in time to impact the campaign. As of even a year ago, I would have felt safe saying there is 0 chance of that happening. After the last Supreme Court term, though, I really don't know what to expect anymore. There is nothing this Court can do anymore that would surprise me.
Quote from: Norgy on July 24, 2024, 01:31:05 PMQuote from: garbon on July 24, 2024, 10:11:25 AMQuote from: Norgy on July 24, 2024, 09:58:04 AMSo it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.
This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.
Rose colored much?
I suppose.
I think I have seen a lot of politicians and parties going down the wrong path in my lifetime. Don't mistake that for me not supporting Harris.
The world needs the US. And it needs a United States not run by Project 2025 and a felon. I think most of us are just as invested in this as you are, garbon.
My political views, well, they are probably suspect to many here. But this is not a political view. It is an existential one. I support Harris. And I really hope she can win. At this point, after watching the RNC clips and reading the speeches, I would support a fucking living doll instead of Trump.
I just meant that for instance in the 90s we were looking at semen on a dress. I'm not sure a time existed when politicians were laudable though certainly Trump has brought us to some low lows.
In the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2024, 01:48:55 PMIn the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.
He was also a bad actor in mediocre films. I await Kevin Sorbo's presidential career.
Quote from: HVC on July 24, 2024, 01:54:27 PMQuote from: Valmy on July 24, 2024, 01:48:55 PMIn the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.
He was also a bad actor in mediocre films. I await Kevin Sorbo's presidential career.
Fuck, no. :lol:
We already had one martyr has US President, not another one.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2024, 01:48:55 PMIn the 80s we had a senile old man in the office who couldn't remember he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund death squads in Nicaragua.
I think he remembered very well what he was agreeing to. I am almost disappointed Ollie North hasn't become a GOP veep nominee.
But the circumstances of a bipolar (in so many ways) world were different. What was done during the Cold War, well, it is sort of a "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas".
You supported airdropping some Ukrainian war criminals like Stepan Bandera into the USSR, for crying out loud.
Reagan was a figure me and much of the European left despised. There was a Cuban missile crisis, Goldwater proposing to make Vietnam into a parking lot, Soviet troops on our borders, and crushing both the Hungarian 1956 uprising and the Czech "summer" of 1968. A lot, and I mean a lot, of under-handed shit went down. But if you guys manage to keep that con artist felon out of office, we forgive you. For everything. I think we will even thank you profoundly and profusely.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 24, 2024, 11:47:51 AMI don't think it's "conspiracy theory" to suggest senior leaders in an organization have had discussions for weeks on an important issue and then made a consensus decision.
Conspiracy theory is when a person connects falling off their bike to INFLATIONARY BIDENOMICS and Canada doing well in Copa America.
When is the last time you can remember the Democrats making a consensus decision about anything. For the moment forget about all the divisions within the party and focus on the degree of organizational planning and foresight that would have required.
And then tell me again how reasonable it is to assume that talks went on for weeks and a consensus decision was made.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2024, 01:35:22 PMQuote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 11:14:25 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:52:56 AMYou are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.
It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1. The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling. That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th. Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court. Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.
Hypothetically (because so far there is only an FEC complaint on file), the case would be initiated along with a request for emergency injunctive relief demanding to freeze the funds. That could receive expedited treatment if put before a sympathetic judge. Depending on the outcome a motion seeking an emergency injunctive order can be obtained outside the Supreme Court term by directing it for the Justice responsible for the judicial circuit where the case is pending.
I agree there doesn't seem like there is a viable procedural or substantive basis for such an order, but if a court were inclined to act, it could be done in time to impact the campaign. As of even a year ago, I would have felt safe saying there is 0 chance of that happening. After the last Supreme Court term, though, I really don't know what to expect anymore. There is nothing this Court can do anymore that would surprise me.
It would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no? Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?
I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 06:29:04 PMIt would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no? Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?
I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.
If Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days. Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2. That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.
A party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities. Could trump do so in this case? No. But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2024, 06:54:20 PMIf Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days. Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2. That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.
So, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction? I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case.
QuoteA party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities. Could trump do so in this case? No. But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.
Would the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted? If not, I can't see Harris being unable to raise $100 million in outrage money should Trump "win" his case for standing and then an injunction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2024, 10:31:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2024, 10:07:56 AMSo now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.
There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails. It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders. It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you. That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently. In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.
I think Biden endorsing Harris very shortly after withdrawing more or less ended any alternative - and those candidates deciding either it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a chance (which I think was basically inevitable after Biden's decision - unless there was a huge reaction against Harris in the immediate aftermath).
But I don't think they're just individuals. I think those decisions will have been in the context of senior Democrats talking to each other constantly every day since the debate about how to get Biden to step down and what to do if he does. I think in part, with previous discussions of blitz primaries, they concluded they needed to do it quickly, unity and avoiding the risk of division was very important and Harris is a good enough candidate (and has been vetted).
The thing I started with is that I think if that last assessment turns out to be wrong, they might regret the other two. And I don't know if it will but I think the last one is more important and will have more of an impact than the other two.
Edit: I've realised I've accidentally been channelling Kamala Harris - the presidential nomination didn't fall out of a coconut tree :P
The more details we find out about what happened immediate after Biden announced he was stepping down the less likely your scenario of senior party operative, making the decision behind the scene becomes.
This detailed analysis of what Harris did immediately after and for the next 48 hours explains why she got all the support. It had everything to do with her and her team and not so much your theory of party insiders deciding everything well beforehand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/us/politics/kamala-harris-democrats-nomination.html
Turns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump. Give people and the media something else to talk about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2024, 06:59:44 AMTurns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump. Give people and the media something else to talk about.
Indeed. Just need to keep it up now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2024, 06:59:44 AMTurns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump. Give people and the media something else to talk about.
What? You think we journalists are so easily dis...
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2024, 08:01:46 PMSo, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction? I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case.
Because the Democrats still have a sense of shame and because Obama and Biden didn't spend their terms appointing inexperienced shills to the bench whose sole qualification for federal judicial office was loyalty to them and to an extremist pressure group.
QuoteWould the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted?
I can't think of any conceivable basis for doing so.
So the answer must be maybe.
Quote from: Norgy on July 25, 2024, 08:19:45 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2024, 06:59:44 AMTurns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump. Give people and the media something else to talk about.
What? You think we journalists are so easily dis...
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2024, 06:59:44 AMTurns out the Democrats have stumbled onto the best strategy for defeating Trump. Give people and the media something else to talk about.
When I was growing up I heard a legend that Jimmy Carter had a small surge in the polls late in the 1976 election when he changed the side of his head he parted his hair on. Apparently the media spent a few critical days babbling about it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 25, 2024, 09:33:05 AMWhen I was growing up I heard a legend that Jimmy Carter had a small surge in the polls late in the 1976 election when he changed the side of his head he parted his hair on. Apparently the media spent a few critical days babbling about it.
Maybe we wouldn't be living in this timeline if HRC had never been nominated. Trump would have gone on to lose to a generic dem candidate in 2016, none of this reality would exist. Which Biden kinda was in 2020. So maybe all Harris has to do is be very baseline to win. Many are tired at this point of the Trump Show. :hmm:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/25/ap-confusion-jd-vance-sex-couch-claim/
JD Vance fucked a couch and that is somehow not the craziest rumor in American politics
Why the hell does this youngish nobody have a best selling memoir?
Quote from: Josquius on July 25, 2024, 02:37:24 PMWhy the hell does this youngish nobody have a best selling memoir?
Because Peter Thiel has made him his protegee and has invested significant resources into making him a thing.
Additionally, in American politics - printing a bunch of books that are then bought by a bunch of politically aligned PACs and Think Tanks is an established way to add "best selling author" to someone's CV and to distribute grift-money within the ecosystem.
Quote from: Josquius on July 25, 2024, 02:37:24 PMWhy the hell does this youngish nobody have a best selling memoir?
He has a compelling life story and the book is full of those bits of anecdotal evidence that conservatives love so dearly (e.g. he claims to have seen people on welfare having cell phones while the working poor did not).
It doesn't take a lot of MAGAts to push a book to bestseller status.
Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2024, 03:02:34 PMHe has a compelling life story and the book is full of those bits of anecdotal evidence that conservatives love so dearly (e.g. he claims to have seen people on welfare having cell phones while the working poor did not).
It doesn't take a lot of MAGAts to push a book to bestseller status.
Although its success wasn't the MAGA crowd - he was a MAGA-explainer. The New Republic review at the time opens:
QuoteJ.D. Vance, the False Prophet of Blue America
The bestselling author of "Hillbilly Elegy" has emerged as the liberal media's favorite white trash–splainer. But he is offering all the wrong lessons.
J.D. Vance is the man of the hour, maybe the year. His memoir Hillbilly Elegy is a New York Times bestseller, acclaimed for its colorful and at times moving account of life in a dysfunctional clan of eastern Kentucky natives. It has received positive reviews across the board, with the Times calling it "a compassionate, discerning sociological analysis of the white underclass." In the rise of Donald Trump, it has become a kind of Rosetta Stone for blue America to interpret that most mysterious of species: the economically precarious white voter.
Vance's influence has been everywhere this campaign season, shaping our conception of what motivates these voters. And it is already playing a role in how liberals are responding to Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election, which was accomplished in part by a defection of downscale whites from the Democratic Party. Appalachia overwhelmingly voted for Trump, and Vance has since emerged as one of the media's favorite Trump explainers. The problem is that he is a flawed guide to this world, and there is a danger that Democrats are learning all the wrong lessons from the election.
Not the only example of someone going on that path. But this was a genuine hit and not just with MAGA types or Fox News buying thousands of copies of their hosts books to get "NYT Bestselling Author" on the title page :lol:
QuoteWhy the hell does this youngish nobody have a best selling memoir?
Connections help - I think he went to Yale. Plus he has a good story that he can clearly tell quite well (in writing). And the timing was perfect.
I'm not sure how long he'd been writing that memoir but it just so happened he had a memoir of white poverty in the rust belt to sell in the summer of 2016
QuoteThe more details we find out about what happened immediate after Biden announced he was stepping down the less likely your scenario of senior party operative, making the decision behind the scene becomes.
This detailed analysis of what Harris did immediately after and for the next 48 hours explains why she got all the support. It had everything to do with her and her team and not so much your theory of party insiders deciding everything well beforehand.
I think all of that is in line with my scenario - none of it goes against it.
Again I think I'm badly communicating because I think what I'm describing is what Garbon is a truism - which I think is right. There was a decision point (with many, many players) with lots of background politics. For example, this is literally my point:
QuoteThe story of how Ms. Harris so efficiently and effectively locked down the nomination — "a perfect 48 hours," Robby Mook, who managed Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, has called it — was told through interviews with more than two dozen people who are supporting Ms. Harris, involved with her campaign or who interacted with it. Many of those people requested anonymity to speak candidly about matters they were not authorized to discuss.
Top Democrats decided to look past any nagging concerns about Ms. Harris in one fell swoop, as Republicans eagerly began to recirculate old clips of her taking liberal stances that could make her vulnerable in November, such as opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for all and declaring that those who cross the border illegally are not criminals.
[...]
The party was also primed to unify. After a chaotic and damaging three weeks of infighting about Mr. Biden's mental capacity, a broad range of Democrats were desperate to refocus on Mr. Trump, and Ms. Harris was the only viable path to come together quickly. The speed with which the consolidation happened was reminiscent of how the party had first rallied behind Mr. Biden in 2020 after he won the South Carolina primary and a contest with Mr. Trump loomed.
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had, in private discussions ahead of Mr. Biden's exit, said that the No. 1 priority for the party was unity, according to two people with knowledge of those conversations. The Clintons, these people said, believed that a speedy coming together above all else would maximize the party's chances against Mr. Trump.
Ms. Harris called each of them separately, and within an hour of Mr. Biden's endorsement, the Clintons had issued their own joint endorsement that served as a clarion call to the broader party that it was time to coalesce.
The only thing I've said is I wonder if it was the right decision.
(Although I've now been thinking and reading about it more broadly and suspect that actually Biden's endorsement was the key moment and it would have been very very difficult to do anything else after that).
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2024, 04:04:32 PMThe only thing I've said is I wonder if it was the right decision.
You've said a great many things besides this. :P
We all wonder if it was the right decision. We won't know the answer until election night.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2024, 04:15:53 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2024, 04:04:32 PMThe only thing I've said is I wonder if it was the right decision.
You've said a great many things besides this. :P
We all wonder if it was the right decision. We won't know the answer until election night.
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2024, 04:15:53 PMYou've said a great many things besides this. :P
We all wonder if it was the right decision. We won't know the answer until election night.
:ph34r: :blush:
But literally all I said was it looked like a coronation not some form of contest. Could be the right decision given the situation, but I think Obama was maybe right and they should have gone for the some form of contest option.
But good to know I'm not the only one who's a little unsure though :P (And to be clear if the option was this or Biden carrying on this is 100% the correct choice). And I think the start of her campaign has been impressive and shows the simple difference of having a younger, more energetic candidate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2024, 04:35:29 PMBut literally all I said was it looked like a coronation not some form of contest. Could be the right decision given the situation, but I think Obama was maybe right and they should have gone for the some form of contest option.
It looks like that because no one wants to contest it. Nobody else has put their name forward, no one else has championed a different candidate, no one has talked about Harris' weaknesses. No one has made the case for anything other than *waves hands* someone else might do better. Neither you nor Obama has made a case. You've just stated the obvious.
That's why I asked you about the type of process you want. What kind of process will *compel* another candidate to come forward? In Putin's Russia they have tricks to get sacrificial lambs to put their name on the ballot. Is that what you want?
5 point swing
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1816516410337788253
QuoteNew Morning Consult poll (7/22-24)
🟦 Kamala Harris 46%
🟥 Donlad Trump 45%
last Trump vs Biden poll (7/15-7/17): Trump +4
She just needs to catch up with her senate candidates
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1816491704368693317
Quote#New Senate polls
Arizona - 🔵 Gallego +4
Pennsylvania - 🔵 Casey +4
Michigan - 🔵 Slotkin +4
Wisconsin - 🔵 Baldwin +6
Emerson B - 800 RV (Each) - 7/22-23
Harris gives speech on Gaza. Deal is total withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for hostages. I cringed when I heard food insecurity and acute food insecurity.
She looks pretty hott.
She's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
The IDF is operating in the area of severely diminishing returns right now with world opinion stacking up against them by the day. If the IDF executes phase I withdrawal *and* Hamas releases all hostages they don't have a lot of reason to stick around. If they withdraw and Hamas keeps the hostages Israel regains some moral high ground. Or popularity high ground, which is the same thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
Yeah it would have been better to explain what Israel is getting in terms of protection out of this deal of them retreating.
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 02:06:14 AMYeah it would have been better to explain what Israel is getting in terms of protection out of this deal of them retreating.
Israel is getting however many Hamas members they've already killed or captured.
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 02:06:14 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
Yeah it would have been better to explain what Israel is getting in terms of protection out of this deal of them retreating.
While it doesn't mention the part that she said that 'thanks to the leadership of Joe Biden, there is a deal on the table' all she said was:
https://news.sky.com/story/kamala-harris-tells-benjamin-netanyahu-she-will-not-be-silent-over-suffering-in-gaza-while-stressing-israels-right-to-defend-itself-13185099#:~:text=She%20said%20the%20first%20step,and%20the%20release%20of%20hostages.
QuoteShe said the first step would be a "full ceasefire" which would include the withdrawal of the Israeli military from population centres in Gaza.
The second phase would see Israeli military withdrawal from the whole of Gaza, leading to a "permanent end to hostilities" and the release of hostages.
"It is time for this war to end and end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination.
"And ultimately, I remain committed to a path forward that can lead to a two-state solution."
I'm not sure that is supposed to be a description of the full plan but rather trying to thread the needle and avoid having her candidacy derailed by the conflict.
But my point is she wasn't threading the needle. She explained what is the expectation from Israel, nothing else. I didn't even catch her saying release of hostages was tied to either step of the phase withdrawal.
Anyways, the sooner they move on and stay as far away as they can from that clusterfuck, the better.
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 02:57:24 AMBut my point is she wasn't threading the needle. She explained what is the expectation from Israel, nothing else. I didn't even catch her saying release of hostages was tied to either step of the phase withdrawal.
Anyways, the sooner they move on and stay as far away as they can from that clusterfuck, the better.
Israel is the one with agency in this situation. The one that America has close links with and can actually have proper discussions with. The functional democracy.
Its pretty common sense the focus would be on Israel.
No doubt some would complain they're discussing the future of the Palestinians without the Palestinians actually being involved. But that's a lot easier said than done with the current mess there and the fact the key player that will need dealing with is a terrorist organisation, so can't exactly casually send someone on a state visit to the US.
Quote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMNo doubt some would complain they're discussing the future of the Palestinians without the Palestinians actually being involved.
No doubt they would be wrong. A cease fire by definition has two parties to the agreement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2024, 03:05:17 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMNo doubt some would complain they're discussing the future of the Palestinians without the Palestinians actually being involved.
No doubt they would be wrong. A cease fire by definition has two parties to the agreement.
They both need to make the same initial offer at exactly the same time?
That seems unlikely.
And again needs highlighting who we're dealing with in Gaza here. Its not a stable coherent state. Its a highly factional disordered mess. Expecting a total cease fire is either stupid or purposefully bad faith. There'll always be some group who refuses to accept any offer.
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 02:57:24 AMBut my point is she wasn't threading the needle. She explained what is the expectation from Israel, nothing else. I didn't even catch her saying release of hostages was tied to either step of the phase withdrawal.
The meeting was with Netanyahu, so of course the discussion would be about what Israel should do. The first part of the speech was also about Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas but that it basically can't be a blank check for endless Palestinian suffering. She'd also released a writtent statement earlier in the day condemning Hamas and anyone who supports them (spurred on by those protests). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/25/statement-by-vice-president-kamala-harris-3/
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 02:57:24 AMAnyways, the sooner they move on and stay as far away as they can from that clusterfuck, the better.
For sure.
Quote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMIsrael is the one with agency in this situation.
Hamas could stop fighting and hide.
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 03:15:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMIsrael is the one with agency in this situation.
Hamas could stop fighting and hide.
Israel wouldn't stop hunting for them.
Especially since it'd be a bit of an impossible expectation that every single militant in Gaza does this.
Good lord! This is so much worse than the couch meme.
From February 2024
https://www.rawstory.com/jd-vance-dolphin-search-history/
QuoteMaybe the internet was a mistake," Vance posted Saturday with the picture, which was captioned with: "Woman gets violated by a dolphin and enjoys it."
I'm sure Vance expected it to just be a funny joke. The problem, according to the commenters, is that the words "woman" and "dolphin" were highlighted in the image, showing that whoever took the screenshot searched for those exact terms.
"Damn you, Internet, for showing people things they search for," former journalist Morten Øverbye wrote in response.
"Why you searching for dolphin porn, my guy?" asked user Matt Ortega.
Charlotte Clymer said, "The bolded words indicate the terms you searched to find this."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2024, 02:01:04 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
The IDF is operating in the area of severely diminishing returns right now with world opinion stacking up against them by the day. If the IDF executes phase I withdrawal *and* Hamas releases all hostages they don't have a lot of reason to stick around. If they withdraw and Hamas keeps the hostages Israel regains some moral high ground. Or popularity high ground, which is the same thing.
I don't see how there could be any deal without some provision for how Gaza is governed when Israel is withdrawn. That is fundamental.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 26, 2024, 08:58:42 AMGood lord! This is so much worse than the couch meme.
From February 2024
https://www.rawstory.com/jd-vance-dolphin-search-history/
QuoteMaybe the internet was a mistake," Vance posted Saturday with the picture, which was captioned with: "Woman gets violated by a dolphin and enjoys it."
I'm sure Vance expected it to just be a funny joke. The problem, according to the commenters, is that the words "woman" and "dolphin" were highlighted in the image, showing that whoever took the screenshot searched for those exact terms.
"Damn you, Internet, for showing people things they search for," former journalist Morten Øverbye wrote in response.
"Why you searching for dolphin porn, my guy?" asked user Matt Ortega.
Charlotte Clymer said, "The bolded words indicate the terms you searched to find this."
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Vance has sex with living room furniture and he searches dolphin pornography. Why didn't the GOP vet this guy?
Seriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
The so called internet 2.0 was a mistake is the more correct statement.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
People voting for trump don't care who is the VP. If it was constitutionally viable he could have picked a potted plant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
As I mentioned earlier she never had it, and I didn't really anticipate she would get it--she was never likely to be more sympathetic to Israel than is Biden, whose own fecklessness on the issue cost him my support.
Quote from: HVC on July 26, 2024, 09:24:26 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
People voting for trump don't care who is the VP. If it was constitutionally viable he could have picked a potted plant.
True but it is still hilarious :lol:
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
Still up on his twitter feed. It's real
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1758824534247878692
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2024, 11:27:02 PMShe's lost the Otto vote (such as it is) and not without reason.
Israel is there for the land grab. Has been from the beginning, as evidenced by all their other actions, notably the continued annexation of territory in the West Bank. Otto is just happy to see the Palestinians gone.
And they are not even pretending to hide from it anymore. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-minister-demands-west-bank-annexation-if-un-court-rules-against-it/ar-BB1q3IK4)
What's does a "land grab" even mean when Israel already has jurisdiction over Gaza?
The West Bank is Israel, it has nothing to "grab."
Quote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 03:15:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMIsrael is the one with agency in this situation.
Hamas could stop fighting and hide.
Or you know, they could surrender. Even the Confederates and the Nazis had the decency to surrender.
Quote from: HVC on July 26, 2024, 09:24:26 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
People voting for trump don't care who is the VP. If it was constitutionally viable he could have picked a potted plant.
Or even better: himself.
Though I'm sure Trump would have come into conflict with Trump soon
Quote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMIsrael is the one with agency in this situation. The one that America has close links with and can actually have proper discussions with. The functional democracy.
Its pretty common sense the focus would be on Israel.
No doubt some would complain they're discussing the future of the Palestinians without the Palestinians actually being involved. But that's a lot easier said than done with the current mess there and the fact the key player that will need dealing with is a terrorist organisation, so can't exactly casually send someone on a state visit to the US.
The Palestinians are involved. Hamas has accepted this deal in principal, with only the details remaining to be worked out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2024, 09:02:09 AMI don't see how there could be any deal without some provision for how Gaza is governed when Israel is withdrawn. That is fundamental.
The plan proposes negotiations regarding that to occur between phases 1 and 2; i.e. it punts on the issue to get a ceasefire in place (for 6 weeks).
Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2024, 10:14:02 AMQuote from: Tamas on July 26, 2024, 03:15:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:03:21 AMIsrael is the one with agency in this situation.
Hamas could stop fighting and hide.
Or you know, they could surrender. Even the Confederates and the Nazis had the decency to surrender.
To be fair, the Confederates and the Nazis didn't have sympathizers all over the world with ability to project political power on their enemies.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
OTOH, Vance has absolutely no principals and will change his stand on any issue to whatever stand is more popular on a moment's notice. He's notably less scrupled than even your average MAGAt, which has to be a benefit when paired with a presidential candidate as unscrupulous as Trump.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 26, 2024, 10:08:31 AMThe West Bank is Israel, it has nothing to "grab."
Ah, the old lebensraum argument. The only disadvantage to that is that no nation other than Israel believes it. It's even less popular than the Russian claims that Donetsk, etc are Russia.
Quote from: HVC on July 26, 2024, 09:24:26 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
People voting for trump don't care who is the VP. If it was constitutionally viable he could have picked a potted plant.
Trump will care if JD Vance's fuck ups get more airtime than him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2024, 12:27:21 PMQuote from: HVC on July 26, 2024, 09:24:26 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on July 26, 2024, 09:19:36 AMSeriously though, Vance has the face of a guy who you'd genuinely believe anything about. Anyone could make up the most absurd accusation about him and most people would look at his face and think, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's so easy to make fun of the guy.
Terrible VP pick.
People voting for trump don't care who is the VP. If it was constitutionally viable he could have picked a potted plant.
Trump will care if JD Vance's fuck ups get more airtime than him.
Trump will be pissed. But he's super insecure. Probably be jealous of the plant to if it got any air time :lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2024, 09:02:09 AMI don't see how there could be any deal without some provision for how Gaza is governed when Israel is withdrawn. That is fundamental.
This is no different than Israel's stated objective of destroying Hamas and profiting.
Quote from: Josquius on July 26, 2024, 03:06:35 AMThey both need to make the same initial offer at exactly the same time?
No.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 26, 2024, 10:08:31 AMThe West Bank is Israel, it has nothing to "grab."
perfectly demonstrating why so many think Israel are pretty shit these days
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2024, 09:51:50 AMWhat's does a "land grab" even mean when Israel already has jurisdiction over Gaza?
The same thing they're doing over in the West Bank, really. Grab as much territory as possible by expelling the local population, then declare it's Israeli national territory and send its own people to live there. All in peace and harmony, according to some.
Something I just was thinking of: A lot of the critique of Kamala from the Left is tied to her time as DA and AG and labeling her "Copmala", which, personally I feel is silly and doesn't engage with what she actually did in office. Regardless, I wonder if due to her past positions she might actually be in a unique position to rollback a bit of the police state that has been endlessly building. An "I've seen how the sausage is made and it's The Jungle out there" type concept to work from. She's got my vote regardless, but I think it would be amazing if she took some of her policies from that era of her past combined with her current stances to ease up that creeping awfulness.
Quote from: viper37 on July 26, 2024, 01:56:47 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2024, 09:51:50 AMWhat's does a "land grab" even mean when Israel already has jurisdiction over Gaza?
The same thing they're doing over in the West Bank, really. Grab as much territory as possible by expelling the local population, then declare it's Israeli national territory and send its own people to live there. All in peace and harmony, according to some.
What does that have to do with the war in Gaza?
Move to the Hamas thread please.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on July 26, 2024, 03:05:25 PMSomething I just was thinking of: A lot of the critique of Kamala from the Left is tied to her time as DA and AG and labeling her "Copmala", which, personally I feel is silly and doesn't engage with what she actually did in office. Regardless, I wonder if due to her past positions she might actually be in a unique position to rollback a bit of the police state that has been endlessly building. An "I've seen how the sausage is made and it's The Jungle out there" type concept to work from. She's got my vote regardless, but I think it would be amazing if she took some of her policies from that era of her past combined with her current stances to ease up that creeping awfulness.
You are an idealist, aren't you? :ph34r:
Quote from: viper37 on July 27, 2024, 12:52:57 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on July 26, 2024, 03:05:25 PMSomething I just was thinking of: A lot of the critique of Kamala from the Left is tied to her time as DA and AG and labeling her "Copmala", which, personally I feel is silly and doesn't engage with what she actually did in office. Regardless, I wonder if due to her past positions she might actually be in a unique position to rollback a bit of the police state that has been endlessly building. An "I've seen how the sausage is made and it's The Jungle out there" type concept to work from. She's got my vote regardless, but I think it would be amazing if she took some of her policies from that era of her past combined with her current stances to ease up that creeping awfulness.
You are an idealist, aren't you? :ph34r:
I spent far too much of my life hating myself and being angry. It was existing without living. I had to almost end it before I realized just how terrible such an existence was. I'm sure I'll ever be a true optimist or idealist, but I try to be one. I fight for hope now. Maybe not for me ultimately, but for a better world and for those who do and will inhabit it. it is harder in many ways, but infinitely more rewarding. "I burn my life to make a sunrise that I know I'll never see."
It does seem to be a big attack line rising from the republicans to go on about how kamala is "the man" and put so many black people in jail and all that...whilst in reality she apparently did a lot of good work with reform and cutting reoffending rates.
And they're also attacking her with other groups for being a the worst sort of fluffy lefty.
I hate this targeted messaging business.
They are still working out the attack lines. Seeing what sticks.
The Republicans, if we can still call them that now, are the anti-law and order party.
I shouldn't be surprised, but wow.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2024, 04:29:58 AMThey are still working out the attack lines. Seeing what sticks.
Yeah. What actually works - I doubt this'll be it. Or for that matter Vance's "childless" stuff.
Vance fairly quickly became a liability even for Trump, it seems. He has to defend having a wife that is not completely white. And he is not exactly acing that test. I see Netflix has "Hillbilly Elegy" as a movie now. I am fucking cancelling my subscription.
Quote from: Norgy on July 28, 2024, 12:29:04 PMVance fairly quickly became a liability even for Trump, it seems. He has to defend having a wife that is not completely white. And he is not exactly acing that test. I see Netflix has "Hillbilly Elegy" as a movie now. I am fucking cancelling my subscription.
A Ron Howard movie no less - with Glenn Close! I suspect his political trajectory since they optioned it has been a bit of a disappointment.
On the comments about his wife, I think there's a fairly misleadingly edited clip doing the rounds.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2024, 01:23:54 PMOn the comments about his wife, I think there's a fairly misleadingly edited clip doing the rounds.
That's a pretty vague statement :lol:
What's the clip about?
He did a Fox News interview. First rule of fight club? Not being interviewed by Fox News.
I think what he said was something along the lines of "yes, she is not white, but she is a good woman". Which is sweet, in my opinion. And he is of course being accused of having sex with, wait a minute, I need to check my notes here. Yes. A couch. :cool: :w00t: :pope:
There were some disturbing noises from Trump about "in four years you don't have to vote" too. But that apparently is the new normal, abolishing democracy.
Quote from: Jacob on July 28, 2024, 03:12:37 PMThat's a pretty vague statement :lol:
What's the clip about?
From what I've seen there's a clip and transcript doing the rounds where he's talking about his wife and says "obviously she's not a white person [...] but I just love Usha, and she's such a good mom."
The bit cut in the [...] is when he notes "and we've been attacked by some white supremacists over that".
Some still doubling down because he says "but" - from the clip I've seen it just looks conversational (and is moving from the fact they've been attacked over her race to saying how much he loves her).
It's not inconceivable he felt he had to make just that kind of speech to his hillbilly family to sell them on the idea.
So the full quote is: "obviously she's not a white person and we've been attacked by some white supremacists over that, but I just love Usha, and she's such a good mom."
Because that doesn't make it better. It almost sounds like the white supremacists would be right if it weren't for the fortuitous fact that he loves her and she's such a good mom. If she was just an average mom, then it would be a problem she's not white?
It just seems obvious that the response to being attacked by white supremacists over the race of your spouse, is to say how sad and outrageous that such nonsense is still being peddled in the 21st century, and to express your own personal offense and outrage. Not to offer the excuse that it's Ok because your spouse is a good parent.
It's hard to escape the conclusion the like Trump, Vance sees white supremacists and their sympathizers as an important voting bloc he doesn't want to offend.
For people to form a view, this is the clip, including the question:
Edit: Ahhh! It worked as a start from for me. It's about 24.20.
Yeah it's a weird response. Kelly is serving him a layup, for him to say, of course I care about everyone regardless of color. And he never says it or anything like it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2024, 04:55:16 PMFor people to form a view, this is the clip, including the question:
Edit: Ahhh! It worked as a start from for me. It's about 24.20.
Thanks, but actually that made it much more clearer for me than Minsky's summary: he is clearly saying: obviously she is not a white person BUT... And I am pretty sure he can genuinely love his wife while having white supremacist views.
Not that I am too interested in deepening my understanding of Vance. At best he is a spineless opportunist looking for a nice payout on the tail of the Trump "movement". At worse he is a spineless ambitious man working to be the fascist dictator the far-right has built up America for but Trump is too dumb to be.
Yeah the lay-up is a "racism from the left" line - "they say you only value white stay-at-home moms". I think in that context it possibly makes sense to talk about how much he loves his wife (who isn't white) and they've had to deal with racism because of that.
I think it's a very forced and unnatural reading to get het up about this or read too much into it (also I think this is the sort of thing that doesn't work with normal people who don't have strong political views).
It's not like there's nothing else to attack Vance on.
Edit: I mean at worst I think this lays up the opportunity for America's most unlikeable man to do a Checkers speech where he declares that, in fact, he loves his wife and thinks it's disgraceful that any people are racist towards her (include attack on "racism of the left"/only care about white woman) and shame on the media for ever claiming otherwise and attacking his wife like that.
Just flip the sides making the attack and I think most people would be happy saying this is nonsense.
I am very interested in deepening my understanding of Vance. He is white trash made good. He is the #2 man in the white trash party. Listening to Trump won't help me understand the hopes and desires and grievances of white trash America.
Not fully behind that reading :lol:
But Trump tells you a lot, lot more. Trump's the id.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2024, 05:08:36 PMYeah the lay-up is a "racism from the left" line - "they say you only value white stay-at-home moms". I think in that context it possibly makes sense to talk about how much he loves his wife (who isn't white) and they've had to deal with racism because of that.
I think it's a very forced and unnatural reading to get het up about this or read too much into it (also I think this is the sort of thing that doesn't work with normal people who don't have strong political views).
It's not like there's nothing else to attack Vance on.
Edit: I mean at worst I think this lays up the opportunity for America's most unlikeable man to do a Checkers speech where he declares that, in fact, he loves his wife and thinks it's disgraceful that any people are racist towards her (include attack on "racism of the left"/only care about white woman) and shame on the media for ever claiming otherwise and attacking his wife like that.
Just flip the sides making the attack and I think most people would be happy saying this is nonsense.
I'm not really sure why you are excusing him. My husband and I would be in a fight if he had said those same words.
I don't think he says it well. I think you can see what he means - which is not "despite white supremacist attacks on my wife and my own racism I love her".
Also - on a purely political level - I think this is the type of stuff that only really plays to the choir. "Childless cat lady" and "couch fucker" have broader resonance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2024, 05:13:24 PMBut Trump tells you a lot, lot more. Trump's the id.
Trump is the id of New York new money. The rest is a con.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2024, 05:08:36 PMYeah the lay-up is a "racism from the left" line - "they say you only value white stay-at-home moms". I think in that context it possibly makes sense to talk about how much he loves his wife (who isn't white) and they've had to deal with racism because of that.
I think it's a very forced and unnatural reading to get het up about this or read too much into it (also I think this is the sort of thing that doesn't work with normal people who don't have strong political views).
It's not like there's nothing else to attack Vance on.
Edit: I mean at worst I think this lays up the opportunity for America's most unlikeable man to do a Checkers speech where he declares that, in fact, he loves his wife and thinks it's disgraceful that any people are racist towards her (include attack on "racism of the left"/only care about white woman) and shame on the media for ever claiming otherwise and attacking his wife like that.
Just flip the sides making the attack and I think most people would be happy saying this is nonsense.
With respect, you are the one drawing elaborate patterns to end up in a reading where his delivery isn't racist, so it feels much more forced than mine.
Sounds like Vance's wife is "one of the good ones."
I don't know if Vance is a racist or not. But I do know (and there is plenty of evidence for this) that he is seriously terrible at politics.
I doubt he is a white supremacist or a sympathizer with those views. What I find interesting - and this is consistent with Trump's M.O. - is the reticence to say anything to offend white supremacists.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 29, 2024, 08:33:26 AMI doubt he is a white supremacist or a sympathizer with those views. What I find interesting - and this is consistent with Trump's M.O. - is the reticence to say anything to offend white supremacists.
Vance probably rationalizes that because, if this ticket wins, Trump has promised to "fix it" so that people won't have to vote ever again.
Cooper withdraws his name from consideration.
Saw Buttigieg on both Fox News and on The Daily Show. My impression is that he's a very decent possible VP pick. Intelligent and articulate, even when not being thrown softballs by Jon Stewart. Is that impression wrong?
Quote from: Norgy on July 30, 2024, 01:50:56 AMSaw Buttigieg on both Fox News and on The Daily Show. My impression is that he's a very decent possible VP pick. Intelligent and articulate, even when not being thrown softballs by Jon Stewart. Is that impression wrong?
I fear America is not ready for that much diversity on a ticket. :(
Buttigieg would be great but he's also Californian and ticks a lot of the same segments as Harris.
She needs someone more working class and Eastern.
Buttgieg is the second to next president.
Quote from: Josquius on July 30, 2024, 05:07:12 AMButtigieg would be great but he's also Californian and ticks a lot of the same segments as Harris.
She needs someone more working class and Eastern.
Buttgieg is the second to next president.
He is not Californian.
Well not unless Californian is a colorful euphemism... :ph34r:
Quote from: Norgy on July 30, 2024, 01:50:56 AMSaw Buttigieg on both Fox News and on The Daily Show. My impression is that he's a very decent possible VP pick. Intelligent and articulate, even when not being thrown softballs by Jon Stewart. Is that impression wrong?
I love seeing him take on the various Fox hosts who think that
they are the one smart enough to trip him up. They always fail.
Garbon is correct: America is not ready for that much diversity on a ticket. Too bad: I desperately want to see him debate JD Vance. That would be one for the ages.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2024, 06:04:09 AMWell not unless Californian is a colorful euphemism... :ph34r:
He's from "San Francisco" ;)
Josq: He's a former rust belt mayor from a midwestern red state.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2024, 07:47:26 AMQuote from: garbon on July 30, 2024, 06:04:09 AMWell not unless Californian is a colorful euphemism... :ph34r:
He's from "San Francisco" ;)
A "friend of Pelosi" :o
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2024, 06:25:27 AMGarbon is correct: America is not ready for that much diversity on a ticket. Too bad: I desperately want to see him debate JD Vance. That would be one for the ages.
A rumble in the rust belt!!! :w00t: :mmm:
My mistake. Must have mixed him up with someone else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2024, 07:47:26 AMQuote from: garbon on July 30, 2024, 06:04:09 AMWell not unless Californian is a colorful euphemism... :ph34r:
He's from "San Francisco" ;)
Josq: He's a former rust belt mayor from a midwestern red state.
Err...
Indiana is indeed a "midwestern red state", but South Bend isn't really a "rust belt" city - it's a college town. I remember in 2020 hearing that Buttigieg, after being mayor of South Bend, kind of didn't have any other career path other than running for President because he was clearly not going to win any state-wide race in Indiana.
I'm quite impressed by Pete Buttigieg, and I kind of wish he could in fact be the VP pick. But the fact is - he just doesn't have the resume for it. Harris for example can run on being AG, Senator and then VP. Buttigieg - he was a small city mayor and then Secretary of Transportation. For his own sake I hope he has more of a future in electoral politics, but I don't think being VP candidate is it.
(and yes - Trump did not have a resume to be President. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? #NeverTrump)
South Bend is a rust belt city, no doubt; it's a former manufacturing center that declined. It is also near a prominent Catholic-affiliated university.
Quote from: Norgy on July 30, 2024, 01:50:56 AMSaw Buttigieg on both Fox News and on The Daily Show. My impression is that he's a very decent possible VP pick. Intelligent and articulate, even when not being thrown softballs by Jon Stewart. Is that impression wrong?
Yeah he's a really good surrogate on the news shows.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2024, 11:28:35 AMIndiana is indeed a "midwestern red state", but South Bend isn't really a "rust belt" city - it's a college town. I remember in 2020 hearing that Buttigieg, after being mayor of South Bend, kind of didn't have any other career path other than running for President because he was clearly not going to win any state-wide race in Indiana.
It's only a "college town" because all of the factories shut down. And it makes a very poor college town.
QuoteI'm quite impressed by Pete Buttigieg, and I kind of wish he could in fact be the VP pick. But the fact is - he just doesn't have the resume for it. Harris for example can run on being AG, Senator and then VP. Buttigieg - he was a small city mayor and then Secretary of Transportation. For his own sake I hope he has more of a future in electoral politics, but I don't think being VP candidate is it.
If Vance has the resume for it, Buttigieg has it in spades. His doesn't compare to Kamala Harris's right now, but he isn't in competition with Harris. Four years in the cabinet isn't insignificant.
I am not sure he'll get the VP pick, but I kinda like the idea (my own) of Buttigieg as SecDef.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2024, 08:49:00 PMI am not sure he'll get the VP pick, but I kinda like the idea (my own) of Buttigieg as SecDef.
Nah. SecState is smack in the middle of his lane.
Maybe. I think there is a non-zero chance Blinken might be kept on...I expect Austin is ready to fully retire.
The only ones that count are State, Defense, and Treasury. I think he deserves that level, but agree he doesn't feel right for Defense. If either Blinken or Yellin are ready to step down I'd be happy with Booty Judge in either one of those.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cc/7e/b9/cc7eb94fabd904cb8bae1ccfef3763b9.jpg)
I don't see why he wouldn't feel right...seems like a very effective manager (a skill that a good SecDef really needs), and spent several years as a Navy officer (reserves, granted), deployed to Afghanistan. Feels just fine to me.
He still looks and sounds like he's 12. I prefer a little more gravitas at Defense. Maybe if he got fat.
I hope Lloyd Austin (or, more appropriately: "Lloyd James Austin III") stays around. The name sounds very 1920s, so fitting for the neo-20s, I guess. :P
Yeah, but he is pushing 70, has had major health issues...and was nominated due to a close, personal connection with Biden. I expect he'll go.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2024, 10:51:01 PMHe still looks and sounds like he's 12. I prefer a little more gravitas at Defense. Maybe if he got fat.
Needs more hamberders
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2024, 10:51:01 PMHe still looks and sounds like he's 12. I prefer a little more gravitas at Defense. Maybe if he got fat.
The US could do with less rule by the aged.
https://meidasnews.com/news/unearthed-audio-project-2025-leader-kevin-roberts-says-trump-is-purposefully-lying-to-america-about-not-being-involved-in-project-2025
QuoteIn a bombshell new audio recording just released, the leader of Project 2025, Kevin Roberts, claims that Donald Trump is purposefully lying to the American public by asserting that he does not know who is behind Project 2025. In the audio recording, Roberts claims that Trump is "making a political tactical decision" by running away publicly from the goals of Project 2025.
Well, of course Trump was lying about not knowing who those people are. I'm not sure what the bombshell is.
I don't know why people think Project 2025 would ever happen. Everyone knows that Trump already has a comprehensive and well thought out plan of his own for his next administration, which he has articulated in a detailed written platform and patiently described in his thoughtful public appearances. So there is no chance that if he won, he would find himself completely unprepared for the details of personnel and program and find himself relying by default on a plan already put together and endorsed by his closest political allies and advisors. Who could believe a silly thing like that?
There does seem to be a big campaign at work canvassing social media with "why do liberals believe project 2025 is a real plan? It's clearly not" and stuff like that.
Someone is very keen to get people to relax about it and pretend it isn't an issue.
Kind of weird how they make a plan like that and then say it's not their plan.
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2024, 05:18:10 PMKind of weird how they make a plan like that and then say it's not their plan.
I think it is as simple as avoiding having Trump talk about policy. He would first have to read the plan, and that is a non-starter. Much better just to say its not his plan. His base won't care either way.
Quote from: Jacob on July 31, 2024, 05:18:10 PMKind of weird how they make a plan like that and then say it's not their plan.
It's totally normal and typical to put together a 900 page detailed policy and administrative program as a fun leisure activity, and with absolutely no intention of any practical impact.
That was some interview Trump had with the National Association of Black Journalists.
His brain is literally mush. :blink:
https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1818759591792177619
QuoteHarris leads in 7 new natl polls:
49%-45% (+4) Civiqs
49%-46% (+3) Leger (was +7 Trump)
48%-46% (+2) FAU (was +5 Trump)
46%-44% (+2) Econ/YouGov (was +3 Trump)
45%-43% (+2) Redfield/Wilton
44%-42% (+2) Angus Reid
47%-46% (+1) Morn Consult
Modestly optimistic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 31, 2024, 10:32:49 PMThat was some interview Trump had with the National Association of Black Journalists.
His brain is literally mush. :blink:
I haven't seen it. But I hear he was asked some direct questions he didn't like and then when he thought nobody was looking took the interviewers water, super tightened it, and put it back where he found it? :lol: :bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 31, 2024, 10:32:49 PMThat was some interview Trump had with the National Association of Black Journalists.
His brain is literally mush. :blink:
So as not to generate too many clicks, here's a summary.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4804364-donald-trump-nabj-rachel-scott-harris-faulkner-kadia-goba/
Quote5 memorable moments from Trump's combative NABJ interview
by Caroline Vakil
Former President Trump questioned Vice President Harris's identity, touted his record with the Black community and defended his choice of running mate during an often combative interview with three journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) convention on Wednesday.
ABC senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, Semafor political reporter Kadia Goba and Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner interviewed Trump for less than an hour in a wide-ranging conversation. Even before Trump arrived, his invitation to speak at the convention had sparked pushback from some NABJ members.
NABJ has defended their decision to have Trump speak to its members. The organization said in a press release that they're currently in talks to hold an interview with Vice President Harris.
Here are five memorable moments from Trump's interview.
Trump questions Harris's Black identity
The former president questioned Harris's racial identity, suggesting during the interview that she had initially only touted her Indian heritage but "happened to turn Black."
"So I've known her a long time, indirectly, not directly very much, and she was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage," Trump said, when asked if he thought Harris was only on the Democratic ticket because she was Black.
"I didn't know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black," he continued. "So I don't know, is she Indian or is she Black?"
Harris is both Black and of Indian descent.
The former president was also asked about Republicans labeling Harris a "DEI hire," a term that has drawn accusations of racism. DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.
"I mean I really don't know. Could be, could be," Trump said.
"There are some, and there are plenty," he continued, before turning his attention to Faulkner.
Several Republicans, including Reps. Tim Burchett (Tenn.) and Harriet Hageman (Wyo.), have used the term regarding the vice president. Burchett later said he regretted using it but argued "it was the truth."
Asked about Trump's comments about Harris's racial identity, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that his remarks were "repulsive" and "insulting."
"Only she can speak to her experience, only she can speak to what its like. She's the only person who can do that. And I think it's insulting for anybody ... it is insulting," she added. "She is the vice president of the United States ... we have to put some respect on her name, period."
Trump talks about 'Black jobs'
During the interview, Trump mentioned — and was asked to define — a term he has used in the past: "Black jobs."
"I will tell you that coming — coming from the border are millions and millions of people that happen to be taking Black jobs. You had the best —" Trump said during the convention, before one of the moderators stopped him to ask what a "Black job" was.
"A Black job is anybody that has a job. That's what it is," Trump replied, eliciting laughs from the audience. "Anybody that has a job."
"They're taking the employment away from Black people," he added, referring to undocumented immigrants.
The former president also used the term during his first debate with President Biden in June.
Trump put on defense about Vance
Trump was forced to defend Sen. JD Vance as his running mate as the Ohio senator faces criticism over some of his past comments.
Vance has come under heat in particular for previously saying that the U.S. has been run by "a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made."
Addressing those comments earlier in this month in an interview, Vance argued that he "explicitly said in my remarks — despite the fact the media has lied about this — that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn't have kids."
"This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming antifamily and antichildren," he added.
Asked about Vance's comments, Trump defended his running mate.
"What he's saying is that he thinks the family experience is a very important thing," Trump argued. "It's a very good thing. But that doesn't mean that if you grow up and you grow older and you don't meet somebody that would be wonderful to meet, it would have been good that that's a bad thing."
The former president was also pressed on why he chose Vance and whether the Ohio senator would be ready "on Day One." Trump appeared to downplay the importance of choosing his running mate in his response.
The back-and-forth came as some Republicans have suggested Trump made the wrong pick with Vance.
"I've always had great respect for him and for the other candidates, too," Trump said on Wednesday. "But I will say this, and I think this is well documented, historically, the vice president in terms of the election, does not have any impact. I mean, virtually no impact."
"You're voting for the president, and you can have a vice president who's outstanding in every way. And I think JD is, I think that all of them would have been but, but you're not voting that way. You're voting for the president," he said.
Trump gets heated with Scott
Trump's interview turned heated almost immediately once Scott began asking Trump several tough questions. The back-and-forth between the two of them at times grew terse during the conversation.
During her first question, Scott listed off remarks Trump had made to or about Black people and noted he had dined with a white supremacist, Nick Fuentes.
"So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?" Scott asked Trump.
"Well, first of all, I don't think I've ever been asked the question, so — in such a horrible manner," Trump said. "First question, you don't even say 'Hello. How are you?'" he continued. "Are you with ABC? Because I think they're a fake news network, a terrible network, and I think it's disgraceful that I came here in good spirit."
Interview sparks furor
While the NABJ's decision to interview Trump was seen as controversial by some of the organization's members, it did generate a lot of attention.
It's also sure to attract a lot of attacks against the former president, particularly given his remarks on Harris's identity and the notion of a "Black job."
"Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency — while he failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in," Harris campaign communications director Michael Tyler said in a statement after the interview. "Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us."
Perhaps the one benefit Trump received from the event was the amount of buzz and chatter his interview received afterward, even if much of it was critical.
Following the event, the Trump campaign released a statement blasting certain segments of the media, arguing their coverage of the former president would ultimately help him.
"Today's biased and rude treatment from certain hostile members of the media will backfire massively," a campaign adviser said in the statement.
That was a perfect interview. Maybe the best ever.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2024, 01:27:13 AMhttps://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1818759591792177619
QuoteHarris leads in 7 new natl polls:
49%-45% (+4) Civiqs
49%-46% (+3) Leger (was +7 Trump)
48%-46% (+2) FAU (was +5 Trump)
46%-44% (+2) Econ/YouGov (was +3 Trump)
45%-43% (+2) Redfield/Wilton
44%-42% (+2) Angus Reid
47%-46% (+1) Morn Consult
Is that all of the polls issued or just the 7 that Harris is leading?
It does seem she's leading the popular vote overall but most I've seen still put trump as favourite within the system.
Quote from: grumbler on August 01, 2024, 07:12:38 AMThat was a perfect interview. Maybe the best ever.
The Daily Show's take
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-HBHylNZzr/?igsh=YnI2Z2RnY2NrOGZx
Quote from: Josquius on August 01, 2024, 07:35:05 AMIt does seem she's leading the popular vote overall but most I've seen still put trump as favourite within the system.
Yes, but it's close.
Betting odds - 51.6% Trump, 43.6% Harris.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president
Nate Silver is saying it's a toss-up.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
The main point being - two weeks ago Trump was cruising to an easy victory. Now, Trump is rattled, the comparison between Harris and Trump looks way more favourable, so who knows what'll happen.
Probably it's my 2016 PTSD coming out again, but what's your take on the new Democrat "smear" on Trump and Vance, i.e. "weird"? Can't it fire back because it gives the same dismissive "we've already won this" impression that Hillary had in '16?
I think it has been very effective. It seeks to target Trump, not the people who support him. The Dems are not making the mistake they made in 16
I think the closest comparison is Hillary's "deplorables" comment. That was aimed at the people who vote for Trump, though and was a disaster. The "weird" comments are directed only at those at the top and I think it is working a heck of a lot better. Trump and his ilk rallied around "deplorables" but they are absolutely panicking at "weird".
Quote from: Tamas on August 06, 2024, 08:47:13 AMProbably it's my 2016 PTSD coming out again, but what's your take on the new Democrat "smear" on Trump and Vance, i.e. "weird"? Can't it fire back because it gives the same dismissive "we've already won this" impression that Hillary had in '16?
I'm not sure hot it gives off a "we've already won this" vibe. The advantage of the "weird" campaign is that it primes voters to look for weird things in what Trump and Vance say, making it harder for supporters to hide the insanity behind the bullshit. Trump and Vance DO say lots of weird shit, but haven't paid the proper penalty for that until now.
Fair, good points. :)
So, it will be another Scorsese movie, then. "The Last Walz".
Quote from: Norgy on August 06, 2024, 09:51:22 AMSo, it will be another Scorsese movie, then. "The Last Walz".
And if Trump wins it'll be a Last Tango. "Get the butter."
Quote from: Syt on August 06, 2024, 09:58:27 AMQuote from: Norgy on August 06, 2024, 09:51:22 AMSo, it will be another Scorsese movie, then. "The Last Walz".
And if Trump wins it'll be a Last Tango. "Get the butter."
:lol:
The rape seed oil.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 06, 2024, 08:51:56 AMI think the closest comparison is Hillary's "deplorables" comment. That was aimed at the people who vote for Trump, though and was a disaster. The "weird" comments are directed only at those at the top and I think it is working a heck of a lot better. Trump and his ilk rallied around "deplorables" but they are absolutely panicking at "weird".
Yeah. Shockingly attacking the voters is a bad move in Presidential Elections.
What was most head smacking about that Hillary comment was the Romney had destroyed his campaign by calling American voters "takers" just four years before.
I dunno. I'd rather be called weird than deplorable. A lot of positive stuff can be spun out of that. A surprise it is working.
Quote from: Josquius on August 06, 2024, 10:31:46 AMI dunno. I'd rather be called weird than deplorable. A lot of positive stuff can be spun out of that. A surprise it is working.
Trump was not called deplorable. And Trump and Vance are weird, that is why it is sticking.
I haven't paid any attention to him at all so doubtless old news to most.
But the RFK bear story :lol:
BBC News - Dead bear another strange twist in RFK Jr's faltering campaign
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mnn8zneppo
RFK+5%
In addition to what's already been said, I think weird has real traction because:
1) A big part of Trump's schtick is being a bully, picking on the "weird". One of the foundations of the radical right is that there are laws that protect the in-group and/ or that punishes the out-group. Weirdos are, almost by definition, the out-group and that undermines Trump's aura of being "strong" and "a winner".
2) It allows people to bring up Trump's many many short comings and vile traits without it easily being dismissed as hysterical in some way. You can discuss how Trump is weird in a cheerful, non-emotionallay invested, non-complicated way.
2.5) After bringing whatever weird thing Trump is doing up, it puts him and his proxies in the position of having to deny it which, as we know, only reinforces the message. "No it's totally NOT weird how deferential Trump is to Putin and how enamoured he seems to be with two-bit dictators like Kim; there's ACTUALLY a good reason...."
3) It's adjacent to "creepy" which very much rings true when it comes to Trump and his coterie, so it doesn't seem a stretch. It's also adjacent to "sad loser" which is what Trump does not want to be and what he uses to browbeat his opponents, so it hits him viscerally.
Trump and his cronies may come up with an effective counter at some point, but for the time being it's a pretty solid rhetorical move.
"Trump was buddies what that child rapist Epstein. You can't tell me that's not creepy. Those guys are WEIRDOS!"
I think we've all been on a bender where we end up on a steak house with a dead bear in our car. Right? :unsure:
Quote from: Norgy on August 06, 2024, 12:00:34 PMI think we've all been on a bender where we end up on a steak house with a dead bear in our car. Right? :unsure:
If I had a nickel...
Quote from: Jacob on August 06, 2024, 11:40:17 AMIn addition to what's already been said, I think weird has real traction because:
1) A big part of Trump's schtick is being a bully, picking on the "weird". One of the foundations of the radical right is that there are laws that protect the in-group and/ or that punishes the out-group. Weirdos are, almost by definition, the out-group and that undermines Trump's aura of being "strong" and "a winner".
2) It allows people to bring up Trump's many many short comings and vile traits without it easily being dismissed as hysterical in some way. You can discuss how Trump is weird in a cheerful, non-emotionallay invested, non-complicated way.
2.5) After bringing whatever weird thing Trump is doing up, it puts him and his proxies in the position of having to deny it which, as we know, only reinforces the message. "No it's totally NOT weird how deferential Trump is to Putin and how enamoured he seems to be with two-bit dictators like Kim; there's ACTUALLY a good reason...."
3) It's adjacent to "creepy" which very much rings true when it comes to Trump and his coterie, so it doesn't seem a stretch. It's also adjacent to "sad loser" which is what Trump does not want to be and what he uses to browbeat his opponents, so it hits him viscerally.
Trump and his cronies may come up with an effective counter at some point, but for the time being it's a pretty solid rhetorical move.
"Trump was buddies what that child rapist Epstein. You can't tell me that's not creepy. Those guys are WEIRDOS!"
The weird thing is getting traction. I'm kinda sad that this is what motivates people rather than "I'm going to be a dictator"
"Weird" used to be useful against the left because of, for instance, weirdos who drenched themselves in blood and screamed "No blood for oil" at protests that blocked highway traffic.
That democrats have turned it against Donald and JD so easily is both a masterstroke of rhetoric and a sign of how the public now sees the right vs the left.
Saw by first video of Walz, and he seems like a good pick. Saw someone describe his vibe as "big dad energy".
I mean now it is right wingers once again who are outraged about something once a week or so.
Wait... was it Walz who brought the weird thing to the fore?
Quote from: Jacob on August 06, 2024, 12:59:23 PMWait... was it Walz who brought the weird thing to the fore?
He was the first guy I heard say that. But I am hardly plugged in.
Quote from: Tamas on August 06, 2024, 08:47:13 AMProbably it's my 2016 PTSD coming out again, but what's your take on the new Democrat "smear" on Trump and Vance, i.e. "weird"? Can't it fire back because it gives the same dismissive "we've already won this" impression that Hillary had in '16?
I've not really seen it on Trump. I think it would work on Vance (and has). Less sure on Trump.
But I do really like the attacks on Trump as weak - "say it to my face". I think that's exactly the right line to take.
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 06, 2024, 12:22:46 PM"Weird" used to be useful against the left because of, for instance, weirdos who drenched themselves in blood and screamed "No blood for oil" at protests that blocked highway traffic.
Yeah - also I think in the 2010s the left was very, very much too online. I now think it's the right that is way, way too online.
No bigger example than the DeSantis campaign or the weird Taylor Swift conspiracies. And I think in a weird way one of Trump's strengths is that he is basically a linear TV/analogue guy. So while DeSantis let young online weirdos do ads with sonnenrads, Trump's response to the Swift conspiracy stuff was "let's say I like her music about 25% less now".
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 06, 2024, 01:25:44 PMBut I do really like the attacks on Trump as weak - "say it to my face". I think that's exactly the right line to take.
Yep. Trump, and pseudo-fascists, like to portray themselves as strong, manly, winners. You need to call them losers, mediocre, and weak.
I know it's Fox, but the comment about Walz possibly being vulnerable on handling of the George Floyd riots got me thinking.
It will definitely be one of the GOP's main attack lines.
Norwegian talking heads are calling Walz "the closest thing to a social democrat", so I expect he will be in for a bit of flak.
:ph34r:
Because, that is a bad thing, apparently.
Quote from: Norgy on August 06, 2024, 11:31:15 PMNorwegian talking heads are calling Walz "the closest thing to a social democrat", so I expect he will be in for a bit of flak.
:ph34r:
Because, that is a bad thing, apparently.
I mean not really.
https://x.com/dcwoodruff/status/1820861174168355170
https://x.com/dcwoodruff/status/1820861611256726013
Quote from: Chase Woodruff (@dcwoodruff) on XWalz getting coded as a progressive simply for following through on mainstream Democratic policies reveals a lot about the operating assumptions of American politics, even among Democrats themselves.
If you run on universal free school lunches and a net-zero electric grid, you're supposed to take office and pass a new Lunchables tax credit and free fluorescent lightbulbs for small businesses in opportunity zones. Not, like, actually do those things. Very unsporting.
Never heard of Walz before, but the first impression he gave was very positive. I couldn't help but notice though how awkward Kamala Harris looked in comparison standing next to him. Gives me flashbacks to Hillary, who despite decades in the public eye could never figure out how to look like she's being herself in front of the crowds and the cameras.
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2024, 07:35:45 AMNever heard of Walz before, but the first impression he gave was very positive. I couldn't help but notice though how awkward Kamala Harris looked in comparison standing next to him. Gives me flashbacks to Hillary, who despite decades in the public eye could never figure out how to look like she's being herself in front of the crowds and the cameras.
I'm not sure Americans want women politicians to be themselves.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2024, 07:56:34 AMQuote from: DGuller on August 07, 2024, 07:35:45 AMNever heard of Walz before, but the first impression he gave was very positive. I couldn't help but notice though how awkward Kamala Harris looked in comparison standing next to him. Gives me flashbacks to Hillary, who despite decades in the public eye could never figure out how to look like she's being herself in front of the crowds and the cameras.
I'm not sure Americans want women politicians to be themselves.
The issue is not with them being themselves, but with them looking like they're not being themselves. It's like with fake smiles: it's mandatory to have them, but if they actually look like fake smiles, then you're almost better off with genuine expressions on your face.
Quote from: DGuller on August 07, 2024, 08:02:50 AMQuote from: garbon on August 07, 2024, 07:56:34 AMQuote from: DGuller on August 07, 2024, 07:35:45 AMNever heard of Walz before, but the first impression he gave was very positive. I couldn't help but notice though how awkward Kamala Harris looked in comparison standing next to him. Gives me flashbacks to Hillary, who despite decades in the public eye could never figure out how to look like she's being herself in front of the crowds and the cameras.
I'm not sure Americans want women politicians to be themselves.
The issue is not with them being themselves, but with them looking like they're not being themselves. It's like with fake smiles: it's mandatory to have them, but if they actually look like fake smiles, then you're almost better off with genuine expressions on your face.
I'm not sure that is true. In fact I don't think that is true. A clearly fake smile would certainly be better than a grimace or look of exasperation.
Hence
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2024, 08:07:32 AMQuote from: DGuller on August 07, 2024, 08:02:50 AMThe issue is not with them being themselves, but with them looking like they're not being themselves. It's like with fake smiles: it's mandatory to have them, but if they actually look like fake smiles, then you're almost better off with genuine expressions on your face.
I'm not sure that is true. In fact I don't think that is true. A clearly fake smile would certainly be better than a grimace or look of exasperation.
Hence "almost". It's still better to have a dead eye fake smile than a genuine grimace, but at that point you're choosing between two bad options.
Latest merch from Harris-Walz is a hat emulating merch from another pop singer, Chapell Roan.
"Laffin Kamala". Didn't that bloke have about all the opportunities in life? But nobody taught him spelling. The Spelling Jugend is hereby disbanded.
Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2024, 07:56:34 AMI'm not sure Americans want women politicians to be themselves.
Yeah it's interesting compared with most other developed democracies now and I'd be interested to understand more why. (I wonder if part of it is the very specific role of a President - also looking at France? :hmm:)
I'm always unsure what are issues Americans have with women politicians and what are the issues Americans have with Hillary Clinton specifically.
On this though - male politicians aren't themselves either. They're performing. I think the public persona always needs to be grounded in some reality of who you are. I wonder if it's as much that despite that there's lots of tropes and previous examples of what an American male politician is - there are "types". While until there's a female President there isn't really a "type" to judge against (and also I think even culturally there aren't many depictions of a woman President that I can think of off the top of my head).
Selina Meyer in Veep and Claire Underwood in House of Cards are recent examples. Neither are good examples to emulate. :D
Veep became way too real in its last two season :ph34r:
Apparently Walz had a DUI some years back. If I understand correctly, it was the same year that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2024, 02:53:03 PMApparently Walz had a DUI some years back. If I understand correctly, it was the same year that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.
It was 1995.
Just read Trump's comments about saving Walz during the George Floyd protests, and I had an epiphany.
Trump is basically a ChatGPT hallucination given human form.
I absolutely cannot put my finger on why...but my gut is screaming that Walz will turn out to be a bad pick.
Can you identify the general region of feeling that the "bad pick" vibes are coming from?
Too good to be true?
Secret skeleton in the closet?
Anti-Minnesotan prejudice?
Too socialist?
Secretly on Xi Jinping's payroll?
I just looked into the couch thing for the first time, and learned that it was a hoax. :(
Quote from: Jacob on August 07, 2024, 09:10:30 PMCan you identify the general region of feeling that the "bad pick" vibes are coming from?
Too good to be true?
Secret skeleton in the closet?
Anti-Minnesotan prejudice?
Too socialist?
Secretly on Xi Jinping's payroll?
Hmmm...not most of those. But maybe a mix of...
- Minnesota is not really a battleground state.
- Not-so-secret skeletons that can be exploited, regardless of severity/seriousness...the DUI, his nature of his leaving military service, handling of George Floyd events.
- catering more to the Bernie Sanders side of the political spectrum than a move towards the middle.
The DUI will likely hurt the most...because that is actually serious. If he ends up having to answer for it in a debate...and does so poorly, he will become an instant millstone.
Dude it happened 30 years ago. That's insane.
Anyway Minnesota and the whole Midwest is absolutely a battleground.
Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2024, 09:40:01 PMDude it happened 30 years ago. That's insane.
Anyway Minnesota and the whole Midwest is absolutely a battleground.
Not in politics, it isn't.
And Minnesota...
QuoteFrom 1932 onward, the state has primarily voted Democratic, last voting Republican during Nixon's landslide victory in 1972. Outside of Washington, D.C., it is the longest Democratic streak in the country.
Yeah and it has been close for many years. It was the next state to go red for awhile and Walz did what he did with a tiny majority of one in the statehouse.
I mean the election is in 2024, not 1964. What happened 60 years ago doesn't factor here.
Walz is not from a swing state, but he has broad appeal in the swing states around Wisconsin. He's handled the backlash from his DUI pretty well for 30 years, so I'm not worried about that. He is somewhat vulnerable to the "socialist" charge, but the Republicans are going to have to work hard to turn feeding children into a crime.
It's bizarre how a DUI thirty years ago might be an issue when the opponent is a felon.
Quote from: Zanza on August 08, 2024, 12:24:45 AMIt's bizarre how a DUI thirty years ago might be an issue when the opponent is a felon.
But that's the Deep State, man!
I don't think it will be an issue unless he was a dumbass after he was pulled over.
Harris puts "pro-Palestinian" hacklers in their place, removing the last vestige of Otto's excuse to vote Trump:
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-shuts-down-rally-hecklers-michigan-im-speaking-1936225
QuoteThe Democratic presidential nominee was speaking to supporters about the infamous Project 2025 conservative policy initiative when a group of pro-Palestinian spectators could be heard chanting, in part, "We won't vote for genocide."
Harris paused her speech to tell the group, "You know what, if you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking."
The crowd erupted into cheers after Harris addressed the interruptions, as supporters then countered with their own chant: "We're not going back."
So this Project 2025 is now "infamous". To quote the great philosopher Dr. Evil: Well, it's a start. :lol:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 07, 2024, 09:24:43 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 07, 2024, 09:10:30 PMCan you identify the general region of feeling that the "bad pick" vibes are coming from?
Too good to be true?
Secret skeleton in the closet?
Anti-Minnesotan prejudice?
Too socialist?
Secretly on Xi Jinping's payroll?
Hmmm...not most of those. But maybe a mix of...
- Minnesota is not really a battleground state.
- Not-so-secret skeletons that can be exploited, regardless of severity/seriousness...the DUI, his nature of his leaving military service, handling of George Floyd events.
- catering more to the Bernie Sanders side of the political spectrum than a move towards the middle.
The DUI will likely hurt the most...because that is actually serious. If he ends up having to answer for it in a debate...and does so poorly, he will become an instant millstone.
This is the kind of ultra-pessimistic logic that I've seen of way too many Democrats of late--at least, prior to Walz's nomination. Everything about the Democratic candidates is a fatal wound, but nothing about the Republican candidates matters.
It's flawed logic, and is being proven wrong in the polls and, like 2020, will be proven wrong in the election itself.
Quote from: Habbaku on August 08, 2024, 09:02:11 AMThis is the kind of ultra-pessimistic logic that I've seen of way too many Democrats of late--at least, prior to Walz's nomination. Everything about the Democratic candidates is a fatal wound, but nothing about the Republican candidates matters.
It's flawed logic, and is being proven wrong in the polls and, like 2020, will be proven wrong in the election itself.
Yeah, I was skeptical of Biden withdrawing, primarily because I wasn't sure the Democrats would be able to unite behind a new candidate. However they got their shit together and the response has been much better than I expected. The campaign is finally doing many of the things it should have been doing with Biden, so I'm much more hopeful than I was.
It seems to be that the reason the Democrat campaign wasn't doing those things is because of Biden. I blame his lack of energy.
Agreed.
From the "The Things Everyone Already Knew But Is Now Backed By Scientific Studies" files:
QuoteRepublican voters show leniency toward moral misconduct by party members, study finds
When politicians commit moral transgressions, how do voters respond? A recent study published in American Politics Research sought to answer this question by examining whether partisan voters in the United States differ in their desire to punish politicians for moral violations. The findings reveal intriguing differences between Republican and Democratic voters.
"Annemarie Walter and I have been working for several years on the question of the degree to which voters own moral values anchor their responses to politicians who violate them. The rise of Donald Trump seems to have changed the landscape in the U.S., so that violations of moral precepts that would have sunk any candidate in the past seem to have no discernible effect on his support," said study author David P. Redlawsk, the James R. Soles Professor of Political Science at the University of Delaware and author of A Citizen's Guide to the Political Psychology of Voting.
"We began with studies in the U.S. that examined whether the moral foundations people hold influenced their emotional responses to transgressive politicians. We found that while deeply held moral values do anchor some level of emotional response, partisanship seems to play a stronger role. Moral foundations seem to be malleable, rather than foundational, when partisanship is involved."
"This latest paper expands this work by looking at a different outcome – the desire to punish politicians for moral transgression. Where our focus on emotions is about how voters feel, this paper looks at what action (punishment) voters believe should be taken against such politicians. We measure desire to punish with a set of potential actions that might be taken, from requiring an apology, to restoring damage caused, getting a warning from a party leader, and being reported to authorities, to being removed from office."
The study was carried out during the final month of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, leveraging the heightened political focus of voters during this period. The sample consisted of 2,997 U.S. respondents, recruited to represent the American adult population in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, and region.
Each participant was randomly assigned one of several short vignettes that described a fictional yet realistic scenario where a politician committed a moral transgression. The vignettes were designed based on Moral Foundations Theory, which outlines five moral principles: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. Additionally, a social norm violation was included to serve as a baseline for comparison. The vignettes also varied in terms of the politician's partisan label, with some being identified as Democrats, Republicans, or having no partisan affiliation mentioned.
The transgressions included a politician mocking a constituent with mental health issues (Care violation), giving job preference to supporters (Fairness violation), praising a neighboring town over their own (Loyalty violation), disregarding safety regulations during a disaster (Authority violation), and engaging in a sexual relationship with a teenager (Sanctity violation). The social norm violation involved a politician carrying briefing papers in a plastic grocery bag.
After reading the vignette, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with statements related to both restorative and retributive justice on a 5-point scale. These statements were designed to measure the respondents' desire for punishment (known as punitiveness).
The results showed that Republican and Democratic voters differ in their desire to punish politicians for moral transgressions. When the perceived severity of a moral violation was low, Republicans exhibited a stronger desire to punish than Democrats. However, this punitive desire was significantly reduced if the transgressor was a member of their own party.
In contrast, Democratic voters demonstrated a higher overall desire to punish politicians for moral violations, particularly when the perceived severity was moderate to high. Notably, Democrats did not show an in-party bias; their punitive responses were consistent regardless of the politician's party affiliation.
"While we would like to think that our moral values ground us even in politics, this turns out to be highly conditional," Redlawsk told PsyPost. "Whether we want to punish politicians we see violate moral values depends quite a bit on whether they are on 'our team' or the other side, as well as on the perceived severity of the moral violation. Low severity violations appear more important to Republicans than Democrats, with GOP voters showing a stronger desire to punish these kinds of violations, but only when the violator is a not a Republican politician."
"But when voters perceive a moral violation be moderately or very severe, then Democrats show a stronger desire to punish the politician, and unlike Republicans, they show no bias toward their own party. Of particular interest is that we also find Republicans rate the set of moral violations as less severe overall than do Democrats. This could help explain why Republicans consistently show less desire for punishment of their own party violators than do Democrats."
"Overall, we reinforce earlier findings that moral foundations are not a clear bedrock on which our beliefs about how to respond to transgressive politicians rest," Redlawsk explained. "Instead, partisanship seems to be able to override moral foundations, especially among Republican voters in our studies and especially when the violation is perceived as less severe."
"We've been consistently surprised about how readily supposedly core moral values are 'pushed around' by partisan preference. This study is the first to help us better understand it by looking at the perceived severity of a set of moral violations. We were somewhat surprised to see strong party differences in how severe the violations we used were perceived. The issue may be that rather than Republicans caring less about moral violations of their candidates, they simply don't see the violations as being severe, compared to Democrats."
But there are some caveats to consider. For instance, the study was conducted during the highly contested 2020 U.S. presidential election, a period marked by heightened political polarization and an incumbent known for frequent moral transgressions, which may have influenced respondents' reactions. This timing raises questions about whether the findings would hold in a less charged political environment.
"We are working to expand the research beyond the U.S. (we have a sample of voters in England, for example) and to examine moral values as an identity," Redlawsk said. "It is important that expand beyond the limited example of the United States, since moral values are thought to be more or less universal. In addition, so far we have been asking people about the degree to which they endorse particular moral foundations."
"We plan to shift to looking at how people perceive of themselves as moral persons, and whether that increases the effects of moral principles on perceptions of politicians who violate them. We also hope to better understand the relative importance of partisan identity versus moral identity. Longer term, we want to examine how moral values and identity influence political decision making, especially by local elected officials. That's the next major direction for this research."
The study, "Partisan Differences in Voters' Desire for Punishment in Response to Politicians' Moral Transgressions," was authored by David P. Redlawsk and Annemarie S. Walter.
https://www.psypost.org/republican-voters-show-leniency-toward-moral-misconduct-by-party-members-study-finds/
Just like when popes used to have a bunch of kids.
That is depressing.
I would be interested to know what the results were pre Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2024, 02:34:45 PMI would be interested to know what the results were pre Trump.
were Nixon apologists a thing?
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2024, 05:44:13 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2024, 02:34:45 PMI would be interested to know what the results were pre Trump.
were Nixon apologists a thing?
Yes - very, very much so. In June and July 1974 the public were basically split 45-45% on whether Nixon should step down and/or be removed from office v stay. It only crosses 50% support for his presidency ending in the first week of August - he was gone on the 8th.
There's a great anecdote of Robert Altman and the team filming the big fundraiser scene in Nashville on the day Nixon resigned. The host at the Grand Ole Opry (a legend, apparently) raged at Altman and the other LA lot to "look what you've done to our president" and spent the rest of the day's shoot in his dressing room playing fiddle.
I think Oliver North transitioned fairly quickly into Republican politics too, for example.
Separately - I get this sounds trivial but it feels non-trivial that Trump hasn't yet come up with a nickname for Harris or Walz.
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2024, 05:44:13 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 08, 2024, 02:34:45 PMI would be interested to know what the results were pre Trump.
were Nixon apologists a thing?
Remember Neil? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2024, 05:55:45 PM[
Separately - I get this sounds trivial but it feels non-trivial that Trump hasn't yet come up with a nickname for Harris or Walz.
Laffin' Kamala. He spelled it out like six year old at a spelling bee.
I am still waiting for the Scorsese movie "The Last Walz", getting The Band together.
It's not surprising in general, even if you ignore the rapid moral degradation that Republican voters went through since Trump's entrance into politics. GOP has been authoritarian in its thinking for many decades before Trump, though to a softer degree and in a less overt way. One of the main features of authoritarianism is that principles are applied selectively, only to targets that you already want to be dealt with. They're a pretext, not a guidance to action.
Quote from: Norgy on August 08, 2024, 06:10:00 PMLaffin' Kamala. He spelled it out like six year old at a spelling bee.
Ah, hadn't spotted that - feels like he could do with workshopping it a bit.
Hard to spot with all the bandaged ears, I suppose.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2024, 05:55:45 PMSeparately - I get this sounds trivial but it feels non-trivial that Trump hasn't yet come up with a nickname for Harris or Walz.
I think they're trying out "Tampon Tim" for Walz. Which really shows how spiteful and out of touch they are. Like... what he did was a *good* thing. It isn't even debatable in my opinion. :huh:
"The moniker refers to a law that Walz, the governor of Minnesota, signed last year, requiring public schools to provide menstrual products — including pads and tampons — to students in 4th through 12th grades.
The products are free for students, with the state paying about $2 per pupil to keep them stocked throughout the school year."
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5066878/tim-walz-tampon-law-minnesota
Their freak out appears to be that he had them stocked in boys restrooms too. Another trans panic. :(
Quote from: Norgy on August 08, 2024, 06:10:00 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on August 08, 2024, 05:55:45 PM[
Separately - I get this sounds trivial but it feels non-trivial that Trump hasn't yet come up with a nickname for Harris or Walz.
Laffin' Kamala. He spelled it out like six year old at a spelling bee.
I am still waiting for the Scorsese movie "The Last Walz", getting The Band together.
I've seen them try Scamala, Shamala, Kamabla (this one I don't even get the pun).
Quote from: garbon on August 09, 2024, 02:24:39 AMTheir freak out appears to be that he had them stocked in boys restrooms too. Another trans panic. :(
I should have known. :bleeding:
Old guy thinks about teenage girls. There's something in that I guess.
Quote from: celedhring on August 09, 2024, 02:35:31 AMKamabla (this one I don't even get the pun).
Bla bla...?
Quote from: Josquius on August 09, 2024, 03:58:51 AMOld guy thinks about teenage girls. There's something in that I guees.
Definitely *not* an avenue the Trump Team wants to pursue. Between his comments about his daughter, his actions during the Miss Teen USA, Epstein connections, and being a rapist, ensuring that young folks have access to tampons in school is less than nothing.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 09, 2024, 07:17:18 AMDefinitely *not* an avenue the Trump Team wants to pursue. Between his comments about his daughter, his actions during the Miss Teen USA, Epstein connections, and being a rapist, ensuring that young folks have access to tampons in school is less than nothing.
You still don't get how these guys operate. It's precisely because Trump is so vulnerable on that issue that they will take the offensive and project it on his opponent. They also know the Fox News bubble will completely insulate Trump from any countercharges.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 09, 2024, 07:29:34 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 09, 2024, 07:17:18 AMDefinitely *not* an avenue the Trump Team wants to pursue. Between his comments about his daughter, his actions during the Miss Teen USA, Epstein connections, and being a rapist, ensuring that young folks have access to tampons in school is less than nothing.
You still don't get how these guys operate. It's precisely because Trump is so vulnerable on that issue that they will take the offensive and project it on his opponent. They also know the Fox News bubble will completely insulate Trump from any countercharges.
I still have a problem with Fox News being called "news".
But they do build him up.
In any other country, journalism, the real kind, would have destroyed the man that is Donald Trump. He'd be gone from politics, like Boris Johnson is dead in the water.
And you also have the rather misnomered Newsmax network. Which is basically Goebbels with an American accent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 09, 2024, 07:29:34 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 09, 2024, 07:17:18 AMDefinitely *not* an avenue the Trump Team wants to pursue. Between his comments about his daughter, his actions during the Miss Teen USA, Epstein connections, and being a rapist, ensuring that young folks have access to tampons in school is less than nothing.
You still don't get how these guys operate. It's precisely because Trump is so vulnerable on that issue that they will take the offensive and project it on his opponent. They also know the Fox News bubble will completely insulate Trump from any countercharges.
I'm not sure it's going to work in this case "provided menstrual products to teenage girls (and boys)" is not on the nose enough to counter "is a perv to teenage girls" - and bringing it up preemptively only opens the "perv" conversation more widely.
The classic strategy, I'd think, would be to allege that Walz or Harris are pervs in some way. Providing sanitary pads and tampons is not on the nose enough IMO.
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1822234238134977022
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1821994617388060700
Quote from: Nate SilverIt won't affect our statistical model, but should it affect your mental model of the race that the Trump campaign is acting like it believes it's losing? Maybe a little bit.
Main polling news today was from Nevada, where Harris is now a 57 percent favorite. Major reversal from Biden who was polling terribly there.
https://x.com/gregtsargent/status/1822224739940589594
Quote from: Greg SargentWhoa. New NYT/Siena polls of likely voters:
Pennsylvania:
Harris 50
Trump 46
Wisconsin
Harris 50
Trump 46
Michigan
Harris 50
Trump 46
(yes, the spread is the same in all three states)
Polling data is one thing, but I would say this looks bleak for the GOP.
:perv:
CNN is a GOP sleeper cell, right? No one gives trump more air time. Probably even edge out Fox News.
Walz just said that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is illegitimate until Warren Zevon is admitted. He just locked in my vote! :lol:
(I'm a bit surprised that he knows who Warren Zevon is)
Some good news for your weekend
QuoteIf there were any doubt whether Kamala Harris has transformed this year's presidential election, this morning's latest New York Times/Siena College polls put it to rest.
In our first swing state polls since her entry into the race, Vice President Harris leads Donald J. Trump by four points each in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin among likely voters. It's a major shift from previous Times/Siena polls, which found Mr. Trump leading Ms. Harris and President Biden by an average of one or two points each across the same three states.
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2024, 11:37:05 AMWalz just said that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is illegitimate until Warren Zevon is admitted. He just locked in my vote! :lol:
(I'm a bit surprised that he knows who Warren Zevon is)
RIP Bylandt. :cry:
Quote from: celedhring on August 09, 2024, 02:35:31 AMI've seen them try Scamala, Shamala, Kamabla (this one I don't even get the pun).
But wait, it gets better.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1822408109794709986 (https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1822408109794709986)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 10, 2024, 03:20:01 PMSome good news for your weekend
Yeah I am starting to OD on Hopium. I need to chill on that a bit. We still have a harrowing battle to fight.
You people still act like any of this matters. Sorry, kids, you have a shitload of ignorant ass crackers in the New Confederacy and the West that will shove your popular vote up your asses with the electoral college. AGAIN.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2024, 10:30:23 PMYou people still act like any of this matters. Sorry, kids, you have a shitload of ignorant ass crackers in the New Confederacy and the West that will shove your popular vote up your asses with the electoral college. AGAIN.
See this is why you are still needed here :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 11, 2024, 09:54:36 PMQuote from: celedhring on August 09, 2024, 02:35:31 AMI've seen them try Scamala, Shamala, Kamabla (this one I don't even get the pun).
But wait, it gets better.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1822408109794709986 (https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1822408109794709986)
I mean, I'm surprised that one of the WWF's more racist gimmicks hasn't been pulled into this yet:
(https://i.imgur.com/MIINguH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7DHeheb.jpeg)
(He was portrayed by James Arthur
Harris :o who died in 2020, aged 70)
There's something in that.
I'm not sure leaning into tiki-kitsch-racism is going to drive voter behaviour the way the GOP would like.
I don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
If they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 12:06:20 PMIf they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
Serious rot? In the US's democracy?
I suppose we should at least consider the possibility :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 12:17:12 PMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 12:06:20 PMIf they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
Serious rot? In the US's democracy?
I suppose we should at least consider the possibility :hmm:
I mean beyond the general rot in just the GOP :P
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 12:06:20 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
If they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
An alternative explanation to rot is that the American political system does not create the best of choices. If Biden had stayed in the Democrats would definitely not have been at peak turnout. Part of the turn around in the polling is the Dems now have a more viable candidate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2024, 12:21:52 PMAn alternative explanation to rot is that the American political system does not create the best of choices. If Biden had stayed in the Democrats would definitely not have been at peak turnout. Part of the turn around in the polling is the Dems now have a more viable candidate.
I guess I would agree that certainly once the last guy who could even remotely be considered a member of the Revolutionary generation, Andrew Jackson, left office our choices have generally been between mediocre machine politicians...with a few noticeable exceptions. And I guess a few nuts like Trump who actually make the mediocre machine politicians look like giants. Americans have been complaining about that ever since. But...isn't that basically true of every country? I look around our fellow western democracies and generally I am not exactly filled with envy. Well maybe envious about a few elements of their systems that I think are better but certainly not of the caliber of their politicians.
More to the point - motivation ebbs and flows over time and we're still a few months away from election day. The name of the game is stacking as many vote motivators for your side and as many demotivators for the other side, such that they culminate optimally on election day.
Blatant caricature racism could potentially drive additional GOP turnout while not affecting Dem turnout... but IMO there's also a risk (from the Trumpist perspective) that it'd depress GOP turnout (it could be the final straw for someone) while reinvigorating some Dem folks who are losing energy in early November.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2024, 12:28:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2024, 12:21:52 PMAn alternative explanation to rot is that the American political system does not create the best of choices. If Biden had stayed in the Democrats would definitely not have been at peak turnout. Part of the turn around in the polling is the Dems now have a more viable candidate.
I guess I would agree that certainly once the last guy who could even remotely be considered a member of the Revolutionary generation, Andrew Jackson, left office our choices have generally been between mediocre machine politicians...with a few noticeable exceptions. And I guess a few nuts like Trump who actually make the mediocre machine politicians look like giants. Americans have been complaining about that ever since. But...isn't that basically true of every country? I look around our fellow western democracies and generally I am not exactly filled with envy. Well maybe envious about a few elements of their systems that I think are better but certainly not of the caliber of their politicians.
Yes, there is a dearth of good choices out there. But I think the problem is heightened by your two party system. At least in other countries there are a wider range of parties to choose from, even in a FPTP system.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 12:06:20 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
If they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
The
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
Except for the lack of Democratic turnout over Gazapalooza.
FROM THE LIVER TO THE PEAS
lol stupid cell phone
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2024, 02:18:26 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 12, 2024, 12:28:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on August 12, 2024, 12:21:52 PMAn alternative explanation to rot is that the American political system does not create the best of choices. If Biden had stayed in the Democrats would definitely not have been at peak turnout. Part of the turn around in the polling is the Dems now have a more viable candidate.
I guess I would agree that certainly once the last guy who could even remotely be considered a member of the Revolutionary generation, Andrew Jackson, left office our choices have generally been between mediocre machine politicians...with a few noticeable exceptions. And I guess a few nuts like Trump who actually make the mediocre machine politicians look like giants. Americans have been complaining about that ever since. But...isn't that basically true of every country? I look around our fellow western democracies and generally I am not exactly filled with envy. Well maybe envious about a few elements of their systems that I think are better but certainly not of the caliber of their politicians.
Yes, there is a dearth of good choices out there. But I think the problem is heightened by your two party system. At least in other countries there are a wider range of parties to choose from, even in a FPTP system.
Well since we are a federal system the idea is that each major party is supposed to be an alliance of what is in effect regional parties which are supposed to them produce "favored son" candidates that the rest of the country can then choose from. Of course that doesn't seem to happen much anymore and even back when it did work like that I don't think it produced high quality candidates really.
But anyway I am certainly not going to sit here and claim the two party system, FPTP, and the way we do electoral districts and so forth is something anybody should model their system on. They certainly suck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 12:06:20 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
If they're not at peak turnout already there is some serious rot in the US's democracy as it currently stands.
TheQuote from: Jacob on August 12, 2024, 11:53:30 AMQuote from: HVC on August 12, 2024, 11:39:00 AMI don't know, it'd probably only offend those that wouldn't vote GOP anyway.
... thus driving Democratic turnout.
Except for the lack of Democratic turnout over Gazapalooza.
FROM THE LIVER TO THE PEAS
At least when President Trump orders the B-52s over Gaza in exchange of Bibis pro tips on how to stay out of jail, schadenfreude over those morons and their choice will ease the pain.
:lol:
Harris is starting to roll out her platform. And it looks to be a good strategy for winning back the working class vote-it's all about the economy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2024, 12:41:14 PMHarris is starting to roll out her platform. And it looks to be a good strategy for winning back the working class vote-it's all about the economy.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTvZwQ6XcAA4P7A.png)
An Uber for my quiche and quinoa salad, please.
Delivery was invented on april 1st 2019 :yes:
I blame pizza...living it up all these years before we finally got equality.
What's the US Senate election map look like this time around?
Quote from: Jacob on August 14, 2024, 01:36:19 PMWhat's the US Senate election map look like this time around?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/699/Screen_Shot_2017-08-17_at_3.57.59_PM.jpg)
:lol:
Here's a real one from 270ToWin (https://www.270towin.com/2024-senate-election/).
Note the purples are independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who are Democrats for the purposes of our duopoly.
Yeah it is not looking good. We have to pull it out in both Montana and Ohio.
But hey we seem to just barely pull it out over and over again in the Senate. Maybe we can do it again.
Especially because we have a chance to pick up Maine and North Carolina in 2026. If we can just hold the line this year.
So none of those retirees who moved to Florida that once voted for the Dems do that anymore?
I still can't wrap my head around Tedward Cruz (R) being a senator.
Quote from: Norgy on August 14, 2024, 03:26:43 PMSo none of those retirees who moved to Florida that once voted for the Dems do that anymore?
The Northeastern Jews who voted Democrat still do AFAIK. They're outnumbered now by retirees from the Midwest.
Quote from: Norgy on August 14, 2024, 03:26:43 PMSo none of those retirees who moved to Florida that once voted for the Dems do that anymore?
I still can't wrap my head around Tedward Cruz (R) being a senator.
For reasons beyond my comprehension both Ohio and Florida became Republican strongholds while Georgia and Arizona drifted leftwards. It is like both parties can only hold a certain number of states at a time.
But as far as Florida is concerned...kind of glad. They were the most problematic swing state as it compelled both parties to maintain our permanent state of quasi-war with Cuba. Shedding them should enable us to normalize relations with an admittedly shitty country, but one that is certainly no threat to us.
Florida always looks a bit like a cock on a map anyway.
Incidentally, so does Norway. :blush:
Thanks :cheers:
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2024, 03:18:02 PMYeah it is not looking good. We have to pull it out in both Montana and Ohio.
But hey we seem to just barely pull it out over and over again in the Senate. Maybe we can do it again.
Especially because we have a chance to pick up Maine and North Carolina in 2026. If we can just hold the line this year.
Montana (!!!) and Ohio (!) are leaning Dem? Texas (!!) and Florida are only *leaning* Rep? That's a great map.
Quote from: Valmy on August 14, 2024, 03:18:02 PMYeah it is not looking good. We have to pull it out in both Montana and Ohio.
But hey we seem to just barely pull it out over and over again in the Senate. Maybe we can do it again.
Especially because we have a chance to pick up Maine and North Carolina in 2026. If we can just hold the line this year.
I think the Nevada race is likely to be more of a toss-up than polls have suggested. The GOP has a very strong shot there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2024, 09:15:17 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 14, 2024, 03:18:02 PMYeah it is not looking good. We have to pull it out in both Montana and Ohio.
But hey we seem to just barely pull it out over and over again in the Senate. Maybe we can do it again.
Especially because we have a chance to pick up Maine and North Carolina in 2026. If we can just hold the line this year.
Montana (!!!) and Ohio (!) are leaning Dem? Texas (!!) and Florida are only *leaning* Rep? That's a great map.
These are the Senate elections. Brown and Tester are the incumbents and the races are considered toss ups, not leaning Dem. Cruz is not very popular and while he will win, it will be a small margin. I don't know what is going on in Florida.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 14, 2024, 09:29:55 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 14, 2024, 03:18:02 PMYeah it is not looking good. We have to pull it out in both Montana and Ohio.
But hey we seem to just barely pull it out over and over again in the Senate. Maybe we can do it again.
Especially because we have a chance to pick up Maine and North Carolina in 2026. If we can just hold the line this year.
I think the Nevada race is likely to be more of a toss-up than polls have suggested. The GOP has a very strong shot there.
We'll see. I don't know anything about Rosen.
Obviously, as I said, the situation is perilous and will be close.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 14, 2024, 02:33:08 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 14, 2024, 01:36:19 PMWhat's the US Senate election map look like this time around?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/699/Screen_Shot_2017-08-17_at_3.57.59_PM.jpg)
Still the greatest political meme ever made :lol:
Just savage
https://x.com/igorbobic/status/1823918804507804133
QuoteTim Walz at Boston fundraiser tonight, per pool:
"I feel like one of my roles in this now is to be the anti-Tommy Tuberville, to show that football coaches are not the dumbest people."
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/725378019312533557/1273612907002724444/GU_I2UWWsAA-PXU.png?ex=66bf3ff3&is=66bdee73&hm=9ad76caf0f1fb8e33fb92141dd587ad6186db6279332158a2b750ea029a63bf8&)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVBJACBXwAAvw7z?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 14, 2024, 09:53:12 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on August 14, 2024, 02:33:08 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 14, 2024, 01:36:19 PMWhat's the US Senate election map look like this time around?
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/699/Screen_Shot_2017-08-17_at_3.57.59_PM.jpg)
Still the greatest political meme ever made :lol:
DROPPING FUCKING DELEGATES ALL OVER YOU!!!!!
QuoteMinnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, has distanced himself from a controversial Muslim cleric after media reports revealed the religious leader's past antisemitic rhetoric and support for Hamas.
Conservative media outlets have highlighted Walz's past interactions with Asad Zaman, leader of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. Zaman has faced criticism for promoting antisemitic content, including a pro-Hitler propaganda film called "The Greatest Story Never Told," and expressing support for Hamas and its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which killed some 1,200 people.
In response to a report from The Washington Examiner, Walz's team has denied any "personal relationship" between the governor and Zaman.
"The Governor and Mr. Zaman do not have a personal relationship. Governor Walz strongly condemns Hamas terrorism," said Lauren Hitt, a spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, in an email to Newsweek.
That statement came following reports that Walz, as governor of Minnesota, repeatedly hosted Zaman at events. Walz's administration donated over $100,000 to Zaman's group, the Examiner reported, drawing sharp criticism from groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).
"It is an outrage to the American Jewish community that Tim Walz would champion Hitler-promoting cleric Asad Zaman of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota," the RJC said in a statement on Tuesday.
The RJC also accused the Harris-Walz campaign of downplaying the relationship between Walz and Zaman. Some Republicans joined in the criticism.
"Why did Tim Walz lie about his obviously friendly relationship with a Minnesota Muslim cleric who promoted Hamas and Hitler?" wrote Rep. Anthony D'Esposito, Republican of New York.
This is not the first time Walz has been targeted for his stance on Israel and its ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza. After Harris selected him as her vice-presidential pick, Republicans were quick to suggest she chose Walz over Josh Shapiro, the popular Pennsylvania governor, due to Shapiro's Jewish faith and support of Israel.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump claimed again last week that he is the better candidate for Jewish voters, saying that any Jew who votes for the Democratic ticket needs to get "their head examined."
Walz has been consistent in expressing his support for Israel. Shortly after Oct. 7, he condemned Hamas while condemning those who demonized all Palestinians for the actions of the militant group. He has also advocated for increasing humanitarian aid to Gaza.
In addition to Republicans arguing they are not sufficiently pro-Israel, both Walz and Harris are facing pressure from pro-Palestinian protesters who are upset that the current administration — of which Harris is still a part — isn't doing more to demand a ceasefire in Gaza.
Harris was confronted by protesters twice in the last week during rallies in Michigan and Arizona over the administration's handling of the war. While several leaders of the activist Uncommitted National Movement expressed hope about the new ticket after briefly engaging with Harris in Detroit, other groups, like the Abandon Biden Campaign, see little daylight between her and President Biden when it comes to the war.
Well, that should lock up the college student vote for the Dems.
(https://i.redd.it/7jfjoddfxuid1.png)
Pretty savage.
I like it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2024, 06:27:20 PMWell, that should lock up the college student vote for the Dems.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But no, they still intend to reenact 1968 at the convention. The fuckers want Trump to win.
That's an interesting parallel I hadn't considered Raz.
So, I wonder how many on-the-fence US vets Trump converted to his side by claiming that the Presidential Medal of Freedom (mostly given to really major donors, with some cultural icons tossed in) is the "equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor but civilian version." Note that he doesn't even know the name of the Medal of Honor.
He then goes on to say that the PMoF is actually better: ""It's actually much better because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor," Trump said. "They're soldiers. They're either in very bad shape because they've been hit so many times by bullets or they're dead."
How can any self-respecting vet vote for this guy who has zero respect for them?
Has always been something that was given to donors and cronies? I looked at the wikipage and it has pictures of Obama giving it to Biden :rolleyes: and Biden giving it to Pelosi :rolleyes: . I know Trump gave it to people who give him money :x
Trump gave it to Rush Limbaugh :lol:
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is sort of like a knighthood. Something you give out to VIPs just for being VIPs. That is not to say plenty of Medal of Freedom winners were not awesome people with amazing achievements but that is not the standard or anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2024, 09:58:28 PMYou'd think that, wouldn't you? But no, they still intend to reenact 1968 at the convention. The fuckers want Trump to win.
Yeah well...good luck with that. I don't think people will be as motivated as the 1968 protestors.
Also I think most Americans are pretty good at just ignoring the Israel-Palestine thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2024, 08:37:35 PMHas always been something that was given to donors and cronies?
LTR
Quote from: grumbler on August 16, 2024, 08:18:50 PMHow can any self-respecting vet vote for this guy who has zero respect for them?
If Hansmeister was still here, he'd tell us.
The Lincoln Project is making a series of attack ads they pay to air in Florida and New Jersey on Fox News and Golf Channel, to make sure Trump sees them.
And it worked, Trump has sent a ceased and desist letter to get it off the air:
Lol at this one :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3oOtADJrm0
Adding on to what Raz raised in a different thread, protestors in Chicago are protesting for reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, in addition to Palestine. WTF are they doing at the Democratic convention?? :huh:
It is far safer to make demands to people who are already in favor of them.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2024, 01:35:40 PMQuote from: grumbler on August 16, 2024, 08:18:50 PMHow can any self-respecting vet vote for this guy who has zero respect for them?
If Hansmeister was still here, he'd tell us.
I like how he spent years basically saying the Democrats were fascists and the worst people in existence. Then came back here and admitted that Trump was horrible and unfit to be President but he was still supporting him because the Democrats revealed how bad they really were in opposing him. I am still unsure how somebody would be as bad as what Hans had already characterized the Dems as being back in the Bush/Obama era.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2024, 10:58:33 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3oOtADJrm0
Adding on to what Raz raised in a different thread, protestors in Chicago are protesting for reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, in addition to Palestine. WTF are they doing at the Democratic convention?? :huh:
Indeed, they should protest in Gaza.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2024, 10:58:33 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3oOtADJrm0
Adding on to what Raz raised in a different thread, protestors in Chicago are protesting for reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, in addition to Palestine. WTF are they doing at the Democratic convention?? :huh:
Realistically, the US has a lot of leverage over Israel.
In the mind of crazy segments of the far left, Israel is just a US sock puppet so the US has supreme power over Israeli policy.
Quote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 01:57:41 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2024, 10:58:33 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3oOtADJrm0
Adding on to what Raz raised in a different thread, protestors in Chicago are protesting for reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, in addition to Palestine. WTF are they doing at the Democratic convention?? :huh:
Realistically, the US has a lot of leverage over Israel.
In the mind of crazy segments of the far left, Israel is just a US sock puppet so the US has supreme power over Israeli policy.
I think he was more puzzled over protesting for reproductive and gay rights at the
Democrats' convention.
If the people interviewed in this article are representative, sounds like they should be ignored. :wacko:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/19/chicacgo-dnc-protests-gaza-wacker-drive-michigan-avenue
Quote...
Some protesters at the march, organized by groups like Bodies Against Unjust Laws, have come explicitly to "Disrupt the DNC", arguing that American support for Israel in the Gaza war was tantamount to genocide and that the Democratic party was indistinguishable from Republicans and equally unworthy of political support.
"The rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of politicians – and I'm not saying that some of it isn't sincere in the wish to defend reproductive justice, or for trans and queer people, or even for citizens on the ground in Gaza – but rhetoric does not stop the bombs from falling," says Linda Loew, a protest leader.
"Rhetoric does not deliver abortion care from someone in a state that has a six-week abortion ban. What we need is action. We need the end to funding to Israel and the end of delivery of weapons."
It didn't matter to some of these protesters if the nominee was Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
"There's no indication that there is much of a difference at this point," says Megan Behrent, a college professor in New York, about Biden and Harris, and said she would vote third party.
"I just kind of expect that in the lead up to this kind of election, the kind of focus on the lesser evil always starts dominating politics," she says.
"And for good reason. Trump is, you know, a nightmare. But for me, the most important thing is to maintain an independent kind of organizing voice, to continue to raise the issues that matter."
:bleeding:
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2024, 02:05:25 AMI think he was more puzzled over protesting for reproductive and gay rights at the Democrats' convention.
It's kinda like storming the convention hall and demanding that people vote for Harris.
QuoteRhetoric does not deliver abortion care from someone in a state that has a six-week abortion ban.
No. What does is voting for the political party that will legalize delivering abortion care.
Yet you are against that and instead want rhetoric. Odd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 02:30:24 AMQuote from: Tamas on August 19, 2024, 02:05:25 AMI think he was more puzzled over protesting for reproductive and gay rights at the Democrats' convention.
It's kinda like storming the convention hall and demanding that people vote for Harris.
Same sort of thing as with Israel maybe?
No recognition that the Democrats are by far the better of the two. Just focusing on areas where they could be better thus are worst than Hitler?
Quote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 03:09:33 AMSame sort of thing as with Israel maybe?
No recognition that the Democrats are by far the better of the two. Just focusing on areas where they could be better thus are worst than Hitler?
Palestine make much more sense than abortion. People can be more pro Palestine than the Democratic party. How the hell can you be more pro abortion than the Democratic party? Requiring people to have abortions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 03:12:10 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 03:09:33 AMSame sort of thing as with Israel maybe?
No recognition that the Democrats are by far the better of the two. Just focusing on areas where they could be better thus are worst than Hitler?
Palestine make much more sense than abortion. People can be more pro Palestine than the Democratic party. How the hell can you be more pro abortion than the Democratic party? Requiring people to have abortions?
Abortion laws aren't FFA, there are time limitations and many also have some kind of additional requirements/procedural red tape in place. You can easily push for more expansive laws without "requiring people to have abortions".
Quote from: celedhring on August 19, 2024, 03:34:24 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 03:12:10 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 03:09:33 AMSame sort of thing as with Israel maybe?
No recognition that the Democrats are by far the better of the two. Just focusing on areas where they could be better thus are worst than Hitler?
Palestine make much more sense than abortion. People can be more pro Palestine than the Democratic party. How the hell can you be more pro abortion than the Democratic party? Requiring people to have abortions?
Abortion laws aren't FFA, there are time limitations and many also have some kind of additional requirements/procedural red tape in place. You can easily push for more expansive laws without "requiring people to have abortions".
So a let's arrange the deck chairs moment?
Quote from: celedhring on August 19, 2024, 03:34:24 AMAbortion laws aren't FFA, there are time limitations and many also have some kind of additional requirements/procedural red tape in place. You can easily push for more expansive laws without "requiring people to have abortions".
Fair enough. Someone could consider Roe v Wade too restrictive and want on demand abortion in the 9th month. That would put them in opposition to abortion policy in Democratic controlled states (I think). The other part sounds like parental notifications and waiting periods and ultrasounds and required prosperity gospel counseling in Republican states. And the specific thing our activist friend mentioned was six week laws in Republican states. So why the fuck is she protesting that in Chicago?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 03:53:04 AMQuote from: celedhring on August 19, 2024, 03:34:24 AMAbortion laws aren't FFA, there are time limitations and many also have some kind of additional requirements/procedural red tape in place. You can easily push for more expansive laws without "requiring people to have abortions".
Fair enough. Someone could consider Roe v Wade too restrictive and want on demand abortion in the 9th month. That would put them in opposition to abortion policy in Democratic controlled states (I think). The other part sounds like parental notifications and waiting periods and ultrasounds and required prosperity gospel counseling in Republican states. And the specific thing our activist friend mentioned was six week laws in Republican states. So why the fuck is she protesting that in Chicago?
Yeah, Spain just struck down parent notification and it has been controversial. But what I mean is that there's space to the left to expand abortion laws. But I agree with garbon that protesting that at a Democratic convention seems a bit too precious right now.
The Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 09:54:28 AMThe Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
I think you are being a little disingenuous by claiming this is some kind of essential quality of every single person protesting Israel's actions.
I mean I am sure a load of them are insane. They are my fellow Americans after all.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2024, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 09:54:28 AMThe Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
I think you are being a little disingenuous by claiming this is some kind of essential quality of every single person protesting Israel's actions.
I mean I am sure a load of them are insane. They are my fellow Americans after all.
You understate the value of Raz's mind-reading abilities. He can tell you the true motives of everyone he disagrees with.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2024, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 09:54:28 AMThe Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
I think you are being a little disingenuous by claiming this is some kind of essential quality of every single person protesting Israel's actions.
I mean I am sure a load of them are insane. They are my fellow Americans after all.
I didn't say "every single person", but this is part of the ideology. If I said, "MAGA was racist", would you make the same objections? No, of course not.
Something on the protestors, from the intelligencier https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-anti-zionist-protesters-and-the-left-an-end-to-denial/ar-AA1p3aIT?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=4d2e9933f63240df8452e4051c9bb103&ei=20
QuoteAweek and a half ago, anti-Israel demonstrators began chanting during a Kamala Harris rally outside Detroit. Harris stared down the protesters and told them she was speaking. The crowd cheered wildly, but the scene disturbed some progressive observers.
,
"Ms. Harris managed to quickly dismiss them when they interrupted her rally speech in Detroit, but she will not be able to so easily dismiss the shocking reality against which they are protesting. Failing to adequately address protesters' valid outrage could cause Democrats' newfound party unity to quickly unravel," wrote Farah Stockman in a New York Times op-ed. A similar view was expressed by Masha Gessen, also in the Times, who suggested the protesters "cannot stand to live in a world in which Joe Biden's vice president, who has not voiced any disagreement with the administration's Middle East policies, wins the presidency. It's not that they want Trump to win; it's that the level of political cynicism they are being asked to adopt feels unbearable."
,
While both columns suggested the most sympathetic possible motives for the outburst, neither identified the protesters' actual beliefs. But the demonstrators do have a publicly articulated worldview. The Detroit action was organized by Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the University of Michigan chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
,
SAFE, like other branches of SJP, takes an eliminationist posture toward Israel. It has employed violent rhetoric preceding Israel's operation in Gaza. A SAFE rally in January 2023 featured calls of "intifada revolution," smashing the "Zionist entity," claims that Israelis "water their invasive species with Palestinian blood," and so on. SAFE celebrated the October 7 attacks. In March, its president wrote on social media, "Until my last breath, I will utter death to every single individual who supports the Zionist state. Death and more. Death and worse." The group sent masked protesters to the home of a Jewish regent in the middle of the night and vandalized his law office.
,
Would progressives have taken a cooler view of the demonstrators had they possessed a clearer view of their objectives? Some might. But others would not. Progressives tend to take a romantic view of left-wing protest. Protesters occupy a special category of political actor, freed of any responsibility or agency and judged only as a counterweight against the worst excesses of whatever they oppose. They represent an idealistic impulse and revulsion at the status quo, and since the status quo is unjust, their behavior, by definition, cannot be. All that matters is that their actions are directionally correct.
,
To the extent progressives feel any discomfort with the goals or methods of protesters, they tend to rationalize them by invoking noble protests from past eras. Gessen's column lingers on the history of AIDS activists from several decades ago, the nobility of which she employs to justify the protests against Harris without needing to justify its specific ideology.
,
No, not every individual demonstrator supports every position taken by the group they are joining. But progressives generally take a much less forgiving view of protests on the political right — we usually judge them by their most extreme manifestations. If you recall the tea-party protests, liberals generally equated the most offensive or racist signs and statements at rallies with the general thrust of the cause, rather than trying to imagine a sympathetic purpose. (Conservatives, of course, did the opposite, ignoring the offensive bits to project their desired motive onto protests that turned out not to care about their professed goal of reducing the budget deficit.) And the groups organizing the protests exert significant control over their messaging, which is why you never see a sign or a chant at an encampment denouncing Hamas along with Israel or calling for a two-state solution.
,
This practice of lionizing and glossing over protesters' actual beliefs insulates their ideas from correction. It is difficult to steer the protesters away from extreme rhetoric and counterproductive tactics if you are abiding a norm of treating them as beyond critique. Every complaint about the protests can simply be turned back on Israel or the U.S. — and it is certainly true that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians bears considerable responsibility for encouraging extremist opposition. (Before October 7, in fact, the Netanyahu government deliberately cultivated Hamas as a counterweight to more moderate Palestinian factions.) It is this very dynamic that has enabled the pro-Palestine movement to simultaneously gain widespread influence on the left without curbing any of its bloodthirsty impulses.
,
The bill for this indulgence is coming due in Chicago. The long-anticipated protests against the Democratic Party have prompted angst over the impact on the election and the chance that Donald Trump will benefit. A generally sympathetic news story in the Washington Post expresses the case against the demonstrations in practical terms: "Some Democrats have argued that Harris has distinguished herself from Biden and does not bear the same level of responsibility. They have also said scenes of large demonstrations could hurt the party's ability to project unity and defeat Donald Trump in November."
,
A critique not raised in the story, perhaps because it has been largely absent from progressive discourse, is whether the protesters are morally admirable at all.
,
This is an entirely different question from whether one believes the Palestinians deserve sympathy or that American policy toward Israel needs revision. On both points, I believe the answer is "yes." I also believe that Israel's government and its American supporters bear a significant amount of blame for the radicalization of the Palestinian movement. Even aside from the devastation in Gaza, Israel has abandoned the two-state solution and is permitting Jewish terrorists to brutalize Palestinians in the West Bank. American supporters of Israel have habitually smeared critics of Israel, even the mildest and friendliest ones, as antisemitic. It is a cliché that watering down charges of bigotry through overuse makes it easier for actual bigotry to spread, but I believe this is precisely what has happened.
,
It is possible to imagine a world where pro-Palestinian protesters were aiming for a just future where Israel and Palestine could coexist. But that is not the world we inhabit. And it does no good to pretend it is.
,,
The Chicago protests are being led by Hatem Abudayyeh, the national chair of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network. On October 7, Abudayyeh made an official statement for USPCN celebrating the slaughter of Israeli civilians: "Palestinians have an internationally-recognized right to resist illegal military occupation, and today's attacks from the Palestinian Resistance should be understood as a legitimate response to unending violence from Israel's extreme right-wing, racist, white supremacist, zionist government and settler movement ... now we have no choice but to defend ourselves, because the Israeli military and racist settlers have been attacking and killing with impunity, and must and will be stopped! We will win our liberation and Return!"
,
And while this rhetoric may be shocking, every major anti-Israel activist group has adopted a similar position. Students for Justice in Palestine called the October 7 attacks "a historic win for the Palestinian resistance" against "the façade of an impenetrable settler colony." The Palestinian Youth Movement saluted "the active decolonization of Palestinian land" and stated "We have a right to resist on our own land." Within Our Lifetime declared, "Zionism is a settler-colonial white supremacist ideology built on the genocide and dispossession of the Palestinian people," and therefore, "We defend the right of Palestinians as colonized people to resist the zionist occupation by any means necessary." Jewish Voices for Peace declined to condemn the attack, instead blaming it on Israel: "The bloodshed of today and the past 75 years traces back directly to U.S. complicity in the oppression and horror caused by Israel's military occupation."
,
The common thread running through these statements, other than unbounded eagerness to shed Israeli blood, is a worldview suggested by the recurring terms settler and colonist. All these groups adhere to a left-wing western doctrine that is the subject of an excellent new book, On Settler Colonialism, by Adam Kirsch.
,
Settler colonialism is a theory of societies established by western settlers. The fact that certain countries (the U.S., Canada, and Australia) were established by settlers who displaced or killed off the native population is not novel. Settler colonialism is a way of centering this fact as an ongoing genocide that "continues to define every aspect of its life, even after centuries," as Kirsch puts it. "Settler, in this view, is not the descriptions of the actions of an individual but a heritable identity."
,
Settler-colonialist theory has grown explosively in the West, where it has inspired hundreds of books, thousands of papers, and numerous college courses. As applied to the Anglosphere, it poses a critique that is radical but entirely confined to theory. Settler colonialism delegitimizes its targets without offering a workable program for replacing them — there is no pathway to restoring the western hemisphere to the political arrangements that stood before Columbus's arrival. And so the programmatic aspect of settler-colonialist theory is confined to "land acknowledgments" and other quasi-religious rhetoric.
,
The inclusion of Israel as a settler-colonialist state is the move that transforms the theory into something more threatening. It is a curious connection, as Kirsch notes. While Israel's founding did displace many Palestinians, it did not precipitate their virtual eradication. (The Palestinian population, despite undeniable oppression, has grown dramatically since 1947.) More importantly, the Jewish population in Israel has a long-standing connection to the land it inhabits and no other place to "return."
,
The only humane solution to the predicament is a negotiated agreement between Jews and Palestinians. Settler colonialism, instead, denies Jewish Israelis any right to live in the region, rendering any act of the Israeli state illegitimate and any action to dismantle it permissible.
,
Settler-colonialism theorists believe certain people have an authentic, permanent relationship to the land. Their rhetoric, as Kirsch points out, echoes the romantic nationalism of the old German right. "Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty is in and of the land. It is grounded in an embodied connection to Palestine and articulated in Palestinians ways of being, knowing, and resisting on and for this land," writes Jamal Nabulsi of University of Queensland. Palestinians have "a culture indivisible from their surroundings, a language of freedom concordant to the beauty of the land," in the words of the scholar Steven Salaita.
,
Compare this with the blood-and-soil nationalism of Nazi ideologists such as Richard Walther Darre — "The German soul, with all its warmness, is rooted in its native landscape and has, in a sense, always grown out of it ... Whoever takes the natural landscape away from the German soul, kills it" — and you will have difficulty detecting any difference. Indeed, if you switched Palestinian with German, it would be hard to tell one theorist from the other.
,
An important corollary of settler-colonialist thought is that, because they lack a naturalistic connection to any soil, the Jews must be rendered a permanently rootless subaltern class. This has an echo of the Nazi conception of the Jew as alien, and at times its rhetoric has the same overtones. Salaita, again, on the Zionists: "In their ruthless schema, land is neither pleasure nor sustenance. It is a commodity ... There is no real notion of the commons in Zionism. Public space is deeply personal, demarcated and apportioned based on a crude obsession with genetics ... Having been anointed Jewish, the land ceases to be dynamic." This is blood-and-soil nationalism for the left.
,,
Inevitably, the activism and pedagogy inspired by settler-colonialist theory has frequently slipped over into outright antisemitism. A Stanford lecturer told Jewish students to identify themselves, then ordered them to stand in a corner of the classroom, because "this is what Israel does to Palestinians." At Columbia, one professor allegedly asked a student with a Jewish name before an exam to explain their views on Israeli's actions in Gaza, while another complained that the mainstream media "is owned by Jews." At CUNY, the activist group Not in Our Name instructed its members and followers to undermine a Hillel survey on campus antisemitism, including by answering a question about encountering prejudice against Jews in the negative even if they had experienced it. Numerous other cases like this could be added.
,
These sorts of incidents may not represent the typical experience of Jewish students, but they are a predictable result of the climate of opinion fostered by the leading pro-Palestinian activist groups. Their rejection of coexistence between Palestinians and Jews in the Middle East has extended to their vision of domestic politics in the U.S. The protesters' central goal has been to turn Zionism — which they define, de minimus, as the belief that Israel has a right to exist in any form — into an unacceptable opinion. Their demand that universities boycott Israel is designed to advance this strategy by lending official support to their view that Israel is a unique source of evil in the world.
,
For years, Jews in progressive spaces have long agonized over demands they face to denounce Israel or Zionism as the entry price for their participation. Divestment is a lever intended to spread that cultural norm more broadly through universities and other cultural institutions. The protest method of seizing campus common space and declaring it off limits to "Zionists" is a model for their strategic goal. That persistent demand, more than the sporadic outbursts of overt antisemitic harassment, is the chilling threat that makes Jews fear for their future in the U.S.
,
And it is on this point that the anti-Israel protesters are unwilling to give ground. They will not stop creating fear and discomfort for Zionists because they simply don't believe in liberal ground rules that would permit people with different beliefs about the Middle East to go about their lives in peace. Even if they lack the power to murder Zionists, they retain the power to make them deeply uncomfortable. It is why they consistently surround their targets with taunts and vandalize their homes.
,
That is why encampments have so consistently seized common spaces and barred Zionists from entering them — it is their vision of the campus they wish to create. The same dynamic played out in June, when WOL protested an art exhibit dedicated to the victims of October 7. Protesters unfurled a "Long Live October 7th" banner and filmed a scene in the subway afterward where they crowded into a car and instructed "Zionists" identify themselves and get out.
,
Equally revealing was their response to condemnation, which came even from pro-Palestinian Democrats including Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Students for Justice in Palestine denounced the "smears" of their allies. "Attempts to divide or undermine any sector of our movement, especially from the 'left," are unacceptable ...," the group announced, and "we will not tolerate attacks on our movement's political and moral character."
,
Any complaint about violence or antisemitism by a member of the movement inherently divides it and raises questions about its political and moral character. To reject out of hand any such possibility is to repudiate the very idea it must abide any standards of behavior in the tactics it uses against its targets.
,
The movement could not be any more clear on this point. Its members will not stop harassing and intimidating Jewish people. Nor will they adopt any standard of behavior. When they say they believe they are part of the Palestinian liberation movement, and that the movement is entitled to use any means necessary, that is exactly what they mean.
,
What Democrats and progressives need to decide is whether to treat these groups as noble idealists broadly on the right side of history or as the fanatic adherents of an illiberal and unjust program. In the Middle East, that program calls for endless war until the Jews have been expurgated from a soil on which they unnaturally reside. In the West, it means imposing social norms that make most Jews feel alien and unwelcome.
,
To advance justice for Palestinians and Jews does not require placating, forming alliances with, or ceding "leverage" to followers of this hateful program. The morally just response is to meet this ideology the way liberals meet other forms of hate: by calling it what it is.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 11:06:14 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 19, 2024, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 09:54:28 AMThe Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
I think you are being a little disingenuous by claiming this is some kind of essential quality of every single person protesting Israel's actions.
I mean I am sure a load of them are insane. They are my fellow Americans after all.
I didn't say "every single person", but this is part of the ideology. If I said, "MAGA was racist", would you make the same objections? No, of course not.
Sigh.
Most people who have criticisms of Israeli actions in Gaza are not part of some over arching ideology.
You see it here on this forum, quite a range of people fall into that category.
Seriously you need to find another interest. This can't be healthy
As I said before the only consolation of a Trump victory will be to have these idiots face what they done when Trump gives carte blanche to Bibi.
Quote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 12:13:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 11:06:14 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 19, 2024, 10:20:05 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 09:54:28 AMThe Pro-Pals see Israel as the nexus of oppression, it is the lynch-pin of all the evils in the world. They genuinely believe that you can bring back abortion access to the US by destroying Israel. This is who they are. It's the same sort of behavior we saw at the University protests.
I think you are being a little disingenuous by claiming this is some kind of essential quality of every single person protesting Israel's actions.
I mean I am sure a load of them are insane. They are my fellow Americans after all.
I didn't say "every single person", but this is part of the ideology. If I said, "MAGA was racist", would you make the same objections? No, of course not.
Sigh.
Most people who have criticisms of Israeli actions in Gaza are not part of some over arching ideology.
You see it here on this forum, quite a range of people fall into that category.
Seriously you need to find another interest. This can't be healthy
"Sure I attended some rallies that the Klan organized, but I'm just criticizing Black Nationalism. It's not like I have some sort of ideology here".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 03:31:12 PM"Sure I attended some rallies that the Klan organized, but I'm just criticizing Black Nationalism. It's not like I have some sort of ideology here".
"You try to reduce the amount of meat you eat? You know who else did that? Hitler. You're the same as Hitler."
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 11:06:14 AMI didn't say "every single person", but this is part of the ideology. If I said, "MAGA was racist", would you make the same objections? No, of course not.
Well I favor a two-state solution and I think Bibi has been undermining that for 30 years and I think he is unworthy of our support, which has always been in favor of a two state solution. So I agree with the idea that many of the protestors make, we should not give money to Israel while they are opposed to our own policies. In that sense me and the protestors are in alignment. I don't even know what you are for besides just everybody opposing anything Israel does has some kind of sinister agenda.
Granted many of them do have a sinister agenda...but come on.
Quote from: Josquius on August 19, 2024, 03:57:22 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 03:31:12 PM"Sure I attended some rallies that the Klan organized, but I'm just criticizing Black Nationalism. It's not like I have some sort of ideology here".
"You try to reduce the amount of meat you eat? You know who else did that? Hitler. You're the same as Hitler."
Try again. All I did was switch one antisemitic group for another and changed Zionism to Black Nationalism.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 04:46:31 PMTry again. All I did was switch one antisemitic group for another and changed Zionism to Black Nationalism.
Yes, you repeated your unsupported assertion that organizers of Palestinian rallies are like Klansmen.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2024, 04:21:10 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 11:06:14 AMI didn't say "every single person", but this is part of the ideology. If I said, "MAGA was racist", would you make the same objections? No, of course not.
Well I favor a two-state solution and I think Bibi has been undermining that for 30 years and I think he is unworthy of our support, which has always been in favor of a two state solution. So I agree with the idea that many of the protestors make, we should not give money to Israel while they are opposed to our own policies. In that sense me and the protestors are in alignment. I don't even know what you are for besides just everybody opposing anything Israel does has some kind of sinister agenda.
Granted many of them do have a sinister agenda...but come on.
Except I have on several occasions opposed things that Israel does. The protesters at the DNC aren't opposed to aid to Israel because they oppose some policies, but because they want it destroyed. I mean, there aren't huge protests objecting to arms sent to Egypt or Jordan and they aren't always with us on policy. Hell we give aid to the Palestinians, and they're never on our side. I just posted something on the protesters. They are being led by Hatem Abudayyeh, a rather nasty antisemtite who gloried in the murders of October 7th.
Now Imagine a protest led by David Duke, and 20,000 people showed up to march with him. Are you really going to say "well not everyone of them is a racist" or "they don't all have a sinister agenda"? Would you really defend them?
We are reguarlarly harder on MAGA and they are much less likely to be racist than Pro-Pals are likely to be eliminationist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 04:54:24 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 04:46:31 PMTry again. All I did was switch one antisemitic group for another and changed Zionism to Black Nationalism.
Yes, you repeated your unsupported assertion that organizers of Palestinian rallies are like Klansmen.
I just posted an article on the organizers. They want Israel eradicated.
QuoteThe Chicago protests are being led by Hatem Abudayyeh, the national chair of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network. On October 7, Abudayyeh made an official statement for USPCN celebrating the slaughter of Israeli civilians: "Palestinians have an internationally-recognized right to resist illegal military occupation, and today's attacks from the Palestinian Resistance should be understood as a legitimate response to unending violence from Israel's extreme right-wing, racist, white supremacist, zionist government and settler movement ... now we have no choice but to defend ourselves, because the Israeli military and racist settlers have been attacking and killing with impunity, and must and will be stopped! We will win our liberation and Return!"
Well that is why I generally don't protest anymore Raz even when I agree with the protestors. The movements are often led by extremists with counter-productive views and they often get hijacked by criminals just wanting to use the protest to wreck shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 05:01:58 PMWe are reguarlarly harder on MAGA and they are much less likely to be racist than Pro-Pals are likely to be eliminationist.
Yeah because MAGA is enormously powerful and wealthy and basically controls the House of Representatives and many judges and state governments and are possibly about to achieve total control of the national government.
If we had even one eliminationist antisemitic left wing hate group passing anti-Jew laws on a statewide basis that would be one thing...but we don't even have that. We might have a local government someplace...
Do you think I would be hard on MAGA if they just showed up to bother the Republican National Convention and controlled a few localities in Alabama?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 05:06:47 PMI just posted an article on the organizers. They want Israel eradicated.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 05:48:22 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 05:06:47 PMI just posted an article on the organizers. They want Israel eradicated.
I stand corrected.
One small quibble is I can't see anything beyond the MSN opinion piece that says the dude is leading the protests. Everywhere else says he is a spokesperson.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2024, 11:00:04 PMOne small quibble is I can't see anything beyond the MSN opinion piece that says the dude is leading the protests. Everywhere else says he is a spokesperson.
Six of one.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2024, 11:00:04 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2024, 05:48:22 PMQuote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2024, 05:06:47 PMI just posted an article on the organizers. They want Israel eradicated.
I stand corrected.
One small quibble is I can't see anything beyond the MSN opinion piece that says the dude is leading the protests. Everywhere else says he is a spokesperson.
Plus the quote sourced from said opinion piece doesn't say what Raz interprets it to say. So... :tinfoil:
It doesn't? The article goes in to quite a bit of detail about the eliminationist ideology of proponents of settler colonialism.
The protestors do not seem to be turning this thing into 1968 so far :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2024, 12:06:46 PMThe protestors do not seem to be turning this thing into 1968 so far :hmm:
Snowflakes
Not fully committed to Palestine and abortion.
They did breach a fence, but the cops stopped them arrested some people. There isn't as big a turn out as they expected.
So a PBS anchor said that Donnie is calling Netanyahu encouraging him to extend the conflict in order to help him win the election. But the protestors still think the Democrats are the ones they should be protesting :wacko:
I heard that rumor today.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2024, 09:35:39 PMSo a PBS anchor said that Donnie is calling Netanyahu encouraging him to extend the conflict in order to help him win the election. But the protestors still think the Democrats are the ones they should be protesting :wacko:
The rumor has a Nixonian tinge.
All the 1968 echoes.
I'm not sure on the 1968 analogues. That was quite a different time for the Democrats with the right/left flip really just getting into gear, the Dixiecrats still being an issue, and so on.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2024, 09:35:39 PMSo a PBS anchor said that Donnie is calling Netanyahu encouraging him to extend the conflict in order to help him win the election. But the protestors still think the Democrats are the ones they should be protesting :wacko:
Trump is hardly going to completely flip his views. Its far more realistic to foresee the Democrats being a bit more outspoken in the calls for peace.
Oh sure - and there's unlikely to be a cop riot.
I just mean Nixon using back channels to sabotage peace talks over Vietnam as it would help the Democrats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2024, 06:14:32 AMOh sure - and there's unlikely to be a cop riot.
I just mean Nixon using back channels to sabotage peace talks over Vietnam as it would help the Democrats.
Well we know the Nixon connection to Roy Cohn connection to Trump.
QuoteOn top of the stairs of Chicago's elevated Green Line yesterday, I had a fine view of the 13-acre Union Park. I squinted, looking for the promised cauldron of Democratic National Convention protesters, the tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian "Crashing the Party" masses ready to rumble at what was billed by the Democratic Socialists of America on social media as the "event of the season."
I spotted a clump of protesters around a soundstage. I saw a line snaking toward the porta-potties, and, under distant oak trees, I could see four dozen cops chatting with one another, bicycles at their side. I saw great piles of protest signs upbraiding Genocide Joe Biden waiting to be picked up by as-yet-unseen protesters. I saw a lot of empty green space.
The Chicago Police Department had tried to kneecap the rally. They'd initially refused permits for a soundstage and, strangest of all, for porta-potties, arguing that ill-intentioned sorts might try to store weapons in them. It had gradually dawned on police brass that absent porta-potties, thousands of protesters would have to otherwise avail themselves of the few bushes in the park. They'd relented.
Liberals and left supporters of Kamala Harris had worried that these protests might fire a destructive fury and hurt her candidacy. They'd summoned memories of the anti–Vietnam War protests at the Democrats' Chicago convention in 1968, when Mayor Richard Daley's cops wielded billy clubs and thumped skulls, leaving an indelible mark on the national consciousness
But the Crashing the Party protest was to the protests of Chicago 1968 as a scouting squad was to an army. Several newspapers referred to "thousands of protesters," but that was reportorial sleight of hand. Organizers had forecast 50,000 protesters, and even more. Later on this day, an organizer would tell me that the number was 15,000, but I could tell that her heart was not in it. I'd start the bidding at 2,000 and top out at a probably overly generous 5,000 people.
The New York Times initially described the rally as "a coalition of more than 200 groups, which represented a range of liberal causes." The newspaper later changed "liberal causes" to "progressive causes," and thank God for that. Most of the protesters would have been despondent at being described as liberal.
There were the National Students for Justice in Palestine, whose website refers to living in "occupied Turtle Island," an obscure reference to the cosmology of several Native American tribes. There were varieties of socialists, Trotskyites, the Revolutionary Communists of America ("We are the Communist generation," its website proclaims), and the Denver Communists, which—who knew?—comprise their own ideological grouping. Two groups sided with the government of North Korea. Two bands of anarchists, swathed head to toe in stylish black, with masks and helmets and the occasional shield, marched through. Two young men carried a yellow People's Defense Units flag, the standard of Kurdish anarchists.
A man, neck wrapped in a keffiyeh, carried a sign that caught the tenor of the day: Decolonize everywhere now!
I appreciated the possible feint at humor. I yearned for the Dada spirit of the Yippies, who in 1968 called a Chicago press conference to nominate a pig—by the name of Pigasus—as their candidate for president.
Too much of the rhetoric yesterday was heavy on "the masses" rising and the "war criminals" at the DNC getting evicted. It underlined what is self-marginalizing about this movement. The anxious many in liberal and left-leaning households hope Harris and the Democrats can pull off their last-minute switch, yet here, speakers drew cheers denouncing "Killer Kamala" and "Genocide Joe."
Don Rose, now 95, has been a left-liberal activist and political consultant for seven decades, and experienced the 1968 fury up close. He told me about academic research showing that most Americans ended up blaming the protesters, not the police riot. Hubert Humphrey was defeated, and Richard Nixon extended the Vietnam War another five years.
"Do you threaten to abandon the party, and put the cause above the election?" he said. "That's what gave us Nixon."
Protesters I interviewed said that such arguments gave them no pause. (More than a few of the organizers wore N95 masks for reasons obscure to me—the protest was outdoors on a breezy day.) If Donald Trump triumphs, so be it. The left's agenda, the justice of the Palestinian cause, cannot be held hostage to war criminals in the Democratic Party. Andy Thayer, a left and gay activist, wrote a column in the Chicago Tribune arguing: "The most important question isn't 'who are you voting for?' Instead, it's 'how do we make massive social change?'"
It was impressively daft.
Some protesters, of course, were there because they have a personal connection to the conflict, because they have family living in Gaza and worry daily for their safety and mourn those who have died. Some, a minority, acknowledged too the horrors of the slaughter perpetrated by Hamas on October 7 of last year. "I wish the Israelis had not taken the bait as we did after 9/11," Keith Plum, who teaches English in a Chicago public high school, told me. Many of Plum's students came to the United States with their families from war-torn nations.
My conversation with another fellow, Samer Abueid, went in a different direction. He was a Chicago native of Palestinian descent, and spoke of growing up on the South Side with friends of all sorts, Jews too. Our conversation went along pleasantly until I said, Look, after Hamas attacked and slaughtered kibbutz residents, many of whom were leftists favorable to Palestinians, what was Israel to do?
Abueid put his hand on his broad chest. "I believe to the bottom of my heart it was an inside job," he replied. Huh? I replied. "Hamas," he said, "had nothing to do with it." Then he spoke of the Rothschilds and conspiracies, and I moved on.
In the end, the protesters lined up. On the far corner, an end-of-days Christian preacher promised protesters that Christ "would vomit you out his mouth." Fortified by that image, the protesters, several of whom held large papier-mâché heads depicting Harris and Biden with bloody vampire teeth, paraded off toward the convention, as one group chanted: "We will not be useful idiots."
Quote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 05:33:50 AMTrump is hardly going to completely flip his views. Its far more realistic to foresee the Democrats being a bit more outspoken in the calls for peace.
It is. So why take political action designed to put Trump in power?
Quote from: Valmy on August 21, 2024, 09:08:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 05:33:50 AMTrump is hardly going to completely flip his views. Its far more realistic to foresee the Democrats being a bit more outspoken in the calls for peace.
It is. So why take political action designed to put Trump in power?
Its not 'designed' to put Trump in power at all.
Argue that it might help him to some extent but this is due to them not thinking beyond a 2D immediate cause and effect rather than fully grasping this outcome.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 08:36:34 AMQuoteOn top of the stairs of Chicago's elevated Green Line yesterday, I had a fine view of the 13-acre Union Park. I squinted, looking for the promised cauldron of Democratic National Convention protesters, the tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian "Crashing the Party" masses ready to rumble at what was billed by the Democratic Socialists of America on social media as the "event of the season."
I spotted a clump of protesters around a soundstage. I saw a line snaking toward the porta-potties, and, under distant oak trees, I could see four dozen cops chatting with one another, bicycles at their side. I saw great piles of protest signs upbraiding Genocide Joe Biden waiting to be picked up by as-yet-unseen protesters. I saw a lot of empty green space.
The Chicago Police Department had tried to kneecap the rally. They'd initially refused permits for a soundstage and, strangest of all, for porta-potties, arguing that ill-intentioned sorts might try to store weapons in them. It had gradually dawned on police brass that absent porta-potties, thousands of protesters would have to otherwise avail themselves of the few bushes in the park. They'd relented.
Liberals and left supporters of Kamala Harris had worried that these protests might fire a destructive fury and hurt her candidacy. They'd summoned memories of the anti–Vietnam War protests at the Democrats' Chicago convention in 1968, when Mayor Richard Daley's cops wielded billy clubs and thumped skulls, leaving an indelible mark on the national consciousness
But the Crashing the Party protest was to the protests of Chicago 1968 as a scouting squad was to an army. Several newspapers referred to "thousands of protesters," but that was reportorial sleight of hand. Organizers had forecast 50,000 protesters, and even more. Later on this day, an organizer would tell me that the number was 15,000, but I could tell that her heart was not in it. I'd start the bidding at 2,000 and top out at a probably overly generous 5,000 people.
The New York Times initially described the rally as "a coalition of more than 200 groups, which represented a range of liberal causes." The newspaper later changed "liberal causes" to "progressive causes," and thank God for that. Most of the protesters would have been despondent at being described as liberal.
There were the National Students for Justice in Palestine, whose website refers to living in "occupied Turtle Island," an obscure reference to the cosmology of several Native American tribes. There were varieties of socialists, Trotskyites, the Revolutionary Communists of America ("We are the Communist generation," its website proclaims), and the Denver Communists, which—who knew?—comprise their own ideological grouping. Two groups sided with the government of North Korea. Two bands of anarchists, swathed head to toe in stylish black, with masks and helmets and the occasional shield, marched through. Two young men carried a yellow People's Defense Units flag, the standard of Kurdish anarchists.
A man, neck wrapped in a keffiyeh, carried a sign that caught the tenor of the day: Decolonize everywhere now!
I appreciated the possible feint at humor. I yearned for the Dada spirit of the Yippies, who in 1968 called a Chicago press conference to nominate a pig—by the name of Pigasus—as their candidate for president.
Too much of the rhetoric yesterday was heavy on "the masses" rising and the "war criminals" at the DNC getting evicted. It underlined what is self-marginalizing about this movement. The anxious many in liberal and left-leaning households hope Harris and the Democrats can pull off their last-minute switch, yet here, speakers drew cheers denouncing "Killer Kamala" and "Genocide Joe."
Don Rose, now 95, has been a left-liberal activist and political consultant for seven decades, and experienced the 1968 fury up close. He told me about academic research showing that most Americans ended up blaming the protesters, not the police riot. Hubert Humphrey was defeated, and Richard Nixon extended the Vietnam War another five years.
"Do you threaten to abandon the party, and put the cause above the election?" he said. "That's what gave us Nixon."
Protesters I interviewed said that such arguments gave them no pause. (More than a few of the organizers wore N95 masks for reasons obscure to me—the protest was outdoors on a breezy day.) If Donald Trump triumphs, so be it. The left's agenda, the justice of the Palestinian cause, cannot be held hostage to war criminals in the Democratic Party. Andy Thayer, a left and gay activist, wrote a column in the Chicago Tribune arguing: "The most important question isn't 'who are you voting for?' Instead, it's 'how do we make massive social change?'"
It was impressively daft.
Some protesters, of course, were there because they have a personal connection to the conflict, because they have family living in Gaza and worry daily for their safety and mourn those who have died. Some, a minority, acknowledged too the horrors of the slaughter perpetrated by Hamas on October 7 of last year. "I wish the Israelis had not taken the bait as we did after 9/11," Keith Plum, who teaches English in a Chicago public high school, told me. Many of Plum's students came to the United States with their families from war-torn nations.
My conversation with another fellow, Samer Abueid, went in a different direction. He was a Chicago native of Palestinian descent, and spoke of growing up on the South Side with friends of all sorts, Jews too. Our conversation went along pleasantly until I said, Look, after Hamas attacked and slaughtered kibbutz residents, many of whom were leftists favorable to Palestinians, what was Israel to do?
Abueid put his hand on his broad chest. "I believe to the bottom of my heart it was an inside job," he replied. Huh? I replied. "Hamas," he said, "had nothing to do with it." Then he spoke of the Rothschilds and conspiracies, and I moved on.
In the end, the protesters lined up. On the far corner, an end-of-days Christian preacher promised protesters that Christ "would vomit you out his mouth." Fortified by that image, the protesters, several of whom held large papier-mâché heads depicting Harris and Biden with bloody vampire teeth, paraded off toward the convention, as one group chanted: "We will not be useful idiots."
Who is this?
Oops, sorry. I saw it on the MSN, It's from the Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/dnc-pro-palestine-protest/679532/
QuoteThe Huge DNC Protest That Wasn't
The pro-Palestinian "Crashing the Party" event was to the protests of Chicago 1968 what a scouting squad is to an army.
By Michael Powell
Quote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 09:13:21 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 21, 2024, 09:08:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 05:33:50 AMTrump is hardly going to completely flip his views. Its far more realistic to foresee the Democrats being a bit more outspoken in the calls for peace.
It is. So why take political action designed to put Trump in power?
Its not 'designed' to put Trump in power at all.
Argue that it might help him to some extent but this is due to them not thinking beyond a 2D immediate cause and effect rather than fully grasping this outcome.
No, fully understand that they help Trump. It is more important to punish the Democrats than it is to beat Trump. There was a video that I linked to several months ago where protesters outside a Democratic fund raiser were gloating that they were going to get Trump elected. There was also a guy screaming the K-word over and over again. Nice bunch.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2024, 07:02:06 AMWell we know the Nixon connection to Roy Cohn connection to Trump.
'
The Nixon connection to Cohn is new to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 08:36:34 AMas one group chanted: "We will not be useful idiots."
Useless idiot is not an upgrade
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2024, 09:58:43 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 08:36:34 AMas one group chanted: "We will not be useful idiots."
Useless idiot is not an upgrade
Sorry forgot the intermediary of Stone.
Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2024, 10:04:17 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on August 21, 2024, 09:58:43 AMQuote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 08:36:34 AMas one group chanted: "We will not be useful idiots."
Useless idiot is not an upgrade
Sorry forgot the intermediary of Stone.
Got it.
And quoting the "wrong" post makes it even more exquisite in context.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 09:42:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 09:13:21 AMQuote from: Valmy on August 21, 2024, 09:08:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on August 21, 2024, 05:33:50 AMTrump is hardly going to completely flip his views. Its far more realistic to foresee the Democrats being a bit more outspoken in the calls for peace.
It is. So why take political action designed to put Trump in power?
Its not 'designed' to put Trump in power at all.
Argue that it might help him to some extent but this is due to them not thinking beyond a 2D immediate cause and effect rather than fully grasping this outcome.
No, fully understand that they help Trump. It is more important to punish the Democrats than it is to beat Trump. There was a video that I linked to several months ago where protesters outside a Democratic fund raiser were gloating that they were going to get Trump elected. There was also a guy screaming the K-word over and over again. Nice bunch.
If they are anything like the British Tots and assorted fellow travellers, they prefer the right to be in power as they think it will hasten the historically inevitable revolution.
What's the K word???
Quote from: PJL on August 21, 2024, 11:29:33 AMWhat's the K word???
Guessing it's an old fashioned derogatory term for Jew.
Yeah that's not really grabbing me.
I think another reason people often didn't finish civ games is they know they won before they hit the formal victory conditions.
I'm not seeing anything they've revealed that'd address that - and I'm not sure "fixing" that will necessarily make the game better either.
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2024, 02:12:43 PMYeah that's not really grabbing me.
I think another reason people often didn't finish civ games is they know they won before they hit the formal victory conditions.
I'm not seeing anything they've revealed that'd address that - and I'm not sure "fixing" that will necessarily make the game better either.
:hmm: But have you considered that the 2024 US Presidential Elections are... BACKED UP WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS?!
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2024, 02:12:43 PMYeah that's not really grabbing me.
I think another reason people often didn't finish civ games is they know they won before they hit the formal victory conditions.
I'm not seeing anything they've revealed that'd address that - and I'm not sure "fixing" that will necessarily make the game better either.
That was the knock against the Dems in the first Trump Victory, they stopped playing the game too soon because they didn't think Trump was going to win.
But I think the current build is a lot better and is more likely to be played right up to the final victory screen.
I'm hoping the latest build has a better more accurate scoring system too, as that was definitely making the Democrats think they had it in the bag back then.
Obama made a dick joke :lol: politics is weird.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 21, 2024, 03:27:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on August 21, 2024, 02:12:43 PMYeah that's not really grabbing me.
I think another reason people often didn't finish civ games is they know they won before they hit the formal victory conditions.
I'm not seeing anything they've revealed that'd address that - and I'm not sure "fixing" that will necessarily make the game better either.
:hmm: But have you considered that the 2024 US Presidential Elections are... BACKED UP WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS?!
BUILD MORE WALLS!
*looks at DNC schedule*
I don't mean to be takin' away from science and taxes majesty, but when the people are blue, the entertainment... must be true. :elvis:
I mean we need millions of people to watch this convention and come away wanting to show up and vote for Harris/Walz. Got to listen Civ 2 Elvis to help make that happen.
And really you should always listen to Civ 2 Elvis.
Why didn't other Civs have the advisors?
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2024, 09:35:39 PMSo a PBS anchor said that Donnie is calling Netanyahu encouraging him to extend the conflict in order to help him win the election. But the protestors still think the Democrats are the ones they should be protesting :wacko:
She has apologized for that statement. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pbs-judy-woodruff-apologizes-for-an-on-air-remark-about-peace-talks-in-israel/ar-AA1pdjD7?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=79ec7fce6ffd49f7ef60cade7da1ff01&ei=43
Oh really? Come on PBS, we don't need bullshit from you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2024, 08:59:26 PMWhy didn't other Civs have the advisors?
I don't know. I didn't play Civ 3 because I missed them too much.
I never really got back into Civ since...sad but true. I just really loved everything about Civ 2.
A heart warming anecdote for you. Mrs. CC and I just visited a 91 year old mother of a friend of ours. She is very witty and I would normally describe her as a strait laced small c conservative.
But she was positively giddy describing her delight with Michelle Obama's speech, and her efforts to call her children and grandchildren living in the US to make sure they voted for Harris.
:D re: my mispost. That's what I get for posting on my phone when jetlagged...
I had a horrid headache and couldn't sleep last night so ended up watching a bit of it and falling half asleep with it playing.
I remember Walz as a super Mario movie style creature with a huge body and tiny head. So maybe I wasn't entirely with it.
But I do remember his speech was good.
How easily he falls for the bait. Also love the bit in bold.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4839905-trump-mocks-allies-obama-attacks/
QuoteTrump hits back at Obamas: 'Do I still have to stick to policy?'
Former President Trump on Wednesday mocked allies who suggested he should not engage in personal attacks, pointing to fiery speeches a night earlier from former President Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama at the Democratic convention.
"Did you see Barack Hussein Obama last night? He was taking shots at your president. And so was Michelle," Trump told supporters at a North Carolina rally.
"You know, they always say, 'Sir, please stick to policy, don't get personal,'" Trump continued. "And yet they're getting personal all night long, these people. Do I still have to stick to policy?"
Trump then imitated allies who have urged him not to engage in personal insults.
"Sir, you must stick to policy. You'll win it on the border. You'll win it with inflation. You'll win it with your great military that you built," Trump said.
Trump and the Obamas have been political rivals for years, but there has also been personal animosity because of Trump pushing the false conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Obama also saw Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, despite his backing for his former secretary of State.
The Obamas served as the keynote speakers during the second night of the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, electrifying the crowd and delivering a stinging rebuke of Trump in the process.
Michelle Obama, making a rare public appearance, accused Trump of trying to make Americans fear her and her husband. And she slammed him as someone who has benefited from generational wealth and doesn't understand hard work.
"His limited, narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hard-working, highly educated, successful people who happen to be Black," Michelle Obama said. "I want to know — I want to know — who's going to tell him, who's going to tell him, that the job he is currently seeking might just be one of those 'Black jobs'?"
Former President Obama likened Trump to an annoying neighbor with a leaf blower and argued the GOP nominee was only interested in serving himself.
"Here's a 78-year-old billionaire who has not stopped whining about his problems since he rode down his golden escalator nine years ago," Obama said.
"It has been a constant stream of gripes and grievances that's actually been getting worse now that he is afraid of losing to Kamala. There's the childish nicknames, the crazy conspiracy theories, this weird obsession with crowd sizes," he added, making a hand gesture that implied he was mocking Trump's manhood.
Trump has heard criticism from other Republicans who argue he should make less personality-based attacks on Vice President Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, and focus on policy.
Harris has quickly closed a polling edge that Trump had enjoyed over President Biden when he was still his presumed opponent.
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2024, 04:33:26 AMQuoteTrump hits back at Obamas: 'Do I still have to stick to policy?'
"stick?" :lol:
Ok now I wait for a post-convention bump.
Still nervous as fuck about this election.
Great line from Pete Buttigeig (referencing what he called the major theme of the Republican campaign): "I just don't think that America is in the market for darkness."
Loved the football metaphor in Walz's speech. He is speaking the language of the voters they need to attract to win.
On the "white guy taco" thing - Ben Shapiro was pointing out that white guys liking bland food was nonsense, because if it were true, why did Europeans get involved in the spice trade???
Which makes me think that Ben read Roger Crowley's latest book that came out a few months ago (or at least knows of its existence), and for some reason that kinda annoys me. :D
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/205461942-spice
That was the periphery of Europe. Central and Eastern Europe stayed far away from spices... just like now, come to think about it :D
So on brand for an American right-wing ideologue to try to infer a broad cultural trend from the consumption patterns of a tiny wealthy elite, not shared by the vast majority of the population.
I have no idea what this white taco thing is about but it needs restating French tacos are amazing and I wish I knew what happened with their sudden appearance and disappearance here.
Quote from: Josquius on August 22, 2024, 01:44:52 PMI have no idea what this white taco thing is about but it needs restating French tacos are amazing and I wish I knew what happened with their sudden appearance and disappearance here.
An abomination.
Can we please not have Brits talking about tacos. We will cede to you mastery of boiled meats, toast sandwiches and other such things. But you are outside your wheelhouse on Mexican food.
You forgot beans on things that shouldn't have beans on them.
As the name suggests, French tacos have nothing to do with us :P
French cuisine is supposed to be respected.
This is their best dish.
Respect it.
Looked it up. If anything it's a Shawrma or if you want to stretch it because of the tortilla then it's a panini burrito.
What are French tacos?
Quote from: Gups on August 22, 2024, 02:59:20 PMWhat are French tacos?
My impression is it's like a shawarma or maybe a panini burrito.
Quote from: Gups on August 22, 2024, 02:59:20 PMWhat are French tacos?
I think normally kebab meat, chips and cheese wrapped in a tortilla with sauce algerienne.
Don't think I've ever seen them here - although from what Jos was saying it sounds like they did get popular for a bit.
Quote from: Syt on August 22, 2024, 12:02:19 PMOn the "white guy taco" thing - Ben Shapiro was pointing out that white guys liking bland food was nonsense, because if it were true, why did Europeans get involved in the spice trade???
Which makes me think that Ben read Roger Crowley's latest book that came out a few months ago (or at least knows of its existence), and for some reason that kinda annoys me. :D
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/205461942-spice
That is the dorkiest possible objection to that joke. :lol:
Quote from: Josquius on August 22, 2024, 02:22:45 PMFrench cuisine is supposed to be respected.
This is their best dish.
Respect it.
I was so shocked and happy you finally found something nice to say about France. But then you had to go and make it backhanded :cry:
QuoteI was so shocked and happy you finally found something nice to say about France. But then you had to go and make it backhanded :cry:
Not back hand at all. Though very much a part of France certain quarters won't be big on. :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2024, 03:05:50 PMQuote from: Gups on August 22, 2024, 02:59:20 PMWhat are French tacos?
I think normally kebab meat, chips and cheese wrapped in a tortilla with sauce algerienne.
Don't think I've ever seen them here - although from what Jos was saying it sounds like they did get popular for a bit.
At a usual place you get a little paper where you tick off what you want.
I think kebab meat is an Option (I recall cordon bleu is too...) But I usually go with mince or chicken.
Stuff to go in.... Cheeses, salad, onion, tomato, chips, a choice of a bunch of sauces.
It's in a tortilla wrapped up in a cuboid shape and toasted.
There were 2 branches of giga tacos in Newcastle for less than a year, both on pretty rough secondary highstreets in inner suburbs.
They looked very professional and proper but the placement of them and the whole setup just seemed... Weird. But it was basically the real stuff.
Would be surprised if in London theres not something.
It sounds like a straight burrito. With Algerian sauce.
Quote from: Gups on August 22, 2024, 02:59:20 PMWhat are French tacos?
Quote from: Gups on August 22, 2024, 02:59:20 PMWhat are French tacos?
https://o-tacos.com/en/for-the-starving/must-have
We have O'Tacos in Vienna for some reason. I've ordered from them a few times. It's not terrible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2024, 02:07:56 PMAs the name suggests, French tacos have nothing to do with us :P
Nor to do with tacos.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2024, 03:17:14 PMIt sounds like a straight burrito. With Algerian sauce.
Never had a burrito with french fries in it. Nor would I.
At the convention parents of one of the hostages Hamas took spoke. The crowd responded with "Bring them home". :)
Untitled.png
Jesus could join Taylor and Beyonce and some of those states would still vote Trump :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2024, 05:27:35 PMJesus could join Taylor and Beyonce and some of those states would still vote Trump :ph34r:
Jesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMJesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Yup. They like the Old Testament God.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2024, 06:01:25 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMJesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Yup. They like the Old Testament God.
And that's why the authors of the New Testament decided to give them some fan service by ending with Revelations.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 22, 2024, 05:27:35 PMJesus could join Taylor and Beyonce and some of those states would still vote Trump :ph34r:
Jesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2024, 06:01:25 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMJesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Yup. They like the Old Testament God.
And also often quite selective about what they point to. There's conservatives who point to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to show that God is against homosexual sex, but you rarely hear them talk about Leviticus 19 which has rules about not wearing clothes woven from two different materials, that if you plant a fruit tree you need to wait till the fifth year to harvest from it (year 1-3 are no-no, year 4 is for the LORD), or that you shouldn't hold back a hired worker's wage overnight. Not to mention Leviticus 19:33 that says you should be nice to foreigners and treat them like your own people. :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2024, 07:02:06 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2024, 06:01:25 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMJesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Yup. They like the Old Testament God.
And that's why the authors of the New Testament decided to give them some fan service by ending with Revelations.
Revelations is what happens when you give the schizophrenic guy a book in the bible :D
I thought her speech was really good. Either I forgot how good of a speaker she is, or she's really polished her delivery since she ran for POTUS last.
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2024, 07:02:06 PMAnd that's why the authors of the New Testament decided to give them some fan service by ending with Revelations.
Some heavy drug use involved in that one.
Best comment I have seen on Kennedy withdrawing and supporting Trump:
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10cc5582ea780836be653b5843b3607dd9cc17fccaa93dfc318d4e72d6f62414.png?w=320&h=214)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FY8SqjWuohk8Rq%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4971dd243f5486da07200edab1646bed5b105415820352d22631c367b7b8479a&ipo=images)
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2024, 07:02:06 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2024, 06:01:25 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 22, 2024, 05:57:03 PMJesus would be hated soooooo much by the Evangelical folks.
Yup. They like the Old Testament God.
And that's why the authors of the New Testament decided to give them some fan service by ending with Revelations.
That's the first LSD trip in recorded in history, I think.
I see Kennedy jr. endorses Trump. I am sure his dad would be proud.
I had previously heard there'd been talk of him getting a position in trumps cabinet if Trump wins - very worryingly it was the health portfolio that was pointed towards.
Man, if you somehow manage to not elect Trump, you'll dodge so many bullets. :ph34r:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2024, 08:46:48 AMQuote from: grumbler on August 22, 2024, 07:02:06 PMAnd that's why the authors of the New Testament decided to give them some fan service by ending with Revelations.
Some heavy drug use involved in that one.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDjOpHeXsAAKbqw.jpg)
Quote from: Caliga on August 23, 2024, 08:01:29 AMI thought her speech was really good. Either I forgot how good of a speaker she is, or she's really polished her delivery since she ran for POTUS last.
I think she's really improved
(https://i.imgur.com/TB8yv7O.jpeg)
:lmfao:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DiscoElysium/s/qyo67hPIwA
:lol:
Suddenly I'm hit by a feeling of glorious nostalgia for the days of new grounds when this would have been made into a real flash game.
RFK Jr drops out and endorses Trump. Jesus Christ. :bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:07:48 PMRFK Jr drops out and endorses Trump. Jesus Christ. :bleeding:
Who is the median RFK voter? :hmm: Where is his market niche so to speak?
Quote from: Legbiter on August 24, 2024, 01:15:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:07:48 PMRFK Jr drops out and endorses Trump. Jesus Christ. :bleeding:
Who is the median RFK voter? :hmm: Where is his market niche so to speak?
Anti-vaccine, crunchy hippies, and people who just hate the main two parties and will vote for whomever.
Makes sense.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:16:46 PMQuote from: Legbiter on August 24, 2024, 01:15:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:07:48 PMRFK Jr drops out and endorses Trump. Jesus Christ. :bleeding:
Who is the median RFK voter? :hmm: Where is his market niche so to speak?
Anti-vaccine, crunchy hippies, and people who just hate the main two parties and will vote for whomever.
I don't understand why they would listen to him and vote for Trump.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2024, 01:55:28 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:16:46 PMQuote from: Legbiter on August 24, 2024, 01:15:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 01:07:48 PMRFK Jr drops out and endorses Trump. Jesus Christ. :bleeding:
Who is the median RFK voter? :hmm: Where is his market niche so to speak?
Anti-vaccine, crunchy hippies, and people who just hate the main two parties and will vote for whomever.
I don't understand why they would listen to him and vote for Trump.
I think only the conspiracy types will...depending on their exact conspiracy I guess.
I had a low opinion of RFK, but I thought at least he really seems to care about his environmentalism stuff even if it went off in hippie and conspiracy theory directions...but it seems it was all bullshit. I can't even trust delusional people to be true to their stated principles in politics.
So even by the low opinion I had of him, this is disappointing. He was just a corrupt grifter after all.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2024, 01:55:28 PMI don't understand why they would listen to him and vote for Trump.
I've always thought that RFK probably hurts Trump more than anyone else because there's some degree or overlap. The Roseanne Barr voter if you will :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2024, 03:00:05 PMQuote from: garbon on August 24, 2024, 01:55:28 PMI don't understand why they would listen to him and vote for Trump.
I've always thought that RFK probably hurts Trump more than anyone else because there's some degree or overlap. The Roseanne Barr voter if you will :bleeding:
I guess it depends on why you were supporting him. If it was because you didn't want to vote for either main party, Trump doesn't become more appealing.
Maybe but I think Trump has been able to attract a fair bit of "plague on both their houses"/anti-politics support (and you know, the businessperson from outside politics coming in to fix government seems like a recurring American theme as an idea that Trump could tap into) - or at least he was able to do that.
Perhaps, ironically, as the GOP moulded itself more in Trump's image and acquiesced more, it's made Trump seem less disruptive and so appeal less to those voters? He is just the main GOP politician now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2024, 03:18:19 PMMaybe but I think Trump has been able to attract a fair bit of "plague on both their houses"/anti-politics support (and you know, the businessperson from outside politics coming in to fix government seems like a recurring American theme as an idea that Trump could tap into) - or at least he was able to do that.
Perhaps, ironically, as the GOP moulded itself more in Trump's image and acquiesced more, it's made Trump seem less disruptive and so appeal less to those voters? He is just the main GOP politician now.
Yeah I'm not sure how a former president, whose party still loves him, can credibly be seen as an outsider.
Logically so. But you know how trumpies are.
Despite Trump being corrupt as hell and the most firmly establishment president in a long time they still see him as some great outsider looking to fight for the common man.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 02:24:03 PMI think only the conspiracy types will...depending on their exact conspiracy I guess.
I had a low opinion of RFK, but I thought at least he really seems to care about his environmentalism stuff even if it went off in hippie and conspiracy theory directions...but it seems it was all bullshit. I can't even trust delusional people to be true to their stated principles in politics.
So even by the low opinion I had of him, this is disappointing. He was just a corrupt grifter after all.
His main backer was Trump's main financial backer. What did you expect? :)
(https://i.redd.it/aulxk7n7d0ld1.jpeg)
Brilliant! :D
Quote from: viper37 on August 25, 2024, 07:00:56 PMQuote from: Valmy on August 24, 2024, 02:24:03 PMI think only the conspiracy types will...depending on their exact conspiracy I guess.
I had a low opinion of RFK, but I thought at least he really seems to care about his environmentalism stuff even if it went off in hippie and conspiracy theory directions...but it seems it was all bullshit. I can't even trust delusional people to be true to their stated principles in politics.
So even by the low opinion I had of him, this is disappointing. He was just a corrupt grifter after all.
His main backer was Trump's main financial backer. What did you expect? :)
To be fair, funding a guy to try and split the democrat vote a little seems like a good tactical move even if you have zero love for any of his views.
Tulsa endorsed Trump. :lol:
Is this some kind of game people play where they come on calling for things like bigger social programs and strict environmental regulations and then turn around and endorse the guy who is opposed to all of things?
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2024, 05:29:45 PMIs this some kind of game people play where they come on calling for things like bigger social programs and strict environmental regulations and then turn around and endorse the guy who is opposed to all of things?
RFK Jr or Gabbard?
RFK Jr is where the guy who claims his brain was half-eaten by a worm endorses the guy who proposed injecting bleach as a potential cure for Covid.
Gabbard is where the woman in Moscow's pocket votes for Putin's Manchurian candidate.
No surprises there, really.
So Kennedy is a joke. But checking up I see he was polling 5%+ in some states...switching that to Trump is a worry.
I feel like a lot of folks who were backing RFK, Jr. will simply not vote now. Or maybe vote for Jill Stein or something. It certainly won't be a straight switchover to Trump. Probably not even a majority.
I saw an interview with the 538 dude in which he said he expects Trump to pick up .1%.
RFKJ voters are people who say they hate the two party system and people who don't know what the two party system is. I suspect the vast majority of them will simply not vote in November or write in Kennedy anyway.
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 27, 2024, 08:26:32 AMRFKJ voters are people who say they hate the two party system and people who don't know what the two party system is. I suspect the vast majority of them will simply not vote in November or write in Kennedy anyway.
From the bit I read, I think he did say during his press conference that where he is on the ballot, they can still vote for him... :wacko:
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2024, 08:28:48 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on August 27, 2024, 08:26:32 AMRFKJ voters are people who say they hate the two party system and people who don't know what the two party system is. I suspect the vast majority of them will simply not vote in November or write in Kennedy anyway.
From the bit I read, I think he did say during his press conference that where he is on the ballot, they can still vote for him... :wacko:
He probably thinks his votes automatically transfer to Trump or something.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 28, 2024, 03:03:19 AMQuote from: garbon on August 27, 2024, 08:28:48 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on August 27, 2024, 08:26:32 AMRFKJ voters are people who say they hate the two party system and people who don't know what the two party system is. I suspect the vast majority of them will simply not vote in November or write in Kennedy anyway.
From the bit I read, I think he did say during his press conference that where he is on the ballot, they can still vote for him... :wacko:
He probably thinks his votes automatically transfer to Trump or something.
I saw a clarifying comment this morning that he told his supporters they could still vote for him in non-battleground states. His team is also trying to get him de-listed where they can.
Discussion on MSNBC of Harris' proposal to tax unrealized gains for individuals with 100 million plus.
Has anyone seen anything on her price gouging proposal that lays out specifics? I.e. that says what price gouging is.
You take our huddled masses and we take your rich people. Seems fair.
To be honest I'd vote for a paper bag with a smiley face drawn on it so I'm not really concerned about policy nuance vs they land well with voters.
Graves of soldiers? :thumbsup:
(https://i.imgur.com/bmzc2OK.jpeg)
What's he doing hanging around with losers?
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2024, 11:54:31 AMWhat's he doing hanging around with losers?
Don't worry.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4851481-trump-arlington-cemetery-incident/
QuoteThe Trump campaign is blaming an Arlington National Cemetery official for a reported confrontation during the former president's visit there Monday to mark the anniversary of the Kabul airport attack that killed 13 U.S. service members amid the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The incident, first reported by NPR, stemmed from the presence of a photographer with former President Trump's camp and broader concerns about election-related activities in a military cemetery.
Arlington National Cemetery confirmed an incident took place and a report was filed but provided no other details.
"Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes or in direct support of a partisan political candidate's campaign," the cemetery said in a statement. "Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants. We can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed."
NPR, citing an anonymous source, reported a cemetery official tried to stop Trump staffers from filming and photographing in an area of the cemetery where soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are buried, known as Section 60. The source told NPR that Trump staffers pushed the official aside when they tried to stop campaign officials from entering the area.
Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's communications director, denied there was any physical altercation "as described."
"The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump's team during a very solemn ceremony," Cheung said in a statement.
...
I am kind of surprised to see the sudden concern with nuts and bolts specifics on technocratic campaign plans. I expect to see each candidates technocratic proposals being compared side by side with feedback on how effective each plan will be at its expected goals.
However I just want to say that even if any of their plans do get passed it will be some watered down compromise version of it, under the circumstances the vague idea that the Democrats would like the rich to pay more taxes and Republicans want them to pay less taxes seems sufficient.
As far as the price gouging issue is concerned, it seems to me that the economy is increasingly under the control of monopolies and cartels of just a few companies and under those circumstances we probably do need to regulate their ability to control prices if we are determined to let that circumstance continue, which we seem to. I am old fashioned and would prefer we break up these monopolies and cartels and let competition and so forth take care of the prices but for whatever reason that seems to be unfeasible these days.
What form that will take will ultimately be written by DC lobbyists before Congress passes anything so I am less interested in what Harris would do if she was a dictator but in the fact that she would like to do something about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2024, 09:13:21 AMHas anyone seen anything on her price gouging proposal that lays out specifics? I.e. that says what price gouging is.
Listening to a Jonah Goldberg podcast - he was very much against the idea or price controls (while conceding it was probably smart politics) but said that as much as he looked into Harris' specific proposals there was hardly anything there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2024, 09:13:21 AMDiscussion on MSNBC of Harris' proposal to tax unrealized gains for individuals with 100 million plus.
Has anyone seen anything on her price gouging proposal that lays out specifics? I.e. that says what price gouging is.
The "Harris tax proposals" are really the tax provisions in the official Biden 2025 OMB budget proposal, which Harris says she supports. I don't believe she has proposed anything separate.
AFAIK there is no specifics on the price gouging proposal. However, its description, the "first federal price gouging plan" along with comments by allies, would suggest it would just be a federal version of many state level laws already on the books. These allow the state governor to act in cases of emergencies to step in to block "unconscionable" price increases. These laws are rarely invoked and don't do that much.
Since inflation has nothing to do with either "price gouging" nor Joe Biden's inflation cooties, it is safe to say that neither campaign has an inflation policy. However, the Wall Street "Trump Trade" involves pricing in expectations for higher bond yields, indicating that the smart money thinks that a Trump Presidency will be more inflationary.
My concern with bad policy by Democrats is that it helps Republicans. Yes, it's unfair that Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies while Democrats pay the price for them, but it's not about fairness, it's about keeping GOP out of power until they go through exorcism.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2024, 01:35:24 PMMy concern with bad policy by Democrats is that it helps Republicans. Yes, it's unfair that Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies while Democrats pay the price for them, but it's not about fairness, it's about keeping GOP out of power until they go through exorcism.
But what is "bad policy" depends on what you wish the policy to accomplish. A policy that looks bad to an economist might look great to a voter, and economists don't elect presidents.
I absolutely disagree that "Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies." As Pete Buttigieg pointed out, "the biggest scandal of the election cycle now is that the Republicans wrote down their policies." Project 2025 is an albatross around Trump's neck.
A policy that looks bad to an economist will most likely eventually look bad to voters, directly or indirectly. Price controls may sound great to voters, but shortages don't, and shortages are what results from price controls on entities that aren't actually monopolies.
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2024, 01:50:40 PMA policy that looks bad to an economist will most likely eventually look bad to voters, directly or indirectly. Price controls may sound great to voters, but shortages don't, and shortages are what results from price controls on entities that aren't actually monopolies.
Yes. The only context price controls make sense are in a monopoly or cartel controlled sectors.
Anyway all we have is a vague commitment to prevent price gouging in some vague way. Which politically might be fine.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2024, 01:47:23 PMI absolutely disagree that "Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies." As Pete Buttigieg pointed out, "the biggest scandal of the election cycle now is that the Republicans wrote down their policies." Project 2025 is an albatross around Trump's neck.
A lot of anti-anti-Trump types try to boil down opposition to Trump as "well you don't like his mean tweets".
Umm, no. That's not really it at all. I could live with his mean tweets and weird, rambling speeches just fine.
It's that I'm opposed to his policies of abandoning Ukraine, abandoning NATO, trying to stay in power through a coup, raising tariffs, etc.
I could live with him banging a porn star and paying her off. Raping E Jean Carroll - no that's probably disqualifying, but maybe I'd even overlook that if he was going to follow a standard Reaganite policy agenda.
(you know, with my all-important non-citizen non-vote)
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2024, 01:47:23 PMI absolutely disagree that "Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies." As Pete Buttigieg pointed out, "the biggest scandal of the election cycle now is that the Republicans wrote down their policies." Project 2025 is an albatross around Trump's neck.
Which is why he's basically disowned it. Wild that 8 years into the Trump experience and they still haven't learned that he hates being managed.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2024, 01:59:57 PMQuote from: grumbler on August 28, 2024, 01:47:23 PMI absolutely disagree that "Republicans are immune to the effects of their own bad policies." As Pete Buttigieg pointed out, "the biggest scandal of the election cycle now is that the Republicans wrote down their policies." Project 2025 is an albatross around Trump's neck.
A lot of anti-anti-Trump types try to boil down opposition to Trump as "well you don't like his mean tweets".
Umm, no. That's not really it at all. I could live with his mean tweets and weird, rambling speeches just fine.
It's that I'm opposed to his policies of abandoning Ukraine, abandoning NATO, trying to stay in power through a coup, raising tariffs, etc.
I could live with him banging a porn star and paying her off. Raping E Jean Carroll - no that's probably disqualifying, but maybe I'd even overlook that if he was going to follow a standard Reaganite policy agenda.
(you know, with my all-important non-citizen non-vote)
Hmm. For me, it's because he's a fucking nutter.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2024, 01:59:57 PMA lot of anti-anti-Trump types try to boil down opposition to Trump as "well you don't like his mean tweets".
Umm, no. That's not really it at all. I could live with his mean tweets and weird, rambling speeches just fine.
It's that I'm opposed to his policies of abandoning Ukraine, abandoning NATO, trying to stay in power through a coup, raising tariffs, etc.
I could live with him banging a porn star and paying her off. Raping E Jean Carroll - no that's probably disqualifying, but maybe I'd even overlook that if he was going to follow a standard Reaganite policy agenda.
(you know, with my all-important non-citizen non-vote)
I'm rather gobsmacked at the extent to which you would excuse a complete lack of ethics if the candidate would "follow a standard Reaganite policy agenda" (which turned out to be kinda crap anyway).
Quote from: Gups on August 28, 2024, 02:16:40 PMHmm. For me, it's because he's a fucking nutter.
But the thing is - his being a complete nutter is what leads him to his insane policies.
Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2024, 04:59:58 PMI'm rather gobsmacked at the extent to which you would excuse a complete lack of ethics if the candidate would "follow a standard Reaganite policy agenda" (which turned out to be kinda crap anyway).
Sadly, isn't that pretty common in politics though?
I'm going to bring up a couple of Canadian examples, because I know how much everyone (well, Sheilbh) loves Canadian politics.
Our Prime Minister back during WWII was WL Mackenzie King. He was kind of nutty - he was constantly using psychic mediums to talk to his dead mother (and his dead dog). He was still pretty popular and did a competent job of taking Canada through WWII. His nutty beliefs were just an oddity.
Or let's take current PM Justin Trudeau. He shows a distinct lack of ethics, from seeing no problem taking lavish vacations at the expense of wealth "friends", to trying to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations of wealthy donors, to, well, blackface. Yet to a lot of Canadians they didn't see a problem in any of that and he's been re-elected twice.
So look - I'm imagining a purely fictional Donald Trump here - one who is "nutty", one who is wildly corrupt and lacking in personal ethics, yet someone is pursuing policy objectives indistinguishable from a John McCain or Paul Ryan. I don't think such a person is possible - in particular Trump's corruption is almost certainly what leads him to take such a pro-Russian foreign policy, or his complete incoherence on policy which leads him to want to want to raise tariffs, or his love of "power" leads him to want to use the justice system to go after his political enemies.
But my primary objections to Trump aren't because he says incoherent things in his speeches, or that he wildly cheats on his taxes, or whatever. It's that his policies would be ruinous to the US.
And in that - I thought I was agreeing with you (and disagreeing with DG) - Trump's policies DO hurt him.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2024, 01:59:57 PMA lot of anti-anti-Trump types try to boil down opposition to Trump as "well you don't like his mean tweets".
Or, you know, he was well known as a fraud and a conman for years before twitter even existed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2024, 05:49:21 PMQuote from: Barrister on August 28, 2024, 01:59:57 PMA lot of anti-anti-Trump types try to boil down opposition to Trump as "well you don't like his mean tweets".
Or, you know, he was well known as a fraud and a conman for years before twitter even existed.
But I specified "anti-anti-Trump types". It's a specific crowd. The two uses of "anti" was not an error.
These are the Republicans / right-leaning folks who say "well you know I'm not a big fan of Trump, but the left is much worse". So they boil down right-wing criticism of Trump to "Trump derangement syndrome" / "orange man bad" / "you don't like his tweets".
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2024, 01:50:40 PMA policy that looks bad to an economist will most likely eventually look bad to voters, directly or indirectly. Price controls may sound great to voters, but shortages don't, and shortages are what results from price controls on entities that aren't actually monopolies.
Yeah, the price controls thing does worry me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2024, 08:13:24 PMQuote from: DGuller on August 28, 2024, 01:50:40 PMA policy that looks bad to an economist will most likely eventually look bad to voters, directly or indirectly. Price controls may sound great to voters, but shortages don't, and shortages are what results from price controls on entities that aren't actually monopolies.
Yeah, the price controls thing does worry me.
Chances that we have literal price controls are zero. Nixon already tried it and we shouldn't imitate Nixon's policies.
But maybe in certain industries where the market share is overwhelmingly controlled by a few companies they have to get approval from a regulatory body to increase prices above a certain percent over a period of time. But even that strikes me as unlikely unless cost increases really go nuts and somehow Congress consists of 435 AOCs and 100 Bernie Bros.
So don't panic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 24, 2024, 03:00:05 PMQuote from: garbon on August 24, 2024, 01:55:28 PMI don't understand why they would listen to him and vote for Trump.
I've always thought that RFK probably hurts Trump more than anyone else because there's some degree or overlap. The Roseanne Barr voter if you will :bleeding:
He was getting a lot of the double haters, but once Biden dropped out, Harris got a lot of those votes and then he was hurting Trump more than the Dems.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/harris-walz-interview-election
QuoteKamala Harris's much-hyped, first big interview was ... radically normal
Quote from: garbon on August 30, 2024, 03:03:19 AMhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/harris-walz-interview-election
QuoteKamala Harris's much-hyped, first big interview was ... radically normal
Which means she's going to walk back some progressive stuff because it's not playing.
Army statement about Arlington incident.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/29/trump-measure-overturn-florida-six-week-abortion-ban-00176809
Trump says he does not support a six week abortion ban this is on the ballot in Florida. His campaign is trying to walk it back.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2024, 05:38:30 AMArmy statement about Arlington incident.
Example 3,235,672 of how Trump thinks he can ignore the rules that apply to everyone else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2024, 01:57:52 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2024, 05:38:30 AMArmy statement about Arlington incident.
Example 3,235,672 of how Trump thinks he can ignore the rules that apply to everyone else.
And example3,235,673 of how the Trump campaign is just weird as fuck. Instead of characterizing the disagreement as a disagreement, they try to make it a "mental health episode," as though anyone at all would believe that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2024, 01:57:52 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2024, 05:38:30 AMArmy statement about Arlington incident.
Example 3,235,672 of how Trump thinks he can ignore the rules that apply to everyone else.
He seems to be right, unfortunately. <_<
Quote from: grumbler on August 30, 2024, 05:47:46 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2024, 01:57:52 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2024, 05:38:30 AMArmy statement about Arlington incident.
Example 3,235,672 of how Trump thinks he can ignore the rules that apply to everyone else.
And example3,235,673 of how the Trump campaign is just weird as fuck. Instead of characterizing the disagreement as a disagreement, they try to make it a "mental health episode," as though anyone at all would believe that.
:hmm:
Who do you included in that "anyone" ? He still has lots of defenders.
:P
Quote from: viper37 on August 30, 2024, 09:46:12 PM:hmm:
Who do you included in that "anyone" ? He still has lots of defenders.
:P
I mean that anyone would believe what the Trump staffers are putting out that the park service woman was somehow just insane.
I am kind of with the Rest is Politics US' take on this - look at how we are talking about Trump every waking moment again. If he went away and talked policy nobody would give a damn. Now it's Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump Trump, because his aides had an altercation in a cemetery.
He is absolutely right to be an outrageous troll because that's what the media and the public want.
Quote from: Tamas on August 31, 2024, 02:27:21 AMI am kind of with the Rest is Politics US' take on this - look at how we are talking about Trump every waking moment again. If he went away and talked policy nobody would give a damn. Now it's Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump Trump, because his aides had an altercation in a cemetery.
He is absolutely right to be an outrageous troll because that's what the media and the public want.
I didn't post it yet but was thinking same thing with Musk.
It certainly benefits both when, no matter how awful and/or trollish they act, there are zero legitimate repercussions for them. It really highlights how broken the system is and how there seems to be no actual effort to fix it. :(
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 31, 2024, 07:34:22 AMIt certainly benefits both when, no matter how awful and/or trollish they act, there are zero legitimate repercussions for them. It really highlights how broken the system is and how there seems to be no actual effort to fix it. :(
I do think the media actually should try and chase the Trump outrage stories a bit less and rather focus on having him explain how greatly great his great policies are.
We've known since 2015 that scandals do not weaken Trump. Not even an attempted coup d'etat. He has a free pass.
Quote from: Norgy on August 31, 2024, 07:40:24 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on August 31, 2024, 07:34:22 AMIt certainly benefits both when, no matter how awful and/or trollish they act, there are zero legitimate repercussions for them. It really highlights how broken the system is and how there seems to be no actual effort to fix it. :(
I do think the media actually should try and chase the Trump outrage stories a bit less and rather focus on having him explain how greatly great his great policies are.
We've known since 2015 that scandals do not weaken Trump. Not even an attempted coup d'etat. He has a free pass.
The media does discuss his policies. See the NY Times article comparing their housing policies:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/business/economy/housing-plan-harris-trump.html
Quote from: NY TimesHarris: Expand Supply Using Tax Credits.
Ms. Harris is promising to increase housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects economically feasible for builders.
Supply fixes are not all that Ms. Harris has suggested: She is also promising to give $25,000 in assistance to first-time home buyers. The plan is not a detailed one, and it is not clear yet who would be eligible. Nor is it clear how the help would be structured. It could go to buyers upfront, rather than as a delayed tax credit — but exactly how that would work has yet to be explained.[/b]
Quote from: NY TimesTrump: Deport Immigrants.
Mr. Trump is promising to lower housing costs by stopping "the unsustainable invasion of illegal aliens which is driving up housing costs," said Karoline Leavitt, his campaign's national press secretary.
Clearly, both candidates have very reasonable policy positions that should be taken seriously and given equal weight.
The best way to keep prices down is to deport millions of low cost laborers.
Which, by the way, is why he is lying. He won't do it.
Just waiting for trump to copy the old BNP manifesto and for his environmental policy say deporting immigrants.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on August 31, 2024, 07:34:22 AMIt certainly benefits both when, no matter how awful and/or trollish they act, there are zero legitimate repercussions for them. It really highlights how broken the system is and how there seems to be no actual effort to fix it. :(
True for Trump, not true for Musk. He has gotten himself to a number of legal entanglements. Brazil just being the lastest.
I think Trump is almost unique in his ability to profit from his terrible behavior. He has done this for over 40 years now.
The worse he acts, the more people love him. For everybody else behaving badly turns people off.
I don't get it but I never did and frankly I am just tired of it.
Quote from: Norgy on August 31, 2024, 07:40:24 AMI do think the media actually should try and chase the Trump outrage stories a bit less and rather focus on having him explain how greatly great his great policies are.
We've known since 2015 that scandals do not weaken Trump. Not even an attempted coup d'etat. He has a free pass.
Yeah - I've said before but I think the bigger part of 2016 than the right-wing media and fake news was the way the mainstream media covered Trump. And I still don't think they've really learned any lessons from that- I think part of it is frankly learning to distinguish something that's news from something that's newsworthy.
They have moved from hours of wall-to-wall free coverage about Trump with people looking shocked, to hours of wall-to-wall free coverage about Trump with people looking shocked AND occasionally pointing out that what he's saying is "not true". I think we've got more comment but nowhere closer to judgement. And I find it shocking that 8 years in I feel like, say, CNN or the NYT have kind of learned nothing.
Um dude they have been doing this for longer than many people who work in the mainstream media have been alive. Our media has been unable to not talk about Donald Trump since like 1978 or something.
If they were capable of just ignoring Donald Trump he would have faded into obscurity sometime in the Reagan administration. The guy has spent his life committing fraud and theft and rape and the media has been celebrating him the whole time. He represents a very sick thing about our country and we are just unable to self-correct.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2024, 11:57:31 AMUm dude they have been doing this for longer than many people who work in the mainstream media have been alive. Our media has been unable to not talk about Donald Trump since like 1978 or something.
If they were capable of just ignoring Donald Trump he would have faded into obscurity sometime in the Reagan administration. The guy has spent his life committing fraud and theft and rape and the media has been celebrating him the whole time. He represents a very sick thing about our country and we are just unable to self-correct.
You're being too harsh on the US. He won't win a popular vote.
But the rest rings true. I think I discovered the name in some magazine in the late 1980s. When he married Ivana or something like that.
Personally, I find it ironic that someone who so obviously is a part of a very small world elite and has been since forever, is running on an anti-elite platform, reaching out to the "common people".
One of our female golf players played with Trump. This is purely anecdotal, but I remember her saying "He was a nice enough guy, but he kept cheating".
For personal reasons, I would like you to stop exporting these culture wars and the art of lying here.
It really is working all too well for the wrong people.
So, an unexpected sensible policy from trump, supporting ivf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyg1rlnywyo.amp
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2024, 11:57:31 AMUm dude they have been doing this for longer than many people who work in the mainstream media have been alive. Our media has been unable to not talk about Donald Trump since like 1978 or something.
If they were capable of just ignoring Donald Trump he would have faded into obscurity sometime in the Reagan administration. The guy has spent his life committing fraud and theft and rape and the media has been celebrating him the whole time. He represents a very sick thing about our country and we are just unable to self-correct.
Yeah him, Boris Johnson and to a lesser extent Farage and Orban manage to somehow embody national characteristics / attributes of culture or psyche, in a way that makes them irresistible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 31, 2024, 11:52:35 AMQuote from: Norgy on August 31, 2024, 07:40:24 AMI do think the media actually should try and chase the Trump outrage stories a bit less and rather focus on having him explain how greatly great his great policies are.
We've known since 2015 that scandals do not weaken Trump. Not even an attempted coup d'etat. He has a free pass.
Yeah - I've said before but I think the bigger part of 2016 than the right-wing media and fake news was the way the mainstream media covered Trump. And I still don't think they've really learned any lessons from that- I think part of it is frankly learning to distinguish something that's news from something that's newsworthy.
They have moved from hours of wall-to-wall free coverage about Trump with people looking shocked, to hours of wall-to-wall free coverage about Trump with people looking shocked AND occasionally pointing out that what he's saying is "not true". I think we've got more comment but nowhere closer to judgement. And I find it shocking that 8 years in I feel like, say, CNN or the NYT have kind of learned nothing.
They've learned that people watch it. They don't care if it hurts or helps as long as rating stay up.
Quote from: HVC on August 31, 2024, 04:54:33 PMThey've learned that people watch it. They don't care if it hurts or helps as long as rating stay up.
Fine - but don't pontificate about the role of the media in the age of Trump or how "democracy dies in darkness".
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 31, 2024, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: HVC on August 31, 2024, 04:54:33 PMThey've learned that people watch it. They don't care if it hurts or helps as long as rating stay up.
Fine - but don't pontificate about the role of the media in the age of Trump or how "democracy dies in darkness".
Despite your love of them, journalists aren't above hypocrisy :lol:
I'm getting ads asking me to remind my American expat friends about voting in the election, which I find quite peculiar. Are other euros getting those, too?
Not a Euro, but I got those too in Canada, and even yesterday on the airport screens so clearly there is a concerted campaign going on.
Seemed to come from them:
https://www.votefromabroad.org/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAA-J5PiTAVvphexQAFuls_NrIczj_Z&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9_qm-rKkiAMV0GpHAR33BDZSEAAYASAAEgKgjvD_BwE
Quote from: celedhring on September 02, 2024, 08:35:42 AMI'm getting ads asking me to remind my American expat friends about voting in the election, which I find quite peculiar. Are other euros getting those, too?
On Facebook, yes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 31, 2024, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: HVC on August 31, 2024, 04:54:33 PMThey've learned that people watch it. They don't care if it hurts or helps as long as rating stay up.
Fine - but don't pontificate about the role of the media in the age of Trump or how "democracy dies in darkness".
That's marketing. Nothing about how the WaPo or NYT is ran suggests a genuine concern for the health of American democracy, they are virtue signaling to their expected liberal reader base to juice up subscriptions.
I see a connection between accurate information and democracy.
Huge surge in new voter registration among certain demographics one week in July.
Looks like the guy who predicted a Trump win in 2016 is saying Harris will win in 2024:
Well as much credibility as that one guy has...I am still very concerned.
Quote from: Valmy on September 05, 2024, 03:38:37 PMWell as much credibility as that one guy has...I am still very concerned.
Good - the more Democrat voters think that way, the more likely Harris will win. Complacency that Clinton would win was a key factor in Trump winning in 2016.
JD Vance talking about the price of freedom.
School shootings are just a fact of life for Americans.
(https://i.imgur.com/nGXJhfu.jpeg)
Good thing no one could ever shot him from behind.
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2024, 12:58:59 AMGood thing no one could ever shot him from behind.
Those plastic panels are only designed to stop the rotten tomatoes.
Apparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 07:05:09 AMApparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.
They really aren't anymore.
The lines have been blurred. Both by manufacturers and various government policies and judgments.
I think the Canadian example proves that trying to legislate "what" is an assault rifle and "what" is a hunting rifle is very complicated, and would be even more so in the US with all the mods that can circulate legally.
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 07:05:09 AMApparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.
The thing is they're kind of right on this one.
So look - I actually deal with a lot of firearms files. A lot of which deals with definitions - what is or is not a firearm, what is or is not a restricted, or prohibited, firearm.
The definition of a firearm largely revolves around firing a projectile at a certain velocity - it's what distinguishes a firearm from a pellet gun or an air rifle. Restricted or prohibited firearms depend on the length.
The thing is - an "assault rifle" is all about the aesthetics. An assault rifle will be in all (or mostly) matte-black, making it look like something the military would use. A "long-gun" on the other hand probably has a lot of wood trim, and looks like something you'd take out hunting. Functionally though there's no difference in capability.
So Canada has banned "assault rifles". What that means though is they've just named literally hundreds of different models of firearms and banned them all individually. There's no broader technical definition to rely on.
So I'm agnostic - maybe it is a better idea to ban scary looking military-style firearms. But it is worth noting it's only about aesthetics, not capabilities.
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2024, 11:58:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 07:05:09 AMApparently insisting assault rifles aren't a real thing is the NRA sanctioned narrative to push against anyone suggesting maybe bringing back some sensible laws would be a good idea.
The thing is they're kind of right on this one.
So look - I actually deal with a lot of firearms files. A lot of which deals with definitions - what is or is not a firearm, what is or is not a restricted, or prohibited, firearm.
The definition of a firearm largely revolves around firing a projectile at a certain velocity - it's what distinguishes a firearm from a pellet gun or an air rifle. Restricted or prohibited firearms depend on the length.
The thing is - an "assault rifle" is all about the aesthetics. An assault rifle will be in all (or mostly) matte-black, making it look like something the military would use. A "long-gun" on the other hand probably has a lot of wood trim, and looks like something you'd take out hunting. Functionally though there's no difference in capability.
So Canada has banned "assault rifles". What that means though is they've just named literally hundreds of different models of firearms and banned them all individually. There's no broader technical definition to rely on.
So I'm agnostic - maybe it is a better idea to ban scary looking military-style firearms. But it is worth noting it's only about aesthetics, not capabilities.
I've not heard it's about aesthetics before. I thought it was something to do with the mechanism, the amount of bullets that would be fired with a single trigger press or so?
The way I've seen it spun by NRA types is they're actually planning to ban all rifles, whilst laws controlling assault rifles tend to have a lot of space given over to defining what is included in them?
Quote from: Josquius on September 06, 2024, 01:45:02 PMI've not heard it's about aesthetics before. I thought it was something to do with the mechanism, the amount of bullets that would be fired with a single trigger press or so?
The way I've seen it spun by NRA types is they're actually planning to ban all rifles, whilst laws controlling assault rifles tend to have a lot of space given over to defining what is included in them?
100% in Canada, and 99% sure in the US - no automatic rifles are legal. One trigger pull = 1 bullet. (I think there's some really old grandfather clause for 60+ year old machineguns). This came up in the discussion over "bump-stocks" in the US, which were used in the Las Vegas mass shooting - the stock has a kind of spring which moves the gun itself, which then allows multiple trigger pulls very rapidly.
Now there can be related bans, such as on magazine capacity. Canada bans magazines over 5 rounds, which is not the case in the US. But that is separate and apart from the type of firearm the magazine is attached to - a large capacity magazine does not make a firearm an "assault rifle".
But yes - the NRA has, forever and ever, portrayed any kind of gun restriction as being the thin edge of the wedge to a ban on firearms.
"Assault rifle" is just a scare term used by people who should be more focused on real gun reform. As BB says, it doesn't have anything like a definition that would stand up in court, which is partially why gun control advocates now refer to "assault-style weapons."
Meaningful gun control even in a society that has a "gun culture" is, indeed, possible. See: Australia. Gun control: what makes Australian and US laws so different? (https://lsj.com.au/articles/gun-control-what-makes-australian-and-us-laws-so-different/)
Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2024, 02:45:30 PM"Assault rifle" is just a scare term used by people who should be more focused on real gun reform. As BB says, it doesn't have anything like a definition that would stand up in court, which is partially why gun control advocates now refer to "assault-style weapons."
Meaningful gun control even in a society that has a "gun culture" is, indeed, possible. See: Australia. Gun control: what makes Australian and US laws so different? (https://lsj.com.au/articles/gun-control-what-makes-australian-and-us-laws-so-different/)
I mean - there are laws you could pass that would give meaningful distinctions. You could introduce a maximum (or minimum) weight, maximum muzzle velocity, maximum calibre size, probably some other details. (Note I know nothing about 2nd amendment jurisprudence, just what would otherwise be possible).
And it is worth noting that 30+ years ago nobody made "assault-style rifles" - it was all very much in the hunting rifle genre. There's just something in the culture that has made rifles that look this way very appealing.
"Something in the culture" = a deliberate marketing ploy by weapon manufacturers, with the help of the NRA's gun fetishism, and the growth of far-right movements in the US.
"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2024, 03:23:12 PM"Something in the culture" = a deliberate marketing ploy by weapon manufacturers, with the help of the NRA's gun fetishism, and the growth of far-right movements in the US.
"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.
So this goes back to something I read a long time ago so I can't find it now, but it suggested that gun manufacturers really resisted coming out with "assault-weapon" style firearms. After all they don't want to be on the bleeding edge of the culture wars, they just want to quietly make their money (which they were doing with more traditional-looking rifles). Of course once they finally gave in, they started selling far more weapons than ever before.
Even blaming the NRA... I mean historically, sure. But the NRA declared bankruptcy in 2021. It spends even-increasing amounts on legal expenditures, ever less on other services, and is bleeding members ate a fairly steady rate.
I heard that the father, who purchased the fire arm, was arrested. If true that is good. I think if you purchased a gun that was used in a mass murder committed by another person you should be liable, either civilly or criminally depending on the circumstances. If we are going to allow this mass gun ownership than it should come with responsibility for gun owners.
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2024, 05:39:50 PMI heard that the father, who purchased the fire arm, was arrested. If true that is good. I think if you purchased a gun that was used in a mass murder committed by another person you should be liable, either civilly or criminally depending on the circumstances. If we are going to allow this mass gun ownership than it should come with responsibility for gun owners.
He did so after the FBI and local authorities warned him that his son was posting disturbing violent fantasies on social media. Lock him up.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2024, 03:23:12 PM"Assault weapons" is, of course, a fuzzy term, but it's one that also has been deployed to sell the idea of being in a paramilitary militia to would-be discount action heroes.
The problem I have is with Canadian style laws that outright ban weapons based on their scary appearance to please some activist groups and annoy hunters rather than try to think about a complex issue and legislate it the way BB is telling it.
Between doing nothing like the US and banning weapons used by hunters while letting criminals peacefully use their weapons for shooting one another in the street, there's something to be done.
But it's not as if the left is listening to reason on this. Or most other issues. <_< So maybe, before blaming the Evil Corp (tm), talk to your friends at your next Take-Over-the-World meeting? :hmm: ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 06, 2024, 02:54:27 PMI mean - there are laws you could pass that would give meaningful distinctions. You could introduce a maximum (or minimum) weight, maximum muzzle velocity, maximum calibre size, probably some other details. (Note I know nothing about 2nd amendment jurisprudence, just what would otherwise be possible).
And it is worth noting that 30+ years ago nobody made "assault-style rifles" - it was all very much in the hunting rifle genre. There's just something in the culture that has made rifles that look this way very appealing.
Aren't detachable magazines a determinant? Honest question. I've never seen a hunting rifle with one.
Magazines are relatively common for rifles here, but they're all small capacity.
Dick Cheney will vote for Harris. Trump said that Dick Cheney is just a RINO. :lol:
I am not going to step into a debate about gun control in the US, but Cheney is a poor shot, by all accounts.
Norway's had zero school shootings, but for a massacre of Labour Youth activists in 2011 and an attempted mosque shooting by an utter fool who got so badly beaten up by the members of the mosque, he looked like the victim. He was inspired by Tarrant's NZ shooting up a mosque. We have shootings, yes. Gang violence, and more than before. More murders in close relations. Seems knives are more the thing for crimes of passion. Or tyre irons.
Judging from what my colleagues in Norway and in Europe write, travelling to the US is about as safe as going as a mercenary for some mining concern in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
From what "we" know here in Norway, most violence is committed as part of a parallell, hidden economy based on drug sales and gangs, you know, good old pyramid scheme, just with a bullet in your back when you decide to pull out. Most, if not all, members are from immigrant backgrounds. When you see your class mates sporting the Vuitton bags and have new winter jackets at 500 Euros a pop, and your family is four children sharing hand-me-downs, I can see why an alternative career might seem fine.
We're fucking this up. Every shade of politician is. Because there is not one simple solution.
However, we have very little gun control in Norway. A register over owned firearms, yes, with serial numbers and licences. You can't carry here. Except when hunting or if you're at, say, gun practice. Like the US, we were a colony and the local "skytterlag" (rough translation, shooting teams) were sort of the reserves to be called upon if it came to war with the Swedes. Later if those damned workers didn't work and went on strike.
The biggest issue with firearms in Norway these days is that too many males between 25 and 50 turn them against themselves and blow their heads off. We have suicide rates that are harrowing reading. In one of the world's "happiest countries".
Fuck that.
Quote"Well, I would do that and we're sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka was sooo..uh..impactful on that issue. It's very important issue... But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, the child care is, child care is ..couldn't, you know, there's something you'd have to have it in this country, you have to have it. uh but when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that..they're not used to but they'll get used to it very quickly. And it's not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our Country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers we're talking about including child care...that it's gonna take care. We're gonna have. I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time. Coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all the other things that are going on in our Country. Because I have to stay with child care..I wanna stay with child care but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about INCLUDING growth..but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just..uhh..that I just told you about, we're gonna-bee takin in trillions of dollars. And as much as child care..uhh..is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kinda of numbers we'll be taking in. We're gonna make this into.....an incredible Country that can afford to take care of it's people..and then we'll worry about the rest of the World..let's help other people. But we're gonna take care of our Country first, this is about America first, is about Make..America..Great..Again..We have to do it because right now we're a failing Nation..so we'll take care of it. Thank you."
At least, he will support Israel. That's a good President.
The art of wrecking the economy (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/business/trump-economy-tariffs/index.html)
This is a feature of Republican governments, so we can't fault their electors for applauding this. GW Bush wrecked the good growth Clinton had, Trump destroyed what improvements Obama had, and now Trump is wants a chance to do it again.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 06, 2024, 03:23:12 PM"Something in the culture" = a deliberate marketing ploy by weapon manufacturers, with the help of the NRA's gun fetishism, and the growth of far-right movements in the US.
This.
30 years ago civilians weren't walking around with ar-15 pattern rifles and anyone who did so would be regarded as a loon and mocked by other hunters and target shooters. Now the boys with their silly toys mock the traditional hunters as "Fudds". The NRA has changed the culture upside down. I wouldn't care about the ar-15 fanboys and their GI Joe fantasies if they didn't insist that their hobby trumps the safety of American school children,
Why do you think it was marketing ploys and NRA agitprop as opposed to organic changes in the tastes of gun purchasers?
Ryan Busse's book.
(https://images.newrepublic.com/182655f5f7d512f404dff55c1985d1eb091f706d.png?w=1160)
High quality election campaign :lol:
Context: A bizarre narrative about Haitian immigrants eating pets.
21 million views.
It's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Quote from: Zanza on September 10, 2024, 05:52:01 AM(https://images.newrepublic.com/1826f7d512f404dff55c1985d1eb091f706d.png?w=1160)
High quality election campaign :lol:
Context: A bizarre narrative about Haitian immigrants eating pets.
This is something mainstream with the right or weird Internet lunacy? First I've heard of it.
Though I do remember back before the brexit vote a upurge in paranoia and fake news about gypsy pet kidnapping
Quote from: Josquius on September 10, 2024, 09:07:31 AMQuote from: Zanza on September 10, 2024, 05:52:01 AM(https://images.newrepublic.com/1826f7d512f404dff55c1985d1eb091f706d.png?w=1160)
High quality election campaign :lol:
Context: A bizarre narrative about Haitian immigrants eating pets.
This is something mainstream with the right or weird Internet lunacy? First I've heard of it.
Though I do remember back before the brexit vote a upurge in paranoia and fake news about gypsy pet kidnapping
I am fairly sure all Musk saw was a meme-ish Trump picture and he hit share, I don't assume an understanding of the underlying reasons.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I think you're one of the few here still on the platform. Time to test it out :D
Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 10:32:42 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I think you're one of the few here still on the platform. Time to test it out :D
Test initiated.
I might unmute him though because I like to see what crazy shit he's posting, since clearly he has nothing better to do with his time despite controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies...
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:39:36 AMQuote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 10:32:42 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I think you're one of the few here still on the platform. Time to test it out :D
Test initiated.
I might unmute him though because I like to see what crazy shit he's posting, since clearly he has nothing better to do with his time despite controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies...
Shareholders don't do anything
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 10:42:25 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:39:36 AMQuote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 10:32:42 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I think you're one of the few here still on the platform. Time to test it out :D
Test initiated.
I might unmute him though because I like to see what crazy shit he's posting, since clearly he has nothing better to do with his time despite controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies...
Shareholders don't do anything
Let's check...
Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla, CEO of SpaceX, and Chairman, Chief Technology officer and the majority shareholder of privately-held Twitter.
I think "controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies" is a fair assessment.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:52:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 10:42:25 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:39:36 AMQuote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 10:32:42 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I think you're one of the few here still on the platform. Time to test it out :D
Test initiated.
I might unmute him though because I like to see what crazy shit he's posting, since clearly he has nothing better to do with his time despite controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies...
Shareholders don't do anything
Let's check...
Elon Musk is CEO of Tesla, CEO of SpaceX, and Chairman, Chief Technology officer and the majority shareholder of privately-held Twitter.
I think "controlling three multi-billion-dollar companies" is a fair assessment.
I am not sure what your point is. You used the word "controlling". That is normally associated with shareholding. And btw why did you respond to my statement that shareholders don't do anything by saying he is a majority shareholder? A chairman of a corporation doesn't do much except manage the board, which isn't actually anything when the Board is essentially him. Unless he likes talking to himself, a lot.
Now being a CEO and CTO are substantive positions in most companies. But I am not sure about Tesla and SpaceX. I think it likely the duties of those offices are mainly being carried out by others.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 11:32:08 AMI am not sure what your point is. You used the word "controlling". That is normally associated with shareholding. And btw why did you respond to my statement that shareholders don't do anything by saying he is a majority shareholder? A chairman of a corporation doesn't do much except manage the board, which isn't actually anything when the Board is essentially him. Unless he likes talking to himself, a lot.
Now being a CEO and CTO are substantive positions in most companies. But I am not sure about Tesla and SpaceX. I think it likely the duties of those offices are mainly being carried out by others.
The key fact for Twitter is that it is privately-held. Absent some kind of shareholders agreement that means the majority shareholder (Musk) can do what he wants with the company (as long as not screwing over the minority shareholder).
How much control does Musk actually use with respect to SpaceX and Tesla? Impossible to say, since we know his attention is hideously divided. But as CEO of both he has a lot of power and control if he chooses to exercise it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 10:17:59 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 10, 2024, 08:09:33 AMIt's Elon's account. Everyone has to see his tweets.
Can you actually mute Elon's posts?
I blocked him long ago. It still holds up. :)
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2024, 11:59:38 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 11:32:08 AMI am not sure what your point is. You used the word "controlling". That is normally associated with shareholding. And btw why did you respond to my statement that shareholders don't do anything by saying he is a majority shareholder? A chairman of a corporation doesn't do much except manage the board, which isn't actually anything when the Board is essentially him. Unless he likes talking to himself, a lot.
Now being a CEO and CTO are substantive positions in most companies. But I am not sure about Tesla and SpaceX. I think it likely the duties of those offices are mainly being carried out by others.
The key fact for Twitter is that it is privately-held. Absent some kind of shareholders agreement that means the majority shareholder (Musk) can do what he wants with the company (as long as not screwing over the minority shareholder).
How much control does Musk actually use with respect to SpaceX and Tesla? Impossible to say, since we know his attention is hideously divided. But as CEO of both he has a lot of power and control if he chooses to exercise it.
CEO's have a lot of power, but control is not normally a word one associates with a corporate officer since they are supposed to act in the best interest of the corporation as directed by the Board. And so if anyone has "control" it is the Board. But I grant you that it is unlikely Musk worries about such niceties.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 01:58:19 PMCEO's have a lot of power, but control is not normally a word one associates with a corporate officer since they are supposed to act in the best interest of the corporation as directed by the Board. And so if anyone has "control" it is the Board. But I grant you that it is unlikely Musk worries about such niceties.
Yeah but the Tesla Board is full of his family members and sycophants who happily loot billions from the company to hand over to him.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 02:52:26 PMYeah but the Tesla Board is full of his family members and sycophants who happily loot billions from the company to hand over to him.
A judge voided his mammoth incentive based contract and then it was reinstated by a proxy vote of all shareholders.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 02:58:17 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 02:52:26 PMYeah but the Tesla Board is full of his family members and sycophants who happily loot billions from the company to hand over to him.
A judge voided his mammoth incentive based contract and then it was reinstated by a proxy vote of all shareholders.
I know. But the board never should have voted for it. The shareholders were in a terrible position. They chose the least disastrous option but it was very bad for the company.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 02:59:23 PMI know. But the board never should have voted for it. The shareholders were in a terrible position. They chose the least disastrous option but it was very bad for the company.
I don't understand. I'm a Tesla shareholder. Why was I in a terrible position? I don't feel like I was in a terrible position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 03:18:58 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 02:59:23 PMI know. But the board never should have voted for it. The shareholders were in a terrible position. They chose the least disastrous option but it was very bad for the company.
I don't understand. I'm a Tesla shareholder. Why was I in a terrible position? I don't feel like I was in a terrible position.
One of you people explained to me why it would be really bad to not vote for it.
And please explain why a company with declining sales that I am invested in is essentially setting 50 Billion dollars on fire is good. I guess if I am a shareholder I want to see profits used in a wise manner, not wasted on nothing.
But it seemed not doing so was also very bad. So they had to choose between two terrible options. That seems like a bad position to be put in.
Yi likes to see the rich get richer, so he's doing his part. Selfless really.
:P
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 04:09:23 PMOne of you people explained to me why it would be really bad to not vote for it.
And please explain why a company with declining sales that I am invested in is essentially setting 50 Billion dollars on fire is good. I guess if I am a shareholder I want to see profits used in a wise manner, not wasted on nothing.
But it seemed not doing so was also very bad. So they had to choose between two terrible options. That seems like a bad position to be put in.
I remember when the contract was originally publicized and approved by the bad old rubber stamp board. The way I remember it was a shit ton of money for what I thought at the time were impossible performance targets. Share price rises to Z billion, cars delivered rises to X trillion, they were big, ambitious numbers. Performance numbers perfectly align the interests of shareholders and the CEO. And in exchange he gave up a salary. I didn't object at the time, how fair would it be to object now that he met those impossible goals? That's like welching on a bet.
So no, "burning the money" and "nothing" are not accurate descriptors IMO.
Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 04:10:51 PMYi likes to see the rich get richer, so he's doing his part. Selfless really.
:P
I'm indifferent to the rich getting richer and have never lifted a finger to help them.
The rich getting richer eats you up so you are driven to relabel indifference as preference. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 04:30:56 PMQuote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 04:10:51 PMYi likes to see the rich get richer, so he's doing his part. Selfless really.
:P
I'm indifferent to the rich getting richer and have never lifted a finger to help them.
The rich getting richer eats you up so you are driven to relabel indifference as preference. ;)
It's not fun if you take legitimate offence :(
Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 04:31:31 PMIt's not fun if you take legitimate offence :(
I know, and I did give some thought to how I could signal I knew you were on the joking plane and I was too, but I couldn't come up with anything. :(
For the record I've never taken offense at anything you've posted. You're at least short list for least offensive poster and possibly #1. :cheers:
IMO
:hug:
:mad:
Tonight is the night. Hope to God something really good happens.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 06:41:29 PMTonight is the night. Hope to God something really good happens.
Heart attack?
Quote from: HVC on September 10, 2024, 06:41:53 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 06:41:29 PMTonight is the night. Hope to God something really good happens.
Heart attack?
Or a stroke. It is important it be natural causes.
Anyone know what the deal is on the muting issue? Did Harris want or not want muting? And what did they end up with?
I think she's going to stomp him. Trump has been on an extra deranged bender recently, so deranged that his fanbois are not making youtube clips defending his derangement that show up on my feed. So to not sound deranged he'll have to stick to his script. No way he can do that if Harris drops the right triggers.
I know he has been experimenting with a few - but I still think the fact that he hasn't settled on a nickname is indicative of still not having worked out how to handle Harris.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2024, 11:32:08 AMI am not sure what your point is. You used the word "controlling". That is normally associated with shareholding.
FWIW the concept of a "control person" is pretty broad under US law. Elon would probably qualify pretty easily in all those companies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2024, 07:14:37 PMI know he has been experimenting with a few - but I still think the fact that he hasn't settled on a nickname is indicative of still not having worked out how to handle Harris.
I hope he doesn't figure out until after he loses the election.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 06:52:43 PMAnyone know what the deal is on the muting issue? Did Harris want or not want muting? And what did they end up with?
I think she's going to stomp him. Trump has been on an extra deranged bender recently, so deranged that his fanbois are not making youtube clips defending his derangement that show up on my feed. So to not sound deranged he'll have to stick to his script. No way he can do that if Harris drops the right triggers.
Yeah I don't know. I guess we will find out soon.
I sure the fuck hopes she stomps him and he becomes an incoherent drooling mess.
Am I the only one getting quite a bit of anxiety right now? The very fact that what happens tonight might matter is already infuriating. I still can't come to grips with the reality that we're a coin flip away from an entirely predictable disaster.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 07:59:59 PMAm I the only one getting quite a bit of anxiety right now? The very fact that what happens tonight might matter is already infuriating. I still can't come to grips with the reality that we're a coin flip away from an entirely predictable disaster.
I have been a nervous wreck every time I even think about this election. At least now I kind of have some hope things might work out.
But damn. Having an existential crisis every four years is no way to run a Republic. This is how the 1850s must have felt.
The combover is the best looking I've ever seen. He's not spazzing nearly as much as I had hoped. More like a tossup so far than a stomping.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 08:05:39 PMBut damn. Having an existential crisis every four years is no way to run a Republic. This is how the 1850s must have felt.
Relax and think of Rome, 408, all quiet and fun place, all enemies placated, a competent general in charge of defense.
:sleep:
"Donald Trump was fired by 81 million voters." That line is money! :lmfao:
Moderators are doing a magnificent job.
I hope Trump appealing to Orban's wisdom is sounding as damning as it should be to everyone.
Viktor Orban likes him. Well there is an endorsement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 08:56:22 PMModerators are doing a magnificent job.
I really wish they'd keep both candidates more on topic and answering the questions posed. Harris is giving it an honest effort, but Trump has zero interest in answering anything legitimately it seems.
Also, the moderators giving Trump first and last word on seemingly everything is exhausting. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 10, 2024, 09:13:15 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2024, 08:56:22 PMModerators are doing a magnificent job.
I really wish they'd keep both candidates more on topic and answering the questions posed. Harris is giving it an honest effort, but Trump has zero interest in answering anything legitimately it seems.
And it doesn't matter. Dude could strip naked and shit on the stage and people would say he won the debate.
Kamala has to be awesome though.
So tired of Trump and how he can do anything. I feel like Frank Grimes watching Homer Simpson. I only hope Trump doesn't drive me to grab hot electrical wires.
I'm still holding out for a weaponized deployment of "weird" to make Trump utterly lose control. I'm expecting a Leo from Wolf of Wall Street level of rage and having to be held back. :lol:
I'm somewhat relieved that Harris is looking presidential, and that Trump is looking like himself. I'm only somewhat relieved, though, because as Valmy said, Trump has plot armor.
It's clear to anyone with half a brain that Trump is nuts and clearly (still) unqualified to be president. Unfortunately, this is the American electorate we're talking about, so we're still fucked.
Harris' smirking is very well modulated and very well timed. The split screen really works for her. I'm scoring it a tactical Harris victory right now, not a blowout.
I'm really hoping that this Orban thing is going to blow up after the debate. It fit a classic definition of a gaffe, where a politician accidentally reveals what is suspected to be true. Harris has been harping on Trump for pandering to dictators who flatter him, and what he does as a rebuttal is quote a dictator flattering him. I wish Harris were quick enough on her feet to pounce on it immediately, though.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 10, 2024, 09:14:49 PMAlso, the moderators giving Trump first and last word on seemingly everything is exhausting. :rolleyes:
No kidding.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 10, 2024, 09:13:15 PMI really wish they'd keep both candidates more on topic and answering the questions posed. Harris is giving it an honest effort, but Trump has zero interest in answering anything legitimately it seems.
I don't see how they can do that without becoming debate participants themselves. I've seen the pattern on network interview shows. Ask the question, evasion, repeat the question, evasion, change topics. The evasion is the answer and voters have to proceed on that basis.
I did notice several times when Harris did the old Palin Pivot. "How do you explain changing your position on fracking?" "I love fracking because it will help build up ordinary people's lives!"
I really hate the whole concept of the "your positions changed, you say your values haven't changed" gotcha. The assumption seems to be that elected politicians are supposed to be dictators installing their values on the country. I don't think too many people work the jobs where they don't have to occasionally support something they don't quite agree with personally.
I thought the Ukraine segment was when Trump looked the most naked. Well, maybe the segment on immigrants eating your pets. Did his handlers think that was a winning line?
I think VP Harris did very well and Trump rambled on like a lunatic. However it doesn't matter what I think.
I hope I see some good things in the polls the next few weeks.
Harris roasted him. Fox News sounding like a YouTube college football fan reaction channel whose team just got killed 57-3. :lol:
Taylor Swift just endorsed Harris.
It's over.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 09:42:11 PMI really hate the whole concept of the "your positions changed, you say your values haven't changed" gotcha. The assumption seems to be that elected politicians are supposed to be dictators installing their values on the country. I don't think too many people work the jobs where they don't have to occasionally support something they don't quite agree with personally.
I think it has to do with the nature of the contract between voter and candidate. I'm voting for you now because you say you will do this. Maybe you'll do it and maybe you won't. If you don't then you've conned me. Candidates do this so much in primaries it has become accepted wisdom. Run the primary to the fringe, pivot in the general.
It's purely academic for me personally because even if I knew she would throw all her campaign promises out the window after she's sworn in, I would still vote for me. But a theoretical swing voter could feel shafted.
I can see your point if the candidate runs on one set of policies but once elected adopts a different set. I don't think that applies when a candidate doesn't get the job and then runs as a candidate again on somewhat different set of policies.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 10, 2024, 10:13:45 PMTaylor Swift just endorsed Harris.
It's over.
A diss track about Lady Mahommes in the works?
Can anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:21:57 PMI can see your point if the candidate runs on one set of policies but once elected adopts a different set. I don't think that applies when a candidate doesn't get the job and then runs as a candidate again on somewhat different set of policies.
Sure, but we can't know the future, so we use proxies, like how much and how severely they've flip flopped in the past.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
:unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
We now know that you don't watch NFL football.
Saw the debate. I thought Harris came off professional, knowledgeable and passionate. Trump came off like he does: An old man trying to fast talk his way out of something.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
She is a popular celebrity with a fanatical and large following. She is a pop star who had been dominating the pop charts since about 2008 or so.
Oh and her boyfriend won the Super Bowl.
I can only assume you don't care much for pop culture or sports :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 11:17:06 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
She is a popular celebrity with a fanatical and large following. She is a pop star who had been dominating the pop charts since about 2008 or so.
Oh and her boyfriend won the Super Bowl.
I can only assume you don't care much for pop culture or sports :P
:o That's uncanny. I don't in fact care much for either of those things.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 09:42:11 PMI really hate the whole concept of the "your positions changed, you say your values haven't changed" gotcha. The assumption seems to be that elected politicians are supposed to be dictators installing their values on the country. I don't think too many people work the jobs where they don't have to occasionally support something they don't quite agree with personally.
I don't get why candidates don't take it as an opportunity to tell folks that they're willing to change, grow, and learn. Like, it is the perfect way to admit they're fallible humans, but that they will ultimately do what the people want, what is good for the country (I know, not often the same thing), and that they're relatable. Alas, they always just try to cover it. To me, "flip-flopping" can be legit sign someone has learned. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
Remember when Swift meant Stephanie, not Taylor? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
I've only seen the highlights and read a summary article or two... But seems a wonderful self own for trump?
But will anyone care?
It is all down to a relatively small number of voters in those seven or so swing states. Just takes a few Republican-leaning voters to think "hold on a minute, this man is an unhinged criminal" and Harris will get in.
But is remains baffling to me that people can fall for his nonsense. Well, not the oligarchs, the Trump USA will be a great place for them.
That's pretty close to his floor of support, so this was pretty good for Harris
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1833718050601726410
QuoteCNN Instant Poll: Who won the debate? (among debate watchers)
🟦 Kamala Harris: 63%
🟥 Donald Trump: 37%
I don't see many conservative voting in a CNN poll. Probably get the reverse numbers in a fox poll.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2024, 02:12:47 AMIt is all down to a relatively small number of voters in those seven or so swing states. Just takes a few Republican-leaning voters to think "hold on a minute, this man is an unhinged criminal" and Harris will get in.
But is remains baffling to me that people can fall for his nonsense. Well, not the oligarchs, the Trump USA will be a great place for them.
Even if he loses, if the election will be as close as it is predicted, that means the existential crisis for US democracy and the world order around it will remain, as someone WILL emerge to take Trump's place and they might not be this large fools, ergo they could be more dangerous.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2024, 02:56:21 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2024, 02:12:47 AMIt is all down to a relatively small number of voters in those seven or so swing states. Just takes a few Republican-leaning voters to think "hold on a minute, this man is an unhinged criminal" and Harris will get in.
But is remains baffling to me that people can fall for his nonsense. Well, not the oligarchs, the Trump USA will be a great place for them.
Even if he loses, if the election will be as close as it is predicted, that means the existential crisis for US democracy and the world order around it will remain, as someone WILL emerge to take Trump's place and they might not be this large fools, ergo they could be more dangerous.
Maybe. So far he seems to have a unique power.
But we will see. Still have to beat him first.
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 02:44:29 AMI don't see many conservative voting in a CNN poll. Probably get the reverse numbers in a fox poll.
CNN has been swinging right in an effort to be the centrist network or something.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2024, 02:56:21 AMQuote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2024, 02:12:47 AMIt is all down to a relatively small number of voters in those seven or so swing states. Just takes a few Republican-leaning voters to think "hold on a minute, this man is an unhinged criminal" and Harris will get in.
But is remains baffling to me that people can fall for his nonsense. Well, not the oligarchs, the Trump USA will be a great place for them.
Even if he loses, if the election will be as close as it is predicted, that means the existential crisis for US democracy and the world order around it will remain, as someone WILL emerge to take Trump's place and they might not be this large fools, ergo they could be more dangerous.
Potentially so.
Though I do wonder whether trumps idiocy is key to idiots finding him relatable.
Imagine a younger smarter fascist trying the same schtick for instance.... Imaginable a lot of working class people just wouldn't trust him.
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 02:44:29 AMI don't see many conservative voting in a CNN poll. Probably get the reverse numbers in a fox poll.
If anyone in a fox pill votes for Harris winning the debate it will mean Trump lost some of his core support. Any percentage going to Harris in that poll would mean a huge Harris win.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 11:27:53 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2024, 11:17:06 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
She is a popular celebrity with a fanatical and large following. She is a pop star who had been dominating the pop charts since about 2008 or so.
Oh and her boyfriend won the Super Bowl.
I can only assume you don't care much for pop culture or sports :P
:o That's uncanny. I don't in fact care much for either of those things.
She has been mentioned many times and in many contexts in the news and newspaper articles over several years and so the other thing we can surmise is you haven't read a newspaper in quite some time or listened to the news in any form in any medium for years.
Aye. 10 years ago it might be expected not to know her if you don't care about pop music. When I first learned of her existence, having started working in a high school, she was already apparently huge. Just seemingly out of nowhere all of a sudden.
But these days she pops up in general news.
Yeah, even the business pages have mentioned her due to that massive tour and its effects on local economies.
Yeah, not buying that DG.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
Quote from: DGuller on September 10, 2024, 10:24:13 PMCan anyone give a lowdown on what's so important about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris? Or who Taylor Swift is, for that matter?
Her fans are a bunch of fanatics, even worst than the average Trump follower. :P
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 07:20:22 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
I assure you I have no algorithmic overlap with Taylor Swift fans, I have never in my life been recommended any content by, or concerning, Taylor Swift.
Yet I have been aware of her and have seen her repeatedly mentioned by various media I consume (including politics and even business podcasters/youtubers) for at least a decade, probably more.
It's weird but it happens. I'm sure there's some giant soccer player out there that I've never heard of before.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 07:20:22 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
It not only would mean that you have a very narrow intake of information on a daily basis, but it also means that you're completely isolated from other people. Do you talk to people face-to-face or is your whole reality based on your social media interactions.
If you do interact with people face-to-face, then the chances of you having interacted with anybody who has a daughter is pretty much nil if you've never heard of Taylor Swift.
Quote from: Tamas on September 11, 2024, 07:45:49 AMQuote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 07:20:22 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
I assure you I have no algorithmic overlap with Taylor Swift fans, I have never in my life been recommended any content by, or concerning, Taylor Swift.
Yet I have been aware of her and have seen her repeatedly mentioned by various media I consume (including politics and even business podcasters/youtubers) for at least a decade, probably more.
Well, I haven't been aware, so it is what it is. The name sounded familiar, but there are probably thousands of names that would sound familiar to me that I won't be able to associate with anything other than that I heard that name before somewhere.
This is like one of those questions in a World War II movie that people get asked to see if they're actually Americans.
I do visit the BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail websites and peruse their contents....which makes one aware of people like Taylor Swift, some of the preoccupations of weird rightists, how the English football team are doing etc etc
If I left it to the algorithms I'd probably get obsessed with the Corn Laws and leave mainstream society totally :lol:
9/11 anniversary day, I hope people in the West use this day to reflect on the innate evil of Islam and its monstrous adherents.
Something to remember when considering a vote between a party that supports Israel in its defensive war against Muslim genocide and a party that increasingly embraces eliminationist ideology against Israel.
It's true, the PPC is bad for the West.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 11, 2024, 06:04:25 AMYeah, even the business pages have mentioned her due to that massive tour and its effects on local economies.
Not just the business pages but entire business studies - she's very, very savvy.
She did a big film of one of her concerts which was going to be released during the writers' strike. The studios had gone in for distribution and basically low-balled her, so her team did their own distribution deal with cinema chains directly and announced that it would be released on x week - the prices were references to Swift albums. The studios were entirely cut out and re-organised their fall schedules to avoid clashing with this film one of them had hoped to be distributing :lol:
Or her ex manager owning the rights to her albums so she re-recorded them all, re-released them all and somehow convinced her fans to boycott the ones owned by her manager and buy the ones that she'd earn money from. It is in its way amazing :lol:
There had been loads of weird right-wing stuff about her and her boyfriend being anti-Trump - which Trump squashed pretty quickly because if there's one thing he genuinely respects and understands, it's celebrity. I think he said that discovering she didn't like him made him "like her music maybe 25% less now".
Edit: And to be clear it's very much not just the right who goes weird about Swift. I've definitely seen plenty of online left musings about whether Taylor Swift is actually complicit in/somehow upholding white supremacy/genocide/climate emergency - take your pick.
It has been some time since I've subjected myself to that much Trump at once. He really did seem unhinged. Odd that his closing statement was mostly about Kamala.
Oh she's absolutely an enemy of the climate. No conspiracy needed there.
Quote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 08:36:05 AMOh she's absolutely an enemy of the climate. No conspiracy needed there.
Huh?
Quote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 03:09:29 AMImagine a younger smarter fascist trying the same schtick for instance.... Imaginable a lot of working class people just wouldn't trust him.
We don't have to imagine, we have Ron DeSantis. And you are right, people didn't trust him.
I suppose you could blame that on his specific personality. But none the Trump lites - Hawley, Cotton, Cruz, New Coke Stefanik, etc. - have gained any traction either.
Even after a full Presidential term and almost a decade of continuous political campaigning, Trump still seems to benefit from a perception that he is some kind of anti-politician and that his confused ravings reflect underlying authenticity. The Ivy League GOP types trying to channel Trumpian populism can't replicate it. And when someone less slick tries to pull it off - like Herschel Walker or the Boebert/MTG Blunder Twins - they just come across as nuts.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2024, 08:37:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 08:36:05 AMOh she's absolutely an enemy of the climate. No conspiracy needed there.
Huh?
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-taylor-swift-private-jet-usage.html
I agree that Trump seems to have a unique level of charisma that others would fail to match, and it's that charisma that enables this level of overt authoritarianism. That said, Trump has been speed-running what other Republicans have been meticulously building up for several decades. GOP has been hard at work Orbanizing American politics for a while, and eventually that would've strangled legitimate democracy even without charismatic politicians.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2024, 08:37:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 08:36:05 AMOh she's absolutely an enemy of the climate. No conspiracy needed there.
Huh?
The song titles give it away:
"We are Never Ever Getting CO2 Down Together"
"Blank Space in the Ozone"
"Look What You Made Me Do: Frack"
etc.
Ah yes. But there was zero context both to who and what conspiracy you were talking about.
I know I've mentioned it before but I think Trump's TV background is important in that. He was a mainstream mass-market celebrity who really cared about ratings.
He knows enough about celebrity to know not to pick a fight with Taylor Swift or, when faced with a six week abortion ban, to say it sounds a bit extreme.
The bright young things on the right are nerds deep on the internet imbibing Rod Dreher articles and tradwife content, which is why you end up with sonnenrads in an ad for the Governor of Florida's presidential campaign.
For all the stuff about the online side of Trump, I think a really important side of his success is that he's the guy who saw Evita five times on Broadway, had a prime time show and has the weirdest hits of the 80s playlist at his rallies. He's very mass market, TV watching, middlebrow not niche online subculture.
And when the weird subcultures (including "intellectual" conservatives) get too mouthy he disowns them because that's not his world (see Project 2025), while it absolutely is Vance's
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2024, 08:01:55 AM9/11 anniversary day, I hope people in the West use this day to reflect on the innate evil of Islam and its monstrous adherents.
Something to remember when considering a vote between a party that supports Israel in its defensive war against Muslim genocide and a party that increasingly embraces eliminationist ideology against Israel.
On this day, I reflect on two things. First and foremost, I think about the tribute to the friend he lost, that PLJ used to post every year.
Second, I reflect on the fear of the people on a conference call I was on that morning, when they realized what had happened and they needed to check on friends and family who were in the towers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2024, 08:55:05 AMHe's very mass market, TV watching, middlebrow not niche online subculture.
For me the Trumpiest moment was in the dog-eater colloquy when he basically said: I saw it on TV so it must be true. That's Trump in a nutshell, truth is meaningless, reality is defined by what and who is on TV.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2024, 09:21:59 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2024, 08:55:05 AMHe's very mass market, TV watching, middlebrow not niche online subculture.
For me the Trumpiest moment was in the dog-eater colloquy when he basically said: I saw it on TV so it must be true. That's Trump in a nutshell, truth is meaningless, reality is defined by what and who is on TV.
For me that was a close second. I think the winning entry is when he thought he was establishing his international bona fides by saying that Orban supports him.
I mean Orban makes for a great character reference.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2024, 08:55:05 AMAnd when the weird subcultures (including "intellectual" conservatives) get too mouthy he disowns them because that's not his world (see Project 2025), while it absolutely is Vance's
Yeah everybody else gets HR called on them so to speak. :hmm:
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 02:44:29 AMI don't see many conservative voting in a CNN poll. Probably get the reverse numbers in a fox poll.
Pollsters don't say who hired them to do the poll. They just say "Hi we're such-and-such polling company".
The problem I see is how many Trump fans were watching the debate. Trump voters are often categorized as "low information" voters.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 07:20:22 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
Even if your only source of news and information in the entire world was Languish, the search function shows that Taylor Swift's name shows up 48 times around this place.
CNN guy was very careful to mention that their poll isn't meant to be representative of the likely voters, it was only representative of people who watch the debate. However, he also mentioned off-hand that in reality there is not a lot of difference between the populations. He sounded like a guy who wouldn't make that statement without thinking about it and making sure it was supported.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2024, 10:33:27 AMEven if your only source of news and information in the entire world was Languish, the search function shows that Taylor Swift's name shows up 48 times around this place.
I'm sure that if I search for Canadian politicians, I'll get plenty of hits as well, there may even be a thread here where (I presume) they're discussed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2024, 08:01:55 AM9/11 anniversary day, I hope people in the West use this day to reflect on the innate evil of Islam and its monstrous adherents.
Something to remember when considering a vote between a party that supports Israel in its defensive war against Muslim genocide and a party that increasingly embraces eliminationist ideology against Israel.
I think I would contrast it as a choice between a sitting President (avd VP) who has given substantial amounts of aid to Israel and has visited the country twice since October 7th, versus a former President whose son-in-law was given two billion dollars under mysterious circumstances by Saudi Arabia, which as you know was where almost all the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 10:38:48 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 11, 2024, 10:33:27 AMEven if your only source of news and information in the entire world was Languish, the search function shows that Taylor Swift's name shows up 48 times around this place.
I'm sure that if I search for Canadian politicians, I'll get plenty of hits as well, there may even be a thread here where (I presume) they're discussed.
Use the search function yourself.
Given the very male, and middle-aged-plus demographics of this board, we are not the key demo to be Taylor Swift fans. As such pretty much none of her references her are discussing her music - it's all about her massive concert series of her massive cultural influence (with a side of her boyfriend who plays football).
I'm not saying it's impossible to find out who she is, there are indeed multiple ways more effective than Languish search. I'm saying I did not know she was until yesterday, except for being vaguely familiar with her name. I'm familiar enough now.
It's like someone not knowing who Michael Jackson was in the 80s. Just in case, Dguller, he was a singer. Started off as a black guy and ended his career as an Asian woman.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2024, 09:21:59 AMFor me the Trumpiest moment was in the dog-eater colloquy when he basically said: I saw it on TV so it must be true. That's Trump in a nutshell, truth is meaningless, reality is defined by what and who is on TV.
Yeah. And I don't want to say we should ban people in real estate from politics but I do think that's part of it too. "Cosy", "characterful", "opportunity to put your stamp on it" - it's an entire sector of the economy based on lies :lol: What matters isn't the actual thing but how you sell it.
That combined with an old school Page Six view of the world and you get Trump.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2024, 11:08:23 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2024, 09:21:59 AMFor me the Trumpiest moment was in the dog-eater colloquy when he basically said: I saw it on TV so it must be true. That's Trump in a nutshell, truth is meaningless, reality is defined by what and who is on TV.
Yeah. And I don't want to say we should ban people in real estate from politics but I do think that's part of it too. "Cosy", "characterful", "opportunity to put your stamp on it" - it's an entire sector of the economy based on lies :lol: What matters isn't the actual thing but how you sell it.
That combined with an old school Page Six view of the world and you get Trump.
Unfettered democracy :contract: :P
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 11:03:46 AMIt's like someone not knowing who Michael Jackson was in the 80s. Just in case, Dguller, he was a singer. Started off a black guy and end his career as an Asian woman.
That's not a good comparison. Back then popular culture was a lot less fragmented. You watched the news on TV, or read them in the newspapers. Even if you had your interests, you were exposed enough to other people's interests because you can't go from 100% attention to 0% back to 100% story by story. Now you can, there are a lot of news titles I scroll right past when I check the news on Google News or Apple News. I'm sure a fair number of them had Swift's name in them, but there are lots of other names in other titles I skip as well.
She's been a mainstay in the public sphere for two decades. Even tangentially if you know other artists, like Kanye, you know about her. She's inserted herself into separate fields like sports, and the like. Even world news there was her Austrian concert that was canceled due to terrorist threats. You'd have to be in a very insulated bubble, or putting us on. Neither option is flattering :D
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 11:09:09 AMUnfettered democracy :contract: :P
He lost! :contract:
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 11:19:22 AMShe's been a mainstay in the public sphere for two decades. Even tangentially if you know other artists, like Kanye, you know about her. She's inserted herself into separate fields like sports, and the like. Even world news there was her Austrian concert that was canceled due to terrorist threats. You'd have to be in a very insulated bubble, or putting us on. Neither option is flattering :D
Oh my, I forgot all about the TSwift / Kanye "I'ma let you finish" moment. Gosh - that was 15 years ago...
And yeah, I remember her as a country artist, which was mid-2000s.
And (unfettered democracy) he lost twice! :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 11, 2024, 11:24:31 AMAnd (unfettered democracy) he lost twice! :P
You're the reason societies fail <_< :P
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 11:19:22 AMShe's been a mainstay in the public sphere for two decades. Even tangentially if you know other artists, like Kanye, you know about her. She's inserted herself into separate fields like sports, and the like. Even world news there was her Austrian concert that was canceled due to terrorist threats. You'd have to be in a very insulated bubble, or putting us on. Neither option is flattering :D
Mystery solved then, I don't know of any other artists either, I don't follow sports except for auto racing, and I don't follow Austrian current events. I do know of Kanye a little bit, IIRC he had gone off the deep end and/or supports Trump, but frankly I wouldn't recognize him if I had seen him. First and last time I've seen him was when I happened to watch a Punk'd episode for some random reason. I guess some people just have other interests.
Out of curiosity, outside of reading only some Languish posts (because we have actually talked about her quite a bit in many threads throughout the years here) what contact with world outside your room do you have?
Dude, you need to analyze with a professional why you have such an insatiable need to put people down, despite what appears to be considerable success in life. You're really creeping me out.
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 12:21:11 PMDude, you need to analyze with a professional why you have such an insatiable need to put people down, despite what appears to be considerable success in life. You're really creeping me out.
I am just astonished at how little interaction you claim to have with the world around you.
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2024, 11:03:46 AMIt's like someone not knowing who Michael Jackson was in the 80s. Just in case, Dguller, he was a singer. Started off as a black guy and ended his career as an Asian woman.
Hee! Hee!
Quote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 10:46:49 AMI'm not saying it's impossible to find out who she is, there are indeed multiple ways more effective than Languish search. I'm saying I did not know she was until yesterday, except for being vaguely familiar with her name. I'm familiar enough now.
I don't know why people are griefing you over this. You made an observation, not a controversial claim. I believed it and just moved on. I was surprised by the number of Languishites who are trying to convince you that your own memory is false and their interpretation of your memory is true.
I stand with DG with this as well. If he doesn't know pop-singers, he don't know pop-singers.
DGs comment made me wonder how many people in my entourage do not know who Taylor Swift is.
So far, lots of them.
I was watching the Iowa/Iowa State game at the American Legion on Saturday and there was one guy there who didn't know who the Hawk Tua girl is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2024, 06:33:12 PMI was watching the Iowa/Iowa State game at the American Legion on Saturday and there was one guy there who didn't know who the Hawk Tua girl is.
He is one lucky bastard.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2024, 06:35:31 PMHe is one lucky bastard.
:lol: She's a blank slate that people can attach any opinion to.
I think she's cute and contentless and reactions to her are fascinating.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2024, 06:21:08 PMI stand with DG with this as well. If he doesn't know pop-singers, he don't know pop-singers.
It's fine. I get it. I do make an effort to at least know a little about what is going on in culture. Like I know who Taylor Swift and Beyonce are and I am familiar with lots of their songs. But then I will see some end of year video about the #1 huge song and artist of the year that it is invariably somebody and some song I have never heard of.
Somebody named Sabrina Carpenter is big now. Apparently she has been a hit maker and dominating the charts since 2022. I only just heard of her the first time a few days ago and I swear I had zero familiarity with any of her stuff. It is just a different world in pop culture than it used to be. In 2001 I couldn't have escaped Britney Spears and Ludacris if I had tried. Now I make a half assed effort and I miss it all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 11, 2024, 06:39:06 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 11, 2024, 06:35:31 PMHe is one lucky bastard.
:lol: She's a blank slate that people can attach any opinion to.
I think she's cute and contentless and reactions to her are fascinating.
I don't have a problem with her. Just the phenomenon :lol:
I find her music uninteresting but as a cultural phenomenon, she is very significant on an international scale. I was impressed by the way she handled her beef with the music publisher. It showed real discipline and will as well as the savvy to take advantage the weaknesses in the way the labels exploit copyrights. If I inhabited that world, I would not cross Taylor Swift.
Quote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 05:29:00 AMAye. 10 years ago it might be expected not to know her if you don't care about pop music. When I first learned of her existence, having started working in a high school, she was already apparently huge. Just seemingly out of nowhere all of a sudden.
But these days she pops up in general news.
She's tied with JayZ for the most #1 albums after the Beatles. There's no excuse not to know her even if you don't like Pop Music.
Quote from: Barrister on September 11, 2024, 10:33:27 AMQuote from: DGuller on September 11, 2024, 07:20:22 AMI'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I guess my ignorance of Taylor Swift is a reflection of the age of algorithms, where anyone can be almost perfectly focused on news stories of interest to them, and everyone getting their very personalized feed assumes that everyone else is getting the same feed.
News stories about business impacts of travel itineraries of some celebrities have never interested me. Or business stories in general, for that matter. If I ever need to have surgery, I'll ask the doctors to use CNBC to put me under.
Even if your only source of news and information in the entire world was Languish, the search function shows that Taylor Swift's name shows up 48 times around this place.
https://x.com/mulvihill79/status/1833899148803981475?t=jA8lt_GMYjYyl79idLwUyw&s=19
QuoteLast night's debate earned an overnight rating of 32.8 and a 70 share across eight networks. That's +28% higher than the Trump-Biden debate earlier this year.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 11, 2024, 07:48:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 11, 2024, 05:29:00 AMAye. 10 years ago it might be expected not to know her if you don't care about pop music. When I first learned of her existence, having started working in a high school, she was already apparently huge. Just seemingly out of nowhere all of a sudden.
But these days she pops up in general news.
She's tied with JayZ for the most #1 albums after the Beatles. There's no excuse not to know her even if you don't like Pop Music.
Well who has heard of the Beatles or JayZ?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 11, 2024, 07:48:57 PMShe's tied with JayZ for the most #1 albums after the Beatles. There's no excuse not to know her even if you don't like Pop Music.
Who the fuck is JayZ?
As an aside, I only became aware of Taylor Swift's massive popularity (I'd heard the name but never a song) until I had a rabid fan of hers as a student a couple of years ago.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2024, 08:10:04 PMQuote from: jimmy olsen on September 11, 2024, 07:48:57 PMShe's tied with JayZ for the most #1 albums after the Beatles. There's no excuse not to know her even if you don't like Pop Music.
Who the fuck is JayZ?
As an aside, I only became aware of Taylor Swift's massive popularity (I'd heard the name but never a song) until I had a rabid fan of hers as a student a couple of years ago.
She became big around the 2008 and 2009 era which was probably the latest possible time I could be considered "with it" :lol:
(https://preview.redd.it/how-old-was-abe-simpsons-in-the-homerpalooza-flashback-v0-ei2feo33lwrc1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=403e2ae000b1da8f9d4a12aa9775b41f0bf553e8)
Yeah, pop culture comes and goes. And if she was only known within pop culture then I would also not know about her. But she is pervasive. She is a shrewd businessperson, a brilliant promoter of her brand, and has constant air time when she shows up at a Chiefs game.
She is probably the most well-known person on the face of the planet.
I really love Taylor Swift's music. I'm not a full-on Swiftie, but I have friends who are. I tend to hang out with a much more mixed age group of folks due to personal choices and past professions, so I'm usually still somewhat in touch with most trending things. I admit, though, not engaging with movies or tv for... quite a while now has definitely made me feel a little more adrift in certain cultural things.
Some of you are very ill informed, really big pop stars have regularly been front page news in major outlets like the New York Times, WSJ, Washington Post etc. I can get not being into pop music, but do you also not even scan the major news journals of our time?
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2024, 06:44:17 PMQuote from: Razgovory on September 11, 2024, 06:21:08 PMI stand with DG with this as well. If he doesn't know pop-singers, he don't know pop-singers.
It's fine. I get it. I do make an effort to at least know a little about what is going on in culture. Like I know who Taylor Swift and Beyonce are and I am familiar with lots of their songs. But then I will see some end of year video about the #1 huge song and artist of the year that it is invariably somebody and some song I have never heard of.
Somebody named Sabrina Carpenter is big now. Apparently she has been a hit maker and dominating the charts since 2022. I only just heard of her the first time a few days ago and I swear I had zero familiarity with any of her stuff. It is just a different world in pop culture than it used to be. In 2001 I couldn't have escaped Britney Spears and Ludacris if I had tried. Now I make a half assed effort and I miss it all.
No, Sabrina only came to dominate on the charts this year. She's been bubbling up overtime but not dominant in any real way.
She's part of the Disney star to pop star pipeline.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2024, 09:44:16 PMSome of you are very ill informed, really big pop stars have regularly been front page news in major outlets like the New York Times, WSJ, Washington Post etc. I can get not being into pop music, but do you also not even scan the major news journals of our time?
I agree. You would have to have deliberately avoided all news media for more than a decade not to have heard of Taylor Swift. It's not plausible.
I must say if I had to guess of the best seller amongst rappers Jay Z would not have been top of the list for me.
Wonder who he is voting for (hint about off topic drifting :P)
The analytical mind sometimes declines to absorb information it deems of only peripheral interest.
Quote from: The Brain on September 12, 2024, 02:59:39 AMThe analytical mind sometimes declines to absorb information it deems of only peripheral interest.
I think this is spot on. It's been my belief for a while that one of the keys to being open-minded to good ideas to be close-minded to bad ones (of course, the trick is having a good judgment about which is which). In this case, it's not a matter of good or bad, but matter of relevant or not. There is a limited amount of attention to go around, so you have to prioritize.
One other thing I noticed is that I was watching some YouTube video last night, and I hear Taylor Swift mentioned along with a couple of other performerss (not in relation to her endorsement). Now I registered a hit in my mind "oh I know who that is", and I'm sure I'll be registering such hits frequently from now on. I'm sure I was exposed to such mentions at the same frequency before, but it just went below my radar, because you can't research every single thing you don't know of in every single piece of communication.
I think a lot of people here have known who Swift was for a long time, so they've been registering hits on her name for a long time, and they can't conceive how someone else can't be exposed to that. Well, maybe someone else has been, but it was background noise to him.
We all bow down to your superior Vulcan logic :P
About time. :rolleyes:
Among the theories circulating in RW media are that Kamala used secret microphone earrings during the debate (where was Michael Spicer on debate night?) or that the Democrats used a body double. The level of insanity is off the charts. People on RW media have been so completely brainwashed into believing that KH is a gibbering fool incapable of verbal communication other than cackling that they were genuinely shocked when they got to view her speaking live on an unaltered video feed, as opposed to manipulated clips.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2024, 08:18:39 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 12, 2024, 02:59:39 AMThe analytical mind sometimes declines to absorb information it deems of only peripheral interest.
I think this is spot on. It's been my belief for a while that one of the keys to being open-minded to good ideas to be close-minded to bad ones (of course, the trick is having a good judgment about which is which). In this case, it's not a matter of good or bad, but matter of relevant or not. There is a limited amount of attention to go around, so you have to prioritize.
One other thing I noticed is that I was watching some YouTube video last night, and I hear Taylor Swift mentioned along with a couple of other performerss (not in relation to her endorsement). Now I registered a hit in my mind "oh I know who that is", and I'm sure I'll be registering such hits frequently from now on. I'm sure I was exposed to such mentions at the same frequency before, but it just went below my radar, because you can't research every single thing you don't know of in every single piece of communication.
I think a lot of people here have known who Swift was for a long time, so they've been registering hits on her name for a long time, and they can't conceive how someone else can't be exposed to that. Well, maybe someone else has been, but it was background noise to him.
An exceptional justification for being ill-informed. I congratulate you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2024, 09:04:14 AMAmong the theories circulating in RW media are that Kamala used secret microphone earrings during the debate (where was Michael Spicer on debate night?) or that the Democrats used a body double. The level of insanity is off the charts. People on RW media have been so completely brainwashed into believing that KH is a gibbering fool incapable of verbal communication other than cackling that they were genuinely shocked when they got to view her speaking live on an unaltered video feed, as opposed to manipulated clips.
The RW are obviously superior at being able to be closed minded to facts the rest of us waste our energy knowing.
I dunno, I genuinely have never listened to a single TSwift song (at least that I remember deliberately listening to), but just through her various mentions in normal news outlets I know what she looks like and the vague sense that "she is a very big time pop music singer." I don't know tons more than that, but she's famous enough and mentioned enough it remains weird to me if someone doesn't know who she is at all.
Like in the 1980s and early 90s I wasn't a huge Michael Jackson fan, but I would be stunned if someone who came of age in the 80s didn't know who he was.
I think a "problem" with Taylor Swift, that is key to me not being aware of her existence until she was already doing arena tours and I met a girl who was a mega fan, is that she has a pretty generic name and does pretty generic music.
If I hear a song on the radio and then the announcer says "Yeah, thats Song X by regularname" then that goes in one ear and out the other. I've no need to store that information. So when the next month its Song Y by the same person I don't make the connection that this is the same person. Its just another song by a singer going by their regular name.
She's doing alright of course, so not advice here, not like I was ever her target audience, but I do think this is where for instance Lady Gaga stuck in my mind far more readily than she did- Funny name that stands out. I can make a connection.
Quote from: Josquius on September 12, 2024, 10:01:46 AMI think a "problem" with Taylor Swift, that is key to me not being aware of her existence until she was already doing arena tours and I met a girl who was a mega fan, is that she has a pretty generic name and does pretty generic music.
If I hear a song on the radio and then the announcer says "Yeah, thats Song X by regularname" then that goes in one ear and out the other. I've no need to store that information. So when the next month its Song Y by the same person I don't make the connection that this is the same person. Its just another song by a singer going by their regular name.
She's doing alright of course, so not advice here, not like I was ever her target audience, but I do think this is where for instance Lady Gaga stuck in my mind far more readily than she did- Funny name that stands out. I can make a connection.
I think that is true for a lot of people that don't actually listen to her music. But people who don't listen to her music still know who she is because of well who she is and what she does.
Some interesting data on the impact of Swift's endorsement. From the Globe
QuoteThis could have real consequences. As of 11 am EST on Wednesday, there had been 306,422 visitors to vote.gov that arrived through Ms. Swift's URL, the organization told The Globe and Mail.
:yeah: Swifties, save us!
People are dumb. But at least in this case their stupidity might save us instead of doom us :lol:
Well, as has been demonstrated in this thread - there are people who are very good at ignoring information they deem irrelevant and outside of their sphere of interest, even if others think it's incredible that they don't know or care.
For some it means not knowing about pop-cultural icons until they impact the politics they care about. For others it means not knowing about politics until a pop-cultural icon they care about puts it on their radar.
Personally my struggle is the other way - I wish I could be less aware of Musk and all manner of other things, but awareness still seeps at rates beyond what I'd prefer.
Quote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 10:47:35 AMPeople are dumb. But at least in this case their stupidity might save us instead of doom us :lol:
Why do you think the people who are registering to vote are stupid?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 11:55:30 AMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 10:47:35 AMPeople are dumb. But at least in this case their stupidity might save us instead of doom us :lol:
Why do you think the people who are registering to vote are stupid?
Because before they were given the go ahead by Taylor they hadn't. So, by that reasoning, without her say so they wouldn't have voted at all. Or worse, may have voted Trump.
Quote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:03:20 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 11:55:30 AMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 10:47:35 AMPeople are dumb. But at least in this case their stupidity might save us instead of doom us :lol:
Why do you think the people who are registering to vote are stupid?
Because before they were given the go ahead by Taylor they hadn't. So, by that reasoning, without her say so they wouldn't have voted at all. Or worse, may have voted Trump.
It has historically been very difficult to get young people to register to vote. And yes, historically many young people don't vote. That is not them being stupid. That is them being uninterested in politics at that age and stage.
My bet is that average intelligence in that group, given that many will be in grade 12 or university, is not so different from that of society as a whole and probably slightly higher.
Also, she did not tell anyone who to vote for. She encouraged everyone to register to vote how they wish. She also explained why she is voting for Harris. A safe assumption is that many of the people who registered to vote through her URL will vote for Harris.
And of she had endorsed Trump the majority of these people would have voted Trump. Guess you have more faith in people then I do. Or perhaps you just need more dumb people in your life :lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on September 12, 2024, 10:35:43 AM:yeah: Swifties, save us!
I sure hope she is extremely popular in the states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia.
Quote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:15:29 PMAnd of she had endorsed Trump the majority of these people would have voted Trump. Guess you have more faith in people then I do. Or perhaps you just need more dumb people in your life :lol:
Or you should just back down from calling hundreds of thousands of young people dumb.
Hey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2024, 12:17:17 PMQuote from: Habbaku on September 12, 2024, 10:35:43 AM:yeah: Swifties, save us!
I sure hope she is extremely popular in the states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia.
Is there anywhere she isn't popular?
Quote from: Josephus on September 12, 2024, 12:37:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 12, 2024, 12:17:17 PMQuote from: Habbaku on September 12, 2024, 10:35:43 AM:yeah: Swifties, save us!
I sure hope she is extremely popular in the states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia.
Is there anywhere she isn't popular?
If there is, I sure hope it isn't in any of those states :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2024, 12:39:17 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 12, 2024, 12:37:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 12, 2024, 12:17:17 PMQuote from: Habbaku on September 12, 2024, 10:35:43 AM:yeah: Swifties, save us!
I sure hope she is extremely popular in the states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia.
Is there anywhere she isn't popular?
If there is, I sure hope it isn't in any of those states :ph34r:
I wonder if she can redo her tour schedule to run through those states in the next few weeks. Or maybe just pop up performances.
Quote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:25:29 PMHey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
You must have been perfect in your youth. I am very happy for you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 02:07:11 PMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:25:29 PMHey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
You must have been perfect in your youth. I am very happy for you.
Always gotta go personal. Ironies of ironies I'm looking down on these kids when I'm stupid enough not to learn from my own mistakes. You're not worth talking to. Back on ignore.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 02:07:11 PMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:25:29 PMHey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
You must have been perfect in your youth. I am very happy for you.
WTF dude.
Quote from: Josephus on September 12, 2024, 12:37:39 PMIs there anywhere she isn't popular?
There was a period of time when people vocalized opposition because of the Taylor v. Beyonce thing. It seems to have died off.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2024, 08:18:39 AMI think this is spot on. It's been my belief for a while that one of the keys to being open-minded to good ideas to be close-minded to bad ones (of course, the trick is having a good judgment about which is which). In this case, it's not a matter of good or bad, but matter of relevant or not. There is a limited amount of attention to go around, so you have to prioritize.
I agree that some information is irrelevant. However it seems to me you're prejudging information about Taylor Swift as irrelevant without assessing it first.
To give one example, I heard a Taylor discussion on NPR the other day where the guest talked about her ability to maintain intimacy and connection and rapport while singing to 80,000 people on a Jumbotron. I think that's an interesting skill and I would like to know how to duplicate it. I've also heard discussions of ticket pricing and market concentration. I think her fucking an extroverted tight end for the Super Bowl champions is an interesting case study in the intersection of the purely private, marketing, and public relations.
Now to take your side I think People Magazine is entirely irrelevant. I don't care who is cheating on whom. I don't care who has gained five pounds. So if you were to restate your thesis as a probabilistic assessment and not an end point, zero one conclusion I would agree with you. I've assessed the chances of reading an article in People that interests me as statistically zero, so I don't bother. I've assessed the chances of picking up relevant information from a Taylor Swift story as higher than zero. You could theoretically read every single Taylor Swift article ever written, watch every single youtube clip, and come to the conclusion that it's all worthless. But to come to that conclusion without examination, perhaps based on a rule such as pop music aimed at sixteen year old white girls from the suburbs is silly and pointless, is not rational. It's the codification of a bias.
Quote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 02:17:26 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 02:07:11 PMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:25:29 PMHey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
You must have been perfect in your youth. I am very happy for you.
Always gotta go personal. Ironies of ironies I'm looking down on these kids when I'm stupid enough not to learn from my own mistakes. You're not worth talking to. Back on ignore.
The personal attack would have been saying you were the stupid one for calling hundreds of thousands of young people stupid.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2024, 03:02:33 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 02:07:11 PMQuote from: HVC on September 12, 2024, 12:25:29 PMHey, you're the one always rallying against America, the GOP and Trump in particular. These are 100 of thousands of people who saw Trump and decided not to vote. You see simple innocent disinterest, I see apathy to the level of stupidity *especially* when the trigger to vote is that their favourite singer told them they should vote. To each their own.
Good for them for voting for the democrats, but it could easily have gone to the other way if Taylor had endorsed the other side.
You must have been perfect in your youth. I am very happy for you.
WTF dude.
?
Do you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2024, 05:43:31 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 12, 2024, 08:18:39 AMI think this is spot on. It's been my belief for a while that one of the keys to being open-minded to good ideas to be close-minded to bad ones (of course, the trick is having a good judgment about which is which). In this case, it's not a matter of good or bad, but matter of relevant or not. There is a limited amount of attention to go around, so you have to prioritize.
I agree that some information is irrelevant. However it seems to me you're prejudging information about Taylor Swift as irrelevant without assessing it first.
To give one example, I heard a Taylor discussion on NPR the other day where the guest talked about her ability to maintain intimacy and connection and rapport while singing to 80,000 people on a Jumbotron. I think that's an interesting skill and I would like to know how to duplicate it. I've also heard discussions of ticket pricing and market concentration. I think her fucking an extroverted tight end for the Super Bowl champions is an interesting case study in the intersection of the purely private, marketing, and public relations.
Now to take your side I think People Magazine is entirely irrelevant. I don't care who is cheating on whom. I don't care who has gained five pounds. So if you were to restate your thesis as a probabilistic assessment and not an end point, zero one conclusion I would agree with you. I've assessed the chances of reading an article in People that interests me as statistically zero, so I don't bother. I've assessed the chances of picking up relevant information from a Taylor Swift story as higher than zero. You could theoretically read every single Taylor Swift article ever written, watch every single youtube clip, and come to the conclusion that it's all worthless. But to come to that conclusion without examination, perhaps based on a rule such as pop music aimed at sixteen year old white girls from the suburbs is silly and pointless, is not rational. It's the codification of a bias.
I'm a data scientist and a poker player, I think probabilistically about everything, even if I don't say so explicitly. As a human you make judgment calls all the time and make mistakes all the time, the only thing you can do is try to make the optimal decision with the information you have (and choosing to obtain more information is also a decision with costs). However, you still have to understand that making judgment calls is inevitable (not making it is a judgment call in its own right), and that you can only reduce the number of errors, never eliminate them.
Would you agree that the only sound basis for judgement is reason, logic, evidence, and data? And that judgement needs to be constantly tested to make sure you are not leading yourself astray?
Quote from: Josephus on September 12, 2024, 12:37:39 PMIs there anywhere she isn't popular?
Boca Chica (https://www.fancypantshomes.com/celebrity-homes/where-does-elon-musk-live-now/)
Republicans are having a meltdown.
(https://i.imgur.com/KqQSTLw.jpeg)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2024, 07:24:36 PMWould you agree that the only sound basis for judgement is reason, logic, evidence, and data? And that judgement needs to be constantly tested to make sure you are not leading yourself astray?
I guess. Where are you going with that?
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2024, 09:11:26 PMI guess. Where are you going with that?
I'm trying to bait you into describing your thought process for deciding if Taylor Swift's name was worth retaining or not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2024, 09:22:24 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 12, 2024, 09:11:26 PMI guess. Where are you going with that?
I'm trying to bait you into describing your thought process for deciding if Taylor Swift's name was worth retaining or not.
You can't always validate individual decisions, because some decision by their nature involve lack of interest in finding out more information, but you can sometimes validate the process.
For example, let's say you're interviewing candidates for a job. Sometimes, very often, you have to make a judgment call that a candidate is not a good fit. How do you know whether you got that call right? You don't, you have no idea how the candidate would've worked out. You can validate the other kind of error, hiring someone you thought was great but turns out to be a stinker, but that doesn't really tell you much about the first kind of error.
However, occasionally you do get a sense, such as when somebody else in your company still hires them, or you find it out in some other way. If it turns out that candidates that you reject turn out to be superstars often enough, then you have to question your process.
Does failing to know about someone who turned out to be a very famous person for 15 years make me question my process of filtering information? Not really. I have a feeling that when I'm on my deathbed, not finding out more about Taylor Swift earlier would not be at the top of my list of regrets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 12, 2024, 09:04:14 AMAmong the theories circulating in RW media are that Kamala used secret microphone earrings during the debate (where was Michael Spicer on debate night?) or that the Democrats used a body double. The level of insanity is off the charts. People on RW media have been so completely brainwashed into believing that KH is a gibbering fool incapable of verbal communication other than cackling that they were genuinely shocked when they got to view her speaking live on an unaltered video feed, as opposed to manipulated clips.
Although see also the conspiracy theories about - I think Bush but maybe Romney - wearing a receiver during their debate. I remember lots of pictures of their suit gathering at the back with circles saying it was the shape of a radio/receiver and they had an earpiece.
Nonsense but not necessarily new nonsense.
Quote:yeah: Swifties, save us!
They are also turning their righteous wrath on IS after a thwarted terrorist attack cancelled a Swift concert in Vienna. So I'm expecting at some point a flood of incredible open source intelligence about IS :lol:
QuotePersonally my struggle is the other way - I wish I could be less aware of Musk and all manner of other things, but awareness still seeps at rates beyond what I'd prefer.
Yeah I tend to find basically everything interesting. So shallow not deep, not great at particularly focused reading on a topic of interest but very, very broad :lol: And of course buying a book on x topic and having it on my shelf is, I find, about 75% of having read it so... :ph34r:
QuoteWould you agree that the only sound basis for judgement is reason, logic, evidence, and data?
Absolutely not. As the great Garret FitzGerald regularly asked as Taoiseach, "that's fine in practice, but will it work in theory?" (Ireland has never again elected someone with intellectual pretensions as Taoiseach...)
Evidence and data I agree with (I never really understand what people mean by reason, and as someone who works with European/civil law I'm actively hostile to logic :P) - but they're just components and there's many ways of reading and interpreting them.
There's different layers of things that require different judgements and different hermeneutics.
QuoteAnd that judgement needs to be constantly tested to make sure you are not leading yourself astray?
But totally agree with this.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Then you have not actually read what Taylor Swift posted. Nor have you actually been paying attention to what I've been posting since I explained what she posted.
She explicitly did not tell people how they should vote. She did explain why she is voting for Harris and she encouraged people to register to vote and then to vote the way they thought best.
You and HVC are creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist in order to fit your preconceived ideas of some stupid young woman who doesn't know her own mind.
The misogyny implicit in both of your views is rather disturbing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2024, 08:59:27 AMThen you have not actually read what Taylor Swift posted. Nor have you actually been paying attention to what I've been posting since I explained what she posted.
She explicitly did not tell people how they should vote. She did explain why she is voting for Harris and she encouraged people to register to vote and then to vote the way they thought best.
You and HVC are creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist in order to fit your preconceived ideas of some stupid young woman who doesn't know her own mind.
The misogyny implicit in both of your views is rather disturbing.
Your eagerness to build a strawman here is rather disturbing. Neither I nor HVC have said anything about Swift herself, which would have been obvious to you if you'd read what we actually posted, rather than just assuming we posted what you wanted to believe we posted.
I don't buy Dorsey4HeadCoach's that he did not know who was Travis Kelce.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2024, 08:59:27 AMQuote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Then you have not actually read what Taylor Swift posted. Nor have you actually been paying attention to what I've been posting since I explained what she posted.
She explicitly did not tell people how they should vote. She did explain why she is voting for Harris and she encouraged people to register to vote and then to vote the way they thought best.
You and HVC are creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist in order to fit your preconceived ideas of some stupid young woman who doesn't know her own mind.
The misogyny implicit in both of your views is rather disturbing.
You really are a contemptible petulant fuck.
after being informed that this was backroom info I've redacted*
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2024, 09:07:59 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2024, 08:59:27 AMQuote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Then you have not actually read what Taylor Swift posted. Nor have you actually been paying attention to what I've been posting since I explained what she posted.
She explicitly did not tell people how they should vote. She did explain why she is voting for Harris and she encouraged people to register to vote and then to vote the way they thought best.
You and HVC are creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist in order to fit your preconceived ideas of some stupid young woman who doesn't know her own mind.
The misogyny implicit in both of your views is rather disturbing.
You really are a contemptible petulant fuck. [edited]
Okay, simmer down.
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2024, 09:07:59 AMYou really are a contemptible petulant fuck. [edited]
Please stop escalating this. You've gone too far here. You can ignore CC and not see his posts any longer if you want to continue in this thread.
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Thousands of young people have signed up to vote. Whether they can get their arses off their phones on election day is another story altogether
Quote from: Josephus on September 13, 2024, 09:54:56 AMQuote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2024, 06:32:42 PMDo you also think that hundreds of thousands of young people are stupid simply because they have become politicized by this event?
Hundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
Thousands of young people have signed up to vote. Whether they can get their arses off their phones on election day is another story altogether
Taylor should tell them to vote early if allowed in their jurisdiction.
The Trumpist right takes an... interesting position here.
GOP-aligned super PAC seeks to exploit tensions in Michigan with ads highlighting Israel and Emhoff's Jewish faith
EDIT: Forgot the source https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/super-pac-michigan-kamala-harris-doug-emhoff/index.html
QuoteA super PAC with Republican ties is running digital ads in Michigan promoting the Jewish faith of Kamala Harris's husband and touting the vice president's support for Israel in an apparent play to undercut Harris with the battleground state's large Arab American population amid ongoing political fallout over the war in Gaza.
Future Coalition PAC has spent nearly $60,000 running several YouTube ads targeting Michigan, according to Google's Ads Transparency Center. Each of the ads emphatically states Harris' support for Israel, and many pointedly highlight her husband, Doug Emhoff, who is Jewish.
The ads, framed positively and accompanied by stirring music, would appear to be in support of Harris' presidential bid — but the group behind them and their precise targeting in battleground Michigan suggest a more cynical motive, as they appear aimed at stoking divisions spilling from the ongoing war in Gaza and undercutting Harris' efforts to patch up the fraying Democratic coalition that includes Arab American and Muslim voters in the Wolverine State.
Arab and Muslim Americans make up a substantial voting bloc in Michigan. In 2020, nearly 146,000 Muslim Americans voted in the general election in Michigan, according to an analysis by Emgage, a group working to grow Muslim Americans' political power. Joe Biden won the state by 150,000 votes four years ago. Polls have shown a close contest this year between Harris and former President Donald Trump.
One of the ads from the group homes in on Emhoff, including depicting images of the second gentleman wearing a yarmulke and of him visiting the Auschwitz concentration camp. "Kamala Harris is a strong leader for these difficult times. And joining Kamala will be her husband and top adviser, Doug Emhoff. Doug Emhoff, who would be the first Jewish presidential spouse ever. Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff: making history, standing up for what's right, supporting Israel."
Another one of the ads opens, "Vice President Harris has chosen a side, the right side. Harris has made herself clear: She stands with Israel and the Jewish people. She has, again and again. She understands the unbreakable bond between the US and Israel."
The ad continues, "So when (Israeli leader Benjamin) Netanyahu came to DC, Harris hosted the prime minister at the White House. And when supporters of a free Palestine stood up for Gaza, Harris put them in their place. And supporters of free Palestine? They hate her. Because Kamala Harris gets it. We can trust she'll always support Israel."
Other ads from the group contain similar themes. "This November, let's make history. Together, we will put a real pro-Israel president in the White House. And joining Kamala will be her husband and top advisor, Doug Emhoff, who would be the first Jewish presidential spouse ever. Only in America: Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff."
Formed earlier this month, Future Coalition PAC has not yet filed a report detailing its donors or fundraising with the Federal Election Commission. Other filings by the group, however, suggest its GOP links: The group lists as its assistant treasurer Cabell Hobbs, who served as the treasurer for a super PAC supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' 2024 presidential bid.
Not a new tactic - they did similar tactics with Black & Hispanic voters of saying one thing to them and another to non university educated white voters in the last election (and probably the one before too).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2024, 07:21:58 AMAbsolutely not. As the great Garret FitzGerald regularly asked as Taoiseach, "that's fine in practice, but will it work in theory?" (Ireland has never again elected someone with intellectual pretensions as Taoiseach...)
Evidence and data I agree with (I never really understand what people mean by reason, and as someone who works with European/civil law I'm actively hostile to logic :P) - but they're just components and there's many ways of reading and interpreting them.
There's different layers of things that require different judgements and different hermeneutics.
QuoteAnd that judgement needs to be constantly tested to make sure you are not leading yourself astray?
But totally agree with this.
What are the many other ways of reading and interpreting data and evidence other than reason and logic?
Echoes, relationships, analogy, theory, abstraction or the opposite of focusing extremely tightly on a single thing. All, I think, often a better way of engaging with the crooked timber or the contingencies and risks than reason (never sure what it means) or certainly logic.
Quote from: PJL on September 13, 2024, 10:42:09 AMNot a new tactic - they did similar tactics with Black & Hispanic voters of saying one thing to them and another to non university educated white voters in the last election (and probably the one before too).
Yeah, that's not what they are doing. They are posing as Democrats and praising a Democrat for her ties to Israel and her Jewish husband in front of a group of people not so keen on either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2024, 01:26:33 PMEchoes, relationships, analogy, theory, abstraction or the opposite of focusing extremely tightly on a single thing. All, I think, often a better way of engaging with the crooked timber or the contingencies and risks than reason (never sure what it means) or certainly logic.
I don't know what echoes means but everything else you listed in my mind falls squarely with the logic and reason circle.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2024, 01:27:04 PMQuote from: PJL on September 13, 2024, 10:42:09 AMNot a new tactic - they did similar tactics with Black & Hispanic voters of saying one thing to them and another to non university educated white voters in the last election (and probably the one before too).
Yeah, that's not what they are doing. They are posing as Democrats and praising a Democrat for her ties to Israel and her Jewish husband in front of a group of people not so keen on either.
Fair enough I was a bit quick to judge after just skimming the article. However, after reading the article more carefully I would argue that although the tactics are different than before, the strategy of saying one thing to one particular set of voters and another to another set is still the same. For example had the target been white non-university educated males, then they would have gone for the weak on Israel narrative. Basically, it's more nuanced this time.
In my observation, many of those who continually proclaim their commitment to reason and logic tend to be very rigorous in excluding data that doesn't fit neatly into their mental models due to ambiguity, uncertain provenance, discomfort with aspects of the data, etc. Similarly they'll often attempt to reframe questions into ones that are easily quantifiable and measurable, which not infrequently removes essential elements of the inquiry.
They often reach precise conclusions with high degrees of confidence, but because they've pruned the data inputs so severely to fit their mode of analysis and/ or reduced the question they're answering to one of easily enumerated and measurable quantities, those conclusions are not infrequently inapplicable or inaccurate to the actual question at hand.
That's not to say they aren't correct with some frequency, of course, but a vocal commitment to "logic" and "rationality" is not a predictor of higher rates of being correct from my point of view.
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2024, 09:07:59 AMYou really are a contemptible petulant fuck. [edited]
I'd like to remind everyone that public references (in OT, which is publicly viewable and searchable) to information shared in confidence in the back room (which is not publicly viewable and searchable) are not okay.
This is even more the case when it comes to using personal life references in an attack.
Quote from: HVC on September 13, 2024, 09:07:59 AMYou really are a contemptible petulant fuck. [edited]
I have CC on my ignore list for a reason (even though I reply to his posts more often than I should).
But that was kind of a low blow.
Bomb threats in OH against the people trying to protect the evil Haitian cat eaters.
So on Twitter I'm seeing a bunch of speculation that Trump is probably having some kind of affair with right-wing nut-job Laura Loomer. This of course is hardly much of a stretch to imagine given Trump's long history of affairs plus the fact Melania is basically never seen with him.
It's to the point I present to you a BBC article about the "influence" Loomer has over Trump, although a responsible news outlet like the BBC doesn't suggest a physical affair.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2024, 01:49:25 PMQuote from: HVC on September 13, 2024, 09:07:59 AMYou really are a contemptible petulant fuck. [edited]
I'd like to remind everyone that public references (in OT, which is publicly viewable and searchable) to information shared in confidence in the back room (which is not publicly viewable and searchable) are not okay.
This is even more the case when it comes to using personal life references in an attack.
I was referring to HVC's comments this thread.
And what personal life references are you even talking about?
Meanwhile the pope hedges his bets. Tells US Catholics that abortion is bad but so is the Republican stance on migration.
So basically he's letting American Catholics vote for either party with a clear conscience
Quote from: Josephus on September 13, 2024, 09:54:56 AMThousands of young people have signed up to vote. Whether they can get their arses off their phones on election day is another story altogether
If they have indeed been politicized, they will be carefully looking at all the down-ballot races as well.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2024, 03:13:15 PMSo on Twitter I'm seeing a bunch of speculation that Trump is probably having some kind of affair with right-wing nut-job Laura Loomer. This of course is hardly much of a stretch to imagine given Trump's long history of affairs plus the fact Melania is basically never seen with him.
It's to the point I present to you a BBC article about the "influence" Loomer has over Trump, although a responsible news outlet like the BBC doesn't suggest a physical affair.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo
Thanks for the share. I'd not been aware of her. She's so stupid that even Margorie Taylor Greene noticed!
I get that it's such a bizarre thing to say it is funny but it is a blood libel and will result in violent persecution of Haitians. And he has basically promised a pogrom against these people if he wins.
I don't find it funny. Even by my very low expectations of Donnie he has sunk to a whole new disgusting low.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2024, 06:52:41 PM
Audio on.
:lmfao: Sometimes good things come from the unlikeliest places.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2024, 03:13:15 PMSo on Twitter I'm seeing a bunch of speculation that Trump is probably having some kind of affair with right-wing nut-job Laura Loomer. This of course is hardly much of a stretch to imagine given Trump's long history of affairs plus the fact Melania is basically never seen with him.
It's to the point I present to you a BBC article about the "influence" Loomer has over Trump, although a responsible news outlet like the BBC doesn't suggest a physical affair.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo
Seems an odd choice for him. She isn't blonde or young. Maybe he's changing things up out of spite now that Ivanka hasn't been as vocal in supporting him this run?
Quote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMHundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
I think one of the issues for the modern (and probably historical) youth vote, or lack there of, is a sense of disenfranchisement in terms of actual power and influence. As such, a lot of them tune out and just accept that whatever happens in elections will happen and their best bets to make a change are protests and the like. When a celebrity they care about calls for action, though, it can shake them from their indifference and jaded resignation to make the effort to vote. Maybe. Just going with what I've seen and heard personally and applying that anecdotal evidence to possibly explain the wider trend.
Donnie triples down on Haitian pet eaters. He wants mass deportations from Springfield OH.
Here comes the pogrom.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 13, 2024, 09:08:06 PMQuote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMHundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
I think one of the issues for the modern (and probably historical) youth vote, or lack there of, is a sense of disenfranchisement in terms of actual power and influence. As such, a lot of them tune out and just accept that whatever happens in elections will happen and their best bets to make a change are protests and the like. When a celebrity they care about calls for action, though, it can shake them from their indifference and jaded resignation to make the effort to vote. Maybe. Just going with what I've seen and heard personally and applying that anecdotal evidence to possibly explain the wider trend.
Yes. I think there's a lot of this. It's key to how far right -footsoldiers work really with their big focus on intimidation and spewing forth nonsense about how everyone they meet says they love trump.
The aim is to build up this sense of helplessness and suppress the vote of their opponents.
When you've someone with a big following pushing the other way then people will feel it's not just them and it's a lot more worth their while, both in terms of just laziness and perceived safety, to do something.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2024, 01:43:51 PMIn my observation, many of those who continually proclaim their commitment to reason and logic tend to be very rigorous in excluding data that doesn't fit neatly into their mental models due to ambiguity, uncertain provenance, discomfort with aspects of the data, etc. Similarly they'll often attempt to reframe questions into ones that are easily quantifiable and measurable, which not infrequently removes essential elements of the inquiry.
They often reach precise conclusions with high degrees of confidence, but because they've pruned the data inputs so severely to fit their mode of analysis and/ or reduced the question they're answering to one of easily enumerated and measurable quantities, those conclusions are not infrequently inapplicable or inaccurate to the actual question at hand.
That's not to say they aren't correct with some frequency, of course, but a vocal commitment to "logic" and "rationality" is not a predictor of higher rates of being correct from my point of view.
Yes. It's possibly just my experience of having been on the internet for 25 years but it's why I say I don't really know what people mean by "reason" as it normally seems to me to be away of proclaiming superiority of your view (and the way you reached it) v anyone else.
Admittedly being online during the New Atheism debates and on a forum with Martinus may have shaped that perception :lol:
QuoteI don't know what echoes means but everything else you listed in my mind falls squarely with the logic and reason circle.
Echoes are exactly what they sound like.
I think this may be semantic again. I hear logic I think logic tree, code or even a contract "if this then this" etc. And in some settings, like a contract, I see the value but struggle elsewhere. Very different from abstraction or analogy.
QuoteI think one of the issues for the modern (and probably historical) youth vote, or lack there of, is a sense of disenfranchisement in terms of actual power and influence. As such, a lot of them tune out and just accept that whatever happens in elections will happen and their best bets to make a change are protests and the like. When a celebrity they care about calls for action, though, it can shake them from their indifference and jaded resignation to make the effort to vote. Maybe. Just going with what I've seen and heard personally and applying that anecdotal evidence to possibly explain the wider trend.
I think there's a lot to that. It's totally European and not really focused on young people's vote (as opposed to voting in generally which has also collapsed) but Peter Mair's Ruling the Void is very good on this. Many contributing factors.
I think there's also some protests which are an effective alternative way of doing politics but I think sometimes protests can also be a replacement of politics (meaning a collective way of achieving change).
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 13, 2024, 09:04:53 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 13, 2024, 03:13:15 PMSo on Twitter I'm seeing a bunch of speculation that Trump is probably having some kind of affair with right-wing nut-job Laura Loomer. This of course is hardly much of a stretch to imagine given Trump's long history of affairs plus the fact Melania is basically never seen with him.
It's to the point I present to you a BBC article about the "influence" Loomer has over Trump, although a responsible news outlet like the BBC doesn't suggest a physical affair.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8y27dwgpo
Seems an odd choice for him. She isn't blonde or young. Maybe he's changing things up out of spite now that Ivanka hasn't been as vocal in supporting him this run?
He's old and he's nearly broke. Only the GOP funds are maintaining him alive.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 13, 2024, 09:08:06 PMQuote from: grumbler on September 12, 2024, 06:43:12 PMHundreds of thousands of young people have not become become politicized by this event, based on the info we have to date. Hundreds of thousands of young people have decided that they will vote for whomever Taylor Swift tells them to vote for. Not necessarily "stupid" but certainly very far from wise.
I think one of the issues for the modern (and probably historical) youth vote, or lack there of, is a sense of disenfranchisement in terms of actual power and influence. As such, a lot of them tune out and just accept that whatever happens in elections will happen and their best bets to make a change are protests and the like. When a celebrity they care about calls for action, though, it can shake them from their indifference and jaded resignation to make the effort to vote. Maybe. Just going with what I've seen and heard personally and applying that anecdotal evidence to possibly explain the wider trend.
It's not really knew.
I remember such ads for Canadian politics using celebrities, or music videos by celebrities to incite people to vote. I'm quite certain Canada did not invent this and we mimicked the US.
Of course, using celebrities to support a specific political party has always been done.
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2024, 03:19:41 PMIt's not really knew.
I remember such ads for Canadian politics using celebrities, or music videos by celebrities to incite people to vote. I'm quite certain Canada did not invent this and we mimicked the US.
Of course, using celebrities to support a specific political party has always been done.
Yeah, MTV used to do a "Rock the Vote!" campaign every major election year if memory serves. The Chris Farley/David Spade movie Black Sheep has a piece where they partake in one such rally.
On musicians and politics I looked up Red Wedge and discovered that The Smiths did the odd gig for them. Fair to say Morrissey's views have developed :ph34r: :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2024, 03:58:47 PMOn musicians and politics I looked up Red Wedge and discovered that The Smiths did the odd gig for them. Fair to say Morrissey's views have developed :ph34r: :bleeding:
Johnny Marr in response to the Oasis reunion being asked if the smiths would do the same - only with Nigel Farage on guitar.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 14, 2024, 03:27:00 PMQuote from: viper37 on September 14, 2024, 03:19:41 PMIt's not really knew.
I remember such ads for Canadian politics using celebrities, or music videos by celebrities to incite people to vote. I'm quite certain Canada did not invent this and we mimicked the US.
Of course, using celebrities to support a specific political party has always been done.
Yeah, MTV used to do a "Rock the Vote!" campaign every major election year if memory serves. The Chris Farley/David Spade movie Black Sheep has a piece where they partake in one such rally.
Reflecting on this, I believe the difference is with social media, stars can address their public more directly now.
Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, it's more direct and less costly than doing a tv/radio spot. Or publishing a column in a specialized magazine.
It also seemed to have signaled the death of the public service announcements: can't remember the last time I saw a message about voting from out chief electoral officer, for instance.
I think I heard on NPR that Trump wants to end taxation on overtime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2024, 07:27:07 PMI think I heard on NPR that Trump wants to end taxation on overtime.
Yeah he promised shit like that last time and then weirdly his tax bill, one of the few big pieces of legislation he passed, did none of them.
Shots fired "in Trump's vicinity" at one of his golf courses.
Source looks dodgy but another random dude referenced a CNN report saying the same thing.
Seems like secret service shot at the guy after spotting his AK poking out from the bushes, guy fled and was later arrested.
Very fortunate for Trump, his debate performance will not be discussed any longer.
Jesus fucking Christ
This shit really needs to stop.
Quote from: Tamas on September 15, 2024, 04:58:06 PMSeems like secret service shot at the guy after spotting his AK poking out from the bushes, guy fled and was later arrested.
Very fortunate for Trump, his debate performance will not be discussed any longer.
Pretty wild considering Florida is an open carry state. The SS overcorrecting after the last "attempt"? The guy appears to be a big anti-vaxxer independent who voted for Trump in the past according to initial reports.
Tomorrow we will be awash in stories about how Zelensky put the hit out on Trump.
The thing about conspiracy theorists is they eventually turn their conspiracies against you.
Or at least my conspiracy theory brother-in-law did, which is why he is no longer my brother-in-law.
Trump is trying to ride the conspiracy train to power...
I mean, technically it isn't a legit assassination attempt, is it? The guy had a gun in an open carry state, didn't fire any shots, fled when shot at, and wasn't there when Trump was.
Also, especially wild an anti-vaxxer would go after Trump given his history plus he recent addition of super anti-vaxxer RFK, Jr. to his Legion of Doom.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 15, 2024, 07:56:45 PMAlso, especially wild an anti-vaxxer would go after Trump given his history
Well that is the thing. Trump is not actually an anti-vaxxer. They are mad at him for Operation Warpspeed. And who knows where else their batshit imaginations go from there.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 15, 2024, 07:46:54 PMPretty wild considering Florida is an open carry state. The SS overcorrecting after the last "attempt"? The guy appears to be a big anti-vaxxer independent who voted for Trump in the past according to initial reports.
Thank God.
Don't be thankful yet. He's pretty anti-Trump now. He tried to go to Ukraine to fight but was turned down cause he was old and had no military experience.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2024, 08:45:03 PMHe's pretty anti-Trump now.
I figured that out by myself.
Can you open carry an AK in Florida? If yes, how can they prosecute the guy if he denies the obvious? Seems like he was outside of the golf club and didn't actually shoot a single round.
I've been wondering about that too. Does open carry suddenly become illegal if an ex-president suddenly turns up within half a mile?
Promises to be an interesting case if he gets a half decent lawyer.
Dude innocently disobeying no laws gets assaulted by the secret service....
Of course the obvious lessons won't be learned by those who need them, instead it'll be some paranoid crap about the deep state.
I suppose there is probably a proviso that you carry your gun safely; ie slung on your shoulder or pointing at the ground :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2024, 08:07:08 PMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on September 15, 2024, 07:56:45 PMAlso, especially wild an anti-vaxxer would go after Trump given his history
Well that is the thing. Trump is not actually an anti-vaxxer.
No but he has been playing one on TV.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2024, 02:50:26 AMI've been wondering about that too. Does open carry suddenly become illegal if an ex-president suddenly turns up within half a mile?
If his intent was to commit a crime, then yes. Any tangible step - criminal or not - taken to complete the crime would then be sufficient to establish the crime of attempt. That's state law, there also may be some federal stuff about threats to the President (including former presidents or candidates), for which state carry laws would be irrelevant. Not a lot of experience in that area, the Presidential assassination bar is still pretty small, thank God.
What I mean is, what if he says he was just camping? What's the proof beside being a lunatic, that he was out to kill Trump?
Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2024, 04:15:09 PMWhat I mean is, what if he says he was just camping? What's the proof beside being a lunatic, that he was out to kill Trump?
As in so many things - the grounds for arrest aren't necessarily the same as grounds for a conviction.
We'll see what comes out. But certainly doesn't sound the like the secret service should have just let this guy continue to crouch in the bushes with his AR-15.
Edit: Not an AR-15. He was using an SKS, which was a AK-47 precursor.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2024, 04:27:17 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 16, 2024, 04:15:09 PMWhat I mean is, what if he says he was just camping? What's the proof beside being a lunatic, that he was out to kill Trump?
As in so many things - the grounds for arrest aren't necessarily the same as grounds for a conviction.
We'll see what comes out. But certainly doesn't sound the like the secret service should have just let this guy continue to crouch in the bushes with his AR-15.
This is true.
But.
America.
Surely if you don't want crazy guys hanging around with assault rifles then you have laws against that.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2024, 04:27:17 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 16, 2024, 04:15:09 PMWhat I mean is, what if he says he was just camping? What's the proof beside being a lunatic, that he was out to kill Trump?
As in so many things - the grounds for arrest aren't necessarily the same as grounds for a conviction.
We'll see what comes out. But certainly doesn't sound the like the secret service should have just let this guy continue to crouch in the bushes with his AR-15.
Well agree but Florida law is very pro people just walking around in public heavily armed.
Not that I am passing too much judgement, living over here in Texas.
Quote from: Josquius on September 16, 2024, 06:07:21 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 16, 2024, 04:27:17 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 16, 2024, 04:15:09 PMWhat I mean is, what if he says he was just camping? What's the proof beside being a lunatic, that he was out to kill Trump?
As in so many things - the grounds for arrest aren't necessarily the same as grounds for a conviction.
We'll see what comes out. But certainly doesn't sound the like the secret service should have just let this guy continue to crouch in the bushes with his AR-15.
This is true.
But.
America.
Surely if you don't want crazy guys hanging around with assault rifles then you have laws against that.
See it's the Democrats who think obviously insane and violent people shouldn't have guns. We are trying to save your life Donnie!
Quote from: Tamas on September 16, 2024, 04:15:09 PMWhat I mean is, what if he says he was just camping?
He's certainly free to try out that defense. I wouldn't put any big bets on an acquittal.
Reposting here as it seems relevant, what with Musk tapped for Trump's next administration.
(https://i.imgur.com/d62nUUP.png)
He's deleted it now.
The BBC says that the US secret service is "aware" of the tweet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74882jq39vo
"After deleting the post, Mr Musk tweeted that "one lesson I've learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn't mean it's going to be all that hilarious as a post on X."
"Turns out that jokes are way less funny if people don't know the context and the delivery is in plain text," a subsequent post read."
Aye, who knew :lol: ??
Jesus Christ what a dork
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 17, 2024, 08:04:10 AMThe BBC says that the US secret service is "aware" of the tweet.
That's reassuring.
Yeah, there were people tagging FBI, CIA, NSA in retweets pointing out that this is from a U.S. government contractor. :P
Hanging out with the people Musk hangs out with must be horrible. Better than hanging out with Musk, but horrible.
Quote from: The Brain on September 17, 2024, 10:02:57 AMHanging out with the people Musk hangs out with must be horrible. Better than hanging out with Musk, but horrible.
Maybe he hangs with his employees. If I worked for him, I'd laugh at anything he says as well. Well, I'll laugh at anything he intends to be a joke. But how would I know? :hmm: Hmm, maybe it's not as simple as I thought...
Long-read from Springfield, Ohio:
https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/wanderland/exotic-cat-eaters-springfield-ohio/
I think the money quote is:
QuoteThe case against the Haitians isn't that they are welfare malingers or cat-eaters—or even that they are illegal immigrants who came here thanks to Joe Biden's lax border enforcement, which most of them aren't. The real issue is that by working overtime and investing in the community, they have made life more challenging for a reliable Trump-voting constituency: marginally employed white people on the dole.
Just so you know the source - The Dispatch was formed by former National Review writers but Trump skeptics (though not to the point they would endorse Harris). The writer Kevin Williamson is another former National Review writer. He was perhaps most famous for being hired, then within days fired, by the NYT once they discovered he was actually
pro-life :o
Forced-Birth.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2024, 11:26:16 AMForced-Birth.
So the point is the NY Times wanted to get more diversity of opinion in it's opinion writers so hired Williamson, then quickly turned around and fired him within days after a Twitter controversy showed he actually had a different opinion.
He's a good writer even if I don't agree with everything he writes - just read the article.
Edit: it's a very pro-immigrant piece, but I like that he doesn't quite shy away from the problems a lot of Haitian migrants coming to Springfield brings. Chief amongst them? Apparently Haitians are, in general, terrible drivers. Really - he comes to this point a few times, including from Haitians themselves.
Probably obvious to say but the eating of cats is NOT one of those problems.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 11:35:06 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2024, 11:26:16 AMForced-Birth.
So the point is the NY Times wanted to get more diversity of opinion in it's opinion writers so hired Williamson, then quickly turned around and fired him within days after a Twitter controversy showed he actually had a different opinion.
He's a good writer even if I don't agree with everything he writes - just read the article.
Edit: it's a very pro-immigrant piece, but I like that he doesn't quite shy away from the problems a lot of Haitian migrants coming to Springfield brings. Chief amongst them? Apparently Haitians are, in general, terrible drivers. Really - he comes to this point a few times, including from Haitians themselves.
Probably obvious to say but the eating of cats is NOT one of those problems.
If they had wanted diversity of opinion and then fired someone when they found out he wad racist would that be worthy of derision?
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:05:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 11:35:06 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2024, 11:26:16 AMForced-Birth.
So the point is the NY Times wanted to get more diversity of opinion in it's opinion writers so hired Williamson, then quickly turned around and fired him within days after a Twitter controversy showed he actually had a different opinion.
He's a good writer even if I don't agree with everything he writes - just read the article.
Edit: it's a very pro-immigrant piece, but I like that he doesn't quite shy away from the problems a lot of Haitian migrants coming to Springfield brings. Chief amongst them? Apparently Haitians are, in general, terrible drivers. Really - he comes to this point a few times, including from Haitians themselves.
Probably obvious to say but the eating of cats is NOT one of those problems.
If they had wanted diversity of opinion and then fired someone when they found out he wad racist would that be worthy of derision?
That depends if you equate being pro-life with being racist.
I don't.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 12:09:44 PMQuote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:05:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 11:35:06 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on September 17, 2024, 11:26:16 AMForced-Birth.
So the point is the NY Times wanted to get more diversity of opinion in it's opinion writers so hired Williamson, then quickly turned around and fired him within days after a Twitter controversy showed he actually had a different opinion.
He's a good writer even if I don't agree with everything he writes - just read the article.
Edit: it's a very pro-immigrant piece, but I like that he doesn't quite shy away from the problems a lot of Haitian migrants coming to Springfield brings. Chief amongst them? Apparently Haitians are, in general, terrible drivers. Really - he comes to this point a few times, including from Haitians themselves.
Probably obvious to say but the eating of cats is NOT one of those problems.
If they had wanted diversity of opinion and then fired someone when they found out he wad racist would that be worthy of derision?
That depends if you equate being pro-life with being racist.
I don't.
My point was that you can want diversity of opinion and still see some opinions as beyond the pale.
For the US, I think 'forced birth' is probably a more accurate description than 'pro-life' given that most holding that view in the US are also in favour of cutting programmes that would keep those children out of poverty. Apart from concerns that Dems want to murder babies as soon as they are born, they don't seem to care much about those 'lives' after the birth event.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:13:52 PMMy point was that you can want diversity of opinion and still see some opinions as beyond the pale.
For the US, I think 'forced birth' is probably a more accurate description than 'pro-life' given that most holding that view in the US are also in favour of cutting programmes that would keep those children out of poverty. Apart from concerns that Dems want to murder babies as soon as they are born, they don't seem to care much about those 'lives' after the birth event.
Your point was extremely obvious and I certainly got it.
I had thought my response was equally obvious.
Some opinions can and should be "beyond the pale". Racism is probably one of them - I don't want to see opinion pieces about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites in the New York Times.
Such "beyond the pale" positions should be quite narrowly construed, and I don't think abortion is one of them. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on abortion.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 12:20:59 PMQuote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:13:52 PMMy point was that you can want diversity of opinion and still see some opinions as beyond the pale.
For the US, I think 'forced birth' is probably a more accurate description than 'pro-life' given that most holding that view in the US are also in favour of cutting programmes that would keep those children out of poverty. Apart from concerns that Dems want to murder babies as soon as they are born, they don't seem to care much about those 'lives' after the birth event.
Your point was extremely obvious and I certainly got it.
I had thought my response was equally obvious.
Some opinions can and should be "beyond the pale". Racism is probably one of them - I don't want to see opinion pieces about how blacks are genetically inferior to whites in the New York Times.
Such "beyond the pale" positions should be quite narrowly construed, and I don't think abortion is one of them. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on abortion.
And their opinion was different from yours.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:24:40 PMAnd their opinion was different from yours.
I'm confident that Kevin Williamson's position on abortion is different than mine.
Remember I subscribe to the Clintonian "safe, legal and rare" formulation on the topic.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 12:27:40 PMQuote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 12:24:40 PMAnd their opinion was different from yours.
Remember I subscribe to the Clintonian "safe, legal and rare" formulation on the topic.
But what is rare?
Quebec has 20 000 - 25 000 abortions per year. Ontario 30 000 - 45 000. For Canada, it's roughly 100 000 per year. Is that rare? We are now 40 000 000 people living here.
https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf
You create the rareness with a robust birth control and sex education program. Though I know a lot of work needs to be done there. Ideally, though not entirely practically possible, nobody should ever have an unwanted pregnancy.
I presume it is better for ones physical and mental health to just not have abortions because they are not necessary yes? But I admit I haven't really looked into those issues.
You might as well say basically any form of surgery should be safe, legal and rare though.
It'd be great if nobody got hit by trucks, fell off ladders, cut their hand with a saw, etc...
Quote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:21:22 PMYou might as well say basically any form of surgery should be safe, legal and rare though.
It'd be great if nobody got hit by trucks, fell off ladders, cut their hand with a saw, etc...
Yes...and?
Of course there is not a powerful political force out there trying to prevent people from getting surgery to repair ones hand. Not yet anyway, who would have thought there would be a powerful political force out there trying to get whooping cough and measles out there again?
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 12:20:59 PMSuch "beyond the pale" positions should be quite narrowly construed, and I don't think abortion is one of them. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on abortion.
I thought similarly.
But the horror show that has unfolded in the US since Roe was overturned is narrowing the scope of reasonable opinion on the issue as I see it. The theory that it is possible to have a pro-life policy with strong supports in place and respect and compassion for women simply does not reflect any remotely achievable reality, at least not in America. And that means continuing to embrace a pro life policy entails very ugly consequences.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2024, 02:09:32 PMYou create the rareness with a robust birth control and sex education program. Though I know a lot of work needs to be done there. Ideally, though not entirely practically possible, nobody should ever have an unwanted pregnancy.
I agree.
Quebec has much less abortion than Ontario, almost half has less for the later years, but we have more than half the population. Sex ed has been a part of education program for a long while.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2024, 02:24:38 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 17, 2024, 02:21:22 PMYou might as well say basically any form of surgery should be safe, legal and rare though.
It'd be great if nobody got hit by trucks, fell off ladders, cut their hand with a saw, etc...
Yes...and?
Of course there is not a powerful political force out there trying to prevent people from getting surgery to repair ones hand. Not yet anyway, who would have thought there would be a powerful political force out there trying to get whooping cough and measles out there again?
Whooping cough is out there. I had it this year. :p
But yes. Thats where the weirdness of this expression comes in. You want any surgery to be rare obviously. Why even state it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2024, 03:12:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 12:20:59 PMSuch "beyond the pale" positions should be quite narrowly construed, and I don't think abortion is one of them. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on abortion.
I thought similarly.
But the horror show that has unfolded in the US since Roe was overturned is narrowing the scope of reasonable opinion on the issue as I see it. The theory that it is possible to have a pro-life policy with strong supports in place and respect and compassion for women simply does not reflect any remotely achievable reality, at least not in America. And that means continuing to embrace a pro life policy entails very ugly consequences.
So look - the extremes on either side are kind of horrible. On the pro-life side you do yes hear about women going into sepsis due to miscarriages that doctors are refusing to treat. On the pro-choice side you do hear about extremely late-term abortions. The fact that either of those scenarios are rare does not mean that either is acceptable (in my opinion).
That doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, have the conversation.
And just so my position can be clear - I support robust sex ed, easy access to contraceptives, easy access to "morning after" medication, strong maternity leave and early child care, promotion of adoption, and an absolute ban on late-term abortions except in case of the health of the mother. But you can hate/disagree with me all you want - the conversation is worth having.
Define "late term abortion".
Rational people discussing this mean like 20 weeks.
Politically it is pushed by the anti choice bunch to mean 38 weeks.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 03:30:36 PMSo look - the extremes on either side are kind of horrible. On the pro-life side you do yes hear about women going into sepsis due to miscarriages that doctors are refusing to treat. On the pro-choice side you do hear about extremely late-term abortions. The fact that either of those scenarios are rare does not mean that either is acceptable (in my opinion).
Roe v Wade avoided both of those scenarios.
Roe v Wade did result in bans on late-term abortions except for the health of the mother, but even after it was struck down the number of late-term abortions hasn't gone up. If a woman has been voluntarily carrying her pregnancy for eight months, she's not going to want to get an abortion in the ninth.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2024, 03:12:38 PMBut the horror show that has unfolded in the US since Roe was overturned is narrowing the scope of reasonable opinion on the issue as I see it. The theory that it is possible to have a pro-life policy with strong supports in place and respect and compassion for women simply does not reflect any remotely achievable reality, at least not in America. And that means continuing to embrace a pro life policy entails very ugly consequences.
The theory that it is possible to have a pro-choice policy with strong supports and respect and compassion for the fetus simply does not reflect any remotely achievable reality, at least not in America. And that means continuing to embrace a pro choice policy entails very ugly consequences.
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2024, 03:38:53 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 03:30:36 PMSo look - the extremes on either side are kind of horrible. On the pro-life side you do yes hear about women going into sepsis due to miscarriages that doctors are refusing to treat. On the pro-choice side you do hear about extremely late-term abortions. The fact that either of those scenarios are rare does not mean that either is acceptable (in my opinion).
Roe v Wade avoided both of those scenarios.
Roe v Wade did result in bans on late-term abortions except for the health of the mother, but even after it was struck down the number of late-term abortions hasn't gone up. If a woman has been voluntarily carrying her pregnancy for eight months, she's not going to want to get an abortion in the ninth.
So the problem with Roe v Wade is not that it struck the wrong balance. I mean you can quibble, but the justices were trying to strike a reasonable compromise.
The problem with Roe v Wade is that they read in a right to abortion into a constitution that clearly had never contemplated such a thing, which had the effect of politicizing the court for the next 50 years (and is still ongoing).
Quote from: grumbler on September 17, 2024, 03:38:53 PMRoe v Wade avoided both of those scenarios.
'
Exactly. And that is why the decision came to enjoy such broad public support.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 11:13:31 AMJust so you know the source - The Dispatch was formed by former National Review writers but Trump skeptics (though not to the point they would endorse Harris). The writer Kevin Williamson is another former National Review writer. He was perhaps most famous for being hired, then within days fired, by the NYT once they discovered he was actually pro-life :o
Two things:
1) It was The Atlantic he was briefly employed by, not the NYT.
2) He was let go because he suggested that women who have abortions should be hanged. That is not just a matter of being pro-birth. That is an absolute fringe and horrible belief. He even doubled down on it.
To save the effort of linking all of the articles, I'm going to commit the sin of linking the wiki which has links to a host of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_D._Williamson
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 17, 2024, 04:19:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 11:13:31 AMJust so you know the source - The Dispatch was formed by former National Review writers but Trump skeptics (though not to the point they would endorse Harris). The writer Kevin Williamson is another former National Review writer. He was perhaps most famous for being hired, then within days fired, by the NYT once they discovered he was actually pro-life :o
Two things:
1) It was The Atlantic he was briefly employed by, not the NYT.
2) He was let go because he suggested that women who have abortions should be hanged. That is not just a matter of being pro-birth. That is an absolute fringe and horrible belief. He even doubled down on it.
To save the effort of linking all of the articles, I'm going to commit the sin of linking the wiki which has links to a host of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_D._Williamson
While I will acknowledge Wiki's short-comings, I will not mock anyone for linking to it. :hug:
I will also acknowledge my mis-remembering and confusing The Atlantic with the NYT. I may have been confused with Williamson's one-time NR colleague David French, who did in fact go to the NYT (despite some over-the-top criticism of him for his pro-life position).
Finally, and to engage with Williamson's actual argument on abortion - I don't think it's 100% fair to say that he was genuinely saying that women who have abortions should be hanged. I mean he wasn't going at it like a Swiftian "Modest Proposal" either, but rather that for most pro-life advocates they would say that "abortion is murder". but while they would say that perhaps doctors should be punished for performing abortions, they wouldn't really deal with what should be done with the women. He was more being contrarian in that "look, if we say that abortion is murder, shouldn't we actually act like it?". And in particular when he talked about "hanging" he said "look if the state is going to use violence, let's not obfuscate what we're doing". (quotes are not quotes, only my summarization".
Like I said, Williamson's position isn't my own. But his position was pretty clearly in the public record, so it spoke poorly of The Atlantic (which I otherwise quite enjoy) that they caved to public pressure so quickly over something that should have been obvious.
And to go even further back - my point was simply to point out a really well-written article about migrants in Springfield, Ohio, from a person very clearly Of The Right who nevertheless was not taking any bullshit from JD Vance or Trump.
No thank you, Beeb, for bringing such trash to our consciousness.
<delete>
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2024, 04:35:33 PMNo thank you, Beeb, for bringing such trash to our consciousness.
Well fuck you too, you fucking fuckheaded fuck. :hug:
The Editor-in-Chief of said National Review, Rich Lowry, had quite the little slip up in language on The Megyn Kelly Show while talking about the Hatian migrants.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/17/g-s1-23411/rich-lowry-national-review-haitian-migrants-racial-slur
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 17, 2024, 04:19:04 PMTwo things:
1) It was The Atlantic he was briefly employed by, not the NYT.
2) He was let go because he suggested that women who have abortions should be hanged. That is not just a matter of being pro-birth. That is an absolute fringe and horrible belief. He even doubled down on it.
To save the effort of linking all of the articles, I'm going to commit the sin of linking the wiki which has links to a host of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_D._Williamson
I skimmed the wiki, and hit the #13 reference link, the one about Kevin wants to execute women who have an abortion. That one didn't show me said that, it claimed he did. I followed a link in that article and got the same thing. Can you direct my search to where he actually says it?
Here's one that covers some things. Is mediamatters an ok source for you? Do you want me to do more googling for you? It appears the original tweets have been lost or deleted. It was a decade ago and lots of older posts have been lost under Elon's reign, but there seem to be numerous articles all mentioning it and agreeing on the details.
https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/kevin-williamson-also-said-his-podcast-people-whove-had-abortions-should-be-hanged
I don't know Mediamatters. But I do know The Atlantic, and that's good enough for me.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 17, 2024, 04:45:42 PMThe Editor-in-Chief of said National Review, Rich Lowry, had quite the little slip up in language on The Megyn Kelly Show while talking about the Hatian migrants.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/17/g-s1-23411/rich-lowry-national-review-haitian-migrants-racial-slur
:pinch:
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 17, 2024, 04:45:42 PMThe Editor-in-Chief of said National Review, Rich Lowry, had quite the little slip up in language on The Megyn Kelly Show while talking about the Hatian migrants.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/17/g-s1-23411/rich-lowry-national-review-haitian-migrants-racial-slur
He forgot to use the code word. It was only a matter of time I guess.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 03:57:24 PMSo the problem with Roe v Wade is not that it struck the wrong balance. I mean you can quibble, but the justices were trying to strike a reasonable compromise.
The problem with Roe v Wade is that they read in a right to abortion into a constitution that clearly had never contemplated such a thing, which had the effect of politicizing the court for the next 50 years (and is still ongoing).
The reason why a right to privacy was not explicitly written into the Constitution was that everyone involved understood that that (like, say, an also-unenumerated right to self defense) it was so basic that it didn't need to be enumerated.
And the politicization of the court started long before RvW.
You know I feel like I need to take another break from Languish.
I post a link to what I think is a really well written article )incidentally one highly critical of Trump). An article I think nobody on Languish would actually disagree with. But because I know what pinheads certain people are around here, I even comment on who the author is, just trying to forestall criticism.
And now two pages of people shitting on the author (and me for posting it), and not a single post commenting on the substance of the article itself.
I talked before about Languish being a "elbows up" free speech zone. I don't think anyone here should be banned for shitting on me. I just question why I stay here to be shat upon. You guys do you.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 09:30:19 PMYou know I feel like I need to take another break from Languish.
I post a link to what I think is a really well written article )incidentally one highly critical of Trump). An article I think nobody on Languish would actually disagree with. But because I know what pinheads certain people are around here, I even comment on who the author is, just trying to forestall criticism.
And now two pages of people shitting on the author (and me for posting it), and not a single post commenting on the substance of the article itself.
I talked before about Languish being a "elbows up" free speech zone. I don't think anyone here should be banned for shitting on me. I just question why I stay here to be shat upon. You guys do you.
Wow ok. I think you made a mistake by not only commenting on it but highlighting the issue thus drawing everybody to it. I didn't even know why we were discussing abortion and just kind of joined in.
Yeah I hate it when you come in with a discussion you want to have and then it deviates off into some other realm.
As for the article: I didn't want to shit too much on the idiots who started this rumor, the marginally employed white people on the dole referenced in the article, but rather the irresponsible politicians who attempt to empower their idiocy for political gain. And now we have Syt's relatives spreading it. This is on Donald Trump, without him this blood libel wasn't going anywhere.
Anyway I always miss you when you are not around. Hope you come back and see us soon.
I'm more than happy to shit on the idiots who started this rumor. People have a right to be ignorant but they don't have a right to be ignorant *and* angry.
Beeb, I think you're overreacting. Grabon chose to dispute your characterization of pro life as within the pale. You put that argument out there, that The Atlantic demonstrated their close mindedness by firing him.
Then Sophie demonstrated he's not just pro life, he's mega pro life. So your characterization of the firing wasn't really accurate to begin with.
On the original goose story, I've seen different narratives about civic minded Haitians picking up road kill to keep streets clean and grabbing geese out of a lake to eat. Both true? Anyone know?
Do people hunt and eat geese? Are they protected?
I was told the goose story came from a picture of a black city employee clearing road kill out of the road in Columbus, Ohio and had nothing really to do with Haitians or Springfield.
But rumors are flying around now.
"Not without a signed federal waterfowl stamp and a state hunting license. Geese are migratory and the US and Canada have a treaty protecting geese from over hunting. " From Quora.com.
Pet-eating and geese-killing dominate the US election discourse.
Bravo.
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2024, 12:04:53 AMPet-eating and geese-killing dominate the US election discourse.
Bravo.
The lunatics are firmly in charge of the asylum.
Quote from: Barrister on September 17, 2024, 09:30:19 PMYou know I feel like I need to take another break from Languish.
I post a link to what I think is a really well written article )incidentally one highly critical of Trump). An article I think nobody on Languish would actually disagree with. But because I know what pinheads certain people are around here, I even comment on who the author is, just trying to forestall criticism.
And now two pages of people shitting on the author (and me for posting it), and not a single post commenting on the substance of the article itself.
I talked before about Languish being a "elbows up" free speech zone. I don't think anyone here should be banned for shitting on me. I just question why I stay here to be shat upon. You guys do you.
I mean, you pointed out the author... and then slid in a little op-ed of your own on him and seemingly how you think he was wronged for having the audacity to be pro-birth. I think if you'd just posted the article with your initial comments or posted about the author as being a non-Trump person on the Right, it wouldn't have caused any stir at all and the focus would have been solely on the article. You seem to have brought all of the issues down with your choice of additions to the meat of your post. You wanted to avoid "pinheads" derailing it, so you laid all the groundwork and put in a big blinking DERAIL THIS sign yourself and are now angry about it? That's... certainly a choice.
Sorry BB but adding "BTW this guy was fired from a leftie paper for having a conservative view on one of the divisive topics of the day but I don't think he should have been" to your post just begs for a derail. That he was fired from what I think is a very Right-ish paper and not a leftie one just made it worse. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2024, 12:54:41 AMSorry BB but adding "BTW this guy was fired from a leftie paper for having a conservative view on one of the divisive topics of the day but I don't think he should have been" to your post just begs for a derail. That he was fired from what I think is a very Right-ish paper and not a leftie one just made it worse. ;)
Have you read The Atlantic? :wacko:
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2024, 12:54:41 AMSorry BB but adding "BTW this guy was fired from a leftie paper for having a conservative view on one of the divisive topics of the day but I don't think he should have been" to your post just begs for a derail. That he was fired from what I think is a very Right-ish paper and not a leftie one just made it worse. ;)
The author of the article, Kevin D. Williamson, was let go from The Atlantic, which is Left-leaning. He originally worked for National Review which is Right-leaning to Rightwing. He now works for The Dispatch which is Right-leaning.
Ah, I was mistaken about The Atlantic.
Then again you Americans might have a different view of what's Left or Right. I wonder where they stand on eating cats.
My impression of The Atlantic is that it's more of a (high-status) notice board than a magazine with tight quality and agenda.
Quote from: Valmy on September 17, 2024, 11:30:30 PMI was told the goose story came from a picture of a black city employee clearing road kill out of the road in Columbus, Ohio and had nothing really to do with Haitians or Springfield.
But rumors are flying around now.
Got to love the racism.
Really hope black groups seize on this. Both politically and for the potential humorous mocking that can be done by blaming photos of black people in innocent situations on immigrants doing something mad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2024, 11:15:47 PMOn the original goose story, I've seen different narratives about civic minded Haitians picking up road kill to keep streets clean and grabbing geese out of a lake to eat. Both true? Anyone know?
Do people hunt and eat geese? Are they protected?
Especially as I seem to remember a couple of election cycles ago it was maybe Mike Huckabee who I think talked about eating squirrels and maybe roadkill. Fair to say what that is taken to signify looks to have flipped.
Well, last month a photo circulated of RFK Jr. eating a dog.
Libertarian Party of New Hampshire official account posts a tweet encouraging Harris' murder.
Libertarian Party national presidential candidates tweets his condemnation. His tweet then fills up with comments lambasting him as weak and supporting the murder
https://x.com/ChaseForLiberty/status/1835477641517748462
And people wonder why I never vote third party. All the third parties are not serious parties. None of them are actually serious about winning City Council Place 2 for Anyville, USA much less President.
Though even by the levels of party disfunction I normally associate with third parties that is impressive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2024, 11:24:47 AMLibertarian Party of New Hampshire official account posts a tweet encouraging Harris' murder.
Libertarian Party national presidential candidates tweets his condemnation. His tweet then fills up with comments lambasting him as weak and supporting the murder
https://x.com/ChaseForLiberty/status/1835477641517748462
Libertarian party of New Hampshire took down their post, complained about the violation of free speech and said that Libertarians are the most persecuted minority.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2024, 11:24:47 AMLibertarian Party of New Hampshire official account posts a tweet encouraging Harris' murder.
Libertarian Party national presidential candidates tweets his condemnation. His tweet then fills up with comments lambasting him as weak and supporting the murder
https://x.com/ChaseForLiberty/status/1835477641517748462
I love the guy who claims the right to engage in "ultimate forms of violence" because Kamala Harris might someday propose a mandatory buyback.
A mandatory buyback starts to look good when you consider it would take guns out of the hands of such irresponsible fucks.
Though libertarianism is generally just mutual masturbation, it does harbor some dangerous kooks.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 18, 2024, 11:40:17 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on September 18, 2024, 11:24:47 AMLibertarian Party of New Hampshire official account posts a tweet encouraging Harris' murder.
Libertarian Party national presidential candidates tweets his condemnation. His tweet then fills up with comments lambasting him as weak and supporting the murder
https://x.com/ChaseForLiberty/status/1835477641517748462
Libertarian party of New Hampshire took down their post, complained about the violation of free speech and said that Libertarians are the most persecuted minority.
Aren't they like the only minority in New Hampshire?
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2024, 01:05:36 PMI love the guy who claims the right to engage in "ultimate forms of violence" because Kamala Harris might someday propose a mandatory buyback.
I don't think you have the right to engage in violence against people because of things they might do in the future. Especially things she has clearly stated her intention to not do.
But I clearly don't know all the rights a Libertarian claims to have.
Electing a black man spun the racist half of America into a frenzy that culminated in Trump's election. Having them suffer the indignation of a black woman becoming Presidentay turn ugly.
Teamsters are endorsing neither candidate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2024, 04:09:16 PMTeamsters are endorsing neither candidate.
Tough spot they are in. One is an imbecile the other is a woman.
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2024, 04:10:49 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on September 18, 2024, 04:09:16 PMTeamsters are endorsing neither candidate.
Tough spot they are in. One is an imbecile the other is a woman.
I think polling showed their members were trending for Trump.
Teamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.
Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 18, 2024, 05:19:25 PMTeamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.
Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.
Sure is a mystery.
Quote from: grumbler on September 18, 2024, 05:25:58 PMQuote from: FunkMonk on September 18, 2024, 05:19:25 PMTeamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.
Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.
Sure is a mystery.
The mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? :hmm:
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 18, 2024, 05:38:24 PMThe mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? :hmm:
Misogyny. They supported Obama.
The Obama era is long in the past now.
Racism is now not just accepted but embraced. Who they were in 2012 is not necessarily who they are now.
Even in just pure political terms, they may be thinking Trump is more malleable/easier to influence.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on September 18, 2024, 05:38:24 PMQuote from: grumbler on September 18, 2024, 05:25:58 PMQuote from: FunkMonk on September 18, 2024, 05:19:25 PMTeamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.
Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.
Sure is a mystery.
The mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? :hmm:
Likely intersectionality. Add in a dash of the California elite stuff too. She does carry 'wokier' vibes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/19/jd-vance-factually-challenged-morally-deficit
QuoteAs the Wall Street Journal reporters explored the original rumor about pets in Springfield, a Vance spokesperson came up with a police report in which a resident had claimed her pet might have been taken by her Haitian neighbors.
But when a reporter checked it out by going to Anna Kilgore's house, she told him that her cat, Miss Sassy, had returned a few days after having gone missing.
Imagine that: not stolen, not eaten, Miss Sassy was found safe – in Kilgore's own basement.
Afterwards, with the help of a translation app, Kilgore did the right thing: she apologized to her Haitian neighbor. That apology was a touch of human decency amid the ugliness.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2024, 09:15:07 AMhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/19/jd-vance-factually-challenged-morally-deficit
QuoteAs the Wall Street Journal reporters explored the original rumor about pets in Springfield, a Vance spokesperson came up with a police report in which a resident had claimed her pet might have been taken by her Haitian neighbors.
But when a reporter checked it out by going to Anna Kilgore's house, she told him that her cat, Miss Sassy, had returned a few days after having gone missing.
Imagine that: not stolen, not eaten, Miss Sassy was found safe – in Kilgore's own basement.
Afterwards, with the help of a translation app, Kilgore did the right thing: she apologized to her Haitian neighbor. That apology was a touch of human decency amid the ugliness.
I was the going to post this story! Anyway, This is the police report that Vance's people gave the press and conservatives clearly are hyping up.
(https://i.imgur.com/9uHosCM.jpeg)
The words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim". Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim? Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press? Did they not actually read it? I find this very confusing.
Yeah it is also mind boggling. Their tether to reality has been snapped.
QuoteThe words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim". Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim? Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press? Did they not actually read it? I find this very confusing
Their fans will not read the actual receipt, so why not.
QuoteWhen the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking: maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can't nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can't actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can't depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little . . .
The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking, and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.
The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won't move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites . . .
On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or "self deporting" them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party's platform.
JD Vance 2012
More here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html
2012 is more than a decade old, it's true. And I have always supported the ideas that politicians should be entitled to some degree of inconsistency; it's hard to grease the wheels of useful compromise without permitting some hypocrisy.
But the degree to which Vance is willing to compromise any principle he might have, to say anything that he thinks might advance is career is startling even for a professional politician.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2024, 09:32:31 AMThe words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim". Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim? Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press? Did they not actually read it? I find this very confusing.
Do a quick glance as this guy's X feed and then the feed of the guy he quoted. Then some other accounts that are being retweeted on these feeds. The underlying content is 85% the same. They are all just posting and retweeting the same stuff.
These "independent journalists" are just drones shoving out the same copycat propaganda and then putting a little spin on it ("RECEIPTS MF*S") to try to draw a little incremental traffic. Just platoons of lazy parasites milking monetization out of the ignorant MAGA millions doomscrolling their way through X to get their daily fix of fake outrage. Collectively though the impact is to amplify the most lunatic conspiracy theories because that's what gets more clicks and "engagement." The cats and dogs story didn't lift off despite being obviously bonkers, it spread BECAUSE its bonkers.
The media version of Gresham's Law is firmly in place.
I guess the way these guys work is somebody calling about it is evidence enough and no evidence to prove something is just as good as no evidence to disprove it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 19, 2024, 10:26:39 AMQuoteWhen the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking: maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can't nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can't actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can't depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little . . .
The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking, and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.
The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won't move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites . . .
On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or "self deporting" them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party's platform.
JD Vance 2012
More here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html
2012 is more than a decade old, it's true. And I have always supported the ideas that politicians should be entitled to some degree of inconsistency; it's hard to grease the wheels of useful compromise without permitting some hypocrisy.
But the degree to which Vance is willing to compromise any principle he might have, to say anything that he thinks might advance is career is startling even for a professional politician.
Its funny. Most people with age (until senility kicks in anyway) tend to become wiser and more balanced in their views. Starting at an extreme black and white stance on things they come to realise winning a shouting match isn't the best way to get anything done.
This guy....has gone the other way.
I have not gotten one iota wiser, and you know it!
I got a response on Facebook that I thought I would repost. As it happens I can't even find what he was responding to, But this is the guy https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100088347254669
Quote So Orange man bad essentially right, it's not false I have transcribed court records as it's public information and frankly I don't give a single fuck anymore who you vote for or believe. The MSM are lair and have been caught endlessly in this process. Why they've gone after one single person for so long is certainly interesting to me but you all just keep right believing them because it helps your cognitive dissonance. The difference between you and I is that I actually voted Democrats and for Obama twice as well as voted for Sanders in the Primary and realized that this party is corrupt. The republican part is corrupt as well as they all fall under the legal structure of the UCC which is to their benefit because it monetizes our legal system. Everyone who runs for office is either a lawyer or a politician hand picked by the elites. The difference is that DJT was neither and has put up with this same shit for the last 9 years now where prior EVERYONE loved him and he was a great celebrity but because the MSM has dubbed him orange man and liberals continue to just double and triple down on the same Bullshit time and time again ignoring congressional testimony, whistle blowers, court cases and love love love to bring up the some 60+ court caes that were thrown regarding 2020. Well, Trump didn't file 60+ court cases he filed THREE court cases and Powell of her own doing filed THREE and under "laches" and lack of standing as the arguments for NOT HEARING THE CASE. They were dismissed which means NO EVIDENCE COULD BE SUBMITTED, NO discovery, or cross examination occurred but in your minds, that means there was no fraud, which it doesn't. The the interpretation of these type of dynamics in information and conclusive processing is an anomaly to me. How some people cannot seem to connect incidences that are suspect which the very nature of solving crimes in the first place. The fact that Biden got half the number of counties as Obama, yet somehow gets 12 million more votes seem logical and rational to only people who voted for him. The fact that Biden or Harris for that matter cannot even draw a crowd at their rallies that is not CGI or bussed in payed people to attend and DJT fills entire stadiums over and over and over and over again doesn't even cause people to question the validity of an outcome. Count stopping in the middle an election, "nothing to see here", boarding up polling places and windows after hours, "nothing to see here. Ruby Freedmon and State farm arena after hours " nothing to see here." GEO tracking on cell phone, video footage of people dumping hundreds of ballots at various drop boxes caught on camera over and over and over again. " nothing to see here" 2000 mules " Ahh right wing conspiracy debunked. 165,000 votes missing from the GA election that just came out 6 months ago and no explanation from the GA legislation. "nothing to see here" Zucherburg admitting he was coerced unto suppressing information around the Biden lap top and taking down legitimate information. "Nothing to see here. It goes on and on and on, incident after incident after incident and you all just dismiss all of it as some sort of unconnected series of events when they are all interconnected. The difference here is that these incidences have had a much greater impact on various levels to the general population. If you can't figure this out at this point then you're either an AI/bot, shill or just fucking stupid at this point.
There is only one possible response to this
QuoteThe fact that Biden or Harris for that matter cannot even draw a crowd at their rallies that is not CGI or bussed in payed people to attend
Biden didn't have rallies in 2020 because there was Covid. That is a recycled talking point from the Clinton campaign.
This is the kind of thing about these supposed "truth tellers" is that they just ask you reject your own eyes and ears and experience and then insist that everybody else is a liar.
Like the flat earthers. I mean just fucking go outside and look around with your damn eyes. Now that doesn't prove the earth is round but it sure as fuck proves it isn't flat. But yes you are advancing the truth against a vast conspiracy even though you are the ones demanding everybody ignore the evidence of their own damn eyes.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2024, 01:06:04 PMI got a response on Facebook that I thought I would repost. As it happens I can't even find what he was responding to, But this is the guy https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100088347254669
QuoteThe republican part is corrupt as well as they all fall under the legal structure of the UCC which is to their benefit because it monetizes our legal system.
Does he mean the Uniform Commercial Code?? :huh:
Quotelove love to bring up the some 60+ court caes that were thrown regarding 2020. Well, Trump didn't file 60+ court cases he filed THREE court cases and Powell of her own doing filed THREE and under "laches" and lack of standing as the arguments for NOT HEARING THE CASE. They were dismissed which means NO EVIDENCE COULD BE SUBMITTED, NO discovery, or cross examination occurred but in your minds, that means there was no fraud, which it doesn't.
It's interesting to see how reality gets filtered through this bizarro-world perspective.
Around 60 cases were brought in some part challenging the results of the 2020 election. It's true that for standing and other reasons not every single one was brought specifically in the name of Trump or the Trump campaign, but they were all brought by allied groups on his behalf and he made motions to join a few. Trump and his campaign were the named plaintiff in at least 15 separate cases. Not THREE. Sidney Powell is a lawyer, not a plaintiff, and thus did not and could not bring such cases "of her own doing." Many cases were dismissed for egregious procedural problems but others went to the merits, including the Wisconsin case that had the "laches" rulings. A Michigan court found allegations of tampering unfounded. An Arizona court found no evidence of illegal votes or improper counts. Another Arizona federal case had a lengthy discussion of the various fraud theories and found no evidentiary support for any of them. Several others reached merits rulings.
I personally read the supporting affidavits submitted in a few of the "leading" cases. They were comically inadequate. In one case that stands out in my memory, the key support for the claims was an affidavit where the first half contained a long explanation why the affiant's prior convictions for sexual crimes should not negatively impact his credibility. It then proceeded to give an account of what he overheard someone saying about what someone else claimed to have seen and overheard, with zero corroboration of any of the details.
Keep in mind the guy claims a master's degree from Liberty University...
The GOP's performance with non-whites was definitely a concern back in '08 and '12. But what I think many didn't anticipate is the collapse of the Democrats support among lower income and working class whites, combined with the Hispanic vote proving to not be very reliably Democratic. In many ways I usually tend towards rejecting the "Hispanic vote", it is a political demography term that does not map well to actual people. There are lots of Americans with ancestral backgrounds in Spanish speaking countries. Many of them just view themselves as "white Americans", others view themselves as specific demographic groups like "Venezuelan", "Cuban", "Mexican" etc, and each of those groups has pretty different political leanings and histories. IMO that explains why the "Hispanic vote" is such an inconsistent label when it comes to election results. It is a term that describes too many disparate groups that swing on too many different, not necessarily related, issues.
Yeah the right wing populists really got us with that one.
Though there must be something working in the Democrats favor as well as we went from losing 20% to 5% in statewide elections in Texas despite losing all the Hispanics and poor whites.
Another interesting rant from Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-bring-back-travel-004459940.html?guccounter=2)
Quote"In my opinion the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss," Trump said at the event hosted by Republican donor Miriam Adelson. "It's only because of the Democrat hold, or curse, on you."
Trump went on to repeatedly suggest his backing for Israel should result in more political support among Jewish Americans, and at one point conflated Jewish Americans with the state of Israel itself.
"More than any people on Earth, Israel has to defeat her," he said, adding that "there's no way that I should be getting 40% of the vote — I'm the one who is protecting you."
Quote from: viper37 on September 21, 2024, 05:07:02 PMAnother interesting rant from Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-vows-bring-back-travel-004459940.html?guccounter=2)
Quote"More than any people on Earth, Israel has to defeat her," he said, adding that "there's no way that I should be getting 40% of the vote — I'm the one who is protecting you."
What is he doing to protect anybody? He isn't currently President.
Last time Trump was President, one of his early supporters shot up a synagogue. I don't feel the protection.
https://qz.com/elon-musk-kamala-harris-donald-trump-doomed-spacex-mars-1851654671
QuoteElon Musk says a Kamala Harris presidency would 'doom humanity' and 'destroy' the Mars program
Humanity needs to become multi-planetary before a "supervirus" or "nuclear war" ravages the Earth, Musk said
According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, if Vice President Kamala Harris wins the 2024 presidential election, we can say goodbye to life as we know it — eventually.
"While I have many concerns about a potential Kamala regime, my absolute showstopper is that the bureaucracy currently choking America to death is guaranteed to grow under a Democratic Party administration," Musk, who has endorsed Former President Donald Trump's White House bid, wrote on X Sunday.
"This would destroy [NASA's] Mars program and doom humanity," he added, calling the upcoming November election "a fork, maybe the fork, in the road of human destiny."
Musk's latest attack on Harris and government regulations comes as he continues to accuse federal agencies — including the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission — of engaging in lawfare against SpaceX.
After the Federal Aviation Administration proposed fines against SpaceX over unapproved changes before rocket launches, Musk said he would sue the agency and falsely accused them of ignoring safety issues at other companies. He's also taken aim at environmental safety regulators and at the Secret Service, which investigated his recent comments that were seen by some as a veiled threat against the vice president and President Joe Biden.
Musk founded SpaceX in the early 2000s with the goal of eventually colonizing Mars. On Sunday, he said SpaceX plans to launch five uncrewed Starship megarockets to Mars in two years, with crewed missions set for 2028 assuming that those go well. Part of his frustration with the FAA stems from the agency's slow approach to approving launches of his Starship megarocket, which has only had four test launches.
In his post Sunday, Musk warned that humanity needs to become "sustainably multi-planetary" before something happens to humanity, hypothesizing about nuclear war or a "supervirus." But this isn't the first time that Musk has forecast an apocalyptic scenario that will doom society.
He's warned about population collapse due to low-fertility rates, artificial intelligence-powered robots taking over the world like something straight out of "The Terminator" (Musk's Tesla (TSLA +4.28%) has its own humanoid robots), a repeat of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and even the sun engulfing and incinerating the Earth (which isn't expected for at least seven billion years).
As if he cares about humanity.
They are just saying anything aren't they?
It may be working, the polls that came out today look grim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2024, 07:44:05 AMLast time Trump was President, one of his early supporters shot up a synagogue. I don't feel the protection.
I think this needs to emphasized. I have been extremely critical of the antizionist left, but they are fairly small, if obnoxious, faction. Right-wing Antisemitism perpetrated the worst mass killing of Jews in US history less than 8 years ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2024, 12:11:57 PMI think this needs to emphasized. I have been extremely critical of the antizionist left, but they are fairly small, if obnoxious, faction. Right-wing Antisemitism perpetrated the worst mass killing of Jews in US history less than 8 years ago.
Yes. I think Charlottesville is still the best representation of the forces activated right now (perhaps more so than even January 6).
I'd add there is out and out Nazism on Twitter specifically now. It shows that however poor old Twitter's moderation and controls were and that is always whack-a-mole, it was (significantly more) effective. I think in particular in not allowing those accounts to reach a degree of critical mass as hubs.
Trump on Facebook:
(https://i.imgur.com/QLY2UQd.png)
Image source on Shutterstock: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/blooming-white-rhododendron-flowers-caucasus-mountains-581596678
QuoteBlooming white rhododendron flowers in the Caucasus mountains in June. Cloudy morning view of the mountain hill in Upper Svanetia, Georgia, Europe.
:face:
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2024, 11:39:13 AMIt may be working, the polls that came out today look grim.
Which polls?
Quote from: viper37 on September 24, 2024, 06:13:40 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 23, 2024, 11:39:13 AMIt may be working, the polls that came out today look grim.
Which polls?
The recent New York Times/Siena ones. They seem to be outliers but yikes.
So much outlier(ed?) that NYT had to write a justification on why they are still using it in their model.
Better beware of outliers cause in this timeline they happen every so often
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/23/hamtramck-mayor-amer-ghalib-endorses-donald-trump-president/75345853007/
QuoteThe mayor of the city with the highest percentage of immigrants in Michigan and an all-Muslim city council has endorsed Donald Trump for president.
Hamtramck Mayor Amer Ghalib, the first Arab American and first Muslim to lead the city, announced late Sunday afternoon he will support the former president. Ghalib's post on Facebook supporting the Republican presidential nominee was then posted by Trump on his social media site, Truth Social.
Ghalib confirmed Monday morning to the Free Press by text that he endorsed Trump, referring to his statement.
"Trump and I may not agree on everything, but I know he is a man of principles," Ghalib posted. "I believe he is the right choice for this critical time. I'll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I'm ready to face the consequences."
Ghalib added: "Now, let the Caravan begin its journey. This is just the starting point."
The endorsement came after Ghalib met with Trump in a private meeting last week in Flint that lasted about 20 minutes, Ghalib told the Free Press earlier.
Trump said in an interview with Breitbart that Ghalib endorsed him because "there were no wars" when he was president. The former president added that he was "very impressed" with Ghalib, who had hosted a town hall last year in Hamtramck with Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Many Arab Americans in Michigan are upset with President Joe Biden over his policies in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen. Biden lost to the "Uncommitted" vote in Hamtramck, Dearborn and Dearborn Heights in the February presidential primary.
Ghalib's endorsement appeared to generate positive response from Arab Americans in Hamtramck, where 39% of the residents are of Middle Eastern descent, most of them of Yemeni descent, according to the 2020 census. An additional 29% of the city is Asian American, a majority of them Bangladeshi. Ghalib, an immigrant from Yemen who is Muslim, leads a city that is believed to be roughly half Muslim. Yemeni Americans are the largest ethnic group in the city, followed by Bangladeshi Americans, according to census data. All of the members of the city's 6-member city council are Muslim of either Yemeni or Bangladeshi descent. More than 42% of the city are immigrants, the highest percentage among all municipalities in Michigan.
Trump has been accused of being anti-immigrant, with plans to deport many undocumented immigrants and using inflammatory rhetoric, such as against legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. When he was president, Trump issued what was called a "Muslim travel ban" that Biden rescinded in 2021. But that hasn't stopped some Arab immigrants in Michigan from praising Trump.
"Today is a good day in America: An Arab American mayor endorses Donald Trump," Hassan Aoun, a Republican immigrant of Arab descent from Dearborn, told the Free Press.
Trump spoke to Breitbart News about Ghalib's endorsement:
"I was very impressed with him and he was a very big fan of the Trump administration because he saw no wars — outside of defeating ISIS, but I inherited that — but there were no wars," Trump said. "There was no Oct. 7. There was no Russian attack on Ukraine. He sees that and he told me — he saw a world that was at peace. Now, we have a world that's going to end up in World War 3 and I can stop that. I'm the only one that's going to stop that."
Ghalib's endorsement could turn Hamtramck, which has historically voted for Democrats, including Biden in 2020, into a base of support for Trump. Ghalib invited Trump to his city during their meeting, which Trump told Breitbart he was interested in visiting. Hamtramck Police Chief Jamiel Altaheri told the Free Press he has spoken with Trump campaign officials about logistics and security for a possible Trump rally in Hamtramck.
The endorsement is the latest blow for Democrats trying to win over the Middle Eastern vote in Michigan, which has the highest percentage of Arab Americans among all states. Last week, the Uncommitted movement of Democrats, which started in Dearborn, announced they will not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris. Some Muslim leaders are also upset with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat who backs Harris, for charging 11 pro-Palestinian protesters. Nessel on Friday accused U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, in a post on X, of making an antisemitic attack against her, but did not specify what she was referring to.
"Thank you for changing the perception that all Muslim Americans are default ticket to Democratic Party," Khalil Othman, of Dearborn, said in response to Ghalib's endorsement of Trump. Othman became Republican after his concern about LGBTQ+ books in Dearborn public schools, which he saw as sexually explicit. The backlash against the books led to Republicans making gains in heavily-Muslim areas of Dearborn in November 2022.
Also this month, Trump attorney Alina Habba, who's of Iraqi descent, and Vivek Ramaswamy met with Iraqi American Chaldeans on a visit to metro Detroit to rally for Trump, speaking at the largest Chaldean country club in Michigan, Shenandoah in West Bloomfield.
"In Michigan, in particular with the Chaldean community, my community, we can flip this state," Habba said.
Ghalib is an outspoken supporter of Palestinians, Yemen and other causes in the Arab world.
"Hamtramck can not stand neutral during moral conflict," Ghalib said in March during the unveiling of street signs to rename part of a major street as "Palestine Avenue" to express solidarity with Palestinians. "We stand with ceasefire against genocide." Ghalib also supported in May a city resolution to divest from Israel.
"The city will do its best to refrain from buying, investing or contracting with companies that support the Israeli genocide," Ghalib said of the resolution that was passed.
In recent months, Trump has used the word "Palestinian" as a slur when referring to U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who is Jewish, accusing him and other Democrats of not supporting Israel.
Ghalib has also drawn attention over the past couple of years for supporting the city's ban on political and cultural flags on city property, including LGBTQ+ flags.
Democrats and some progressive activists have criticized Ghalib and the council for banning the flags, but supporters note that the city of Livonia, which is predominantly white and Christian, passed a similar resolution in 2022. The Livonia City Council moved to ban the flying of LGBTQ+ pride flags and other flags after Mayor Maureen Miller Brosnan raised the pride flag last year at City Hall, which drew criticism from some conservatives.
Ghalib won election in November 2021, defeating Mayor Karen Majewski. Ghalib is the first non-Polish mayor to lead Hamtramck, which used to be a Polish-majority city but is now only 5% Polish, according to census data.
If Ghalib gets the president that he wants then yes he better be prepared to face the consequences of that choice.
See? Racism and xenophobia is not specific to white Christians. Muslims are also perfectly capable to be afraid of Mexican and Black hordes coming in.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2024, 07:05:20 PMQuote from: viper37 on September 24, 2024, 06:13:40 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 23, 2024, 11:39:13 AMIt may be working, the polls that came out today look grim.
Which polls?
The recent New York Times/Siena ones. They seem to be outliers but yikes.
This is from a few days ago but I do find there's a jarring disconnect between mood - which seems very positive - and some polling people. Which I find a little concerning (and 2016 triggering) - for example this from Nate Silver on where polling is v shifts:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GX7HPdZWgAAmUY9?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I think from what I've read it's still alarmingly close.
Surely this is explainable by most people being nailed on for who they would vote for if they vote, the issue is more will they vote?
If their candidate is polling better it likely indicates they're dominating the media and vibes are positive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2024, 05:11:45 AMI think from what I've read it's still alarmingly close.
Yeah well it is because it comes down to that small handful of swing states that just barely went Biden in 2016.
If it was a straight up popular vote I would be more confident.
Don't worry. There are enough voter suppression 'reforms'; ballot mishaps and such to guarantee a Trump win.
Heard today the republicans are hard at work stopping married women from voting in a few places by trying to pass rules that birth certificate and ID has to match.
Quote from: Josquius on September 25, 2024, 10:28:28 AMHeard today the republicans are hard at work stopping married women from voting in a few places by trying to pass rules that birth certificate and ID has to match.
What next, banning un-married women from voting if they cats? :D
Quote from: PJL on September 25, 2024, 10:53:36 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 25, 2024, 10:28:28 AMHeard today the republicans are hard at work stopping married women from voting in a few places by trying to pass rules that birth certificate and ID has to match.
What next, banning un-married women from voting if they cats? :D
If project 2025 is fully implemented women won't really have the option of being unmarried - whether or not they have cats.
Vance is running circles around Walz so far. Ouch. :(
Walz recovering while Vance is collapsing a bit. Also, the moderators cut both mics. They are running a remarkably great debate so far.
Walz will get this. But he is just a simple country football coach going against a salesman shyster like Vance. Give him a bit.
...I really, really wish that just what the Vice President does and what power(s) they have would be brought up. Vance (and Trump and so many more) seem to think that Vice President is apparently a dictator-esque position to pass anything they want and no one is calling them on the silliness of such claims.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 01, 2024, 09:11:44 PM...I really, really wish that just what the Vice President does and what power(s) they have would be brought up. Vance (and Trump and so many more) seem to think that Vice President is apparently a dictator-esque position to pass anything they want and no one is calling them on the silliness of such claims.
It could be a trap, designed to provoke "you know damn well a vice-president isn't doing anything" response.
I mean, just call out Vance on why he's there and not Pence. What *is* one thing that Vice Presidents do and almost cost Pence his life by not following Trump's orders to not do?
Minnesotans are just too nice for this shit I guess.
Poor Joe Biden, he's being erased from history Stalin-style during this debate. At least Stalin was courteous enough to have you shot first.
So from what I gather from clips and reading a written summary, is that Vance won if it was a competitive debate club debate- expected from Waltz being set up as not a good debater and Vance's origins in the 4chan circle of the hard right.
If it was purely about who is the best option for being vp (/who isn't there but is the best option to be president) then Walz presented a fair more comfortable option.
The main errors seem to have been Walz in the past misremembering his travel itinerary 35 years ago and rambling as he answered this, and far more damning, Vance refusing to admit Trump lost the election in 2020.
Walz got off to a very shaky start. He mixed up Israel and Iran a couple of times in his opening rambling answer. He was clearly uncomfortable on foreign affairs issues. But he gained his feet and got stronger as the debate went on. In the end he portrayed as a folksy man of the people, which is probably why he was selected.
Vance is a glib used car salesman. But I fear many undecided Americans won't see him for what he is, and will now feel more comfortable voting for Trump.
After sitting with it for a bit:
It definitely felt like Walz got caught flatfooted by Vance not being an idiot psychopath like he had portrayed so far in the campaign. He was caught off guard by the insane opener of the "Would you let Israel preemptively strike anyone" question, too, and it took him time to recover. He definitely was too nice and didn't push back enough, but I'm also not sure how that would have played considering Vance was acting all buddy buddy with him. I think Vance could have easily lost his cool, though, as he came close a few times just off of real basic stuff. Definitely a lost chance to display the wolf in sheep's clothing effort Vance was pulling. Walz was definitely Mr. Mid-West, with all the pluses and minuses that entails. The moderators did an excellent job outside of having that first question where they did. They kept the veeps on task, cut out most interrupting, allowed for responses, kept time, and even cut the mics early to kind of yank the chain and set the boundaries and their authority.
Yeah, a golden opportunity Walz had was when Vance went on about how the US needs to make children more affordable in answer to the abortion question.
Walz could have pointed out that is straight out of the project 2025 playbook, and he could have really leaned into it.
But Walz only mentioned it once and in passing. I would've thought the best strategy would've been to pin Vance and Trump to project 2025 given how much they have tried to backpedal away from it. But instead, waltz came off as being very scripted, and having carefully rehearsed the three tragic stories he told of women impacted by restrictions on abortion.
Needless to say that debate did nothing to calm my nerves about this election.
Not that a Vice Presidential Debate was going to do much, but still. The greatest one sided dunk in VP Debate History was Lloyd Bentsen over Dan Quayle and his side was crushed in a landslide.
But still a few soundbites of Vance being a spaz couldn't have hurt.
I think Vance won the debate by normalizing himself, which is unfortunate.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2024, 09:43:37 AMI think Vance won the debate by normalizing himself, which is unfortunate.
He definitely had that Ivy League stench all over him.
Doom
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2024, 09:43:37 AMI think Vance won the debate by normalizing himself, which is unfortunate.
Yeah I think that might be. It's the risk of an attack line like "weird" it doesn't take much to nullify it (because, ultimately, you just need to appear not weird for a bit) and Vance "normalising" himself may well help do this.
I also saw a lot of very confident expectations online from people on the left about Walz. I think possible overconfidence from a stump speech and a few clips online.
It is still very close as Valmy says. Which is terrifying.
The tendency of some Democrat partisans online to overconfidence is just cope imo. They are hoping they can confidently state their preferred outcome into existence.
I think there is a tendency in general to so beat down the opponents that you can't help but get high on your own supply, to great detriment. I think it played out with Ukraine, who have mocked the Russian army so much that they blundered into a a telegraphed counteroffensive with no air power.
Theoretically if the average polls work out exactly as they currently stand on 538, Kamala will win with 276 Electoral Votes with a 2.7% margin in the popular vote. But if it even goes a little bit in Trump's direction in even one of those states, except Nevada, then he will win.
(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/zKzJN)
In the Senate it is just as dire. We need things to go chalk according to the current polls, which includes a win in Ohio of all places, plus one upset someplace just to "only" lose one seat and thus be able to do things like make Presidential appointments.
If the Republicans win the Senate they can basically make the country ungovernable by just grinding everything to a halt and refusing to confirm anything.
I like our chances of retaking the House so there is that as the Dems lead the Republicans by 2.3% on a generic House ballot, but there is a lot of gerrymandering that must be overcome.
The whole thing just looks very bleak. But at least there exists a reasonably possible version of reality where the Democrats win the Presidency, Senate, and House. But it could very easily go the other way.
I've read that 538 isn't that accurate since Nate Silver sold his site.
Trump got a couple good polls from Quinnipiac, but Harris put up some strong numbers in Pennsylvania earlier today. Overall the model is holding steady. Harris now leads by 3.4 points in our national polling average — up from 3.2 points yesterday. But her chance of winning the Electoral College is still hovering right around 55%.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
The worrying thing with vance is the odds of him being president within the next few years are high - I can't see trump living out a term.
Quote from: Josquius on October 02, 2024, 02:07:01 PMThe worrying thing with vance is the odds of him being president within the next few years are high - I can't see trump living out a term.
Anyone but Trump
Quote from: Josquius on October 02, 2024, 02:07:01 PMThe worrying thing with vance is the odds of him being president within the next few years are high - I can't see trump living out a term.
You know what? I would take that. People hate Vance.
JD Vance as leader of the Republicans would be a disaster for them.
I'd be OK with the version of JD Vance that used to advocate the Republican Party being more inclusive, not so much with the current version of JD Vance as slightly more creepy Ron DeSantis.
The evidence suggests that the key motivating factor for JD Vance is raw ambition. So if he could be convinced that it was in his personal interest to act like a responsible statesman, instead of the nasty little shit he's been playing the last few years for benefit of Trump and MAGA world, it could work out.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 02, 2024, 07:38:21 AMHe was caught off guard by the insane opener of the "Would you let Israel preemptively strike anyone Iran (I am pretty sure that was the actual question)" question, too, and it took him time to recover.
I thought that was a major moderator gaffe when I heard it...the news of Iran tossing dozens of ballistic missiles at Israel was already hours old, making it a pretty stupid/lame question.
Also, the first time Vance decided to stampede over the moderators holding him up...took way too long to cut his mic.
What we need now is a letter writing campaign from Guardian readers to residents of Pennsatucky.
I've seen a couple of polls recently suggesting that Trump is only a point or two ahead in Florida. Probably just wishful thinking but could it be in play?
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2024, 02:00:05 PMI've read that 538 isn't that accurate since Nate Silver sold his site.
Trump got a couple good polls from Quinnipiac, but Harris put up some strong numbers in Pennsylvania earlier today. Overall the model is holding steady. Harris now leads by 3.4 points in our national polling average — up from 3.2 points yesterday. But her chance of winning the Electoral College is still hovering right around 55%.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
538 and Nate just use a different model, Nate sold all rights to 538 branding, but he retained ownership of his model. But the guy who took over 538 for ABC or whoever it is that owns it, was a long time election stat nerd like Nate, he just ran a different model. I believe his model was being criticized a good bit earlier in the season, but he's made various adjustments.
Based on the fact all of these same models back in 2020 basically told us "hey it's a coin flip" and then the election was basically coin flip close in 6 states, unless there was a major polling swing for one candidate I dunno how valuable any of them are--they're just signaling what most of us know, it is going to be a close election decided by narrow margins in a few states. Anyone of either partisan affiliation going into election night with confidence is not doing so based on data but feelz.
I don't like gambling. It definitely is too much of a dice roll.
But...I dunno. I am cautiously optimistic from what I do see; full disclaimers I'm not paying a huge amount of attention, I'm not there on the ground, etc...
Trump is known and established. Surely he hit his peak voter numbers in 2016, by 2020 this had fell off and then there was his attempted coup.... But even aside from him being an absolute POS, will he really excite many beyond the die hard? He's old news.
Kamala on the other hand...the thing about black women registering to vote in record numbers and all that...I do think there might be a bit more enthusiasm there. Its not the DNC anymore. From where I sit it has gone a bit worryingly quiet. But still there should be more chance of voting from her support.
One thing I wonder about is how the weather would impact things. Reduced turnout overall should be good for Dems given the enthusiasm element...but people in the cities with longer queues for fewer polling sites would suffer more if the weather sucks than those in small towns.
Quote from: Josquius on October 03, 2024, 11:34:48 AM.the thing about black women registering to vote in record numbers and all that..
It depends where they register.
If they are black women from New York and New Jersey registering to vote, it doesn't mean much.
If they are black women from Atlanta Georgia, it might help more.
Quote from: Gups on October 03, 2024, 10:45:13 AMI've seen a couple of polls recently suggesting that Trump is only a point or two ahead in Florida. Probably just wishful thinking but could it be in play?
So the 538 model has Trump up 3 points.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/florida/
Is it possible for Harris to win Florida? Sure. But that would reflect either a pervasive polling error or a few points, or a decisive shift towards Harris in the last few weeks.
Things like heavy advertising, ground game, strong GOTV efforts - I think the wisdom is that can move a race by 0.5-1% (but also remembering your opponent is doing the same thing).
Florida would be a game-changer - but because it's so large it means making a play for Florida would be extremely expensive.
But it is fun to think that in 2000 Florida was a battleground state, while now it's safely Republican. Or hell go back to JImmy Carter's 1976 election, where he largely won on the strength of the Dixiecrat south.
If I was betting (and I have before, but don't now) on this election I think there is a much stronger chance of Kamala flipping NC than Florida. There is an element of demographic drift ongoing--NC & GA are States where the core demographic "story" has been steadily trending towards Democrats for a really long time. GA was actually the redder of the two states even 10 years ago, but kind of overtook NC. But both states are states where it is obvious both parties remain viable--a Democrat has won the Governor's mansion 2x in a row in NC and looks likely to have a successor be a Dem as well, but Republicans have won the EC every year since 2016 and every Senate race since then as well.
Meanwhile, GA has consistently been electing Republicans to statewide office but when you count all the off-cycle special elections, has had like 3 Senate elections in a row go for Democrats and Biden flipped the state in the EC for either the first time since Carter or the first time since maybe Clinton in '92.
Florida on the other hand was just a very purple state 20 years ago and even 15 years ago, but its demographic story is different. The fastest growing demographic group in Florida, which is fairly unique to the State, is whites over age 65. It is a retirement destination state. As a rule this is making Florida less and less amenable to Democrats. There are also other factors at play, historically Democrats have done well with most Hispanic groups in Florida, albeit Republicans were often able to win the Cuban vote. These days Republicans dominate in the Cuban vote, but also a number of other Hispanic demos (but a lot of this is due to the reality that a lot of Hispanics in Florida are also something else--e.g. they identify as white people and many are over 65, so some of the shift just is because the Hispanic demographic has never been well-bounded.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 03, 2024, 12:28:30 PMIf I was betting (and I have before, but don't now) on this election I think there is a much stronger chance of Kamala flipping NC than Florida. There is an element of demographic drift ongoing--NC & GA are States where the core demographic "story" has been steadily trending towards Democrats for a really long time. GA was actually the redder of the two states even 10 years ago, but kind of overtook NC. But both states are states where it is obvious both parties remain viable--a Democrat has won the Governor's mansion 2x in a row in NC and looks likely to have a successor be a Dem as well, but Republicans have won the EC every year since 2016 and every Senate race since then as well.
I mean no offence, but that's hardly rocket science. NC and GA are easily the two most vulnerable states that are projected to go for Trump this time around (and heck - Georgia did go for Biden in 2020).
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
The problem w/NC is it has kinda sent indicators like that in elections since 2018 but GOP keep winning all the Senate / Presidentials there in spite of it, so I'm not sold on it until I see it actually happen.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 03, 2024, 12:50:37 PMThe problem w/NC is it has kinda sent indicators like that in elections since 2018 but GOP keep winning all the Senate / Presidentials there in spite of it, so I'm not sold on it until I see it actually happen.
For sure.
It's like Texas. It probably is going to flip Democratic at some point in the future (flip side - Minnesota will probably flip Republican some day), but until it actually happens it's a mighty dangerous thing to rely on. Until it does though parties will be tempted to throw away money chasing some rather unlikely wins - think how much money Beto O'Rourke got only to lose to Ted Cruz.
The real issue with NC is the hurricane - who knows how that will effect things.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 03, 2024, 12:50:37 PMThe problem w/NC is it has kinda sent indicators like that in elections since 2018 but GOP keep winning all the Senate / Presidentials there in spite of it, so I'm not sold on it until I see it actually happen.
But the Democrats have held the Governors mansion over the same period.
Obviously North Carolina and Georgia are the states the Democrats need to focus on in the short term. Tons of House seats are also up for grabs there if they can capture the statehouses before 2030.
Texas and Florida are longer term projects. Texas requires one more big shift to really be in play. But right now we can consistently be within 10% in most elections. Not great, but far from the 30 point whippings we used to take.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2024, 12:14:06 PMBut it is fun to think that in 2000 Florida was a battleground state, while now it's safely Republican. Or hell go back to JImmy Carter's 1976 election, where he largely won on the strength of the Dixiecrat south.
Yeah but also in every election from 1972 until 1984 the entire west coast went safely Republican with Oregon and Washington not switching over until 1988. And frankly it was just a different world before right wing talk radio got going and created the different media eco-systems. Before that the Republicans or Democrats could get massive landslides because everybody was living in the same reality, it was just which party could produce the better pitch for solving problems. Now nobody even agrees on what are problems.
I mean the right wing has been going on and on and on about immigration and border security for decades, this is not something I feel particularly strongly about, and they never have had one serious policy proposal on how to fix it besides absurd things like turning the border into a walled off warzone. This is not a situation where both parties agree there is a serious problem and they are both coming up with policy proposals on how to fix it. It is just something to scare voters with. The Republicans are under no actual pressure to fix it and they won't. It is just a useful propaganda tool. That kind of thing wasn't around in 1972.
As for Florida, Covid was a huge win for them there. It is theirs until they fuck it up.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2024, 02:13:41 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 03, 2024, 12:14:06 PMBut it is fun to think that in 2000 Florida was a battleground state, while now it's safely Republican. Or hell go back to JImmy Carter's 1976 election, where he largely won on the strength of the Dixiecrat south.
Yeah but also in every election from 1972 until 1984 the entire west coast went safely Republican with Oregon and Washington not switching over until 1988. And frankly it was just a different world before right wing talk radio got going and created the different media eco-systems. Before that the Republicans or Democrats could get massive landslides because everybody was living in the same reality, it was just which party could produce the better pitch for solving problems. Now nobody even agrees on what are problems.
I mean the right wing has been going on and on and on about immigration and border security for decades, this is not something I feel particularly strongly about, and they never have had one serious policy proposal on how to fix it besides absurd things like turning the border into a walled off warzone. This is not a situation where both parties agree there is a serious problem and they are both coming up with policy proposals on how to fix it. It is just something to scare voters with. The Republicans are under no actual pressure to fix it and they won't. It is just a useful propaganda tool. That kind of thing wasn't around in 1972.
As for Florida, Covid was a huge win for them there. It is theirs until they fuck it up.
I think "blaming right wing radio" is grossly over-simplifying things.
You mentioned the west coast being safely Republican. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk didn't turn California blue.
I mentioned the "dixiecrat south" - for generations after the Civil War the south was solidly Democratic (since the Republicans were the "party of Lincoln". That shift started in the 1980s (the term was "Reagan democrat") and only solidified by what - 2000? (Clinton was able to win some southern states).
Immigration is hard - illegal immigration doubly so. I never heard many serious policy proposals from democrats to fix it either. Democrats either ignored the issue, or just went hostile to the idea of immigration enforcement (sanctuary cities), or just tinkered around the worst edges (Obama's Dream Act). Actually the only serious attempt at immigration reform I can recall since the 1980s was from George W Bush - which promptly got shot down from both sides.
The solution to illegal immigration on the American border seems pretty clear to me - invest in Mexico and Central America.
Make them safer, wealthier places from which there isn't half as much of a desire to flee.
But it definitely seems true that the American right, much like people here, vastly overstate how much it an issue it actually is.
As to the dem/republican flip... I'm not too sure on giving Reagen much credit here. The trends were already developing there. Reagen just popped up at the right time to exploit the shift.
There are easier steps too. Add categories and numbers to the green card system.
Quote from: Barrister on October 03, 2024, 03:55:22 PMI think "blaming right wing radio" is grossly over-simplifying things.
You mentioned the west coast being safely Republican. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk didn't turn California blue.
I mentioned the "dixiecrat south" - for generations after the Civil War the south was solidly Democratic (since the Republicans were the "party of Lincoln". That shift started in the 1980s (the term was "Reagan democrat") and only solidified by what - 2000? (Clinton was able to win some southern states).
Right Wing Talk Radio was the start of it. Once it was profitable it exploded from there.
That shift happened well before the 1980s. It started with the New Deal in the 1930s, that was the first time black Americans started to vote Democratic, and unraveled in 1968 with it only lingering on for a bit thanks to the aging Yellow Dogs. Look at 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972. 1976 was an anomaly, the dixiecrat south hadn't been solid since 1944 and even then Carter lost Virginia. The shift started the second Truman integrated the military. "Reagan Democrats" were left wing boomer hippies who shifted rightwards not Southerners.
QuoteImmigration is hard - illegal immigration doubly so. I never heard many serious policy proposals from democrats to fix it either. Democrats either ignored the issue, or just went hostile to the idea of immigration enforcement (sanctuary cities), or just tinkered around the worst edges (Obama's Dream Act). Actually the only serious attempt at immigration reform I can recall since the 1980s was from George W Bush - which promptly got shot down from both sides.
Practically it is actually quite easy. You have the policies actually line up with the labor needs of the economy, you cannot legislate it so people are not going to follow their interests. There are dozens of ways we might do it.
Politically it is not. There are reasons neither party will do that. For the Democrats it would be passing legislation allowing for cheap immigrant labor that work for less than minimum wage. That is not something they would ever allow, at least not officially. So what they do is simply blandly enforce the existing laws. And every once in a while do little things their base would like, like the DREAM act.
As for Sanctuary Cities being some kind of widespread Democratic platform designed to end enforcement of immigration is ridiculous. I don't know where you got that idea from. The idea was to help local enforcement be able to operate in their cities without having to suffer the consequences of the Feds failed policies. And Rick Perry, my former governor, was in favor of them before his base freaked out. Last I checked he was not a Democrat. Democrats mostly run the cities and those mayors want law and order so they can get re-elected. That is why they wanted sanctuary cities, not out of some national strategy to end enforcement of immigration laws.
And yes I was a big fan of Dubya's immigration policies and very excited to see them put into action but his own party betrayed him. The Democrats don't like guest workers for obvious reasons unless they get paid minimum wage and all that. And no serious effort has been done to fix it since.
But here is the issue: Democratic voters for the most part do not care about this issue. They are fine with immigrants but also fine with illegal immigrants being deported. Or not. Whatever. Outside of immigrant activist groups of course who have to have a bone tossed their way from time to time. Democratic voters were not all up in arms about Obama being the "deporter in chief" or Biden also deported massive amounts of people.
For Republicans this is one of their main issues. They constantly and loudly demand action, big serious profound action. They consider this issue an existential threat and a huge security and social order issue. There are billboards all over Texas demanding action or our doom as a civilization is surely imminent. But they do nothing at all about it. And the Democrats have basically said they are willing to pass whatever the Republicans want on this issue, because again this is not a huge issue for them, and the Republicans still have nothing. The Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House with a guy who specifically promised to build a wall and yet no wall was built. And the wall was not mentioned until the Democrats had taken control of the House and Senate. It was a political, just like claiming the Democrats are for "open borders". They aren't but this is a good issue to stir up rage and fear and get elected, so why solve it?
So to portray it as some kind of "both sides" thing when one side doesn't care that much while the other side makes this their main issue is rather absurd. It would be like if nothing was ever done for environmental protection, gay rights, and worker rights even when the Democrats were in charge and I decided the Republicans were equally at fault...even though they are at best neutral on those issues if not hostile.
First place to start on immigration is simple—no more Muslims. Muslim non-citizens sent home. Muslim citizens who praise Hamas, jailed.
I will say that with Trump and the Republicans now demanding that legal immigrants be deported that might be a bridge too far and we might see the Democrats finally start to take action on this issue.
Maybe. I never want to get my hopes up.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 03, 2024, 05:51:01 PMFirst place to start on immigration is simple—no more Muslims. Muslim non-citizens sent home. Muslim citizens who praise Hamas, jailed.
Well simple for you.
But for some reason Christian Haitians and Latinos seem to be the main source of fear.
Quote from: Josquius on October 03, 2024, 05:20:18 PMBut it definitely seems true that the American right, much like people here, vastly overstate how much it an issue it actually is.
What would be the accurate statement of how much of an issue it really is?
If Neil was still here he would probably ban BB for disrespecting Nixon by suggesting the Southern shift toward the Republicans occurred in the 80s.
BB - read up on the Southern Strategy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2024, 06:09:34 PMIf Neil was still here he would probably ban BB for disrespecting Nixon by suggesting the Southern shift toward the Republicans occurred in the 80s.
BB - read up on the Southern Strategy.
There is this weird thing in American political history for 1948-1976 to just go right down the memory hole. People even in the 1990s were acting like the Democrats had just lost the support of the Solid South, presumably because of being out of touch liberals, despite this happening because of something Harry Truman did.
Carter winning over the Southerners with his Southern Baptist ways I guess meant people thought the Democrats had built back the Solid South for good despite it being a one time thing. And again Carter still lost Virginia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2024, 05:59:43 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 03, 2024, 05:20:18 PMBut it definitely seems true that the American right, much like people here, vastly overstate how much it an issue it actually is.
What would be the accurate statement of how much of an issue it really is?
It's not an exact science.
But looking at this list of important issues to Americans
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1362236/most-important-voter-issues-us/
It comes 2nd. Which.... Haway.
Healthcare, the economy, climate, hell, even with the current assault on rights going on abortion, are all more important.
Probably some of those lower too - the shooting epidemic for instance boosts guns up the rationalist agenda.
Quote from: Josquius on October 04, 2024, 01:39:47 AMIt's not an exact science.
But looking at this list of important issues to Americans
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1362236/most-important-voter-issues-us/
It comes 2nd. Which.... Haway.
Healthcare, the economy, climate, hell, even with the current assault on rights going on abortion, are all more important.
Probably some of those lower too - the shooting epidemic for instance boosts guns up the rationalist agenda.
Healthcare 90% of people are set. The economy is fine. It turns out no one gives a shit about abortion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2024, 07:23:20 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 04, 2024, 01:39:47 AMIt's not an exact science.
But looking at this list of important issues to Americans
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1362236/most-important-voter-issues-us/
It comes 2nd. Which.... Haway.
Healthcare, the economy, climate, hell, even with the current assault on rights going on abortion, are all more important.
Probably some of those lower too - the shooting epidemic for instance boosts guns up the rationalist agenda.
Healthcare 90% of people are set. The economy is fine. It turns out no one gives a shit about abortion.
90% of people absolutely are not "set".
Healthcare is one of those things where no matter how good it is (which I gather in the US things are anything but) it can always do better.
For the economy the same applies. In the current situation where the US is still recovering from a massive low and things are incredibly unequally spread.... Its not without reason that Trump is trying to push this one too (despite it being a result of things under his watch).
Immigration meanwhile...Illegal immigration in particular....for 90%+ of people its not something that impacts their daily life at all. Yet people have been conditioned to believe its one of the most important issues.
If the media company with the largest viewership in America keeps screaming at their viewers that immigration in the world problem in the world with INVASIONS and giant caravans of death, it's not surprising that the issue polls highly in salience.
The irony is that immigration really is a significant issue, with the problem being that there are insufficient amounts of legal immigration and a long-term trend of demographic stagnation. The Right acknowledges the latter problem but their solution is pursuing Gilead-lite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2024, 06:09:34 PMIf Neil was still here he would probably ban BB for disrespecting Nixon by suggesting the Southern shift toward the Republicans occurred in the 80s.
BB - read up on the Southern Strategy.
Again you don't seem to think much of me. I'm quite familiar with the "southern strategy" as an amateur political junkie.
In hindsight we can see that it was starting to have effects, but it certainly did not give Nixon either of his victories. In 1968 much of the south went for George Wallace, and to the extent Nixon won any states it was through vote-splitting between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace. But yes it was starting to bear fruit.
1972 Nixon swept the South - but then again he swept the country. I had forgotten what a landslide it was - McGovern only won Mass. and DC, with Nixon taking everything else.
But I specifically brought up 1976 - where Carter swept the south. It turned out to be a last gasp of the Democratic south, but it still happened.
It was in 1980 where the switch was firmly switched, and where the south has been a GOP stronghold at the Presidential level, and then into the 90s at the other levels as well.
I didn't invent the term "Reagan democrats" you know.
Trump will probably win this time, but at least Harris has made it competitive. Something akin to 2016 is most likely.
Quote from: PJL on October 04, 2024, 11:58:50 AMTrump will probably win this time, but at least Harris has made it competitive. Something akin to 2016 is most likely.
Trump might definitely win, but it's pretty close, and there's no "probably" about it.
I heard one analyst say "it could go either way at this point, but I'd rather be in Harris's position than Trump's".
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2024, 12:09:58 PMQuote from: PJL on October 04, 2024, 11:58:50 AMTrump will probably win this time, but at least Harris has made it competitive. Something akin to 2016 is most likely.
Trump might definitely win, but it's pretty close, and there's no "probably" about it.
I heard one analyst say "it could go either way at this point, but I'd rather be in Harris's position than Trump's".
Well I'm sure they said something similar in 2016 re Clinton & Trump and look what happened there. Hopefully the polls will be more accurate this time around, but I would prefer if Harris consistently had a 5-6 point lead. Even in 2020, Biden's actual lead in the election was about 3-4 points less than what polls were predicting.
Here's my prediction - Trump to get 310, Harris 218 in the EC. All the swing states will go for Trump.
The polls actually were mostly right in 2016 and 2020, the degree to which they were wrong has often been overstated, and also tends to forget that all the polls have a margin of error so normal variations happen inside of that MOE--and many of the States were polling w/in the MOE in both years.
There was a minor understatement of Trump's support in a few places in both elections, but there's also been "crosswind" indicators since 2020, when it appears the abortion issue has created a lot of more activist Dem voters who for whatever reason are not appearing quite as consistently on polls--this phenomenon appears to explain a lot of Dem surprise wins in the 2022 mid terms and a number of State and off-cycle elections in the last 3.5 years as well.
Quote from: PJL on October 04, 2024, 11:58:50 AMTrump will probably win this time, but at least Harris has made it competitive. Something akin to 2016 is most likely.
Unfortunately I don't have sufficient evidence to prove you wrong.
Either way it will be a nail biter.
A lot of crazy shit on Twitter (of course) out of North Carolina - about how FEMA isn't there, or how FEMA are seizing guns / expropriating land, hiding dead bodies, all the kind of right-wing fever swamp stuff. The only sources of course are other social media posts / TikTok videos. Crazy how this shit spreads. No idea what kind of effect it could have on the election.
And that's before you get into the weather control stuff...
I think Valmy mentioned this and was spot on: the far right and people who listen to their media inhabit a reality entirely different to the rest of us.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 02:55:10 PMI think Valmy mentioned this and was spot on: the far right and people who listen to their media inhabit a reality entirely different to the rest of us.
Trouble is, if 40% of the people believe in it, are they really far right? Now there's a troubling thought...
Quote from: PJL on October 04, 2024, 02:57:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 02:55:10 PMI think Valmy mentioned this and was spot on: the far right and people who listen to their media inhabit a reality entirely different to the rest of us.
Trouble is, if 40% of the people believe in it, are they really far right? Now there's a troubling thought...
Yes.
The nazis didn't become centrists when they took power.
Though I do think /hope that's an over estimate.
There'll always be nutters and of course they support trump.
The weird thing is those who otherwise seem sane and decent but do so.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2024, 11:55:11 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2024, 06:09:34 PMIf Neil was still here he would probably ban BB for disrespecting Nixon by suggesting the Southern shift toward the Republicans occurred in the 80s.
BB - read up on the Southern Strategy.
Again you don't seem to think much of me. I'm quite familiar with the "southern strategy" as an amateur political junkie.
In hindsight we can see that it was starting to have effects, but it certainly did not give Nixon either of his victories. In 1968 much of the south went for George Wallace, and to the extent Nixon won any states it was through vote-splitting between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace. But yes it was starting to bear fruit.
1972 Nixon swept the South - but then again he swept the country. I had forgotten what a landslide it was - McGovern only won Mass. and DC, with Nixon taking everything else.
But I specifically brought up 1976 - where Carter swept the south. It turned out to be a last gasp of the Democratic south, but it still happened.
It was in 1980 where the switch was firmly switched, and where the south has been a GOP stronghold at the Presidential level, and then into the 90s at the other levels as well.
I didn't invent the term "Reagan democrats" you know.
Or you could have just said, "Hey yeah, I got it wrong when I said it started in the 80s"
I wonder why the people that believe in conspiracies think that their government is keeping secret a highly competent division dedicated to, of all things, controlling them.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 02:55:10 PMI think Valmy mentioned this and was spot on: the far right and people who listen to their media inhabit a reality entirely different to the rest of us.
Yes, just today I saw someone on Facebook say this
Quotethis is the worst the country has been with the cost of everything, the world is on fire, and the hate from people is incredible. You're not going to convince many people that we're better under this administration than we were under Trump. You can hate Trump all you want( he's not that likable honestly) but the whole world was in better shape.
Source is some guy that was friends with Berkut on Facebook.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2024, 03:26:12 PMOr you could have just said, "Hey yeah, I got it wrong when I said it started in the 80s"
Bye!
Real (inflation adjusted) income and GDP is much higher now than during the Trump administration. Unemployment is much lower. It's completely insane to say the economy is worse now than under Trump. The economy is much stronger now.
Somehow Trump has gotten a pass for all the economic damage under COVID, but Biden/Harris is getting all the blame for the price impact of emerging from COVID. Either both should take the blame or both get the pass. If the former, a price level bump is much less a problem than mass unemployment. Inflation adjusted GDP and investment is much higher now.
The economic stuff is just part of the bizarre amnesia about the complete and utter shitshow that was the Trump administration, with the decades long alliance system that undergirds American power being pushed to the brink. It won't survive a second term with the likes of Kash Patel and Michael Flynn running the show. America was insulated from the worst fallout because the grownups ran things for the first 2-3 years while DJT read his shopping catalogs in the security briefings, and then Trump lost power before the crazies he started appointing at the end could do permanent damage. Now the curtain will open on the nutbars from Day 1.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2024, 03:48:22 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 02:55:10 PMI think Valmy mentioned this and was spot on: the far right and people who listen to their media inhabit a reality entirely different to the rest of us.
Yes, just today I saw someone on Facebook say this
Quotethis is the worst the country has been with the cost of everything, the world is on fire, and the hate from people is incredible. You're not going to convince many people that we're better under this administration than we were under Trump. You can hate Trump all you want( he's not that likable honestly) but the whole world was in better shape.
Source is some guy that was friends with Berkut on Facebook.
Yeah well they said the same thing in 2016, that the economy was destroyed and everything was horrible.
And then the next day after Trump was sworn in everything was great. All the positives about the economy we had been saying, and they insisted were lies were suddenly true.
And they will pull the same trick if they win this year.
Anyway as if some magical beliefs that the President has complete and total control over the economy is a good enough excuse to put a piece of shit who tried to coup the government in charge of the country.
But anyway that is my point. To them Trump brought everybody together and extinguished hate, he was an enlightened peacemaker abroad, and a wizard with the economy. But all of that is ridiculous propaganda. They just live in a different world than I do.
And I cannot help but debunk their stupid claims I guess just to remind myself of how reality works.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2024, 11:55:11 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2024, 06:09:34 PMIf Neil was still here he would probably ban BB for disrespecting Nixon by suggesting the Southern shift toward the Republicans occurred in the 80s.
BB - read up on the Southern Strategy.
Again you don't seem to think much of me. I'm quite familiar with the "southern strategy" as an amateur political junkie.
In hindsight we can see that it was starting to have effects, but it certainly did not give Nixon either of his victories. In 1968 much of the south went for George Wallace, and to the extent Nixon won any states it was through vote-splitting between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace. But yes it was starting to bear fruit.
1972 Nixon swept the South - but then again he swept the country. I had forgotten what a landslide it was - McGovern only won Mass. and DC, with Nixon taking everything else.
But I specifically brought up 1976 - where Carter swept the south. It turned out to be a last gasp of the Democratic south, but it still happened.
It was in 1980 where the switch was firmly switched, and where the south has been a GOP stronghold at the Presidential level, and then into the 90s at the other levels as well.
I didn't invent the term "Reagan democrats" you know.
Check out the 1964 election. Virtually the entire country went for LBJ except the South (and Arizona). When the South alone (and Arizona) goes Republican that says something. And Reagan Democrats existed in many places besides just the South, as can be seen in the 1984 election. And as I said largely referred to 1960s hippies who went right wing not bubbas, or at least that was my memory of that.
Anyway as per my other reply you are not alone in thinking that the shift was more recent than it actually was.
QuoteBye!
If he upsets you just ignore him dude.
Quote from: Barrister on October 04, 2024, 04:22:13 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 04, 2024, 03:26:12 PMOr you could have just said, "Hey yeah, I got it wrong when I said it started in the 80s"
Bye!
Go back to your little place where you are safe from anybody criticizing you. You know the place where you exercise your elbows out freedom of expression with no risk to yourself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 08:51:48 AMThe irony is that immigration really is a significant issue, with the problem being that there are insufficient amounts of legal immigration and a long-term trend of demographic stagnation. The Right acknowledges the latter problem but their solution is pursuing Gilead-lite.
This is the first time I've heard that we have insufficient legal immigration. IIRC we hand out 400,000 green card lottery spots a year. How is that not sufficient?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2024, 06:23:28 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 08:51:48 AMThe irony is that immigration really is a significant issue, with the problem being that there are insufficient amounts of legal immigration and a long-term trend of demographic stagnation. The Right acknowledges the latter problem but their solution is pursuing Gilead-lite.
This is the first time I've heard that we have insufficient legal immigration. IIRC we hand out 400,000 green card lottery spots a year. How is that not sufficient?
It been big news for a while.
I picked a publication you might accept as having accurate reporting
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/08/23/us-risks-decline-and-stagnation-without-immigrants/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2024, 06:23:28 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 08:51:48 AMThe irony is that immigration really is a significant issue, with the problem being that there are insufficient amounts of legal immigration and a long-term trend of demographic stagnation. The Right acknowledges the latter problem but their solution is pursuing Gilead-lite.
This is the first time I've heard that we have insufficient legal immigration. IIRC we hand out 400,000 green card lottery spots a year. How is that not sufficient?
What's that, a bit over 0.1% of the population?
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 07:12:12 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 04, 2024, 06:23:28 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 08:51:48 AMThe irony is that immigration really is a significant issue, with the problem being that there are insufficient amounts of legal immigration and a long-term trend of demographic stagnation. The Right acknowledges the latter problem but their solution is pursuing Gilead-lite.
This is the first time I've heard that we have insufficient legal immigration. IIRC we hand out 400,000 green card lottery spots a year. How is that not sufficient?
What's that, a bit over 0.1% of the population?
And they are notoriously hard to get.
Quote from: Tamas on October 04, 2024, 07:12:12 PMWhat's that, a bit over 0.1% of the population?
yeah
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 11:38:13 PMThat's your answer.
So to clarify, you've compared this rate to the replacement rate of the native born population, and you've concluded the net rate of population growth is negative at this moment?
From CNN (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/10/04/politics/walz-audits-fraud-accountability-invs)
QuoteAs fraud scandals erupt in Minnesota on Gov. Tim Walz's watch, accountability is in short supply
Minneapolis
CNN
—
One state audit found that bonus checks intended for frontline workers during the pandemic were handed out to undeserving recipients. Another criticized a Minnesota state agency for failing to ensure there were no conflicts of interest in taxpayer-funded mental health and addiction programs. A third detailed lax oversight of a program to feed needy kids which federal prosecutors say resulted in the nation's largest Covid-era fraud scheme.
But when confronted with these and other troubling examples of waste, fraud and abuse, some state agencies working under the administration of Democratic Gov. Tim Walz repeatedly minimized or dismissed the allegations, the state's nonpartisan auditor, Judy Randall, told CNN.
A CNN review of audits – and the responses they prompted – as well as interviews with statewide politicians and pundits, found that Walz has been a hands-off leader when it comes to seeking accountability for episodes of fraud and mismanagement on his watch. What's more, some state agencies headed by his appointees have responded defensively in recent months to the audits – a dynamic that Randall, who has worked in the department for 26 years, has found surprising.
Randall told a local media outlet this summer that the responses of some agencies to her audits have had a "shoot the messenger" feel of late. CNN reviewed more than a dozen reports from her office that held specific agencies responsible for allowing fraud, waste or mismanagement on their watch during the Walz administration.
Some addressed high-profile scandals such as the pandemic fraud allegations and a troubled light-rail project – whose genesis predates Walz but is currently monitored by 17 Walz appointees – that has suffered from more than $1.5 billion in cost overruns. Randall's office faulted that agency last year for a lack of transparency about rising costs and failure to ensure contractors' ballooning price tags were justified. Others found holes in safeguards to waste or raised more targeted conflict-of-interest concerns, such as a state Department of Public Safety employee who received payments from the recipient of a grant that the employee oversees.
Randall told CNN that she knows of no personnel changes linked to any audit by her office since 2019, when Walz was sworn in.
Critics say that is on Walz, now the Democratic candidate for vice president.
"When he is not holding any commissioners responsible, then yes, Governor Walz is responsible for the fraud that has been ongoing in the state of Minnesota," said Lisa Demuth, the state House GOP leader. "It falls squarely on his shoulders."
There are also signs of resentment from the state agencies on the receiving end of the audits.
Randall said that when her office this year reviewed a 2021 audit of the agency in charge of doling out the grants pertaining to mental health and addiction, it discovered that the agency had failed to address most of the concerns, including the conflict-of-interest vulnerabilities. Other responses, Randall said, were more pointed, such as the one from this summer about frontline worker bonus pay that "disagreed with every single thing we said."
And then there was her June critique of the state in the blockbuster meals-for-needy-kids case. The state's response, Randall felt, was dismissive.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages-1425603996.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill)
FBI agents raided Twin Cities nonprofit Feeding Our Future in a suburb of Minneapolis in January of 2022.
Critics – mainly Republicans – believe Walz is the one who set that tone.
"The governor's appointees across the board at almost all agencies have been hostile and uncooperative when citizens are seeking transparency and oversight through the legislative auditor," said state Sen. Mark Koran, a Republican who serves as the vice chair of the state's bipartisan legislative audit commission. "The hostility is led by Governor Walz."
Democrat Rep. Rick Hansen, the chair of the committee, did not return an email or a phone message requesting comment.
A spokesperson for the Walz administration pushed back on the notion that it is dismissive of the auditor's findings. She said in a prepared statement that the governor's office in fact often agreed with the recommendations made by Randall's Office of the Legislative Auditor and have "implemented the vast majority of their suggestions."
Even in instances in which agency heads "may fundamentally disagree" with the OLA's findings, "we always take their advice and recommendations seriously," the statement added. "We are constantly evaluating ways to eliminate fraud and improve government programs, and we're grateful for the OLA's assistance."
A culture of unaccountability in Minnesota?
Walz, a former high school teacher and assistant football coach with a disarming, affable nature and low-key leadership style, enjoys broad popular support in Minnesota among Democrats.
His fans were easy to find last month at the Minnesota State Fair, which drew nearly 2 million people this year.
"He is real; he knows the state," said Erik Biever, who called Walz "one of the best governor's we've ever had." "Tim Walz has a heart."
But that folksy persona hasn't been enough to endear him to Republicans who see him as having caved to the progressive wing of his party, thereby abandoning early promises to lead as a moderate voice under the banner of "One Minnesota." And some of the same traits of Walz's that appeal to his base – off-the-cuff, easy-going, non-punitive – are seen by detractors as liabilities that have contributed to a culture of unaccountability in the Minnesota state government.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages-2169097004.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill)
Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz greets supporters at the Minnesota State Fair in early September.
Willie Jett, a member of Walz's cabinet, seemed to feed into this perception when being grilled by state lawmakers this summer on the alleged meals-for-needy-kids scam, which revolved around a now-defunct nonprofit called Feeding Our Future.
An audit by Randall's office found that the state agency overseeing the program missed key early warning signs.
Pressed on whether anyone in the Minnesota Department of Education had been disciplined, Jett – who was appointed by Walz in late 2022 to lead that agency – repeatedly said: "That's not what MDE is about."
Walz himself called the audit a "fair critique" of his department of education, telling the Minnesota Star Tribune earlier this year that some government employees "didn't do as much due diligence as they should've."
He added, however, "There's not a single state employee that was implicated in doing anything that was illegal."
The Feeding Our Future matter reared its head again last month, when Congressional Republicans sent Walz a subpoena demanding documents showing how his administration handled the situation.
Walz's political foes insist that what they see as his laissez faire attitude toward accountability is exacerbated by one-party rule, which took effect in 2022, when Democrats narrowly won the senate, giving them control of all three chambers of state government.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/still-20915715-895382-483-still.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill)
Republican state Sen. Mark Koran, second from right, speaks with constituents at the Minnesota State Fair.
"They've been emboldened because they've got the cover," Koran said. "They believe they're untouchable."
Some nonpartisan political observers in Minnesota say there's truth to the complaints.
Dan Myers, an associate professor of political science at the University of Minnesota, said Democrats' so-called trifecta in state government has likely hindered efforts to get clear answers into what went wrong in certain cases of fraud and waste.
"There has been less digging into that than there almost certainly would be if Republicans had had one more seat in the state Senate," he said.
Blois Olson, a longtime political analyst in the Twin Cities who has moderated debates featuring Walz and his opponents, said he's never seen evidence of any criminal conduct by a Walz staffer in any audit or indictment.
"They're not corrupt," Olson said, "they're just casual in holding themselves responsible."
Olson added that he sees Walz's story as understandably inspiring to many people.
"I think it's amazing that a teacher could be the vice president," he said. "I think that's an American story that everybody can rally around."
At the same time, he questions whether Walz is ready for the White House. Olson sees Walz as a "a political animal" whose desire to be liked and avoidance of "tough topics and critiques" have gotten in the way of "actually making sure state government runs smoothly."
'The buck is still running down the street and stopping nowhere'
In the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic, a nonprofit organization in Minnesota was embarking on what initially seemed a noble cause: Providing free meals to needy kids who might otherwise go hungry.
Because the nonprofit – Feeding Our Future – was funded through tax dollars, the program needed to be overseen by a state agency, the Minnesota Department of Education.
The state, among other things, needed to see proof that the federal money was being spent on its intended purpose – that is, that the number of meals the nonprofit claimed to be serving checked out.
Because social-distancing measures complicated the state's ability to monitor the program in person, staff members sometimes did so virtually. On one occasion, they watched a live video via phone shot by the nonprofit's executive director, Aimee Bock, as kids and/or their parents picked up boxes of meals at a site.
In 15 minutes, 30 kids received meals, but Bock's phone shut off at that point – ostensibly because it died. Bock would report that within the next hour while her phone was off, the number of meals skyrocketed by a whopping 1,900%.
Randall said such a sharp increase struck her as "a little unlikely" and, at a minimum, worthy of further scrutiny.
"We didn't see any evidence that the department looked into that," she told CNN.
The anecdote, referenced in an audit, offers an example of lax oversight by the state that allegedly enabled vendors and sites to submit fraudulent claims for reimbursement.
Federal prosecutors say people who were supposed to be providing the service stole some $250 million in federal tax dollars to purchase luxury cars, lavish overseas trips, gold jewelry and lakeside property. About 70 people, including Bock – the alleged mastermind who has yet to stand trial – have been charged in connection with the scheme; more than 20 have been convicted thus far. Bock has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty; her trial is scheduled to begin in February, her attorney said.
The audit by Randall's office dinged the Minnesota Department of Education for, among other things, missing warning signs. These included some 30 complaints between 2018 and 2021 about the way business was being conducted.
For instance, the audit said, when a food vendor contacted the state in 2021 to allege that Feeding Our Future demanded a kickback and retaliated against the vendor when it refused, staff members at the state forwarded the complaint to Feeding Our Future – the very organization that was the subject of the allegation.
"We are troubled by MDE's decision," the auditor's report said, using the acronym for the Minnesota Department of Education. "In effect, MDE directed Feeding Our Future to investigate itself."
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages-1425629301.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill)
Andrew Luger, the US attorney in Minnesota, held a news conference in 2022 to announce multiple indictments in what he called a "brazen scheme of staggering proportions" to defraud the government.
However, a memo submitted to the courts last month by Andrew Luger, the US attorney in Minnesota, painted a more sympathetic portrait of the state's attempt to monitor the program. The memo stated that Bock and Feeding Our Future tried to divert attention from their "fraudulent scheme" by blaming the state education department when it tried to perform "legitimate and necessary oversight."
Luger added that Bock gave false assurances they were monitoring the sites and, when the state continued to press for clarification, she filed a lawsuit on behalf of Feeding Our Future in late 2020 with "unfounded accusations of racism" – many of the vendors working with the nonprofit were of East African descent. Bock voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in January of 2022, a week after the feds raided her home and the nonprofit's office.
Walz's appointed head of the education department – Heather Mueller – resigned in late 2022 for unspecified reasons; she was replaced with Jett. But officials have offered no reasons for Mueller's departure, and even Democrats have voiced frustration about the lack of accountability for the massive case of fraud.
"The buck is still running down the street and stopping nowhere, and that is unacceptable," said state Sen. Ann Rest – a Democrat – at a hearing earlier this summer about the state's response to the Feeding Our Future case. Rest did not respond to CNN's request to comment for this story.
Some insist that politics had something to do with the state's seeming reticence to aggressively intervene. Aside from Bock, the vast majority of the Feeding Our Future defendants are members of the state's sizable Somali community, an immigrant group that has become a stronghold of Democratic support in Minnesota. Some of the defendants had been regular contributors to prominent Democrats – including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
"Governor Walz and his administration, in addition to Keith Ellison, could not be seen prosecuting their friends in their community," Koran said.
Walz has vigorously defended his education department, saying in 2022 that staff members there noted irregularities and alerted the FBI to the suspected fraud.
Still, he has been vague about when he first learned of the suspicious activity. When a local journalist asked this question after federal prosecutors broke news of the indictments in the fall of 2022, Walz and his staff members gave three different answers, each with a significantly later date than the prior.
News of the indictments landed like a bombshell in the latter stages of Walz's 2022 reelection campaign. His opponent, Dr. Scott Jensen, tried to capitalize.
"What did Governor Walz know? When did he learn what he knew?" Jensen, a family practice physician and a noted vaccine skeptic, said during a news conference. "Who's he trying to protect?"
Walz would win reelection by a comfortable margin, taking 52% of the state's votes to Jensen's 45%.
Some folks at the state fair last month said they found it a stretch to hold one person responsible for fraud during the pandemic, when it was rampant across the nation.
"People took advantage of the situation," Miriam Ackerman said. "I certainly don't blame Governor Walz for it."
But Olson, the political analyst, said he believes the fraud under Walz is more prevalent in "dollars" and "scope" than under his predecessors.
"One instance is not new for a state, any state," he said. "Multiple instances in the same administration on public-program fraud becomes a trend or a culture that the legislative auditor says is not right and we need to change."
Randall, the auditor, said the number of critical audits has held steady under Walz relative to his predecessor, Democrat Mark Dayton – though she added that the number of audits is not by itself a good way to compare the amount of fraud happening under different governors.
Feds launch probes into additional fraud cases in Minnesota
The Feeding Our Future saga isn't the only case of alleged taxpayer grift or mismanagement to plague Minnesota in recent years.
Another involved the statewide effort to give out $500 million worth of bonus checks to frontline workers as a token of appreciation for their service during the pandemic.
Auditors reviewed a sampling of some 300 recipients of the $487 checks and found 40% were either ineligible or their eligibility could not be confirmed; most of those fell into the latter category. Some of the recipients were deceased.
Other cases have involved alleged Medicaid scams, two of which prompted federal probes into programs run by the same state agency in recent months.
In May, a Minneapolis TV station revealed that federal authorities – prompted by the outlet's investigative reporting – are looking into whether addiction-recovery facilities have engaged in fraudulent billing.
In June, an alternative online news site in Minnesota reported that the FBI was investigating federal- and state-funded autism centers for children amid a skyrocketing increase of the number of providers in recent years.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/still-20915805-888080-still.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill)
Minnesota House GOP Leader Lisa Demuth
Walz was asked by a local reporter about the autism probe more than three weeks after the story broke in the Minnesota Reformer. Though the amount of annual expenses mushroomed in five years from $6 million to $192 million in state and federal funding, he said he was not aware of it.
Demuth, the state House GOP leader, found his lack of knowledge exasperating.
"I just thought, you're kidding," she told CNN, adding that she feels it fits a pattern. "He's allowing fraud because there haven't been any consequences."
The scope of the autism-center investigation has expanded significantly since the July announcement, according to local media reports.
Both the addiction recovery and autism programs are overseen by the same state agency – the Department of Human Services – which has a troubled history, involving numerous claims of fraud and whistleblower allegations over the years.
Randall, the nonpartisan state auditor, told CNN that DHS is the agency that her office criticized in April for failing to resolve potential conflict-of-interest and other concerns flagged three years earlier.
She believes that, in general, much of the fraud in Minnesota government boils down to a well-intended but flawed workplace culture in some agencies of wanting to help rather than wanting to oversee.
Bill Walsh, the director of communications with a conservative think tank called the Center of the American Experiment, emphatically agreed – telling CNN that Randall "nailed it" with that assessment – and said Walz was to blame.
"You appoint your commissioners ... you're responsible for the administration," he said. "If you're the governor, you have to change that culture, and he hasn't."
Love the line: "They're not corrupt, they're just casual in holding themselves responsible." Some of Detroit's politicians should have tried that one.
While I understand Harris's logic in picking someone from a "Blue Wall" state; (although, being form Michigan, I think of Minnesota as that weird state that's given us Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Senator Stuart Smalley), Walz doesn't seem like a great pick.
Eh, Walz seems fine to me. It was always going to be a white guy who could appeal to people that Kamala couldn't. VP pick only moves the needle a little bit. A long article about some local Minnesota political scandal will 100% have zero impact on a Presidential race, people simply don't vet the VP nominee that much during a campaign.
As someone who plans to vote for Trump, I would rather he selected someone in the Walz mold than who he did select. JD is the worst kind of VP pick--one who only draws negative attention. That makes it more akin to a Sarah Palin style pick.
Walz seems like a fine pick, there's a niche of the Dem party that loves him, and usefully to Kamala, those are a segment of the party that was Biden/Harris skeptical.
Also, it may just be because I've been in civil service all these years--but very little in that article even seems out of the norm. What is more out of the norm is someone bothered to write the article about it, those stories usually go to die a few pages back in the local papers.
The primary relationship between the Federal government and the State governments is monetary, we Feds down in Washington create these programs, usually with filing, grant writing etc requirements for State agencies to tap into them. The States develop in house resources that specialize in complying with the terms of these Federal programs so that the money faucet stays turned on. Almost all Federal grant programs (pandemic ones had some exceptions) have to be used within the FY they are granted. What do you think happens when a State is near the end of the FY and only 80% of the funds have found a legitimate expenditure? I can tell you what probably isn't happening--that money being sent back to Washington.
They will find that money a home. That process is likely going to involve questionable activities.
Most States are "serially" in breach of their own auditors standards, so that part is again, just par for the course.
Then the pandemic stuff--most of the pandemic spending was literally "crafted for fraud." There were even people at the time saying "any real verification system might reduce fraud, but will slow the flow of money, this is a national emergency so all that matters is that the money flows." That was the decision made. The result is the covid funding to the States was beset with basically the most fraud of any disbursement scheme we've had in 50 years or more.
Great Walz was my big hope for the future.
Oh well I am already depressed and pessimistic so at least that fits in my current mood.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2024, 04:45:49 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 04, 2024, 11:38:13 PMThat's your answer.
So to clarify, you've compared this rate to the replacement rate of the native born population, and you've concluded the net rate of population growth is negative at this moment?
Birth rates are below replacement rate, that's already a fact and the trend is down. Based on experiences elsewhere that trend will continue. Population will still increase for some time due to higher life expectancy but working age population already hit a plateau.
0.1% won't cut it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2024, 08:51:09 PMWhat we need now is a letter writing campaign from Guardian readers to residents of Pennsatucky.
:lol: In that vein the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats is campaigning for Kamala in Pennsylvania:
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scottish-liberal-democrat-leader-alex-cole-hamilton-to-campaign-on-behalf-of-kamala-harris-in-key-state
Which I'm sure will go down just as well as the Guardian's intervention in 2004. Though hopefully, lower impact, fewer people.
(Again - I'm begging our political leaders to notice the existence of literally any other country than the US, including their own.)
QuoteBirth rates are below replacement rate, that's already a fact and the trend is down. Based on experiences elsewhere that trend will continue. Population will still increase for some time due to higher life expectancy but working age population already hit a plateau.
Well I did my part to save our social security.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZKsbQ8WcAAmnyK?format=jpg&name=large)
What a tool
How long before Trump thinks Musk is stealing his spotlight?
Quote from: Solmyr on October 06, 2024, 03:21:19 AMHow long before Trump thinks Musk is stealing his spotlight?
going by the look on that picture:
He's already thinking it.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1199329522567364638/1292408294433886272/zkdr6gyyj1td1.png?ex=6703a085&is=67024f05&hm=c843832a29fafb3c8ca441e525bdea5fb41b693b3b5283acbc75d31bc3ad86ce&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=503&height=350)
Just say no
Laying the groundwork early I see.
Feels like the DoJ should get involved.
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hcr203%20intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=2X&i=203&houseorig=h&billtype=cr
I fully agree with not certifying the West Virginia results. In fact I would go a step further and not certify the results for any office in West Virginia.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 07, 2024, 03:32:35 PMLaying the groundwork early I see.
Feels like the DoJ should get involved.
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hcr203%20intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=2X&i=203&houseorig=h&billtype=cr
I have seen no convincing evidence that any of the so-called delegates authoring that resolution have, in fact, been elected in free and fair elections, I propose that the United States government should ignore any laws or resolutions passed by the West Virginia legislature until they unambiguously prove that the so-called "delegates" thereof were honestly elected. Personally, I refuse to accept the legitimacy of the current West Virginia legislature until such proof is presented.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 07, 2024, 03:32:35 PMLaying the groundwork early I see.
Feels like the DoJ should get involved.
LOL, that's a good one.
There is no allowance in the Constitution for states to recognize Presidential elections. They get four electors and that's it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2024, 06:09:56 PMLOL, that's a good one.
No more of a joke than the "sovereign State of West Virginia"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 07, 2024, 06:09:56 PMLOL, that's a good one.
What an utter disappointment and total joke Garland has been. In a moment when a competent and strong AG was needed, we got him. He should have just faded away after he didn't get a nomination hearing.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 07, 2024, 06:43:37 PMWhat an utter disappointment and total joke Garland has been. In a moment when a competent and strong AG was needed, we got him. He should have just faded away after he didn't get a nomination hearing.
:huh: What would you like him to have done that he has not done?
We should have had the Trump indictment years ago, like in 2021. They should have treated the Coup attempt against the US as some sort of emergency, cause it is.
That might go down as one of the greatest missed opportunities in US history. Unless things somehow work out next month.
Indicting Trump without an investigation would only have helped Trump. Garland was unable, by law, to force Jack Smith to indict Trump before Smith had the evidence he needed. If it was a missed opportunity, thank Binky the opportunity was missed.
Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 09:06:29 PMIndicting Trump without an investigation would only have helped Trump. Garland was unable, by law, to force Jack Smith to indict Trump before Smith had the evidence he needed. If it was a missed opportunity, thank Binky the opportunity was missed.
I meant that more to the politicians who failed to convict him in the impeachment.
But anyway, 45% or so of the country couldn't care less about all the horrible things this dude has done. That is the bigger problem.
Jack Smith wasn't even appointed until late 2022. This whole thing shouldn't take 4 years. The reports I've read say that Garland waited a whole year before he actually started any investigation of Trump.
Well, Garland will likely pay for it. If Trump wins he will probably have someone prosecute Garland.
Further proof the US is broken.
Because an election is coming up politicians just can't do their jobs.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/07/desantis-harris-florida-hurricane-helene-milton
Is there any feasible way this could be fixed in future?
It seems tough as you have this system of picking nominees rather than having already standing party heads.... But even with that theoretical I fear it may not help.
I mean realistically what part of disaster recovery requires a sitting Vice President (who has no legal role in managing FEMA or overseeing Federal disaster recovery efforts) to talk to a state Governor? Now, I think it is decently savvy politically, Harris has now created a record of doing hurricane outreach and DeSantis had to cave and take her call, and looks like he was grandstanding over it to that point, that's a PR win. But like the reality is FEMA's actual real employees are the ones who matter, not POTUS or VPOTUS making for-public-consumption feel good calls to the Governor.
Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2024, 10:26:04 PMI meant that more to the politicians who failed to convict him in the impeachment.
But anyway, 45% or so of the country couldn't care less about all the horrible things this dude has done. That is the bigger problem.
Sorry, I had misunderstood your point. Agree 100%.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2024, 10:39:35 PMJack Smith wasn't even appointed until late 2022. This whole thing shouldn't take 4 years. The reports I've read say that Garland waited a whole year before he actually started any investigation of Trump.
Well, Garland will likely pay for it. If Trump wins he will probably have someone prosecute Garland.
Jack Smith wasn't appointed until Trump announced his candidacy, because a special prosecutor wasn't needed until then. Garland started his investigation immediately, as he had promised in his confirmation hearings.
DOJ started immediately. The criticism which I think is legit is that DOJ made the strategic error of treating it like a traditional org crime investigation where you painstakingly start at the bottom and flip witnesses in a chain to get to the higher levels. But despite certain similarities, Trump is not an organized crime boss, he is a disorganized crime boss. He does not seek to insulate himself with "buffers" Godfather II style. He commits his crimes openly, often declaring them as he does it. His "defense" is to create hermeneutical doubt about what he "really" meant and epistemological doubt about the reality we all saw and experienced. Starting with low level Proud Boys to try to get to Trump was never going to work; they needed to go straight to the Trump inner circle. That's what the J6 committee did to great effect and I think that caused a bit of a shock to DOJ.
Is that failure Garland's fault? Obviously yes in a command responsibility sense. However, in a normally run DOJ (i.e. not involving Bill Barr), the AG isn't personally involved in running specific criminal investigations, even really important ones. This didn't play out the way it did because Garland called a bad play, it happened because the DOJ ran their normal play book only to realize too late they weren't playing the right game.
Is the US better prepared to handle this winter's coup than it was in 2021? Lessons learned?
Definitely in worse position. Elections are handled at the state level. Most of the GOP institutionalists in state governments that acted as a firebreak to MAGA in 2021 have either been hounded from office or had power stripped from them. Any close state with either a GOP controlled legislature or Secretary of State is going to be a shit show.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2024, 10:22:10 AMDefinitely in worse position. Elections are handled at the state level. Most of the GOP institutionalists in state governments that acted as a firebreak to MAGA in 2021 have either been hounded from office or had power stripped from them. Any close state with either a GOP controlled legislature or Secretary of State is going to be a shit show.
Democrats are governors in many of those states. Does that count for anything?
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2024, 11:18:26 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2024, 10:22:10 AMDefinitely in worse position. Elections are handled at the state level. Most of the GOP institutionalists in state governments that acted as a firebreak to MAGA in 2021 have either been hounded from office or had power stripped from them. Any close state with either a GOP controlled legislature or Secretary of State is going to be a shit show.
Democrats are governors in many of those states. Does that count for anything?
extra targets for the Russians... er magatards
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2024, 11:18:26 AMDemocrats are governors in many of those states. Does that count for anything?
It counts for something because of amended Electoral Count Act.
But all sorts of mischief can be caused at the local and county level and by state legislatures.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2024, 10:07:43 AMit happened because the DOJ ran their normal play book only to realize too late they weren't playing the right game.
That, in itself, is quite damning.
Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2024, 10:17:21 AMIs the US better prepared to handle this winter's coup than it was in 2021? Lessons learned?
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2024, 11:18:26 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2024, 10:22:10 AMDefinitely in worse position. Elections are handled at the state level. Most of the GOP institutionalists in state governments that acted as a firebreak to MAGA in 2021 have either been hounded from office or had power stripped from them. Any close state with either a GOP controlled legislature or Secretary of State is going to be a shit show.
Democrats are governors in many of those states. Does that count for anything?
No, not when Trump gets more votes.
Can't get pass the paywall right now. I'll try later. Or try yourselves with the Spaywall extension, or any other legitimate means at your disposal.
But basically, Trump secretly sent Covid tests to Putin while the US was in shortage, and he's still in contact with Putin since he's out of office, according to Bob Woodward's new book.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/bob-woodward-new-book-war-trump-putin-biden/
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 08, 2024, 08:35:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 08, 2024, 10:17:21 AMIs the US better prepared to handle this winter's coup than it was in 2021? Lessons learned?
Quote from: Valmy on October 08, 2024, 11:18:26 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2024, 10:22:10 AMDefinitely in worse position. Elections are handled at the state level. Most of the GOP institutionalists in state governments that acted as a firebreak to MAGA in 2021 have either been hounded from office or had power stripped from them. Any close state with either a GOP controlled legislature or Secretary of State is going to be a shit show.
Democrats are governors in many of those states. Does that count for anything?
No, not when Trump gets more votes.
Yes, obviously not then.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2024, 08:43:00 PMCan't get pass the paywall right now. I'll try later. Or try yourselves with the Spaywall extension, or any other legitimate means at your disposal.
But basically, Trump secretly sent Covid tests to Putin while the US was in shortage, and he's still in contact with Putin since he's out of office, according to Bob Woodward's new book.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/bob-woodward-new-book-war-trump-putin-biden/
Neither revelation is particularly surprising. I've read the piece. More interesting is that Biden concluded early in the Gaza war that Netanyahu was a liar surrounded by liars and believed little that Israel said.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2024, 08:43:00 PMCan't get pass the paywall right now. I'll try later. Or try yourselves with the Spaywall extension, or any other legitimate means at your disposal.
But basically, Trump secretly sent Covid tests to Putin while the US was in shortage, and he's still in contact with Putin since he's out of office, according to Bob Woodward's new book.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/bob-woodward-new-book-war-trump-putin-biden/
Must have accidentally fallen into one of the boxes of top secret documents.
Here is the Times story of Woodward's book, gifted link, which mentions giving Putin the COVID tests. But the more interesting point is Trump has spoken with Putin at least seven times since Trump left office.
Will this penetrate into MAGA world?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/us/politics/trump-putin-woodward-book.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Q04.N20d.GWOoQZIyMPHW&smid=url-share
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2024, 09:18:15 AMWill this penetrate into MAGA world?
Yes, it will confirm to them that Trump is a great statesman, sorting things out even when out of office
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2024, 09:18:15 AMWill this penetrate into MAGA world?
Putin is one of the good guys and Covid is/was a plan-demic.
Take your guess.
Trump currently leads in Michigan, polls show.
We're doomed.
PA is also a coin-toss. It's really quite incredible that 50% of humans are so fucking stupid. It's also exhausting for the other 50%.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 09, 2024, 04:17:14 PMPA is also a coin-toss. It's really quite incredible that 50% of humans are so fucking stupid. It's also exhausting for the other 50%.
It really is something.
Like we're both in Canada. I think reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements about Trudeau vs Poilievre (you know what side I come down on).
Or you're French. I'm no fan of Le Pen, but I can at least sort-of see the appeal of her in the last election.
But mother-fucking Donald Trump? You've got to be kidding me. I have no fucking clue how anyone can see him as a credibly candidate to lead the free world. He's just so fucking stupid - you only have to watch him for a few minutes to go "this guy just isn't all there".
The Republican Propaganda machine is amazing. Very intelligent and respected people get brainwashed into supporting Trump.
Evangelical Christians are lining up to support a serial philanderer.
I don't get it. And really I don't want to get it. But I sort of understood 2016 but thought everybody would wise up once they saw what a shitty President he would be. And he was. But somehow his propaganda has tons of people convinced that that era was nothing but glory, peace, and prosperity.
So there we are. We're fucked. There is no silver lining if he wins this time. Not even the hope I had in 2016 that this would lead to a backlash.
Trouble is these things have a delay.
Trump got to ride the economic wave of Obama whilst Biden had to deal with Trumps backwash (and then covid and Ukraine... Would have been hard even following up someone competent) .
Yes and frankly it was a miracle we avoided disaster in 2022.
But it looks like we might get one in 2024.
My algorithm circle is a lot more hopeful. It even started to claim that Texas is within reach for Democrats.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 09, 2024, 07:20:22 PMMy algorithm circle is a lot more hopeful. It even started to claim that Texas is within reach for Democrats.
It is within reach. But not this year.
Trump being an incompetent buffoon and ruining the country isn't a bug, its a feature. His supporters are people convinced that the US has failed them and so they want it to fail everyone else as well.
I also find it amazing beyond belief that people think that Trump was an economic genius. Only 2 presidents since 1870 have finished their term with fewer American employed than at the start of their term: Hoover and Trump. Some genius. Some plan.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2024, 07:50:35 PMI also find it amazing beyond belief that people think that Trump was an economic genius. Only 2 presidents since 1870 have finished their term with fewer American employed than at the start of their term: Hoover and Trump. Some genius. Some plan.
I think my disdain for Donald J Trump is well established. Fuck that goof.
(And if anyone has really good memories, I told you what a goof was in Canadian prison slang)/
The irony of the Trump presidency though is the only good thing he did was his "Operation Warp Speed" to develop Covid vaccines - and he's too afraid of his own supporters to take credit for it. As for the job numbers - again he was president during a world-wide pandemic, which maybe had something to do with the drop in the job numbers.
He's totally disqualified from being president IMO - but not because of this statistic.
If the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid. Can't have it both ways.
Guys stop statistics talk when trying to evaluate Trump, not to mention trying to convince people not to vote for him. Just makes you look silly. Politics are way past such nonsense like statistics. I am fairly certain it was a short anomaly that facts mattered in politics for a few decades, but it seems we are returning to normal.
The Left needs to find a cause that lets people point fingers at and blame others to feel good about themselves. And no, climate change, and minority rights do not count because these are things that mean giving things up for a lot of people. Be it civilisational comforts or the ability to jump various queues if you are the correct skin colour or sexual orientation. These are not things to establish mass appeal on. The are things to work on when you have gained power on the mass appeal thing.
QuoteThe Left needs to find a cause that lets people point fingers at and blame others to feel good about themselves. And no, climate change, and minority rights do not count because these are things that mean giving things up for a lot of people. Be it civilisational comforts or the ability to jump various queues if you are the correct skin colour or sexual orientation. These are not things to establish mass appeal on. The are things to work on when you have gained power on the mass appeal thing.
Therein lies the problem with a system consisting only of two extremely polarised right wing parties. I really wonder how they could handle this one.
Quote from: Barrister on October 09, 2024, 09:57:07 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 09, 2024, 07:50:35 PMI also find it amazing beyond belief that people think that Trump was an economic genius. Only 2 presidents since 1870 have finished their term with fewer American employed than at the start of their term: Hoover and Trump. Some genius. Some plan.
I think my disdain for Donald J Trump is well established. Fuck that goof.
(And if anyone has really good memories, I told you what a goof was in Canadian prison slang)/
The irony of the Trump presidency though is the only good thing he did was his "Operation Warp Speed" to develop Covid vaccines - and he's too afraid of his own supporters to take credit for it. As for the job numbers - again he was president during a world-wide pandemic, which maybe had something to do with the drop in the job numbers.
To be fair though he's not entirely beyond blame on this.
The US was late in getting covid, and conspiracy nonsense dominated from the start. A lot could have been done early to avoid it hitting so hard... but it wasn't.
QuoteTherein lies the problem with a system consisting only of two extremely polarised right wing parties. I really wonder how they could handle this one.
My point, I feel, is universal, though.
In the UK it took astonishing levels of Tory blunders and mismanagement AND a very noticable Labour distancing from the current Leftist cultural and political focus points to finally overcome the "bloody EU, bloody immigrants, bloody woke people" trinity that kept the Tories in power for longer than anyone that incompetent should have been.
My theory is that the Left won the post-WW2 decades of the 20th century. Broadly speaking, their economic goals have been achieved (obviously not completely and plenty left to do but look at say conditions in 1900 and 2000) and have become accepted defaults that not even the Right challenges anymore.
And there's the problem. Because seeing no more obvious economic benefit from supporting the Left, the working class has stopped tolerating the Left's political ideas which I suspect was always a baggage for a lot of them they put up with on account of tribal affiliations motivated by economic interests.
In other words, currently the Left has nothing to offer to "the masses". What the Left offers (a fairer society and economic status quo) "the masses" have no interest in. A fairer society is a disadvantage to you if the only thing of real value you can sell on the market is your skin colour. And they think the economic status quo is a given that cannot get worse.
So the left should become the right?
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 04:52:44 AMSo the left should become the right?
Not at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 04:57:08 AMQuote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 04:52:44 AMSo the left should become the right?
Not at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.
You posited that the left needs to find an outgroup target to blame. Presumably because you think voters only coalesce when they have someone to hate...which feels very rightwing.
And they are economically benefiting from more extraction of rich from the wealthy but find it hard to see the benefits given we are now longer in free credit land where everyone can party in their own house.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 04:36:01 AMQuoteTherein lies the problem with a system consisting only of two extremely polarised right wing parties. I really wonder how they could handle this one.
My point, I feel, is universal, though.
In the UK it took astonishing levels of Tory blunders and mismanagement AND a very noticable Labour distancing from the current Leftist cultural and political focus points to finally overcome the "bloody EU, bloody immigrants, bloody woke people" trinity that kept the Tories in power for longer than anyone that incompetent should have been.
My theory is that the Left won the post-WW2 decades of the 20th century. Broadly speaking, their economic goals have been achieved (obviously not completely and plenty left to do but look at say conditions in 1900 and 2000) and have become accepted defaults that not even the Right challenges anymore.
And there's the problem. Because seeing no more obvious economic benefit from supporting the Left, the working class has stopped tolerating the Left's political ideas which I suspect was always a baggage for a lot of them they put up with on account of tribal affiliations motivated by economic interests.
In other words, currently the Left has nothing to offer to "the masses". What the Left offers (a fairer society and economic status quo) "the masses" have no interest in. A fairer society is a disadvantage to you if the only thing of real value you can sell on the market is your skin colour. And they think the economic status quo is a given that cannot get worse.
Its less "the masses" have no interest in these things and more many don't realise they have an interest in these things.
There's this idea been built up that we live in a zero sum world and somebody else having something means you lose. The idea of solidarity and community has been devastated.
Labour under Corbyn absolutely did promise things that would have greatly helped regular working class people- imagining everything went as promised of course- the main problem in 2019 was promising too much and lacking credibility.
There's just no belief that the country actually can become a better place overall. It can only ever be about sharing out what is already there in different ways.
When there's no opportunity open to you, you come to disbelieve in the very idea.
As Grumbler says its less that they believe Trump actually will be good for the country. More that he'll make others suffer. And others suffering means more comes your way. This was absolutely core to brekshit in the UK- a desire to hurt those who were doing OK.
As I've said before there's also an issue that the left tends to rely on system 2 thinking. Building is hard. Especially when plans aren't direct 1+1=2 but rely on lots of nudges and interlinking systems.
The populist right meanwhile can tap straight into scapegoating with system 1. No need to consider anything. Just hate those guys over there.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 05:13:58 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 04:57:08 AMQuote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 04:52:44 AMSo the left should become the right?
Not at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.
You posited that the left needs to find an outgroup target to blame. Presumably because you think voters only coalesce when they have someone to hate...which feels very rightwing.
And they are economically benefiting from more extraction of rich from the wealthy but find it hard to see the benefits given we are now longer in free credit land where everyone can party in their own house.
Yeah but the outgroup can be rich people as well.
And yes apart from economical benefit and general tribal reflexes the only thing that makes people coalesce is someone to hate, or at least fight.
Odd, I vote on who I think has the best chance to help the widest swathe of my fellow citizens.
Quote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 05:40:00 AMOdd, I vote on who I think has the best chance to help the widest swathe of my fellow citizens.
50% of Americans are going to vote for Trump in a month and you want to pretend you represent the average mass of voters?
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 05:45:24 AMQuote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 05:40:00 AMOdd, I vote on who I think has the best chance to help the widest swathe of my fellow citizens.
50% of Americans are going to vote for Trump in a month and you want to pretend you represent the average mass of voters? I have seen clips of Trump supporters saying they want to vote for him as he is only one with a plan that will help America.
Are 50% going to vote for him? Are the other 50% non representative? Is there evidence they are voting because of hate?
I've heard clips of Trump supporters who say they want to vote for him as he is the only one with a plan to help America.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 05:45:24 AMQuote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 05:40:00 AMOdd, I vote on who I think has the best chance to help the widest swathe of my fellow citizens.
50% of Americans are going to vote for Trump in a month and you want to pretend you represent the average mass of voters?
I think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.
The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 04:57:08 AMQuote from: garbon on October 10, 2024, 04:52:44 AMSo the left should become the right?
Not at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.
I think you have diagnosed the wrong problem. The ideological underpinning of Trumpism has been active in American politics for a long time. It is easy to forget that the appeal of right wing extremism and America First movements have resulted in the election a some distasteful characters in the past, including during the post WW II period.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2024, 06:32:00 AMI think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.
The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.
The Evangelicals support him because the majority of them think that the world will end in their lifetimes and the election of Trump will accelerate that.
There's no explaining the love of so many working-class dudes like, say, the members of the Teamsters, for a man who has stated quite openly that he hates unions, hates to pay for overtime, and would, were it in his power, immediately fire every worker who went on strike. The only conclusion one can draw is that they know a Trump administration will suck for them, but will suck even more for those damn woke bastards.
Many people vote for ideology, and not for narrow self-interest.
From my personal interactions with Trump supporters, who unfortunately make up the majority of my extended family, I think what happens is that they believe him selectively. In their minds, Trump lies about the things they disagree with, and is honest about the things they agree with. When it's not about words but about actions, they settle. Trump may be a jerk and may write mean tweets, but the alternative is unpalatable. Frankly I've lost all hope when my extended family came back to the fold even while being strong supporters of Ukraine.
Quote from: grumbler on October 10, 2024, 08:02:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2024, 06:32:00 AMI think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.
The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.
The Evangelicals support him because the majority of them think that the world will end in their lifetimes and the election of Trump will accelerate that.
There's no explaining the love of so many working-class dudes like, say, the members of the Teamsters, for a man who has stated quite openly that he hates unions, hates to pay for overtime, and would, were it in his power, immediately fire every worker who went on strike. The only conclusion one can draw is that they know a Trump administration will suck for them, but will suck even more for those damn woke bastards.
Their view of what is best for all is very different from yours, and mine for that matter. But that does not necessarily mean that they are motivated by ill intent.
There are explanations for those differences that don't require a conclusion that 50% of the American population don't care about the public good.
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2024, 08:33:42 AMFrom my personal interactions with Trump supporters, who unfortunately make up the majority of my extended family, I think what happens is that they believe him selectively. In their minds, Trump lies about the things they disagree with, and is honest about the things they agree with. When it's not about words but about actions, they settle. Trump may be a jerk and may write mean tweets, but the alternative is unpalatable. Frankly I've lost all hope when my extended family came back to the fold even while being strong supporters of Ukraine.
I've learned this recently.
Trumpies often say "Orange man bad!" to mock people who are anti-Trump. The logical response to this is one of "...yes. He's pretty bad. Duh?".
But they actually mean something quite different in saying this. They're of the belief that the only reason people oppose him is that he is an offensive dick, nothing to do with any of his actions or how competent of a leader he is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2024, 08:53:20 AMQuote from: grumbler on October 10, 2024, 08:02:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2024, 06:32:00 AMI think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.
The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.
The Evangelicals support him because the majority of them think that the world will end in their lifetimes and the election of Trump will accelerate that.
There's no explaining the love of so many working-class dudes like, say, the members of the Teamsters, for a man who has stated quite openly that he hates unions, hates to pay for overtime, and would, were it in his power, immediately fire every worker who went on strike. The only conclusion one can draw is that they know a Trump administration will suck for them, but will suck even more for those damn woke bastards.
Their view of what is best for all is very different from yours, and mine for that matter. But that does not necessarily mean that they are motivated by ill intent.
There are explanations for those differences that don't require a conclusion that 50% of the American population don't care about the public good.
I've definitely heard this evangelicals (and their Islamic brethren) wanting to hasten the end of days thing way too often for it to be untrue.
Their view of what is best is mystical fairies weaving their magic and saving our immortal souls...So you could argue they're still noble in intent... but we can be pretty certain that they're working on very faulty information here.
Like, you could argue many of those actively engaging in genocides have noble intents in doing so- believing this other group is some really terrible evil and getting rid of them is for the good of the world. But they're still doing something awful.
Definitely not 50% of America here of course. Not even all Trump voters. But a significant chunk....
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2024, 05:23:19 AMYeah but the outgroup can be rich people as well.
And yes apart from economical benefit and general tribal reflexes the only thing that makes people coalesce is someone to hate, or at least fight.
Maybe the left should get back to its roots. :P
(https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/hey-kids-wanna-build-communism.jpg)
Quote from: DGuller on October 10, 2024, 08:33:42 AMFrom my personal interactions with Trump supporters, who unfortunately make up the majority of my extended family, I think what happens is that they believe him selectively. In their minds, Trump lies about the things they disagree with, and is honest about the things they agree with. When it's not about words but about actions, they settle. Trump may be a jerk and may write mean tweets, but the alternative is unpalatable. Frankly I've lost all hope when my extended family came back to the fold even while being strong supporters of Ukraine.
Yeah, I think that would be a fair summary.
What is most disturbing to me is older people who I used to know who I once respected now posting like infants on Facebook complete with CAPITALIZING random WORDS and using punctuation like this!!!!!
Worse, they are saying the most absurd things with absolute fear and terror that blacks and browns are going to come murder and/or rape them in their sleep thanks to the non-existence open border policies of the Democrats.
I find myself completely baffled by this. How did this person become this fear mongering, cowardly, brainless buffoon? It's bizarre. I don't really know how to process it. I just sadly move on. I don't even want to engage anymore.
It does kind of feel like if suddenly somebody you knew started telling you about how you need to join Scientology or how only the Jehovah's Witnesses can save you from Armageddon.
I really have to hand it to Trump and the Republican propaganda machine. It is amazing. They clearly know how to get people into their thrall.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2024, 07:50:35 PMI also find it amazing beyond belief that people think that Trump was an economic genius. Only 2 presidents since 1870 have finished their term with fewer American employed than at the start of their term: Hoover and Trump. Some genius. Some plan.
He tells them he is. What actually happens goes down the memory hole and his version of events becomes what they remember.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2024, 01:10:43 AMIf the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid. Can't have it both ways.
For fucks sakes Joan.
I literally called Trump a child molester and said "He's totally disqualified from being president IMO". I very gently called out your one specific criticism of Trump (jobs - due to covid), and you have to pivot to not criticizing Biden about inflation.
I haven't criticized Biden about inflation. How on earth am I trying to "have it both ways".
In my own country if I'm going to criticize Justin Trudeau (and I do!) I don't think inflation makes the top 50. Because of covid.
I sometimes understand the "Trump derangement syndrome" argument because it's not enough to just be against the guy (and again - Fuck Trump. #NeverTrump) but you have to be totally, 100%, against Trump with every fibre of your being or else you get criticized for it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 10:21:52 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2024, 01:10:43 AMIf the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid. Can't have it both ways.
For fucks sakes Joan.
I literally called Trump a child molester and said "He's totally disqualified from being president IMO". I very gently called out your one specific criticism of Trump (jobs - due to covid), and you have to pivot to not criticizing Biden about inflation.
I haven't criticized Biden about inflation. How on earth am I trying to "have it both ways".
In my own country if I'm going to criticize Justin Trudeau (and I do!) I don't think inflation makes the top 50. Because of covid.
I sometimes understand the "Trump derangement syndrome" argument because it's not enough to just be against the guy (and again - Fuck Trump. #NeverTrump) but you have to be totally, 100%, against Trump with every fibre of your being or else you get criticized for it.
I'm not sure Joan was saying that you've said that re:inflation but rather speaking about Trumpers, which you certainly are not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2024, 01:10:43 AMIf the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid. Can't have it both ways.
I think that's fair in terms of blame. But I think you will face political consequences for it regardless of allocating responsibility - and I think Trump did in 2020 and I think cost of living/real wages is a challenge for the Democrats.
QuoteMy theory is that the Left won the post-WW2 decades of the 20th century. Broadly speaking, their economic goals have been achieved (obviously not completely and plenty left to do but look at say conditions in 1900 and 2000) and have become accepted defaults that not even the Right challenges anymore.
Perhaps although I also think that part of how the "left won" is because of a post-war anti-fascist consensus which is now breaking down and anti-communism. It was that the mainstream right and left were united on the external challenge which produced a form of consensus. The political trade-off of maintaining high military spending, national service, huge deployments of forces along the Rhine etc was strong unionised industry to supporting it and a welfare state.
QuoteNot at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.
Doing it? I think Biden's come closest to that in the Western world but as I say for three years real wages have declined.
In the Eurozone there's no space for a left-right difference - basically you're allowed the fiscal policies between, say, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel. The UK doesn't look promising. And "austerity but we're sad" is not a different offer.
I think it's breaking down in the US but in Europe there is absolutely a governing, liberal consensus on fiscal, trade and regulatory policy. De-politicising an issue doesn't mean it'll go away, it just means the political energy will be displaced (like squeezing one bit of a balloon) - like culture or immigration. Because when the economic difference between Labour/Tory, CDU/SPD etc is how we do austerity then the fight will move from the centre to the outside and you'll end up instead not with left v right but establishment v insurgents.
Or, basically, if you want to restore the economic incentives for those voters, or for Yi's wolves to outvote the sheep, then at some point they need to actually get to eat the sheep :P
QuoteMany people vote for ideology, and not for narrow self-interest.
Yeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 10:21:52 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2024, 01:10:43 AMIf the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid. Can't have it both ways.
For fucks sakes Joan.
Not a criticism of you personally. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2024, 02:51:21 PMYeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.
I always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.
I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.
Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.
To an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2024, 03:29:19 PMTo an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.
But that's just it - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is basically shit. Because people don't think that way.
Let's go to Ukraine. If people genuinely operated according to Maslow the Ukrainians would be surrendering. After all their basic need to survive is more important than some more abstract right to live in a free and democratic society, right? Yet that's not how people think - and I think most people would agree with that.
You can think of countless examples of self-sacrifice in the name of some greater ideal.
And look - lots of times I think people doing so are loony. Take the 9/11 terrorists - they voluntarily killed themselves in the name of a murderous ideology. But if you listen to Maslow they'd never do so, because their physiological need to life should trump any more abstract need.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 03:18:01 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2024, 02:51:21 PMYeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.
I always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.
I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.
Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.
I'm not keen on self-interest arguments either. Something that is in your self interest maybe very wrong for other people. Having a permeant minority underclass is in the self-interest in the people not in that underclass.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 03:18:01 PMI always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.
I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.
Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.
Oh totally. And I think most people do - I think very, very few vote on that sort of basis. I think it was perhaps different when you had a more explicitly class-based politics, but that's gone.
I just find the whole "I'm nobly putting my economic self-interest aside for the greater good, you are a mouth-breathing pleb who's been hoodwinked to voting against yours" thing particularly annoying :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 04:01:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 10, 2024, 03:29:19 PMTo an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.
But that's just it - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is basically shit. Because people don't think that way.
Let's go to Ukraine. If people genuinely operated according to Maslow the Ukrainians would be surrendering. After all their basic need to survive is more important than some more abstract right to live in a free and democratic society, right? Yet that's not how people think - and I think most people would agree with that.
You can think of countless examples of self-sacrifice in the name of some greater ideal.
And look - lots of times I think people doing so are loony. Take the 9/11 terrorists - they voluntarily killed themselves in the name of a murderous ideology. But if you listen to Maslow they'd never do so, because their physiological need to life should trump any more abstract need.
I'd agree that a rigid hierarchy of 'universal' needs is an inaccurate way to think about human motivations. But then we also have the benefit of being 80 years on from the contemporary discussions that were being had about human behaviors in Maslow's day.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2024, 04:01:11 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 10, 2024, 03:29:19 PMTo an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.
But that's just it - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is basically shit. Because people don't think that way.
Let's go to Ukraine. If people genuinely operated according to Maslow the Ukrainians would be surrendering. After all their basic need to survive is more important than some more abstract right to live in a free and democratic society, right? Yet that's not how people think - and I think most people would agree with that.
You can think of countless examples of self-sacrifice in the name of some greater ideal.
And look - lots of times I think people doing so are loony. Take the 9/11 terrorists - they voluntarily killed themselves in the name of a murderous ideology. But if you listen to Maslow they'd never do so, because their physiological need to life should trump any more abstract need.
It's not an absolute set in stone rule, but it's far from shit. It is basically how people think. Modern psychologists don't regard it as a rigid hierarchy but they do subscribe to the basic idea.
War is a curious one with it. But worth remembering people don't generally think they'll be the one to take a bullet. Their basic needs are met so they're shooting for belonging and self actualisation and all that sort of thing in joining the military.
Plus huge numbers of Ukrainians, largely young people who don't feel so stable on the lower level, are actively dodging fighting.
As to suicide bombers...it could be explained that their hierarchy is different. They're working on faulty information. To them more important than just basic survival is their soul and place in the afterlife.
Then of course as said it's not fixed. It's perfectly imaginable there are situations where base personal survival can be over written by feelings about group survival.
To get back to relevance here - it is far more understandable when people who are financially stable and have lots of options open to them will prioritise helping the poor over increasing their own income. It could even be argued that personal interest is at play here, a more egalitarian society is better for everyone.
When you're on the bread line however and you oppose efforts to improve this favouring gambling what little you have to keep trans people from using the toilet or whatever woke nonsense they're invested in.... That's a lot less understandable and is what the accusations of stupidity come in.
People can calculate self-interest and needs in different ways and at different levels of sophistication. For Ukrainians, surrender to Russia may mean a reduction of some probability of death in the next year or two, but at the cost of permanent loss of quality of life and perhaps a greater risk that they or their children will be drafted as cannon fodder in Russia's next war.
For American teamsters, they may know that Trump will screw the workers, but they may also view the Democrats as ineffective and useless in defending worker rights. They may think that Trump's fossil fuel-oriented growth policies will be better in generating demand for trucking services overall than the Democrats green transition plans. They may buy into MAGA claims about illegal migrants taking jobs or undercutting unions.
From The Detroit Free Press (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/10/politics/trump-detroit/index.html)
QuoteTrump says the US 'will be like Detroit' if Harris wins and didn't mean it as a compliment
Story by Todd Spangler and Clara Hendrickson, Detroit Free Press
Republican former President Donald Trump, speaking Thursday to the Detroit Economic Club at the Motor City Casino, bashed Michigan's largest city at a time when longtime residents and many national commentators alike consider Detroit to be on an upswing.
In a long, rambling speech, Trump went on at length about the threat he believes is posed to the U.S. if Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, is elected in the Nov. 5 general election. At one point, after talking about trade, he veered into comments about the U.S. and its alliance with European countries in NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and what they contribute to the group.
He then abruptly said he didn't think that concern would be "high on her list," referring to Harris.
"I don't think anything that we're talking about today is high on her list," Trump continued. "The whole country is going to be like, you want to know the truth? It'll be like Detroit. Our whole country will end up being like Detroit if she's your president. You're going to have a mess on your hands."
He didn't mean it as a compliment, either.
Trump then went on to say Harris "destroyed San Francisco," where she served as district attorney, though he wasn't clear what he meant by that. While he didn't specifically explain what he meant in terms of Harris' effect on the U.S. — and how it would be like Detroit — he did at various times during the speech argue that her policies would lead to open borders, increased crime and drug use and the elimination of Michigan's manufacturing base.
During President Joe Biden's tenure, manufacturing has grown nationwide by about 6% and about 3% in Michigan from where it was when Trump took office. Illegal immigration, which was high through much of Biden's tenure, has recently fallen dramatically following the Biden administration toughening asylum rules.
While the crowd didn't seem to react to Trump's remark about Detroit, some local and state leaders did. On the social media platform X, Michigan House Speaker Joe Tate, D-Detroit, posted, "Donald Trump might not remember where he is right now so here's a quick reminder about what Detroit's all about. This is the greatest city in the country & we've bounced back after Trump killed our jobs, closed our businesses, & tried to throw out our votes. #Detroit threw Trump out of the White House last time and we'll do it again."
Also posting on social media, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan chided the former president and praised the city's progress.
"Detroit just hosted the largest NFL Draft in history, the Tigers are back in the playoffs, the Lions are headed to the Super Bowl, crime is down and our population is growing. Lots of cities should be like Detroit. And we did it all without Trump's help," he wrote..
Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has often sparred with Trump, had something to say about it, too.
"Detroit is the epitome of 'grit,' defined by winners willing to get their hands dirty to build up their city and create their communities — something Donald Trump could never understand," she posted on X. "So keep Detroit out of your mouth. And you better believe Detroiters won't forget this in November."
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, also posted on X, "As a proud elected representative of tens of thousands of Detroiters ... Don't come back." (She also used an expletive that that Free Press is not repeating here.)
As to the idea of the rest of the U.S. becoming like Detroit, state Rep. Tyrone Carter, D-Detroit, told the Free Press, "I think that would be a wonderful thing for the rest of the country."
Carter — who chairs the Detroit Caucus in the Michigan Legislature — suspects Trump's comment was a dig at the city's majority-Black population. "I'm sure there are some racial overtones or undertones or side tones to that," he said.
It's not the first time Trump has used Detroit as an example of a major American city in decline and after the 2020 election, he leaned heavily into false claims that corruption in the city resulted in his loss in Michigan to President Joe Biden. As the Free Press pointed out then, however, Trump actually did better in Detroit in 2020 than he did in 2016, when he narrowly beat Hillary Clinton statewide.
Paradoxically, Trump also seemed to praise Detroit later in the speech, when he said he could be on a beach somewhere but would "rather be in Detroit with you."
Some national outlets have suggested a resurgence in Detroit in recent months. After decades of the city's population plummeting, it grew somewhat last year and while Detroit still has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, the incidents of violent crime dropped in 2023. Trump has also in the past courted votes in Detroit, especially among Black men. Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, whose sentence on corruption charges Trump commuted before leaving office, has stumped for the former president, calling him "the best candidate."
Trump courted Black voters in the city at a roundtable discussion in June and his vice presidential running mate, U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, campaigned in the city's Eastern Market district this week.
That might not have been the wisest thing to say to the wealthy civic boosters that make up the Detroit Economic Club.
In the same speech Trump also threatened not to protect NATO allies who don't contribute the recommended amount to defense, make auto-loans tax deductible, called the president of the UAW "Stupid" (admittedly the DEC probably doesn't have a lot of fans of the UAW on it), called NAFTA a "Disaster" (an enormous amount of freight passes through Detroit due to its proximity to Canada).
In addition in the past few days he's also called on CBS to lose their broadcasting licenses due to editing the Harris interview on 60 minutes. I'm still amazed that this stuff has become so routine that it barely registers anymore.
QuoteTrump then went on to say Harris "destroyed San Francisco," where she served as district attorney, though he wasn't clear what he meant by that.
See this is the kind of reporting I am extremely tired of around Trump. OF COURSE he wasn't clear. He has absolutely no desire to be in any measurable vicinity to truth or facts. And he is not expected to be. Try Harris or any else on the bloody planet say something like that, they'll be hounded to oblivion to explain what they mean why don't they have their facts straight. For Trump, it's just a normal Thursday.
QuoteThat might not have been the wisest thing to say to the wealthy civic boosters that make up the Detroit Economic Club.
This is just about the 2358th most outrageous or insulting thing he has said. There will be absolutely zero impact of it. Nobody gives a god damn thing what he is saying, except for the one thing they really liked him say once.
I know I used to be certain he'd lose this year, but I am just getting fed up the polls are still head to head. What a fucked up species we are.
And let's hope he does lose. Then if we are lucky he'll live long enough to run again in 4 years so Harris can get 8 years. But then somebody else will take over his flock of sheep and they might be less retarded than Trump.
I liked the bit where Trump said he'd force German automakers to open factories in the US.
1) They already have
2) None is in Michigan
3) The whole thing would probably hurt Michigan even more, like when the Japanese opened theirs in the Southern US and started Detroit's decline.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2024, 10:08:21 AMQuoteTrump then went on to say Harris "destroyed San Francisco," where she served as district attorney, though he wasn't clear what he meant by that.
See this is the kind of reporting I am extremely tired of around Trump. OF COURSE he wasn't clear. He has absolutely no desire to be in any measurable vicinity to truth or facts. And he is not expected to be. Try Harris or any else on the bloody planet say something like that, they'll be hounded to oblivion to explain what they mean why don't they have their facts straight. For Trump, it's just a normal Thursday.
QuoteThat might not have been the wisest thing to say to the wealthy civic boosters that make up the Detroit Economic Club.
This is just about the 2358th most outrageous or insulting thing he has said. There will be absolutely zero impact of it. Nobody gives a god damn thing what he is saying, except for the one thing they really liked him say once.
I know I used to be certain he'd lose this year, but I am just getting fed up the polls are still head to head. What a fucked up species we are.
And let's hope he does lose. Then if we are lucky he'll live long enough to run again in 4 years so Harris can get 8 years. But then somebody else will take over his flock of sheep and they might be less retarded than Trump.
There are signs that the Trump sect isn't transferable to new candidates. Hopefully, it stays that way.
Nah. Even OvB couldn't overcome his tribal affiliation and with great struggle but managed to find an excuse to vote for the retarded option.
When you decide that the severaltimes divorced adulterer is the most Godly president ever you kind of have to go all.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2024, 10:08:21 AMQuoteThat might not have been the wisest thing to say to the wealthy civic boosters that make up the Detroit Economic Club.
This is just about the 2358th most outrageous or insulting thing he has said. There will be absolutely zero impact of it. Nobody gives a god damn thing what he is saying, except for the one thing they really liked him say once.
I agree. The parts about abandoning our NATO allies and him threatening to pull CBS's license are much more outrageous, and even those isn't the most outrageous thing he's ever said, just the most outrageous things he said this week. I was simply amused by whom he said it to.
Quote from: celedhring on October 11, 2024, 10:11:31 AMI liked the bit where Trump said he'd force German automakers to open factories in the US.
1) They already have
2) None is in Michigan
3) The whole thing would probably hurt Michigan even more, like when the Japanese opened theirs in the Southern US and started Detroit's decline.
I believe the first US Japanese factories opened in the 1980s; Detroit's decline started well before that. (You can probably trace the roots back to the 1950s when the highway system allowed people to move to the suburbs, industrial improvements required fewer workers and "Runaway factories" were built across the United States. The really big events were the 1967 riots, 70s era white flight due to mandatory bussing and the oil crunch which made smaller foreign cars more attractive). If anything the foreign automotive companies building factories in the US probably helped Metro Detroit, since almost all of them built a tech center in the suburbs.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 11, 2024, 10:58:30 AMThere are signs that the Trump sect isn't transferable to new candidates. Hopefully, it stays that way.
I think a big obstacle is that Trump is unwilling to pass his mantle on to anyone else (other than, maybe, his children; but I don't think they're up to the task). When he climbs aboard his chariot of gold and ascends to heaven in a whirlwind there will be no Elisha here on earth to carry on his work.
Maybe Barron.
Quote from: celedhring on October 11, 2024, 10:11:31 AMI liked the bit where Trump said he'd force German automakers to open factories in the US.
1) They already have
2) None is in Michigan
3) The whole thing would probably hurt Michigan even more, like when the Japanese opened theirs in the Southern US and started Detroit's decline.
The government action that eventually caused the German OEMs to build plants in the US was Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 "chicken tax" that set a duty of 25% on importing light trucks. Biden's IRA reinforced this with very high local content quotas to be eligible for subsidies.
Quote from: Zanza on October 11, 2024, 03:40:40 PMThe government action that eventually caused the German OEMs to build plants in the US was Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 "chicken tax" that set a duty of 25% on importing light trucks. Biden's IRA reinforced this with very high local content quotas to be eligible for subsidies.
Which gets that it is now bipartisan consensus and only likely to intensify in the short-term. The Manchin and Scholz comments about just building cars in America were, after all, about a Biden bill. I think this is just the trend in the US now.
And, say, EU tariffs on Chinese vehicles are also about where they're made not targeting companies - so the emerging focus of Chinese manufacturing in Hungary is a helpful response.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2024, 03:47:23 PMAnd, say, EU tariffs on Chinese vehicles are also about where they're made not targeting companies - so the emerging focus of Chinese manufacturing in Hungary is a helpful response.
not really, cause it's Hungary, and that's run by a collaborator
A few weeks ago, Bill Maher, a pessimist, was actually predicting a Kamala victory.
Yesterday, he seemed to be wavering.
I think the biggest mistake Biden did was withdrawing from the race when he did. He should have done it later...like next week.
Kamala had a momentum when he withdrew, that peaked with the debate, but that seems to be fading now. A lot of polls are now showing the pendulum starting to shift back towards Trump--not quite the gap he had in June, but there's still a month left.
Apparently some new hyper granular pills out today which are very very good news for the Democrats.
These same polls predicted Trump in 2016.
I have only ran across posts discussing them without any link or even mention of their name however. Anyone got any idea?
Times /Siena seems to be the one just released.... Don't have the time to research more now.
Also JD Vance again saying the quiet part out loud in saying the attorney general would be the most important person under Trump. Got to purge his enemies :ph34r:
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2024, 10:04:36 AMI think the biggest mistake Biden did was withdrawing from the race when he did. He should have done it later...like next week.
He should have dropped out in 2021.
But what's done is done. There is no perfect world where the Democrats do everything perfectly.
The Republicans are saying the real enemy to the United States are all of his political opponents and he can get away with that. In that kind of scenario there is no perfect plan.
To be honest I think the Dems got some unique advantages from the way Biden dropped out. The entire Trump machinery was built around an anti-Biden campaign, heavily steeped in language that Biden is too old. Having it change just shortly before the conventions to a campaign where Trump is now the old candidate by a +18 year margin, running against a Democrat who (quite surprisingly) seems to have very quickly built an organic grassroots enthusiasm, is kind of a worst case scenario.
The Republicans didn't 24 months to nonstop poison the well against Kamala.
I actually think if there is a way you could replicate it in a more formalized way, there is actually benefits that maybe weren't well considered in prior cycles to not having a candidate until quite late in the process. I think a lot of the campaigning 3+ months before a convention does very little to build your support up, but exposes you to withering counter-campaigning.
Quote from: Josephus on October 12, 2024, 10:04:36 AMA few weeks ago, Bill Maher, a pessimist, was actually predicting a Kamala victory.
Yesterday, he seemed to be wavering.
I think the biggest mistake Biden did was withdrawing from the race when he did. He should have done it later...like next week.
Kamala had a momentum when he withdrew, that peaked with the debate, but that seems to be fading now. A lot of polls are now showing the pendulum starting to shift back towards Trump--not quite the gap he had in June, but there's still a month left.
I watch Maher but all of his political prognostications are based purely on vibes, not anything realistic. I haven't read anything meaningful into any of his political prognostications in 30 years because it's the equivalent of asking a guy at the bar who he thinks will win the election.
I do agree Kamala has benefited from the late switch to her, how durable that will be is always going to be hard to say.
Quote from: Josquius on October 12, 2024, 10:09:32 AMApparently some new hyper granular pills out today which are very very good news for the Democrats.
These same polls predicted Trump in 2016.
I have only ran across posts discussing them without any link or even mention of their name however. Anyone got any idea?
Times /Siena seems to be the one just released.... Don't have the time to research more now.
Also JD Vance again saying the quiet part out loud in saying the attorney general would be the most important person under Trump. Got to purge his enemies :ph34r:
No one is going to "purge their enemies." The degree to which this forum uncritically repeats these hyperbolic claims is pretty silly. Trump will be a middling to poor Republican President, just as he was in 2017-2021. But he is far more likely to stand up to Iran and to stand down the Hamas infiltrators that have taken root like a cancer in the United States and the West in general. In a civilizational struggle for survival that is far more important than Trump appointing bad Federal judges--Democrats can always create new judgeships if they ever decide to try to actually win in places outside of liberal coastal cities and build a durable Senate majority.
Polling wise--the question is always going to come down to are there hidden Trump voters like there were in 2016 and 2020, or are there hidden Kamala voters.
There is simply no way to tell. There's lots of different arguments and narratives. One narrative is "Trump-shyness" just isn't a thing anymore, he's been too normalized, for too long. People aren't that worried or ashamed to proudly say they are voting for Trump. Another is that pollsters have done massive amounts of manipulation of their modeling to try to "sus out" hidden Trump voters.
Some polling people actually say this has been overdone to the point that the polls now significantly overstate Trump's support due to these modeling attempts to find hidden Trump voters. The data points they cite are that Trump actually meaningfully underperformed his polling in almost every Republican primary in 2024. And that Republicans writ large significantly underperformed their polling in 2022. The narrative there is that there is now systemic polling that both overstates Trump support and understates Democratic support.
But how much that is being reflected in top line polls is really hard to say.
Goes back to why I'm not gambling on this election (a pastime of mine) I simply won't be surprised at any outcome on election day--anything from a close election to even a pretty strong win by either candidate wouldn't shock me.
I wonder if the problem is that for the last few weeks a casual like me can only encounter two kinds of news:
1. Trump said his daily outrageous bullshit and people are outraged
2. Some new poll showing Harris losing momentum.
Like, is Harris hiding or justthat the superficial level I follow this stuff at, media only cares about clickbait provided by Trump?
"I am voting for Trump because he is a lazy liar who won't do the things he says he will do" is one of the strangest things I have seen in American politics. And it is a common excuse among conservatives.
Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2024, 12:15:38 PMI wonder if the problem is that for the last few weeks a casual like me can only encounter two kinds of news:
1. Trump said his daily outrageous bullshit and people are outraged
2. Some new poll showing Harris losing momentum.
Like, is Harris hiding or justthat the superficial level I follow this stuff at, media only cares about clickbait provided by Trump?
Harris has kept a notoriously light schedule but, by her standards, this was a media blitz as she had interviews with The View, Sixty Minutes, Stephen Colbert and she was in Vogue (strike a pose). In addition there were stories that Ron Desantis doesn't return her phone calls ( :( ); Biden is stumping for her; Barack Obama is stumping for her; and that she is in excellent health.
QuoteNo one is going to "purge their enemies." The degree to which this forum uncritically repeats these hyperbolic claims is pretty silly. Trump will be a middling to poor Republican President, just as he was in 2017-2021. But he is far more likely to stand up to Iran and to stand down the Hamas infiltrators that have taken root like a cancer in the United States and the West in general. In a civilizational struggle for survival that is far more important than Trump appointing bad Federal judges--Democrats can always create new judgeships if they ever decide to try to actually win in places outside of liberal coastal cities and build a durable Senate majority.
Define purge.
Trumpist secret police going around and putting a bullet in the back of the head of anyone who displeases him-obviously stupid.
Trump and Co sicking the legal system on anyone they don't like, suppressing free speech and democracy - this has been actually happening. That they would step it up with the presidency is a pretty sane prediction.
It being a civilizational struggle is exactly why trump must lose.
He no hyperbole represents genuine fascism-light authoritarianism built on lies and corruption, directly opposing real American values of democracy, honesty, and integrity.
Islamic extremists aren't a threat in 1% Muslim America.
The percent of the population who have supported trumpsism on the other hand... Now that is a worry.
America itself needs to stand as a bastion of democracy. This is something that it should take more than one term of trump to fully destroy.
Far more of an immediate threat however are those who share an ideology with trump in Russia and China.
Ukraine must win.
And I can't see trump allowing that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 12, 2024, 11:29:08 AMBut he is far more likely to stand up to Iran and to stand down the Hamas infiltrators that have taken root like a cancer in the United States and the West in general.
Not to be hyperbolic or anything.
Apparently the fact that California hasn't had an Earthquake lately is proof that the Democrats control the weather.
I missed the old days when it was just sex scandals and such.
Police finds a rightwinger on his way to a rightwing rally with a loaded gun in his car and figures he surely was going to kill the rightwing leader:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/13/las-vegas-man-arrested-trump-assassination-attempt-coachella-california
QuoteNo one is going to "purge their enemies." The degree to which this forum uncritically repeats these hyperbolic claims is pretty silly. Trump will be a middling to poor Republican President, just as he was in 2017-2021. But he is far more likely to stand up to Iran and to stand down the Hamas infiltrators that have taken root like a cancer in the United States and the West in general. In a civilizational struggle for survival that is far more important than Trump appointing bad Federal judges
I predict the opposite will happen: Trump will massively damage the American domestic and international institutional framework and will do nothing to resolve the Middle East.
And, as seen in Afghanistan, he will actually cozy up to Islamists so long as they say nice things about him.
He has promised to go after his domestic enemies but let's ignore what he actually says and instead presume he will do something he has never said he would do nor is there any evidence he will do it.
But it's Otto so he probably doesn't mean any of it anyway and he is just trying to annoy us :blush:
The problem with Trump is not Trump. It is the self-righteous morons he will put in all of the appointed offices. Trump may be lazy, but they are not.
The problems reinforce each other. Trump will not keep control over the self-righteous morons. And the morons will not control Trump when he goes off-kilter. It isn't accurate to say Trump is lazy. He is intellectually lazy and has no interest in briefing papers or informing himself at all. But he does get fixated on certain things and will pursue them energetically unless deflected. In a four year period, what is the chance that he will try to pull out of NATO, or revoke some other key defense treaty, or impose 100% tariffs on Canada, or fire missiles at some "caravan" on Mexican soil, or some other completely crazy thing we can't even imagine yet? The morons may be just smart enough not to do those things ontheir own initiative, but there will be no Tillersons or Mattises among them to put obstacles in the way of the cray cray.
He's not lazy. Drop the first two letters and add 'cra'. That's what he is. He is genuinely mentally ill and totally unfit for public service.
What about this rally the other day where he just played music and danced for like half an hour?
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2024, 04:23:39 PMWhat about this rally the other day where he just played music and danced for like half an hour?
Better than him talking I suppose
That the one he bussed people in to and then left them to make their own way back? That's the "most Godly president ever"?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2024, 06:26:19 PMThat the one he bussed people in to and then left them to make their own way back? That's the "most Godly president ever"?
Nope - that was a different one.
Not sure why the Irish Times is the first one I could find, but this video is just fucking bizarre.
https://www.irishtimes.com/video/video/2024/10/15/trump-dances-and-bobs-to-music-for-39-minutes-at-town-hall-in-pennsylvania/
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2024, 06:26:19 PMThat the one he bussed people in to and then left them to make their own way back? That's the "most Godly president ever"?
no wags, the other rally
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2024, 04:23:39 PMWhat about this rally the other day where he just played music and danced for like half an hour?
If this was his presidency many of my objections would be greatly diluted.
Trump is asked about grocery bills
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1845967889746014365
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2024, 05:31:27 AMTrump is asked about grocery bills
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1845967889746014365
And people wonder why the authoritarians think they have a window of opportunity to reshape the world order...
I just voted. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2024, 02:58:57 PMI just voted. :)
I am voting on Monday!
Vote Early, Vote in Person, Vote Once!
I'm having a lot of problems coming up with new Haitian names to vote under. I already used Elec-Teur Illega'l and Barry Bulletins. Any more suggestions?
Jean-Bertrand Arrest'him
^_^
Luc DePortation.
Haitians names are simply 2 first names.
J'vote Bleu.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 16, 2024, 05:52:16 PMHaitians names are simply 2 first names.
J'vote Bleu.
:lol:
I'm sure theres some potential comedy /lunatic trunpist conspiracy value in linking up the dead people voting crap with Haitian voodoo
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2024, 06:26:19 PMThat the one he bussed people in to and then left them to make their own way back? That's the "most Godly president ever"?
His team cannot even manage a bus charter and 50% of American voters want to put them in charge of the economy?
In all the craziness that is Trumpism did anyone notice Vance now say he believes Trump did not lose the last election?
When asked why Vance explained that it was because of on line censorship. That is a big shift in Trumpists thinking. The line now is he should have won and so he didn't actually lose.
Just let that one sink in and think about what happens next if Trump loses this election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2024, 05:05:40 AMIn all the craziness that is Trumpism did anyone notice Vance now say he believes Trump did not lose the last election?
When asked why Vance explained that it was because of on line censorship. That is a big shift in Trumpists thinking. The line now is he should have won and so he didn't actually lose.
Just let that one sink in and think about what happens next if Trump loses this election.
How is the different? I feel like I'm missing the nuance in the language.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 17, 2024, 08:07:48 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2024, 05:05:40 AMIn all the craziness that is Trumpism did anyone notice Vance now say he believes Trump did not lose the last election?
When asked why Vance explained that it was because of on line censorship. That is a big shift in Trumpists thinking. The line now is he should have won and so he didn't actually lose.
Just let that one sink in and think about what happens next if Trump loses this election.
How is the different? I feel like I'm missing the nuance in the language.
In the past, the claim was that Trump had enough votes to win, but because of voter machine shenanigans, the vote totals were wrong.
Now the claim is that while he didn't get the votes he needed to win, if big tech censorship had not prevented people from learning the truth, he would've had enough votes. And that is being characterized as not losing the election.
it is the most blatant attack on the American electoral system yet. can't trust the election results because something something censorship.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7o
Elon is giving away 1 million a day until the election to randomly chosen Pennsylvannia registered voters who "sign a pro-Constitution pledge."
I encourage every registered Democrat in PA to sign it.
Trump says China respects him because Xi knows he is 'crazy'
QuoteDonald Trump has said that if he returns to the White House China would not dare provoke him because President Xi Jinping knows the Republican is "crazy".
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, Trump said that if elected president next month, he would impose tariffs on China if it sought to blockade Taiwan.
"I would say: if you go into Taiwan, I'm sorry to do this, I'm going to tax you at 150% to 200%," he said.
On the campaign trail, the Republican candidate has argued that America's adversaries would not act against US interests under a new Trump presidency because they would fear a forceful, even unpredictable, response.
He told the Wall Street Journal's editorial board he would not have to use military force to prevent a blockade of Taiwan, because President Xi "respects me and he knows I'm [expletive] crazy".
"I had a very strong relationship with him," Trump said of President Xi. "He was actually a really good, I don't want to say friend - I don't want to act foolish, 'he was my friend' - but I got along with him great."
"He's a very fierce person," Trump added.
The former president also cast his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a positive light, saying: "I got along with him great."
But Trump - who has previously been criticised for praising the Russian leader - said he had threatened him not to invade Ukraine.
He told the Journal that he said to Putin: "'I'm going to hit you right in the middle of fricking Moscow.' I said, 'We're friends. I don't want to do it, but I have no choice.' He goes, 'No way.' I said, 'Way.'
"I said, 'You're going to be hit so hard, and I'm going to take those [expletive] domes right off your head.' Because, you know, he lives under the domes."
With his vows to wage trade wars and end US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has branded his foreign policy America First, though detractors say it is isolationist.
The Republican's choice of JD Vance as his running mate alarmed Ukraine's allies, as the Ohio senator staunchly opposes sending any more US aid to the country.
Trump, whose hardline immigration stance is central to his campaign, told the Wall Street Journal: "I want a lot of people to come in, but I want them to come in legally."
Asked about his plan for mass deportations of illegal immigrants, he said: "I don't want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally."
Trump also defended the "zero tolerance" migrant family-separation policy that was used during his administration.
"I said, 'We're going to separate your family.' It doesn't sound nice, but when a family hears they're going to be separated, you know what they do? They stay where they are, because we couldn't handle it.
"But the interest from the heart, yeah, something's going to be done. I mean, there's some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too. OK?"
The Wall Street Journal also asked Trump about his remark on Fox News this week that the "radical left" in the US poses more of a threat than foreign actors.
"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within," Trump said in an interview with the network, referring to "sick people, radical left lunatics" who he said could cause trouble around the election.
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, he cited President Joe Biden's remark this month that he is not certain if the election will be peaceful. Biden was referring to Trump supporters like those who rioted at the Capitol in 2021.
"If you were to reach the presidency again, would you of course rule out using the military to move against your enemies?" Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asked Trump.
"Of course I wouldn't. But now, if you're talking about you're going to have riots on the street, you would certainly bring the National Guard in," Trump said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39l89j10e1o
I'm sure China is quaking in their boots.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2024, 09:08:20 PMQuote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2024, 06:26:19 PMThat the one he bussed people in to and then left them to make their own way back? That's the "most Godly president ever"?
His team cannot even manage a bus charter and 50% of American voters want to put them in charge of the economy?
They want someone who will punish people they are mad at, not basic President stuff.
Quote"I would say: if you go into Taiwan, I'm sorry to do this, I'm going to tax you at 150% to 200%," he said.
Xi: Deal.
https://petition.theamericapac.org/
This is the petition signing site. Turns out the lottery is open to people in any of the seven swing states. You get $47 for each referral that signs the petition. Exclusive offer for PENNSYLVANIA ONLY ONLY ONLY signing the petition gets you $100 and each referral gets you $100.
"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2024, 05:49:58 PMhttps://petition.theamericapac.org/
This is the petition signing site. Turns out the lottery is open to people in any of the seven swing states. You get $47 for each referral that signs the petition. Exclusive offer for PENNSYLVANIA ONLY ONLY ONLY signing the petition gets you $100 and each referral gets you $100.
"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments."
There's no petition involved in Musk's "petition." Elon doesn't understand the difference between a petition and a pledge and seems to refer to them interchangeably.
I thought that you had to know something about US civics before you could become a US citizen. Maybe if you are rich enough to bribe the right people, that's not an issue.
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2024, 06:45:57 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2024, 05:49:58 PMhttps://petition.theamericapac.org/
This is the petition signing site. Turns out the lottery is open to people in any of the seven swing states. You get $47 for each referral that signs the petition. Exclusive offer for PENNSYLVANIA ONLY ONLY ONLY signing the petition gets you $100 and each referral gets you $100.
"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments."
There's no petition involved in Musk's "petition." Elon doesn't understand the difference between a petition and a pledge and seems to refer to them interchangeably.
I thought that you had to know something about US civics before you could become a US citizen. Maybe if you are rich enough to bribe the right people, that's not an issue.
Shit, we have elected official stalking about chemtrails and hurricane generators. The standards are below rock bottom.
Elon - why the hate for the other 25 amendments? Do you want slavery back that badly?
Soo.... Apparently kamalas accent and occasional code switching is a dire thing for trumpies? :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2024, 05:49:58 PMhttps://petition.theamericapac.org/
This is the petition signing site. Turns out the lottery is open to people in any of the seven swing states. You get $47 for each referral that signs the petition. Exclusive offer for PENNSYLVANIA ONLY ONLY ONLY signing the petition gets you $100 and each referral gets you $100.
"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments."
Wait. $47 (odd number. Why not 50?)for referring somebody to signing this?
... Sounds like you just need a pennsylvania phone book (it's 2024. So Google maps) and a bunch of email addresses and you can make quite a lot
Ironic for musk of all people to be pro free speech.
47th President of the US
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2024, 06:45:57 PMI thought that you had to know something about US civics before you could become a US citizen. Maybe if you are rich enough to bribe the right people, that's not an issue.
A reasonable expectation, but a standard that was created at a time when at least a majority of US citizens could meet it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2024, 10:43:31 AMQuote from: grumbler on October 20, 2024, 06:45:57 PMI thought that you had to know something about US civics before you could become a US citizen. Maybe if you are rich enough to bribe the right people, that's not an issue.
A reasonable expectation, but a standard that was created at a time when at least a majority of US citizens could meet it.
I think generally expectations are higher of immigrants seeking to naturalize than general populations.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2024, 10:54:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2024, 10:43:31 AMQuote from: grumbler on October 20, 2024, 06:45:57 PMI thought that you had to know something about US civics before you could become a US citizen. Maybe if you are rich enough to bribe the right people, that's not an issue.
A reasonable expectation, but a standard that was created at a time when at least a majority of US citizens could meet it.
I think generally expectations are higher of immigrants seeking to naturalize than general populations.
Yes, there are no standards for people born in the country. As it should be. My point is that the standards for immigrants had been set at a time when the standard would have also been met by the general population. Over the years that has diverged, and not just in the US. I think it would be fair to say that the knowledge required of a person seeking citizenship in Canada is also greater compared to the general population than it once was.
The answer is to bring the knowledge of the general population back up. Easier said than done.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaWvdZTXQAAqCWq?format=jpg&name=small)
That's it. That's this timeline in a nutshell.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 21, 2024, 12:20:06 PM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaWvdZTXQAAqCWq?format=jpg&name=small)
That's it. That's this timeline in a nutshell.
Didn't he do that as an attack on Kamala?
So I hear. Which makes no sense.
Harris actually worked in McDonald's once long ago... So trump does a photo op pretending to?
Haha poors are so terrible?
Runciman is doing a series looking at political movies. His latest episode is on Citizen Kane. Trump has said it is his favourite movie. Runciman explains how Trump completely misunderstood the message of the movie. That picture could be the poster for the podcast.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-great-political-films-citizen-kane/id1682047968?i=1000673717913
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2024, 01:17:40 PMSo I hear. Which makes no sense.
Harris actually worked in McDonald's once long ago... So trump does a photo op pretending to?
Haha poors are so terrible?
There was some strange thing about them mocking her for not having it on her CV. He then said with his little photo op that he worked there longer than she had.
From an article in the NY Times today about young men being attracted to the far right in the US. I think we are seeing the same thing in Canada. The effect on Canada is not surprising given how much we are influenced by the US. But what is surprising is that young men in North America are turning to the right in these sorts of numbers. I think it was Malthus who observed that young men will typically go where the young women are going, and so if young women skew left, so will young men. But something has happened to disrupt that natural course of things. Perhaps it is because young men spend less time in the company of young women and more time in front of a screen with other young men?
QuoteGeneration Z is poised to flex its growing political muscle in the 2024 presidential election, and in my surveys and focus groups with these voters, I'm seeing the strong potential for a turning point in American political alignment. Unlike other recent Republican presidential nominees, Donald Trump is making young men a central focus of his campaign. If effective, his effort could peel enough away from the Democratic Party to transform the country's electoral math for years to come.
Recent data from the Harvard Youth Poll, a national survey I oversee for the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, reveals an increasing political rift between young men and women under 30, two groups critical to Democrats' success in recent elections. Almost exactly equal shares of young men and young women say they will definitely vote in this election or have already done so. But since the spring of 2020, the share of young men identifying as registered Democrats has dropped by seven percentage points, while those identifying as Republicans have increased by seven points — a net shift of 14 points in just four years. Young women, during the same period, shifted two points away from the Republicans.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2024, 01:40:20 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 21, 2024, 01:17:40 PMSo I hear. Which makes no sense.
Harris actually worked in McDonald's once long ago... So trump does a photo op pretending to?
Haha poors are so terrible?
There was some strange thing about them mocking her for not having it on her CV. He then said with his little photo op that he worked there longer than she had.
The line in the MAGA-sphere is that she lied about working there, just because nobody can find documentary proof from working at McDonalds 40 years ago.
Sounds much like the general European pattern. I recall seeing a great analysis of it some time ago by a German guy - iirc a key thing it came down to was the economy shifting towards "women's work" focussed on interpersonal skills and drastically away from "men's work" focussed on hard labour.
I recall donkies ago when I met Boris Johnson he gave a talk about the trouble with too many women going to uni meaning they'd have nobody to marry.
Ridiculous at the core but we do look set for some interesting dynamics.
I hope this will work in reverse to the usual cliche with teenage boys being horrid little nazi shits but then once they get out, grow up a bit, and start meeting real people (including women!) they'll chill.
I can certainly understand how many end up on the dark path.
Apparentrly the people at McD's didn't get paid by Trump like they were supposed to?
I still don't get what people see in Trump. Yet he seems to have momentum and lead in most of the swing states now. Bizarre.
Quote from: Zanza on October 21, 2024, 04:05:49 PMI still don't get what people see in Trump. Yet he seems to have momentum and lead in most of the swing states now. Bizarre.
So I mean I don't quite get it either: #NeverTrump
But to the extent I do get it...
He's really famous, and has been for a really long time. He says things that you're not supposed to be able to get away with saying (like waxing eloquently about Arnold Palmer's penis the other day), which upsets all of the right people. There's also a general anti-incumbent energy out there in the democratic world which he is benefitting from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2024, 01:30:50 PMRunciman is doing a series looking at political movies. His latest episode is on Citizen Kane. Trump has said it is his favourite movie. Runciman explains how Trump completely misunderstood the message of the movie. That picture could be the poster for the podcast.
The clip is kind of fantastic - and quite funny :lol:
I always find it slightly hilarious how on point Trump's tastes are. He went to see Evita five times when it was on Broadway, he watched Sunset Boulevard (I believe another film he's called a favourite) multiple times in the White House and forced guests to watch it too. Trump knows writers who use subtext, and they're all cowards.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2024, 04:30:06 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 21, 2024, 01:30:50 PMRunciman is doing a series looking at political movies. His latest episode is on Citizen Kane. Trump has said it is his favourite movie. Runciman explains how Trump completely misunderstood the message of the movie. That picture could be the poster for the podcast.
The clip is kind of fantastic - and quite funny :lol:
I always find it slightly hilarious how on point Trump's tastes are. He went to see Evita five times when it was on Broadway, he watched Sunset Boulevard (I believe another film he's called a favourite) multiple times in the White House and forced guests to watch it too. Trump knows writers who use subtext, and they're all cowards.
Thanks, I was meaning to look it up
Quote from: Zanza on October 21, 2024, 04:05:49 PMI still don't get what people see in Trump. Yet he seems to have momentum and lead in most of the swing states now. Bizarre.
What is weird is absolutely nothing has changed at all. I can only assume the anti-trans panic is working.
Either that or the polls are off for some reason. I was getting a little skeptical when we had that run of polls that had Harris with a big lead with registered voters but then Trump had a big lead with likely voters.
I think Trump will win, I think the culture war stuff combined with the inflation we had back after pandemic will do us in. But I thought that in 2022 and was shocked we ended up doing alright so...we'll see. Being a Democrat in Texas I am just used to defeat and disappointment.
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2024, 02:00:33 PMdrastically away from "men's work" focussed on hard labour.
I mean is that true? Construction work and trades of all kinds are flourishing and being paid well. Plus they are usually unionized while "women's work" typically is not.
Not to mention the "Tech Bro"
Trump is charismatic, and charismatic personalities can turn off people's brains, sometimes even the parts that protect then against self-harm.
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2024, 12:31:55 PMQuote from: Legbiter on October 21, 2024, 12:20:06 PM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaWvdZTXQAAqCWq?format=jpg&name=small)
That's it. That's this timeline in a nutshell.
Didn't he do that as an attack on Kamala?
Imitation is actually flattery.
I have to say I don't understand why Harris is wasting time ass-kissing the old former GOP establishment. Any Republican non-tribal enough to ever consider voting Democrat has already decided to do so, but having fun and laughs with the old Republicans both Democrats and current Trumpist Republicans hate... what's the point?
This won't be the first election in recent years ruined by the mirage-hunting for the mythical moderate Right, extinct since at least 2016.
Also watching this funny (and sad) Jon Stewart episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KWZL1blWc
I was again thinking that somebody whose exposure to the US election must equal the casual Americans', the Harris coverage I encounter is at the very most 10% of Trump's.
It's just like with Boris Johnson in the UK I guess. We just have to accept Trump is too much a match to the American zeitgeist.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:14:04 AMAlso watching this funny (and sad) Jon Stewart episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KWZL1blWc
I was again thinking that somebody whose exposure to the US election must equal the casual Americans', the Harris coverage I encounter is at the very most 10% of Trump's.
It's just like with Boris Johnson in the UK I guess. We just have to accept Trump is too much a match to the American zeitgeist.
Perhaps in the same way that Gaza/Israel is to Guardian readers?
Quote from: Valmy on October 21, 2024, 05:33:52 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 21, 2024, 02:00:33 PMdrastically away from "men's work" focussed on hard labour.
I mean is that true? Construction work and trades of all kinds are flourishing and being paid well. Plus they are usually unionized while "women's work" typically is not.
Not to mention the "Tech Bro"
Pretty true across the western world (the US has it better than most). Primary and secondary sector work has crashed since the mid 20th century.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnMezcU8J14cy9hdGAszgJwZzet_x6mtVypA&s)
It still exists of course. But its not the guaranteed always available support a family of 5 on one man's wage core of society that it once was.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2024, 03:35:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:14:04 AMAlso watching this funny (and sad) Jon Stewart episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KWZL1blWc
I was again thinking that somebody whose exposure to the US election must equal the casual Americans', the Harris coverage I encounter is at the very most 10% of Trump's.
It's just like with Boris Johnson in the UK I guess. We just have to accept Trump is too much a match to the American zeitgeist.
Perhaps in the same way that Gaza/Israel is to Guardian readers?
Maybe, but I am not sure what you mean.
Quote from: Zanza on October 21, 2024, 04:05:49 PMI still don't get what people see in Trump. Yet he seems to have momentum and lead in most of the swing states now. Bizarre.
this (https://www.ft.com/content/563a6c72-d754-44aa-a35d-cb6ad6275b64)
In short:
Grit (unapologetic masculinity)
Spectacle (Trump rallies "give you a feeling of belonging and being a part of something special and bigger than yourself. You leave feeling unified, inspired,")
Nostalgia (make America great)
Faith (right wing, conservative Christians)
The Economy. (The high cost of housing across the USA has shaped residents' perceptions of the broader US economy — and made some of them wistful for the Trump years. )
Not mentioned here are a reaction to wokism, immigration and border controls
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2024, 06:18:13 AMGrit (unapologetic masculinity)
That's the part I don't get. He lurches back and forth between confused rambling and whiny bitching.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:03:07 AMI have to say I don't understand why Harris is wasting time ass-kissing the old former GOP establishment. Any Republican non-tribal enough to ever consider voting Democrat has already decided to do so, but having fun and laughs with the old Republicans both Democrats and current Trumpist Republicans hate... what's the point?
This won't be the first election in recent years ruined by the mirage-hunting for the mythical moderate Right, extinct since at least 2016.
It's a knife's edge election that could go either way.
There may not be a massive number of moderate undecided Republicans - but they vote. So if you can peel off enough - those become both one extra vote for Harris, but one less for Trump, so a two-vote swing.
So whereas you can try to go fishing amongst unlikely voters, it's well hard.
Plus the campaigns (well at least the Dems) have a lot of polling and focus groups that aren't released publicly - they must have some reason to think having Harris campaign with Liz Cheney will be effective.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:03:07 AMI have to say I don't understand why Harris is wasting time ass-kissing the old former GOP establishment. Any Republican non-tribal enough to ever consider voting Democrat has already decided to do so, but having fun and laughs with the old Republicans both Democrats and current Trumpist Republicans hate... what's the point?
This won't be the first election in recent years ruined by the mirage-hunting for the mythical moderate Right, extinct since at least 2016.
Something like 98% of the voting public is decided and not moving no matter what happens. Harris could have a massive mental breakdown and spend the rest of the campaign reading Das Kapital in Bulgarian and her base will still vote for her to stop Trump. And we already know the Trump voters are committed because he already done far worse and weirder than that.
So the election comes down to:
1) Whose voters turnout.
2) Who can get the tiny sliver of 2% that isn't committed. Which is mostly oddballs, some traditional Dem voters who are pissed off at the party (e.g. over Gaza, taking minority vote X for granted) and true never Trumpers who still have residual resistance to pulling the Democrat lever. The last category may be vanishingly small at this point but every increment counts.
There was a small but noticeable number of voters who went for Trump in 16 and Biden in 20. Harris needs to make sure they vote for her.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:03:07 AMI have to say I don't understand why Harris is wasting time ass-kissing the old former GOP establishment. Any Republican non-tribal enough to ever consider voting Democrat has already decided to do so, but having fun and laughs with the old Republicans both Democrats and current Trumpist Republicans hate... what's the point?
This won't be the first election in recent years ruined by the mirage-hunting for the mythical moderate Right, extinct since at least 2016.
It's also another thing that just feels worryingly like 2016. I know it gets a lot of mentions but on Past Present Future the host did express his surprise that one of Walz's (obviously scripted) lines to close the debate was something along the lines of people with views from Dick Cheney to Bernie Sanders were backing Harris.
It feels like the sort of line that sounds good in a room full of people interested in politics - it's a Pod Save America gag. But move outside those circles, there's a lot of people who don't like Dick Cheney and/or Bernie Sanders and I'm not sure necessarily see them uniting on an issue as necessarily a good thing.
I think the energy around Harris was in her effectiveness at taking over the campaign and Walz - it was in moments when she was trying to and managing to excite Democrats. And, for whatever reason, there's been a strategic decision not to tap into that but pitch to the centre and refocus the campaign on Trump as a threat (like Biden, successfully, and Clinton). It might work, I'm not sure it's the right choice. I don't want to say, to nick Willie Whitelaw's line, that they're going round the country stirring up apathy but it doesn't feel far off it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAxNTFtQa6Y&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher
and because laughing is better than crying, though people might not necessarily find him funny. If not: you may cringe instead. But no crying.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2024, 02:03:09 PMIt feels like the sort of line that sounds good in a room full of people interested in politics - it's a Pod Save America gag. But move outside those circles, there's a lot of people who don't like Dick Cheney and/or Bernie Sanders and I'm not sure necessarily see them uniting on an issue as necessarily a good thing.
How can people who's beliefs span Bernie to Dick uniting on preserving democracy and the Constitution be anything but a good thing?
Does anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
No.
The election is tightening. Harris got a bounce after Biden stepped down, and then again from the convention, but it's tightening back to the mean.
But I definitely wouldn't agree that "Trump has all the momentum".
It's definitely a "pucker your butthole" kind of election, but no reason to give up hope.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
The last couple polls have not been good.
I hope Trumpists start thinking they have it won. Maybe a few of them decide it isn't worth their time to vote.
One of other thought about the popularity of Trump being in part, Gen Z make voters. Is there any part of the voting population more likely not to vote?
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2024, 03:03:07 AMI have to say I don't understand why Harris is wasting time ass-kissing the old former GOP establishment. Any Republican non-tribal enough to ever consider voting Democrat has already decided to do so, but having fun and laughs with the old Republicans both Democrats and current Trumpist Republicans hate... what's the point?
This won't be the first election in recent years ruined by the mirage-hunting for the mythical moderate Right, extinct since at least 2016.
I never thought we'd get to the point where Dick Cheney would endorse a Democrat for president or that the Democrat candidate for president would boast about Dick Cheney's endorsement; but here we are. Things done changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtHkAMutZO8).
I would guess the strategy is to bring out long time Republicans who don't like Trump but would rather not vote than vote for a Democrat.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
All our bubbles are different none are the reality.
My bubble, like I mentioned before, thinks that Texas is going blue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2024, 02:03:09 PMI think the energy around Harris was in her effectiveness at taking over the campaign and Walz - it was in moments when she was trying to and managing to excite Democrats. And, for whatever reason, there's been a strategic decision not to tap into that but pitch to the centre and refocus the campaign on Trump as a threat (like Biden, successfully, and Clinton). It might work, I'm not sure it's the right choice. I don't want to say, to nick Willie Whitelaw's line, that they're going round the country stirring up apathy but it doesn't feel far off it.
The coconut pills were bound to wear off sooner or later and even Brat Summer couldn't last forever. I think focusing on Trump is Harris's best bet, her strongest argument and the one that appeals to the broadest section of the voting population. Attempts to continue the hype from the beginning of her candidacy have been less than optimal. Like this one from CNN:
Dress Codes: How the pussy-bow blouse became a political staple for Kamala Harris and other powerful women (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/style/kamala-harris-pussy-bow-blouse/)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2024, 02:54:09 PMQuote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
The last couple polls have not been good.
isn't that in part because trump aligned pollsters have been spamming the polling space lately? As a form of polling warfare in order to demoralise the other party into thinking everything's been lost already?
Neutral pollsters seem more going with it being a toss-up.
But that's just what I've heard, not sure if it's actually correct
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 22, 2024, 04:22:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2024, 02:54:09 PMQuote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
The last couple polls have not been good.
isn't that in part because trump aligned pollsters have been spamming the polling space lately? As a form of polling warfare in order to demoralise the other party into thinking everything's been lost already?
Neutral pollsters seem more going with it being a toss-up.
But that's just what I've heard, not sure if it's actually correct
I don't think this is correct.
The poll aggregators already try to correct for this, and they all see the election as a toss-up.
hm, figures. :(
The big unknown unknown with polling are all the adjustments you do to make the sample representative. I don't know if it's even possible to do that to the precision required in such a small election. I certainly hope that all the pollsters overcorrected to prevent the repeat of 2020.
I have heard the "best" polls. Those with the most sound methodology and track records, are leaning towards Harris.
But yes. It is worrying nonetheless.
This kind of knife edge thing means the slightest thing like the weather can really make a difference.
Certainly Harris seems way too quiet at the moment. Maybe news about her just isn't making it over here.
Quote from: Josquius on October 22, 2024, 06:04:43 PMI have heard the "best" polls. Those with the most sound methodology and track records, are leaning towards Harris.
But yes. It is worrying nonetheless.
This kind of knife edge thing means the slightest thing like the weather can really make a difference.
Certainly Harris seems way too quiet at the moment. Maybe news about her just isn't making it over here.
She is all over the place. I wonder if she or Walz ever sleep.
But she isn't Trump. Normal politicians don't have hordes of news people following them around. Only celebrities get that.
It's very possible that I don't know the tools of that particular trade, but I just have a hard time imagining how anyone in that business can be sure about their sampling bias adjustment methodology. You can be sure that some methodologies are poor, but knowing that yours is good is much harder. Even those who really thought things through can get unlucky with assumptions which you must make when environment is changing too quickly for data to capture.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2024, 02:40:36 PMHow can people who's beliefs span Bernie to Dick uniting on preserving democracy and the Constitution be anything but a good thing?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I think it's a bad message/scripted closing argument in a debate. I think it sounds great for people who think that democracy and the constitution are at risk. And are aware of the differences in views between Sanders and Cheney, rather than just their fairly divisive reputations.
I think the message doesn't land, or is counter-productive outside that group. Either they don't buy it, it reinforces an establishment v Trump view or it just looks like a republican front of some of America's most loathed politicians (I'd be astonished at a Republican presidential campaign wanting to tout an endorsement from Dick Cheney, far less a Democrat ticket :lol: :huh:).
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
Yes. Mentioned that about a week ago now. Pendulum is swinging back towards him
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2024, 06:59:41 PMQuote from: DGuller on October 22, 2024, 02:46:33 PMDoes anyone else start getting this sinking feeling that this election is rapidly moving away from Democrats across the board? Trump seems to have all the momentum now.
Yes. Mentioned that about a week ago now. Pendulum is swinging back towards him
I guess. It makes no sense at all. Nothing of any significance has happened this week.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2024, 06:50:53 PMI'm not saying it's a bad thing, I think it's a bad message/scripted closing argument in a debate. I think it sounds great for people who think that democracy and the constitution are at risk. And are aware of the differences in views between Sanders and Cheney, rather than just their fairly divisive reputations.
I think the message doesn't land, or is counter-productive outside that group. Either they don't buy it, it reinforces an establishment v Trump view or it just looks like a republican front of some of America's most loathed politicians (I'd be astonished at a Republican presidential campaign wanting to tout an endorsement from Dick Cheney, far less a Democrat ticket :lol: :huh:).
And what would land better? Ukraine? Middle East? Abortion? Climate change? The fact is everyone has their own pet project and you can't please everybody all the time.
The media, once again, has made Trump The Story of the election, which cannot help but bolster him. Especially as there is no pushback to anything. Every single thing he does (or doesn't do) get huge coverage and airtime. Meanwhile, Harris could be doing events 24/7 and it wouldn't garner much beyond, "Where's Kamala?". It is maddening. To quote Will Ferrell's character Mugatu from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2024, 06:39:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 22, 2024, 06:04:43 PMI have heard the "best" polls. Those with the most sound methodology and track records, are leaning towards Harris.
But yes. It is worrying nonetheless.
This kind of knife edge thing means the slightest thing like the weather can really make a difference.
Certainly Harris seems way too quiet at the moment. Maybe news about her just isn't making it over here.
She is all over the place. I wonder if she or Walz ever sleep.
But she isn't Trump. Normal politicians don't have hordes of news people following them around. Only celebrities get that.
Which says a lot about the state of what used to be the press.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 22, 2024, 10:19:26 PMThe media, once again, has made Trump The Story of the election, which cannot help but bolster him. Especially as there is no pushback to anything. Every single thing he does (or doesn't do) get huge coverage and airtime. Meanwhile, Harris could be doing events 24/7 and it wouldn't garner much beyond, "Where's Kamala?". It is maddening. To quote Will Ferrell's character Mugatu from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
I agree. I've said before there's always a lot of attention on social media and the media on the far right and that is important, but I think the biggest issue is that (still! after 8 years) the mainstream media don't know how to cover Trump. I think they're livestreaming entire rallies less often now, but I think it's a real failure and I think particularly an editorial failure. I've mentioned before but a chronic inability to distinguish news and newsworthy, plus (especially NYT) absurd circumlocutions.
But on the where is Harris point, also people pointing out Harris does the same speech everywhere as a sign of, perhaps, roboticness etc. It is absolutely the norm in politics to have a stump speech (it's Trump's, to put it kindly, improvisational approach that's odd). And perhaps that is a norm that'll change with Trump. The reason you had a fixed stump speech was because first your in person audience had never heard it before. Then your audience was the people who only pay attention when they have to and the evening news is on, so you need to hammer your message home.
But also pushback still makes Trump the story. Again as discussed on that PPF (as I know CC listens), Harris and Walz (and the media) did strongly pushback on the bullshit about Haitians eating cats. The effect wasn't to remove Trump, but to amplify him - it was a week or two spent talking about Trump, not Harris. (It was also a week or two not spent talking about how bad his debate performance was.)
QuoteAnd what would land better? Ukraine? Middle East? Abortion? Climate change? The fact is everyone has their own pet project and you can't please everybody all the time.
My suggestion would be the positive case for Harris - whatever that is (as honed by the campaign). I feel like generally that should be the closing argument - think Obama's change, Trump's make America great again, Biden getting America back/putting it's soul back ("we're Americans" all the stuff about "who we are").
But she has also been doing that Sheilbh. Trotting out old Republicans has just been one piece.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2024, 02:58:07 PMI hope Trumpists start thinking they have it won. Maybe a few of them decide it isn't worth their time to vote.
That's not going to happen. The whole thing about election fraud has convinced Trumpists they need to swarm the voting booth place to offset the inevitable attempts by Democrats to steal the election.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2024, 08:02:07 PMQuote from: Josephus on October 22, 2024, 06:59:41 PMYes. Mentioned that about a week ago now. Pendulum is swinging back towards him
I guess. It makes no sense at all. Nothing of any significance has happened this week.
I've never subscribed to the pendulum theory of popularity. Something being popular doesn't create a force driving it towards unpopularity.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 23, 2024, 06:18:13 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2024, 02:58:07 PMI hope Trumpists start thinking they have it won. Maybe a few of them decide it isn't worth their time to vote.
That's not going to happen. The whole thing about election fraud has convinced Trumpists they need to swarm the voting booth place to offset the inevitable attempts by Democrats to steal the election.
My fallback hope then is that they spend all their time observing the voting places on election day and forget to vote.
Election related saw a funny/scary thing on Last Week Tonight.
Apparently the nuts are sharing around this clip from a right wing talk show where they proved illegal immigrants were voting by sending a guy around an apartment block where many of them lived. He said he was there to help illegals register to vote and many told him they were already registered- to get him to go away. Like you tell Jehovas you're a devout catholic already and don't need another god.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 23, 2024, 06:18:13 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2024, 02:58:07 PMI hope Trumpists start thinking they have it won. Maybe a few of them decide it isn't worth their time to vote.
That's not going to happen. The whole thing about election fraud has convinced Trumpists they need to swarm the voting booth place to offset the inevitable attempts by Democrats to steal the election.
I suspect so- it is a GOP tactic to spam shitty polls to make it look like Trump is doing better than he is, it wouldn't make sense for them to do that if their side being the ones to not turn out was a concern.
And with the non-Trump side, it's a trap that you cannot win: if Harris or anyone else did the same kind of idiocy/gaffe like one that results in overwhelming media coverage for Trump and seemingly if anything a rise in his support (and Biden did do such things on several occasions), they would get the media coverage but their support would plummet, like Biden's did.
But if they don't act like complete jackasses, they can't dominate the media like Trump.
I would never have thought that at the levels Trump has descended to, the race could still be this close. If despite everything he is able to maintain such strong support, maybe he is just a global natural disaster that is bound to happen
Quote from: Josquius on October 23, 2024, 07:37:18 AMElection related saw a funny/scary thing on Last Week Tonight.
Apparently the nuts are sharing around this clip from a right wing talk show where they proved illegal immigrants were voting by sending a guy around an apartment block where many of them lived. He said he was there to help illegals register to vote and many told him they were already registered- to get him to go away. Like you tell Jehovas you're a devout catholic already and don't need another god.
It wasn't really "many." It was a tiny sample and so the actions f a few people (some of which conceded that they were just trying to get rid of the annoying person at the door) seemed large.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 03:11:18 AMMy suggestion would be the positive case for Harris - whatever that is (as honed by the campaign). I feel like generally that should be the closing argument - think Obama's change, Trump's make America great again, Biden getting America back/putting it's soul back ("we're Americans" all the stuff about "who we are").
Do you want a positive case or do you want a slogan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2024, 01:38:31 PMDo you want a positive case or do you want a slogan?
It's the same thing. A good slogan is a candidate's political strategy and argument distilled (which is why you can't just move a slogan from one candidate to another - it needs to be rooted in the candidate and their argument.)
And to tie it back to Harris specifically - a criticism of her 2020 campaign was that it wasn't focused and was very reactive/responsive. It was always responding to and trying to bandwagon on x issue of the day. I do wonder if we've seen a little bit of that in the campaign since the convention. Just a little bit too much reacting and responding, not enough banging on about their own core message.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 01:53:15 PMIt's the same thing. A good slogan is a candidate's political strategy and argument distilled (which is why you can't just move a slogan from one candidate to another - it needs to be rooted in the candidate and their argument.)
This is ridiculous. Virtually every candidate in history has been in favor of "change" and had "hope."
Okay - I'd argue more that literally every candidate in history have basically been a variation of "more of the same" or "change".
But I think that sort of demonstrates my point. The basic message really boils down to two things that everyone's heard before, so being able to work out an effective slogan (or, in another world, brand) really isn't easy. As I say in my view it needs to be rooted in who the candidate is (George H W Bush could not run as a hope and change candidate, or Angela Merkel could not foreground joy as a campaign asset) and tying it into their argument.
Much like, say, Coke or McDonald's brand identities - I don't think it's easy or something anyone else could do or something anyone could just copy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2024, 02:13:39 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 01:53:15 PMIt's the same thing. A good slogan is a candidate's political strategy and argument distilled (which is why you can't just move a slogan from one candidate to another - it needs to be rooted in the candidate and their argument.)
This is ridiculous. Virtually every candidate in history has been in favor of "change" and had "hope."
It has been used consistently because it is has been consistently effective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:24:32 PMOkay - I'd argue more that literally every candidate in history have basically been a variation of "more of the same" or "change".
But I think that sort of demonstrates my point. The basic message really boils down to two things that everyone's heard before, so being able to work out an effective slogan (or, in another world, brand) really isn't easy. As I say in my view it needs to be rooted in who the candidate is (George H W Bush could not run as a hope and change candidate, or Angela Merkel could not foreground joy as a campaign asset) and tying it into their argument.
Much like, say, Coke or McDonald's brand identities - I don't think it's easy or something anyone else could do or something anyone could just copy.
Yeah, almost every US election has the chant "Four more Years" or a variation of "Yes we Can" - if we change.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:24:32 PMOkay - I'd argue more that literally every candidate in history have basically been a variation of "more of the same" or "change".
But I think that sort of demonstrates my point. The basic message really boils down to two things that everyone's heard before, so being able to work out an effective slogan (or, in another world, brand) really isn't easy. As I say in my view it needs to be rooted in who the candidate is (George H W Bush could not run as a hope and change candidate, or Angela Merkel could not foreground joy as a campaign asset) and tying it into their argument.
Much like, say, Coke or McDonald's brand identities - I don't think it's easy or something anyone else could do or something anyone could just copy.
Things are exactly perfect and I promise no changes whatsoever" has never been a winning slogan in any election in all of history.
The difference has always been "we're on the right path" versus "we're on the wrong path" is how every party has dealt with "change" in an election.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2024, 02:28:49 PMThings are exactly perfect and I promise no changes whatsoever" has never been a winning slogan in any election in all of history.
Which is why you're a conservative not a reactionary :P :hug:
QuoteThe difference has always been "we're on the right path" versus "we're on the wrong path" is how every party has dealt with "change" in an election.
Fair - and I meant "more of the same" as more don't change a winning team etc than everything is perfect so there'll be no further change :lol:
I think parliamentary politicians might face a bigger challenge. In our system it is absolutely the case that you can become President or Senator or even Governor and really have only very limited ability to actually advance your agenda because of all the checks and balances and so forth. So you come back saying "hey return me to office and we can continue to chip away towards our political goals."
But for people who basically have carte blanche legislatively and in an executive sense like a Parliamentary politician I have a hard time imagining how they can promise that they can get it done if given just a few more years. You almost have to say "protect the status quo from our horrible opponents!" don't you?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:24:32 PM(George H W Bush could not run as a hope and change candidate, or Angela Merkel could not foreground joy as a campaign asset) and tying it into their argument.
Wubya could have run on hope and change just as easily as Bubba or Barry. Wubya's centerpiece was No Child Left Behind, as Bubba nd Barry's were revamping health care.
Your Merkel point I concede. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2024, 02:36:36 PMWubya could have run on hope and change just as easily as Bubba or Barry. Wubya's centerpiece was No Child Left Behind, as Bubba nd Barry's were revamping health care.
Your Merkel point I concede. :D
George
H W Bush, though? :contract: :P
(I do think after Bill Clinton's "boy from Hope" campaign that Mike Huckabee's "time to give Hope another chance" was very good :lol:)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:40:40 PMGeorge H W Bush, though? :contract: :P
Ah, conceded. But your original point, that one slogan only works for one candidate, is still refuted.
That wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.
As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2024, 02:33:55 PMI think parliamentary politicians might face a bigger challenge. In our system it is absolutely the case that you can become President or Senator or even Governor and really have only very limited ability to actually advance your agenda because of all the checks and balances and so forth. So you come back saying "hey return me to office and we can continue to chip away towards our political goals."
But for people who basically have carte blanche legislatively and in an executive sense like a Parliamentary politician I have a hard time imagining how they can promise that they can get it done if given just a few more years. You almost have to say "protect the status quo from our horrible opponents!" don't you?
Yes, exactly. Barbarians at the gates is cry of the governing party and its time for a change is the chant of the opposition.
I am reminded of an old Greek fable. Down with King Log, Bring in King Stork!
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:45:25 PMThat wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.
As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.
In all my discussions with various folks about elections, I can't recall a single mention of the campaign slogan as a factor in their voting preference.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2024, 03:42:55 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 02:45:25 PMThat wasn't my original point. My original point was that an effective slogan is rooted in a candidate and their argument which is why it's not interchangeable. It's the campaign, both who and why, distilled.
As I say fundamentally I think they're all variations on two themes.
In all my discussions with various folks about elections, I can't recall a single mention of the campaign slogan as a factor in their voting preference.
I guess you didn't have the opportunity to talk to anyone who attended an Obama event and screamed Yes We Can at the top of their lungs.
Sure and most people don't think their behaviour is influenced by marketing. But also we lie to ourselves and each other about our political preferences and choices. Everyone wants to think well of themselves after all.
But again I think you want to distinguish between the slogan and the serious political argument (or least importantly, policy). That the slogan is sort of the after-thought.
My view is that an effective slogan is the result of really working out that argument - as I say, it's the distilled version. If you haven't worked out who you are, your argument and your strategy then you will not have an effective campaign slogan or core message (and will probably cycle through them a bit). They're not separate in my view, they're one and the same.
And I think there is a similar argument around brand identity and marketing in business. I'd argue the companies who take it seriously and think it's expressive rather than just shallow, frivolous bumpf tend to be the ones that we all know (and buy from).
Rule #1 of marketing - there's no such thing as bad publicity.
I mean.
Obviously there is.
But the basic goal of marketing is not to convince someone who wasn't interested in a thing that it's actually the thing for them.
The goal is far more to remind people that it's a thing that exists.
A lot of tv adverts make a lot more sense when you remember this.
It also highlights a lot of trumps success.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 03:58:04 PMSure and most people don't think their behaviour is influenced by marketing. But also we lie to ourselves and each other about our political preferences and choices. Everyone wants to think well of themselves after all.
But again I think you want to distinguish between the slogan and the serious political argument (or least importantly, policy). That the slogan is sort of the after-thought.
My view is that an effective slogan is the result of really working out that argument - as I say, it's the distilled version. If you haven't worked out who you are, your argument and your strategy then you will not have an effective campaign slogan or core message (and will probably cycle through them a bit). They're not separate in my view, they're one and the same.
And I think there is a similar argument around brand identity and marketing in business. I'd argue the companies who take it seriously and think it's expressive rather than just shallow, frivolous bumpf tend to be the ones that we all know (and buy from).
Let me see if I've got it. You want a catchy jingle that makes people feel good about themselves *and* distills down Kamala's political message, which is basically if Trump gets reelected we're all fucked, but you don't know what that jingle is, but you're sure the one they're using now is no good.
Is that it?
Sure - I don't know where that's from. To be honest I thought we'd stopped talking about Harris specifically.
My initial point was that I think the closing argument in the debate is pre-scripted. I think it was an odd choice to go with Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders back us and they should have focused more on the positive argument for Harris. You then asked about slogans - and I don't think there's a difference between slogans and the positive argument, just word count.
My view is that the negative case against Trump is strong, well-known and I think everyone who finds that convincing (as I do) is already bought in. It needs to be joined to a positive case for Harris. I think Clinton was bad at that, Biden was good and I'm not convinced by Harris.
The positive case for Harris is $6,000 for your first child. She can speak English. She has nice hair.
🎵🎶Kamaaaalaaa Harrrris🎵🎶for when you don't wanna vote for a fucking nazi🎵🎶
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2024, 02:56:43 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 23, 2024, 02:33:55 PMI think parliamentary politicians might face a bigger challenge. In our system it is absolutely the case that you can become President or Senator or even Governor and really have only very limited ability to actually advance your agenda because of all the checks and balances and so forth. So you come back saying "hey return me to office and we can continue to chip away towards our political goals."
But for people who basically have carte blanche legislatively and in an executive sense like a Parliamentary politician I have a hard time imagining how they can promise that they can get it done if given just a few more years. You almost have to say "protect the status quo from our horrible opponents!" don't you?
Yes, exactly. Barbarians at the gates is cry of the governing party and its time for a change is the chant of the opposition.
Although this morning I have heard a B.C. NDP MLA and two Federal MPs say that they have heard the message "loud and clear that change is needed".
So governing parties also try to claim they represent change too.
Legal Eagle says Elon's lottery is illegal because you can not pay someone to *register* to vote. That I did not know.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307
subsection (c)
You know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee. Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2024, 11:27:00 PMYou know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee. Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.
Switzerland does it with fines for drivers. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/09/bmw-driver-hit-with-128000-fine-for-tailgating-in-switzerland/
Finland does the same. And boy do some rich people here whine about it. :D
To me it sounds like the obvious way to do it. The penalty is supposed to be punitive and discouraging. When the amount is just pocket change for you, why would you care?
Definitely the correct way to go about things.
Though that case in the link sounds weird. A fine for driving too close to somebody?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2024, 11:27:00 PMYou know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee. Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.
I've felt that way for years. Never mind this big stuff but even traffic violations. Paying $240 for speeding on a highway is going to effect a low income earner a lot more than, say, a lawyer. Which is why it's always guys in fancy cars speeding down the highway.
EDIT: I see you guys agree.
Maybe. I'm a little unsure. Philosophically I broadly think the punishment should be tied to the crime and take account of mitigations or aggravating circumstances related to the individual (and crime), rather than tied to the individual and variable.
It would also matter how you define wealth. For example add in housing wealth and assets (like pensions) and it would be very possible that elderly people end up with massive fines. While, say, a 20 something City lawyer on £100k+ p/a, but renting a flat and not able to actually access any pension funds (or only having just started to build them) will end up with a very low fine - they may have some savings, it will be less than a retired teacher with a paid off mortgage and a pension.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2024, 07:37:22 AMMaybe. I'm a little unsure. Philosophically I broadly think the punishment should be tied to the crime and take account of mitigations or aggravating circumstances related to the individual (and crime), rather than tied to the individual and variable.
It would also matter how you define wealth. For example add in housing wealth and assets (like pensions) and it would be very possible that elderly people end up with massive fines. While, say, a 20 something City lawyer on £100k+ p/a, but renting a flat and not able to actually access any pension funds (or only having just started to build them) will end up with a very low fine - they may have some savings, it will be less than a retired teacher with a paid off mortgage and a pension.
Okay but then that's just getting more precise around the calculations and how it is applied.
There is a problem when it is better for individuals/corporations to simply pay the fine vs cease the prohibited behavior.
Totally agree on corporations - but there it's typically tied to revenue not assets.
Which could work for individuals too but, as we all know, there's plenty of very rich people who don't really necessarily have "income".
I also think in Europe it could breach human rights law. There's been two attempts by Dutch governments to pass wealth taxes and both times the Supreme Court has ruled that they're in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1 property rights specifically) because in both cases it could lead to a scenario where the tax bill on an individual's wealth was higher than their income. That's not gone to the ECtHR so isn't fully confirmed - but is still law other European courts would look at. So I think basing it on wealth you'd very quickly get a human rights challenge, and I think they'd probably have a good case. (Those cases are one of the reasons I am genuinely open to leaving the ECHR if they continue down that road :ph34r:)
(Which may be why the Swiss version is based on reported income - but then you're into the tax problem with the super-rich that they often don't really have reported income).
One of the way we do it is fines for breaches of workplace safety regulations are based on the size of the workforce of the employer.
Base it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well.
Quote from: HVC on October 25, 2024, 09:17:33 AMBase it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well.
I think if we're designing punitive measures and we haven't got landlords, then something's gone dreadfully wrong :(
If real property holdings are included a lot of people who are barely able to afford their mortgages would say the calculation is off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2024, 09:35:57 AMQuote from: HVC on October 25, 2024, 09:17:33 AMBase it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well.
I think if we're designing punitive measures and we haven't got landlords, then something's gone dreadfully wrong :(
You catch their rental income :P . Just won't be as proportional without the assets.
But then you have the problem of tracking liquid assets. Do rich people even declare those? I'm sure the government could track it, not sure if they do.
reading 30% of the electorate has already voted in fake Georgia. Quite amazing.
Less reliably I've seen claims, no sign of the source, exit polls are showing a rough 55-45 split for Harris :ph34r:
Weren't postal votes more in favour of Biden last time? Given that and the percentages, not sure if that is as good as it seems.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2024, 11:01:43 PMhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307
subsection (c)
Can I pay someone to not register to vote?
Quote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 01:13:08 PMWeren't postal votes more in favour of Biden last time? Given that and the percentages, not sure if that is as good as it seems.
Those are early in person voters, not mail ins. You can't do exit polls on mail ins.
I also think mail ins should skew Harris.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2024, 03:11:18 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on October 22, 2024, 10:19:26 PMThe media, once again, has made Trump The Story of the election, which cannot help but bolster him. Especially as there is no pushback to anything. Every single thing he does (or doesn't do) get huge coverage and airtime. Meanwhile, Harris could be doing events 24/7 and it wouldn't garner much beyond, "Where's Kamala?". It is maddening. To quote Will Ferrell's character Mugatu from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
I agree. I've said before there's always a lot of attention on social media and the media on the far right and that is important, but I think the biggest issue is that (still! after 8 years) the mainstream media don't know how to cover Trump. I think they're livestreaming entire rallies less often now, but I think it's a real failure and I think particularly an editorial failure. I've mentioned before but a chronic inability to distinguish news and newsworthy, plus (especially NYT) absurd circumlocutions.
At this point, I don't think it's fair to say they don't know how to handle Trump. I think they, or perhaps more accurately their owners, are hedging their bets at best and quietly supportive of Trump at worst. See, for example, the owners of the LA Times and the Washington Post shutting down the editorial boards' endorsements of Harris.
How exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2024, 01:54:48 PMHow exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?
That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2024, 01:54:48 PMHow exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?
So I was just on Twitter and saw some "For me" post about how CBC/CTV gives a "Total pass" to the Conservatives, but gives "unlimited bashing" to Trudeau. I was like "are you fucking kidding me"?
I think the US media did a lot of soul-searching after 2016 - they would just air Trump rallies without critique just because they got great ratings (and not without reason - they were even then so bizarre they were compelling to watch).
But by now - a lot of people just want the media to repeat back to them whatever view they want. And sure, you can watch Fox News or MSNBC to get exactly that. But I think the media, in 2024, is trying to cover Trump in as honest and accurate way as they can.
Quote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:00:11 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2024, 01:54:48 PMHow exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?
That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.
I think it's the opposite problem with Trump - he says something "news-worthy" almost every time he opens his mouth.
Like when he said he needs generals to be like Hitler's generals. Or that the constitution should be suspended. Or where he called Democrats "the enemy within". Or where he just randomly danced to music for 39 minutes. Or how he'll replace income tax with tariffs. I could keep going on.
The media is just supposed to ignore that shit?
I think the key is editorial judgement. I've said before but what is news is not necessarily newsworthy. I think covering every outrageous bullshit statement Trump says is not the right approach - frankly it's dog bites man at this stage. But each time it is covered seriously, which sucks the oxygen out of the room, and we have the standard debate of "has he finally gone too far?"/"do his supporters care?"/"is claiming Haitians are eating pets finally the moment Trump became presidential?"
Similarly I always feel like fact checking is a way to be chaste - but not yet. You still get to report all the salacious details but with a furrowed brow.
Just because something is news does not make it newsworthy and frankly I feel like the very serious people in newsrooms could probably do with chatting to the editors of tabloids and celebrity pages on how to cover Trump. A lot of what he's doing is basically calling paparazzi that he'll be at x restaurant and then stage a row with someone. He's from that world and he's moved into politics and it's like no-one has any antibodies.
Also I don't think other presidential campaigns get their rallies shown in their entirety - again news but not newsworthy and a lot of free airtime for Trump to talk, unmediated. Cover him like other presidential candidates - don't get sucked into just basically letting him turn the political pages into the gossip pages.
Quote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:00:11 PMThat's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.
Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?
What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on. Is that click bait?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2024, 02:09:40 PMQuote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:00:11 PMThat's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.
Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?
What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on. Is that click bait?
When Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.
Quote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:17:50 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2024, 02:09:40 PMQuote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:00:11 PMThat's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.
Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?
What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on. Is that click bait?
When Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.
I really feel like this is wrong.
Same as when Sheilbh says "what is news is not necessarily newsworthy". eh - actually I think that's exactly what "newsworthy" means.
I get it. I hate Trump. I wish US voters would have sent him packing years ago.
But when he says something crazy - that's newsworthy. You can't expect the media to just ignore it.
Quote from: PJL on October 25, 2024, 02:17:50 PMWhen Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.
He's gaming his voters, who get more pumped up with every outrageous statement. That's on the voters, not "the system."
His outrageous statements are newsworthy in that they are an indication of his future plans and his character. I would like to know more of those things, not less.
At a certain level we can't protect the voters from themselves. If they really want to vote for a crazy candidate then pretending the candidate isn't crazy isn't helping matters.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2024, 02:35:23 PMAt a certain level we can't protect the voters from themselves. If they really want to vote for a crazy candidate then pretending the candidate isn't crazy isn't helping matters.
God help us all but the latest polling suggest Trump is gonna win this. :hmm:
Harris landslide.
Two things.
1. Going back to the fines. How do we calculate wealth? I suggest by tax bracket? By declared income?
2. I just heard a Taylor Swift song on the radio, and it dawned on me: did Trump start to gain momentum again AFTER she endorsed him? Coincidence?🤔
Has to be income. Income is reported to the IRS. Wealth is not.
On the press point - this is obviously not American but I'd suggest there's a similar pattern there and this is what I mean by exercising editorial judgement and distinguishing news from newsworthy (not least because more generally there is more news for the press to report than ever before). But Der Spiegel are celebrating their 30th anniversary (online):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GazQqJkaAAAA8IP?format=jpg&name=900x900)
It's the Trump effect. As I say giving full coverage to his rallies, letting his statements (and rebuttals and fact checking) dominate coverage for days, tying all sorts of cultural or non-political analysis to Trump etc.
I think reporters may think they're covering a phenomenon but it's where editorial judgement is required to not let Trump crowd out everything else - to treat him like a politician not the skeleton key of society. As I say I think he's turned political coverage into Page Six and those serious editors could probably do with chatting to the tabloids and gossip writers on how to balance that.
It only applies during an election campaign but broadcasters are required to give the main parties basically equal billing (there's an algorithm to calculate), similarly for guest appearances on political talk shows etc. It's one of the reasons the Lib Dems tend to surge during election campaigns (because everyone is reminded they exist). I don't necessarily think you need to go that far but editors should just maybe ask themselves are we willing to give Kamala Harris' campaign a similar amount of coverage - if the answer's no, then maybe tone it done and prune/edit what you're reporting.
You assume they would value the fate of the country over their own profits/key metrics. Which I don't think they do.
Quote from: Josephus on October 25, 2024, 10:12:44 PMTwo things.
...
2. I just heard a Taylor Swift song on the radio, and it dawned on me: did Trump start to gain momentum again AFTER she endorsed him? Coincidence?🤔
She endorsed Harris.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2024, 02:35:23 PMAt a certain level we can't protect the voters from themselves. If they really want to vote for a crazy candidate then pretending the candidate isn't crazy isn't helping matters.
Isn't that akin to saying that the candidate was right, but it was the voters that are wrong that many left wing people make? Merely blaming it on something else is not the answer. We need to figure out how to influence voters into making an informed choice. In that respect, the media have a lot to answer for.
Quote from: PJL on October 26, 2024, 11:32:08 AMIsn't that akin to saying that the candidate was right, but it was the voters that are wrong that many left wing people make? Merely blaming it on something else is not the answer. We need to figure out how to influence voters into making an informed choice. In that respect, the media have a lot to answer for.
I don't think calling a candidate crazy is akin to saying the candidate is right.
You can tell people it's bad taste to watch a circus freak show or that shouldn't slow down a rubberneck a car accident, or keep going from clickbait article after clickbait but they will do it anyways. And or that same reason Trump will always get more than his share of coverage. He entertains. The weirder and darker he gets the more interesting the show.
I don't blame the media - they don't create the demand. Covering him doesn't make him win. Massive self-delusion among tens of millions of American voters does. TV transmits the campaign message that the Trump years were better, but the amnesiac delusion of voters who can't remember just a few years ago when we had massive unemployment and about as many Americans died than in all wars combined is what makes that absurd message work. People who fondly remember low gas prices and fewer illegal border crossing and forget that was because the whole country was locked down and out of work.
Again, people are blaming the voters. It's never their fault. If Harris can't beat Trump, it's because she ran a poor campaign.
Personally I think the media's coverage of Trump has improved greatly since the 2015-2018 period. In those days CNN, for example, would do investigative journalism into the number of Diet Cokes that Trump drinks per day or run multiple articles on simple misspellings in Trump's Tweets. While cofeveve may live on in our hearts forever ( :) ), their journalism is significantly less click-baity than that today.
Quote from: PJL on October 27, 2024, 06:12:43 AMAgain, people are blaming the voters. It's never their fault. If Harris can't beat Trump, it's because she ran a poor campaign.
Biden ran a lousy campaign in 2020 and still won because the memory of Trump's awfulness was too vivid to be deniable
In a democracy people get the government they deserve. Putting the onus on the candidate and their circus masters to put on the right entertainment is BS. If voters in a democracy lack agency to point where they can't make rational decisions and think for themselves unless candidate X runs the right digital ad packages, then we might as well pack it up and accept our new dictator. The German voters who supported the Nazis in 32 33 don't get a pass because "Otto Wels ran a bad campaign"
And, frankly, it's always the voters fault who they elect. That is how democracy is supposed to work.
We often hear the phrase "the voter is always right" which doesn't make a lot of sense in light of some of the objectively boneheaded choices voters have made historically.
2016 being an example, which has a 50 50 shot of being repeated. But that is the price we pay for a democratic system. The main problem being it can come to an end if enough voters get it wrong enough times.
Saying the voters are always right, it is just the politicians who have to steer them correctly is sort of like saying the King is always right, he is just being misled by his evil councilors.
Not to say the Democrats are doing it perfectly or whatever.
Voters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
I think Harris is not a strong candidate (although somewhat stronger than I expected her to be). Joe Biden deserves a lot of blame for both running again, as well as for having non-negotiable requirements as to what private parts his VP should have in 2020.
That said, how can you run against someone with charisma of a death cult leader? Especially one who is enabled by various cynical actors, both internal and external? I think Trump is a generational stroke of bad luck for the whole world, like the black plague. I fear that just like with black plague, we're just going to have to rough it out and hope we see the other side of it as intact as possible.
"It's always the voter's fault" seems a pretty anemic vision of democracy, and its myriads of forces at play in politics, and in political culture. It's also pretty nihilistic or fatalistic, or a somewhat oblique ways to blame "voters" from which one excludes oneself. Is FoxNews the voters' fault? Is the structure of the media the voters' fault? Are the Koch brothers' the voters' fault? The US Supreme Court? Gerrymandering? The state of the political discourse? The sense of disenfranchisement?
The voters will never exist in some sort of platonic vacuum where pure ideas or ideal-typical political regimes will be carefully weighed and examined. To cast blanket blame on the voters is to abdicate any responsibility for our political world.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2024, 07:37:33 PM"It's always the voter's fault" seems a pretty anemic vision of democracy, and its myriads of forces at play in politics, and in political culture. It's also pretty nihilistic or fatalistic, or a somewhat oblique ways to blame "voters" from which one excludes oneself. Is FoxNews the voters' fault? Is the structure of the media the voters' fault? Are the Koch brothers' the voters' fault? The US Supreme Court? Gerrymandering? The state of the political discourse? The sense of disenfranchisement?
The voters will never exist in some sort of platonic vacuum where pure ideas or ideal-typical political regimes will be carefully weighed and examined. To cast blanket blame on the voters is to abdicate any responsibility for our political world.
Well fuck I went from having the voters always be right to now I have to argue against the notion the voters are never right.
I mean I don't know what to tell you. The voters choose Trump because they agree with him and his views so if he wins, ultimately that was their choice. I am not sure why it needs to be something other than that. It is not like he is some kind of mysterious quantity that fooled anyone. Everybody knows exactly who he is and an amount large enough to win seems to want that.
So why is that somebody elses' fault than the people making that choice?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2024, 07:37:33 PM"It's always the voter's fault" seems a pretty anemic vision of democracy, and its myriads of forces at play in politics, and in political culture. It's also pretty nihilistic or fatalistic, or a somewhat oblique ways to blame "voters" from which one excludes oneself. Is FoxNews the voters' fault? Is the structure of the media the voters' fault? Are the Koch brothers' the voters' fault? The US Supreme Court? Gerrymandering? The state of the political discourse? The sense of disenfranchisement?
The voters will never exist in some sort of platonic vacuum where pure ideas or ideal-typical political regimes will be carefully weighed and examined. To cast blanket blame on the voters is to abdicate any responsibility for our political world.
I don't blame myself because I don't believe I'm one of those making the wrong choice. Nothing fatalistic or nihilistic about that. We are discussing how to get those voters to make a better choice. A fatalist or nihilist would be indifferent.
A subset of voters are definitely responsible for Fox News. A subset of voters are definitely responsible for the Supreme Court and gerrymandering.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2024, 07:37:33 PM"It's always the voter's fault" seems a pretty anemic vision of democracy, and its myriads of forces at play in politics, and in political culture. It's also pretty nihilistic or fatalistic, or a somewhat oblique ways to blame "voters" from which one excludes oneself. Is FoxNews the voters' fault? Is the structure of the media the voters' fault? Are the Koch brothers' the voters' fault? The US Supreme Court? Gerrymandering? The state of the political discourse? The sense of disenfranchisement?
The answers to your questions are : yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
QuoteThe voters will never exist in some sort of platonic vacuum where pure ideas or ideal-typical political regimes will be carefully weighed and examined. To cast blanket blame on the voters is to abdicate any responsibility for our political world.
The political world is created the way it is because it is the world the voters respond to. The Koch brothers would have no power if voters didn't respond positively to their messages and schemes. Nothing anywhere exists in a platonic ideal, so appeals to its absence are meaningless.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 27, 2024, 07:37:33 PM"It's always the voter's fault" seems a pretty anemic vision of democracy, and its myriads of forces at play in politics, and in political culture. It's also pretty nihilistic or fatalistic, or a somewhat oblique ways to blame "voters" from which one excludes oneself. Is FoxNews the voters' fault? Is the structure of the media the voters' fault? Are the Koch brothers' the voters' fault? The US Supreme Court? Gerrymandering? The state of the political discourse? The sense of disenfranchisement?
The voters will never exist in some sort of platonic vacuum where pure ideas or ideal-typical political regimes will be carefully weighed and examined. To cast blanket blame on the voters is to abdicate any responsibility for our political world.
I think you are misinterpreting what the word fault means in that sentence.
It is of course, the voters' fault. It is only the voters who vote. Claiming that it is some force other than voters that selects who gets elected is problematic to say the least.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 27, 2024, 11:53:59 AMIn a democracy people get the government they deserve. Putting the onus on the candidate and their circus masters to put on the right entertainment is BS. If voters in a democracy lack agency to point where they can't make rational decisions and think for themselves unless candidate X runs the right digital ad packages, then we might as well pack it up and accept our new dictator.
I mean he is not wrong :lol:
Of course the problem is the oligarchs, the monarchs, and the dictators generally do worse.
Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. Trying to delegitimize democracy by claiming otherwise seems destructive to me.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2024, 02:53:00 AMObviously voters are responsible for how they vote. Trying to delegitimize democracy by claiming otherwise seems destructive to me.
Indeed. Plus condescending. I hold all citizens to the same standards I hold myself to, because I don't consider them sub-par to myself. Well, some of them I do, but the principle stays.
"Blame"/"fault" are such annoying terms. Rarely does anything have a single cause and too often when people speak about blame they do mean single and only factor with all others completely absolved.
Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
As in most society-wide things I'm reluctant to put too much of the onus on the individuals and rather the factors that led to this mass-delusion.
Its a failure of the education system, a failure of conventional politicians to provide for these people (which isn't to say Trump will in anyway actually do that, but he does provide an outlet for flipping the table and hope its eventually set back up differently), and a failure (/success) of the social media companies for setting up this direct access to tap into people's system 1 thinking that any dodgy actor in all the world is freely able to use.
Voters are responsible for how they vote. However others are responsible for:
- Discouraging participation either by intimidation or persuasion
- Corrupting institutions so that people's votes matter less or not at all
- Not accepting the results of elections and attempting insurrections/coups
- Preventing insurrectionist organizers from facing consequences
- Spreading propaganda that slanders legitimate office holders in favor of those attempting to weaken or destroy democracy
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2024, 06:37:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
:hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2024, 09:26:49 PMI think you are misinterpreting what the word fault means in that sentence.
It is of course, the voters' fault. It is only the voters who vote. Claiming that it is some force other than voters that selects who gets elected is problematic to say the least.
It's not problematic. It's the realization that what passes as choice is constrained and influenced in myriad ways that tend to undermine the straightforward attribution of fault. If it were so simple, I would contend that the billions of dollars poured into American elections are really a stupid ineffectual use of money.
Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 03:58:09 AM"Blame"/"fault" are such annoying terms. Rarely does anything have a single cause and too often when people speak about blame they do mean single and only factor with all others completely absolved.
Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
As in most society-wide things I'm reluctant to put too much of the onus on the individuals and rather the factors that led to this mass-delusion.
Its a failure of the education system, a failure of conventional politicians to provide for these people (which isn't to say Trump will in anyway actually do that, but he does provide an outlet for flipping the table and hope its eventually set back up differently), and a failure (/success) of the social media companies for setting up this direct access to tap into people's system 1 thinking that any dodgy actor in all the world is freely able to use.
In the case of a democratic election there is a very simple causal relationship. The person who gets the most votes wins.
Only voters get to vote.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2024, 08:00:50 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 03:58:09 AM"Blame"/"fault" are such annoying terms. Rarely does anything have a single cause and too often when people speak about blame they do mean single and only factor with all others completely absolved.
Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
As in most society-wide things I'm reluctant to put too much of the onus on the individuals and rather the factors that led to this mass-delusion.
Its a failure of the education system, a failure of conventional politicians to provide for these people (which isn't to say Trump will in anyway actually do that, but he does provide an outlet for flipping the table and hope its eventually set back up differently), and a failure (/success) of the social media companies for setting up this direct access to tap into people's system 1 thinking that any dodgy actor in all the world is freely able to use.
In the case of a democratic election there is a very simple causal relationship. The person who gets the most votes wins.
Only voters get to vote.
Huh? :blink:
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 28, 2024, 07:44:37 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2024, 09:26:49 PMI think you are misinterpreting what the word fault means in that sentence.
It is of course, the voters' fault. It is only the voters who vote. Claiming that it is some force other than voters that selects who gets elected is problematic to say the least.
It's not problematic. It's the realization that what passes as choice is constrained and influenced in myriad ways that tend to undermine the straightforward attribution of fault. If it were so simple, I would contend that the billions of dollars poured into American elections are really a stupid ineffectual use of money.
If you did, you would not be the first person who made that contention. Go look at the research on that topic. Or consider how much more money Harris has spent for no discernible difference.
And yes the candidates who appear on the ballot get there in a process that is separate from what can described as a general democratic will. But the choice Americans are making in the election is a stark one. Not in any way something that can be fairly characterized as "passing for choice".
Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 08:02:31 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2024, 08:00:50 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 03:58:09 AM"Blame"/"fault" are such annoying terms. Rarely does anything have a single cause and too often when people speak about blame they do mean single and only factor with all others completely absolved.
Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
As in most society-wide things I'm reluctant to put too much of the onus on the individuals and rather the factors that led to this mass-delusion.
Its a failure of the education system, a failure of conventional politicians to provide for these people (which isn't to say Trump will in anyway actually do that, but he does provide an outlet for flipping the table and hope its eventually set back up differently), and a failure (/success) of the social media companies for setting up this direct access to tap into people's system 1 thinking that any dodgy actor in all the world is freely able to use.
In the case of a democratic election there is a very simple causal relationship. The person who gets the most votes wins.
Only voters get to vote.
Huh? :blink:
It is fair to say that every election result in a liberal democracy is the fault of electorate. Whether or not you think the result was good or bad.
I have zero patience for "but the poor misdirected voters!" thing. Fuck them. Nobody is forcing them to stay uninformed and stupid, especially in this day and age where every poor uneducated person is glued to TikTok on their phone. And a lot of the same people will absolutely blame you for not supporting their fascist candidate, and will stand aside when the police comes for you. None of them will be saying "but oh they were mislead by the media, do not hurt them!"
George Carlin has a great bit.
Quote from: Tamas on October 28, 2024, 08:35:54 AMI have zero patience for "but the poor misdirected voters!" thing. Fuck them. Nobody is forcing them to stay uninformed and stupid, especially in this day and age where every poor uneducated person is glued to TikTok on their phone. And a lot of the same people will absolutely blame you for not supporting their fascist candidate, and will stand aside when the police comes for you. None of them will be saying "but oh they were mislead by the media, do not hurt them!"
If I thought that, I wouldn't have banged the drum about engaging with electoral politics for the last ten years.
A democratic regime, whatever its worth, is never the pure expression of some dispassionate evaluation arrived at in some contextual vacuum.
Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2024, 06:37:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
She's run an awesome campaign. They have a Fortnite map now!
Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2024, 06:37:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
Ok well then no point in me talking about it with you if it is not even debatable.
I mean I am sure there have been better campaigns in history but hers seems perfectly fine. She seems to be targeting all the swing states aggressively and making decent use of her resources.
I guess my problem is that all the criticisms I could make I have absolutely no idea if they wouldn't just make the situation worse.
Obviously voters decide at the end, but at the same time, it's also obvious that on population level, voters can be influenced. That's why we can blame both the smokers for taking up the deadly habit as well as the tobacco companies for effectively marketing it. Individual decisions are always influenced by external factors to some extent. For some people, these external factors don't tip the balance, but for others it does.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 28, 2024, 09:58:29 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 28, 2024, 08:35:54 AMI have zero patience for "but the poor misdirected voters!" thing. Fuck them. Nobody is forcing them to stay uninformed and stupid, especially in this day and age where every poor uneducated person is glued to TikTok on their phone. And a lot of the same people will absolutely blame you for not supporting their fascist candidate, and will stand aside when the police comes for you. None of them will be saying "but oh they were mislead by the media, do not hurt them!"
If I thought that, I wouldn't have banged the drum about engaging with electoral politics for the last ten years.
A democratic regime, whatever its worth, is never the pure expression of some dispassionate evaluation arrived at in some contextual vacuum.
Yeah but these things take decades to establish. If I was running for Governor in Alabama in 1956 on a civil rights for blacks platform I would get crushed no matter how brilliant my campaign strategy was. The voters do not want civil rights for blacks, because the voters (the ones allowed to vote anyway) are a bunch of racist assholes. I do think continuing to be racist assholes reflects badly on them.
But of course that didn't happen in vacuum, the voters were molded into racist assholes through manipulation and fear mongering by elites for decades.
But we are not talking about that right? We are talking about one election and the idea that some kind of brilliant strategy can lead inevitably to victory and that defeat means the strategy was bad. The voters actually deciding they just like what the other party's values are more can also play a factor.
So it is complicated. But I don't think one brilliant campaign by the right politician who says the right things is going to massively shift anything unless the right circumstances just happen to emerge. Kamala is basically coming into the same environment the Democrats had to barely survive in 2022. People are enraged by inflation and its hardships, something I don't think Biden had much to do with and indeed it has gotten better the longer he has been in office. But that is how political power works, you are responsible for whatever happens under your watch. Even in a system like the US where you are fairly constitutionally limited on what you can do as President.
Obama came in right as satisfaction with traditional Republican orthodoxy was at an all time low after the economic collapse and the wars. We can say he just ran a brilliant campaign but his party was absolutely destroyed in such a historic way and at such a bad time with the 2010 census hitting, that we have still not recovered. So for all his political talents he still led us to disaster. So who even is a good campaigner?
So if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right". You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have. So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.
But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves. It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.
But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters. Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 10:19:14 AMSo if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right". You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have. So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.
But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves. It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.
But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters. Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".
This sums it all up nicely :)
QuoteQuote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 10:19:14 AMSo if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right". You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have. So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.
But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves. It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.
But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters. Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".
If you're in power you can make the voters you want via policy.
And criticising voters...I'm not sure why pointing the finger at Clinton and the deplorable comment is apt when Trump does this to a far greater degree. He's always othering a portion of the electorate. Its part of how populism works.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2024, 08:17:11 AMIt is fair to say that every election result in a liberal democracy is the fault of electorate. Whether or not you think the result was good or bad.
So you just ignored what I said :(
Quote from: Josephus on October 28, 2024, 06:37:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
Can you expand on this? I think that it is certainly debatable but could be convinced otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2024, 11:55:02 AMQuote from: Josephus on October 28, 2024, 06:37:03 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 27, 2024, 04:24:19 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on October 27, 2024, 03:15:26 PMVoters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.
It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.
Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.
Can you expand on this? I think that it is certainly debatable but could be convinced otherwise.
You didn't ask me of course... but I think she's run an okay campaign, but by no means amazing. She was definitely handicapped by coming into the race mid-way through (and taking over from Biden who seems like a fine person, didn't mind him as Pres, but was running a bad campaign).
I give her full credit though for NOT running a Hillary-style campaign which revolved around her being the first female president.
Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 03:58:09 AMObviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
I draw it right there. Coercion. I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.
Quote from: DGuller on October 28, 2024, 10:14:26 AMObviously voters decide at the end, but at the same time, it's also obvious that on population level, voters can be influenced. That's why we can blame both the smokers for taking up the deadly habit as well as the tobacco companies for effectively marketing it. Individual decisions are always influenced by external factors to some extent. For some people, these external factors don't tip the balance, but for others it does.
People still make the choice about which external factors influence them.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 12:45:23 PMYou didn't ask me of course... but I think she's run an okay campaign, but by no means amazing. She was definitely handicapped by coming into the race mid-way through (and taking over from Biden who seems like a fine person, didn't mind him as Pres, but was running a bad campaign).
I give her full credit though for NOT running a Hillary-style campaign which revolved around her being the first female president.
It is funny. I get that she came in "late" but it still seems like this Harris vs. Trump thing has gone on forever.
God I will be so glad this stress and nonsense will be over in a short time.
Of course if Kamala wins I guess we get months more of Donnie trying to become President anyway.
Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 11:54:45 AMQuoteQuote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 10:19:14 AMSo if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right". You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have. So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.
But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves. It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.
But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters. Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".
If you're in power you can make the voters you want via policy.
And criticising voters...I'm not sure why pointing the finger at Clinton and the deplorable comment is apt when Trump does this to a far greater degree. He's always othering a portion of the electorate. Its part of how populism works.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2024, 08:17:11 AMIt is fair to say that every election result in a liberal democracy is the fault of electorate. Whether or not you think the result was good or bad.
So you just ignored what I said :(
No, I disagreed with what you said.
QuoteI draw it right there. Coercion. I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.
Where?
Literal gun to the head?
How about vague "show up to the polling booth and you might get beaten" or "if candidate x wins we will beat group y"- different between it being outright said and strongly implied?
Drawing a specific line is hard. It's not something where there really is a hard and fast rule (as much as the law has to dry and draw one)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2024, 01:22:13 PMNo, I disagreed with what you said.
That's a pretty rubbish disagreement as it just read like ignoring and repeating a basic claim.
Why do you say everything is entirely down to individuals? Why doesnt education, social influence, etc... matter?
Quote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 01:30:08 PMWhere?
Literal gun to the head?
How about vague "show up to the polling booth and you might get beaten" or "if candidate x wins we will beat group y"- different between it being outright said and strongly implied?
Drawing a specific line is hard. It's not something where there really is a hard and fast rule (as much as the law has to dry and draw one)
As with any abstraction, there will be ambiguous edge cases. That doesn't mean every decision in life is coerced. The vast majority of decisions in life are uncoerced, hence the vast majority of voters are responsible for their own choice.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 10:19:14 AMSo if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right". You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have. So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.
From a UK perspective I generally think that even if I would (or did) vote in a different way, that of the choices presented to them the voters either made the right or a very understandable call (my one big exception is 1970).
I can't apply that to the US at all, especially in recent years. There are people who shouldn't be in public life (and frankly some who shouldn't be at liberty in private life) achieving very great success. I think there is more continuity than rupture in Trump's success, but even so.
Having said that I'm broadly not in the blame voters camp. I think if you've been out there pounding the pavement and knocking on thousands of doors then you can take a bit of a "the people have spoken, the bastards" approach. If not then you're no more or less culpable than others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2024, 12:47:30 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 28, 2024, 03:58:09 AMObviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?
I draw it right there. Coercion. I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.
I go back and forth on this.
So they just had an election in Georgia. Lots of allegations of fraud by the Russian-aligned government. We'll see what happens.
But looking elsewhere in former-USSR. On the one hand you have Ukraine. Twice they've had massive protests in favour of democratic legitimacy - in 2004 with the "Orange Revolution" and again in 2014 in the EuroMaidan / "Revolution of Dignity". Certainly in 2014 protestors were being shot at. But at the end of the day they walked away with a functioning democracy.
But next door you have Belarus. In the last Presidential elections in 2020 there were again wide-spread allegations of fraud. There were protests for months. But in the end Lukashenko remains in power.
Do I fault the people of Belarus for not protesting more vigorously? No. It's a pretty rational decision to not want to get arrested / put into exile / killed. But - they don't have a democracy.
Even going with the Jim Crow south - very logical for blacks not to try to vote. I can't blame people for those choices. But it was (amongst many other things) by blacks who did try to vote (or go to an integrated school, or sit at the front of the bus, or any of a number of other acts) who did bring an end to segregation.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2024, 02:56:42 PMI go back and forth on this.
So they just had an election in Georgia. Lots of allegations of fraud by the Russian-aligned government. We'll see what happens.
But looking elsewhere in former-USSR. On the one hand you have Ukraine. Twice they've had massive protests in favour of democratic legitimacy - in 2004 with the "Orange Revolution" and again in 2014 in the EuroMaidan / "Revolution of Dignity". Certainly in 2014 protestors were being shot at. But at the end of the day they walked away with a functioning democracy.
But next door you have Belarus. In the last Presidential elections in 2020 there were again wide-spread allegations of fraud. There were protests for months. But in the end Lukashenko remains in power.
Do I fault the people of Belarus for not protesting more vigorously? No. It's a pretty rational decision to not want to get arrested / put into exile / killed. But - they don't have a democracy.
Even going with the Jim Crow south - very logical for blacks not to try to vote. I can't blame people for those choices. But it was (amongst many other things) by blacks who did try to vote (or go to an integrated school, or sit at the front of the bus, or any of a number of other acts) who did bring an end to segregation.
These are all nice and reasonable things to say, but I don't get what they have to do with me.
Ballot drop off boxes burned in Oregon and Washington.
Philadelphia DA has filed suit to stop Musk's lottery;
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2024, 04:07:09 PMBallot drop off boxes burned in Oregon and Washington.
:huh: this time-line is fucked up
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2024, 04:07:09 PMBallot drop off boxes burned in Oregon and Washington.
TL;DR - sometimes maybe it is on people to vote even at risk to themselves.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 28, 2024, 05:05:19 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2024, 04:07:09 PMBallot drop off boxes burned in Oregon and Washington.
:huh: this time-line is fucked up
On the upside...the chances of either of those two states going for Trump is about 0.01%.
Beast Raban ad calling Trump a pussy.
Biden apparently stumbled over his feet and called Teump supporters garbage.
Definitely reminds why he isn't the candidate. :frusty:
Yeah, because Trump never calls Democrat supporters anything bad. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solmyr on October 30, 2024, 04:29:27 AMYeah, because Trump never calls Democrat supporters anything bad. :rolleyes:
After Clinton doing her deplorables thing in 2016, Biden should know better.
Like it or not Rich Kid Trump is cemented as Man of the Common People, and regular-people background Democrats are always one misstep away from being labelled part of the elite looking down on the common people. It's just the reality this contest is happening in.
Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2024, 03:16:03 AMBiden apparently stumbled over his feet and called Teump supporters garbage.
Definitely reminds why he isn't the candidate. :frusty:
He didn't call them garbage. It is a lie.
What he said was "The only garbage I see is his supporter's-his-his-demonization of Latinos is unconscionable and it's unamerican." So he was saying the demonization of Latinos by this one supporter, Tony Hinchcliffe, was garbage. The 's' there was possessive and not plural. And it is obvious as he uses the pronoun 'his' and not 'them' that he is only talking about one person and his actions at that.
So Biden didn't call a single person garbage, not even Tony Hinchcliffe, he was calling the actions of referring to Puerto Rico as garbage as being garbage.
It is such a pathetic scandal, I guess nobody fucking speaks English or knows how words work.
I was listening to NPR this morning, and they continued to have coverage on Hinchcliffe's monologue at Madison Square Gardens. I was amused that every NPR broadcaster, no matter how terminally anglo, tries to adopt a patois when pronouncing the word "Latino." I'll bet the roll their r's when ordering burrito bowls from Chipotle.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 06:14:50 AMQuote from: garbon on October 30, 2024, 03:16:03 AMBiden apparently stumbled over his feet and called Teump supporters garbage.
Definitely reminds why he isn't the candidate. :frusty:
He didn't call them garbage. It is a lie.
What he said was "The only garbage I see is his supporter's-his-his-demonization of Latinos is unconscionable and it's unamerican." So he was saying the demonization of Latinos by this one supporter, Tony Hinchcliffe, was garbage. The 's' there was possessive and not plural. And it is obvious as he uses the pronoun 'his' and not 'them' that he is only talking about one person and his actions at that.
So Biden didn't call a single person garbage, not even Tony Hinchcliffe, he was calling the actions of referring to Puerto Rico as garbage as being garbage.
It is such a pathetic scandal, I guess nobody fucking speaks English or knows how words work.
But...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4960815-biden-slams-trump-supporters/
QuoteA video clip of Biden's remarks also circulated. In that clip, it sounds as if the president ends one thought with the word "supporters," and then begins a new sentence referring to the "demonization of Latinos."
"The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters," Biden appears to say in the clip. "His, his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been."
Biden often misspeaks, sometimes making it difficult to figure out what he is saying or meaning. It's also true that different people could hear different things from his comments.
Either way, the remarks and the clean-up effort struck a discordant note for Democrats, as they circulated widely just as Vice President Harris completed a speech at the Ellipse behind the White House where she made her closing campaign argument against former President Donald Trump
Probably best if Biden mutes himself for the next week.
There is probably a reason Kamala hasn't had him out on the campaign trail with her.
Granted it might be because he has work to do actually being President. But I bet he could find the time if she asked him...
By all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2024, 10:47:43 AMBy all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
I see no benefit in putting our heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that every misstatement Biden makes could negatively effect the result.
But more importantly, Trump is still running against Biden. The fact Biden keeps popping his head up during this election is hard to understand. It must make the Harris team furious.
But they are garbage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2024, 10:50:13 AMThe fact Biden keeps popping his head up during this election is hard to understand.
Has he? This is the first time I have heard him say anything about the election. He has been a bit busy with all the hurricanes.
Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2024, 11:16:00 AMBut they are garbage.
Well yeah but truth has no place in politics.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 11:16:29 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2024, 10:50:13 AMThe fact Biden keeps popping his head up during this election is hard to understand.
Has he? This is the first time I have heard him say anything about the election. He has been a bit busy with all the hurricanes.
Yes, in fact he also made comments about what the Trump team was saying about the hurricanes. His comments were correct, but he has to realize he was and continues to be the main target for the Trumpists. Just keep your head down Joe.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 11:16:47 AMQuote from: PDH on October 30, 2024, 11:16:00 AMBut they are garbage.
Well yeah but truth has no place in politics.
What part of the "they" are both of you thinking about when endorsing that sort of comment?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2024, 10:47:43 AMBy all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
Are you addressing that at the media? I'm not sure languish.org could ever amplify anything. :weep:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2024, 11:24:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 11:16:47 AMQuote from: PDH on October 30, 2024, 11:16:00 AMBut they are garbage.
Well yeah but truth has no place in politics.
What part of the "they" are both of you thinking about when endorsing that sort of comment?
Presumably Trump supporters.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2024, 11:24:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 11:16:47 AMQuote from: PDH on October 30, 2024, 11:16:00 AMBut they are garbage.
Well yeah but truth has no place in politics.
What part of the "they" are both of you thinking about when endorsing that sort of comment?
Trump supporters.
But I was joking, just to be clear.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 30, 2024, 07:16:19 AMI was listening to NPR this morning, and they continued to have coverage on Hinchcliffe's monologue at Madison Square Gardens. I was amused that every NPR broadcaster, no matter how terminally anglo, tries to adopt a patois when pronouncing the word "Latino." I'll bet the roll their r's when ordering burrito bowls from Chipotle.
On the upside, that means they've ditched Latinx.
Latino sounds like a reasonably priced but well-made compact car from a Japanese or Korean manufacturer. I.e. "the Nissan Latino won the JD Power award for initial quality in the compact class for the 2024 model year"
Latinx sounds like slang for a social disease. I.e. "stay away from Robin, he/she's got the latinx"
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2024, 10:47:43 AMBy all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
I don't want to be only as bad as intellectually dishonest Trump supporters. I want to be better. Part of that is not pretending that unpleasant facts don't exist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 02:16:04 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2024, 10:47:43 AMBy all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
I don't want to be only as bad as intellectually dishonest Trump supporters. I want to be better. Part of that is not pretending that unpleasant facts don't exist.
This came up during the debate over Biden's age. That is was harmful to the campaign to talk about.
In the end though - talking about his age is what caused him to drop out, which gave the Dems Harris, who has a much better shot at winning.
This current debate, when fully explained, makes it clear it's hard to tell exactly what the heck Biden was trying to say. And I think that's okay - he's not the candidate, and he's really old.
But if you just try to shut down debate - then you're only left with the Trumpists saying "he called Trump voters garbage!".
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2024, 02:32:39 PMThis came up during the debate over Biden's age. That is was harmful to the campaign to talk about.
In the end though - talking about his age is what caused him to drop out, which gave the Dems Harris, who has a much better shot at winning.
This current debate, when fully explained, makes it clear it's hard to tell exactly what the heck Biden was trying to say. And I think that's okay - he's not the candidate, and he's really old.
But if you just try to shut down debate - then you're only left with the Trumpists saying "he called Trump voters garbage!".
If someone tried to make the case that by keeping quiet about Joe's gaffe we would somehow increase the chances of Kamala winning, I would be willing to listen. But I don't see that could possibly work.
I've given a little bit of thought to the question what advantages arise by suppressing and/or ignoring unpleasant information about my side, and all I've been able to come up with is "solidarity" and signalling membership in the in group. Neither of which interest me very much.
Bidens speaking skills suck. They always have by the standards of someone in his position but in recent years they've plummeted. He trips over his own tongue and stammers a tonne.
It's pretty obvious that's what happened here. The full transcript shows it wasn't a gaffe, it was a pretty sensible thing to say, but delivered in a garbled way.
It is pretty interesting though how fast the media has managed to move on from the Puerto Rico is trash comment, which before they were saying was a moment that could kill things for trump, and onto Bidens comment about the guy who delivered it.
Incendiaries used the attack Ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington had the words "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza" written on them. Our antizionist friends are so helpful. I'm glad they're on our side. Aren't you guys glad they are helping us by lighting our ballots on fire?
@Squeeze
If you have something you want to say about the PR comment, go ahead.
Until they come out with some polls measuring the impact of the joke on voters, I don't see what else there is to say. Or learn.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2024, 03:55:37 PMIncendiaries used the attack Ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington had the words "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza" written on them. Our antizionist friends are so helpful. I'm glad they're on our side. Aren't you guys glad they are helping us by lighting our ballots on fire?
Wouldn't put it past your friends to do this. False flag attacks are far from unknown and they are playing a game of reflection deflection.
If authentic then that's a special kind of stupid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 03:56:24 PM@Squeeze
If you have something you want to say about the PR comment, go ahead.
Until they come out with some polls measuring the impact of the joke on voters, I don't see what else there is to say. Or learn.
As said, original comment was bloody stupid and unfunny.
Bidens comeback on paper perfectly fine. Delivered by Biden you have to squint to understand it. But still amazing it has been twisted as it has.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2024, 03:55:37 PMIncendiaries used the attack Ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington had the words "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza" written on them. Our antizionist friends are so helpful. I'm glad they're on our side. Aren't you guys glad they are helping us by lighting our ballots on fire?
Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 03:58:06 PMAs said, original comment was bloody stupid and unfunny.
Bidens comeback on paper perfectly fine. Delivered by Biden you have to squint to understand it. But still amazing it has been twisted as it has.
As said, what would you like to say about the joke? What would you like the media to say about the joke?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 04:01:01 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 03:58:06 PMAs said, original comment was bloody stupid and unfunny.
Bidens comeback on paper perfectly fine. Delivered by Biden you have to squint to understand it. But still amazing it has been twisted as it has.
As said, what would you like to say about the joke? What would you like the media to say about the joke?
You've lost me. Didn't realise you were doing your thing.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 04:01:54 PMYou've lost me. Didn't realise you were doing your thing.
What is my thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 04:05:49 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 04:01:54 PMYou've lost me. Didn't realise you were doing your thing.
What is my thing?
It is now. Lean into it. :homestar:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 02:16:04 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on October 30, 2024, 10:47:43 AMBy all means, let's amplify Biden's sentence, and the possibility it may be twisted by people who have no qualms glossing over Trump's many direct fascist sentences.
I don't want to be only as bad as intellectually dishonest Trump supporters. I want to be better. Part of that is not pretending that unpleasant facts don't exist.
Yeah. It is a big deal that the President would call the opposing party's supporters garbage.
Or at least it should be. Trump certainly called me much worse when he was in office. But I think we should hold Biden to a higher standard. And indeed we should hold Trump to a higher standard, we just don't do that and let him do whatever for some reason.
I don't think he called them garbage. But the fact that his mumbling and bumbling made it sound to some like he did is why he is not the candidate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2024, 01:24:33 PMQuote from: Savonarola on October 30, 2024, 07:16:19 AMI was listening to NPR this morning, and they continued to have coverage on Hinchcliffe's monologue at Madison Square Gardens. I was amused that every NPR broadcaster, no matter how terminally anglo, tries to adopt a patois when pronouncing the word "Latino." I'll bet the roll their r's when ordering burrito bowls from Chipotle.
On the upside, that means they've ditched Latinx.
I never liked Latinx. If Latinos came out and were like "hey anglos! Call us Latinx!" then I would.
It just sounded like a bunch of English speakers trying to fix Spanish for being too sexist. And hey I am fine with fixing sexism in Spanish, but let the Spanish speakers do it. I will then adopt whatever they collectively decide on.
Until that time though, Latinos/Latinas it is.
Do they still do Latin@?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 30, 2024, 04:06:35 PMIt is now. Lean into it. :homestar:
What should I lean into?
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 03:58:06 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2024, 03:55:37 PMIncendiaries used the attack Ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington had the words "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza" written on them. Our antizionist friends are so helpful. I'm glad they're on our side. Aren't you guys glad they are helping us by lighting our ballots on fire?
Wouldn't put it past your friends to do this. False flag attacks are far from unknown and they are playing a game of reflection deflection.
If authentic then that's a special kind of stupid.
Really? False Flag? Thanks Alex Jones. My friends are Democrats, remember?
Out to the Hamas thread with you two!
Biden managed to partially neuter the GOP gaffe with his own. Very annoying.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2024, 03:47:41 PMIt is pretty interesting though how fast the media has managed to move on from the Puerto Rico is trash comment, which before they were saying was a moment that could kill things for trump, and onto Bidens comment about the guy who delivered it.
Our media is still covering Hinchcliffe's Puerto Rico remark and its fallout. I just heard a story about it on my drive home and CNN just posted a story about it a couple hours ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2024, 04:33:21 PMReally? False Flag? Thanks Alex Jones.
It's not outside the realm of possibiliy.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 04:09:14 PMI never liked Latinx. If Latinos came out and were like "hey anglos! Call us Latinx!" then I would.
It just sounded like a bunch of English speakers trying to fix Spanish for being too sexist. And hey I am fine with fixing sexism in Spanish, but let the Spanish speakers do it. I will then adopt whatever they collectively decide on.
Until that time though, Latinos/Latinas it is.
I believe the Spanish language equivalent would be Latine/Latines - which makes sense in Spanish grammatically and can be pronounced in Spanish, unlike Latinx.
QuoteAfter Clinton doing her deplorables thing in 2016, Biden should know better.
A crucial difference with "deplorables" or Romney's "47%" is that they were said in private fundraisers and subsequently leaked. In part it's the language - but I think the bigger issue is the hypocrisy/saying one thing in private and another in public. See also Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" hot mic moment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2024, 05:04:28 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 30, 2024, 04:09:14 PMI never liked Latinx. If Latinos came out and were like "hey anglos! Call us Latinx!" then I would.
It just sounded like a bunch of English speakers trying to fix Spanish for being too sexist. And hey I am fine with fixing sexism in Spanish, but let the Spanish speakers do it. I will then adopt whatever they collectively decide on.
Until that time though, Latinos/Latinas it is.
I believe the Spanish language equivalent would be Latine/Latines - which makes sense in Spanish grammatically and can be pronounced in Spanish, unlike Latinx.
As said Latin@ is one I've encountered in writing.
When I was making a website 10 years ago (so old :cry:) I was provided translated versions from different countries to plugin.
The Spanish one had lots of random @ signs in there so I asked if this was an error - they explained no, it's just what you do to make clear you mean men or women.
I do wonder what happened with this. Never really hear of it as you do latinx, though it is more aesthetically pleasing.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2024, 03:55:37 PMIncendiaries used the attack Ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington had the words "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza" written on them. Our antizionist friends are so helpful. I'm glad they're on our side. Aren't you guys glad they are helping us by lighting our ballots on fire?
To be fair, let's not take the arsonists at their word as to what political faction they belong to. We can't be sure about every attack on election legitimacy, but we can be sure that at least some will be designed by Russian intelligence aiming to destabilize the situation whichever way the winds blow. Russian intelligence is quite capable of operating under someone else's flag.
I early voted, it sure is nice to now have that option in New Jersey. Hopefully there would be no surprises in the last week that would've made me change my vote.
What kind of surprise would make you vote for the fascist candidate?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 30, 2024, 09:11:39 PMWhat kind of surprise would make you vote for the fascist candidate?
Finding out that Kamala's thoughts on what is and isn't garbage are not in line with my own would definitely make me rethink my views.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 30, 2024, 09:11:39 PMWhat kind of surprise would make you vote for the fascist candidate?
Didn't you hear? He's the opposite of a nazi. He's the communist candidate.
Look like Trump is happy to try to run against Biden again.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2024, 09:58:47 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 30, 2024, 09:11:39 PMWhat kind of surprise would make you vote for the fascist candidate?
Finding out that Kamala's thoughts on what is and isn't garbage are not in line with my own would definitely make me rethink my views.
Leaving wether there are deportation camps or not in the USA on garbage is bold. Good thing you can't change it. Only vote again
You can't take my vote for granted just because the other guy is bad. You have to earn it. You definitely won't earn it by having unacceptable views on what garbage is.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2024, 07:17:46 AMYou can't take my vote for granted just because the other guy is bad. You have to earn it. You definitely won't earn it by having unacceptable views on what garbage is.
Cool but this specific situation isn't a hypothetical.
No peace without garbage.
I am thinking both parties are trying to re-fight the 2016 election. First it was Democrats in Garbage Gate going "oh lol he pulled a Hillary Clinton, oh joy" and then the Trump team did the same after Biden's gaffe
I don't think it's so much fighting the 2016 battle but rather it's just bad politics to call the voting public names. I can't believe American politics has descended to this level, but there we are.
An interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of posters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of posters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
That's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 09:59:17 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of pollsters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
That's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of posters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
I've heard this one.
Another curious take I've heard is that things are really weirdly close in many deep republican states whilst swing states are competitive or Trump leaning- the explanation being this is due to the republicans playing their games and throwing out bogus polls in those states.
Seems a bit wishful but for sure the fake polls thing is happening so....
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2024, 10:42:46 AMAnother curious take I've heard is that things are really weirdly close in many deep republican states whilst swing states are competitive or Trump leaning- the explanation being this is due to the republicans playing their games and throwing out bogus polls in those states.
Seems a bit wishful but for sure the fake polls thing is happening so....
I really don't buy this at all.
Poll aggregators / election predictors know who are reliable polls and who aren't. So even if some pollsters are more aligned with the Dems or GOP, they know which specific pollsters can be trusted and which can't. So I really don't think there are any "fake polls" being added to the mix.
Go look at https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model Nate Silver isn't the only election modeler, but he's a big name. You can see exactly which polls he uses, how much they're weighted, and how they're adjusted.
QuoteThe Silver Bulletin polling averages are a little fancy. They adjust for whether polls are conducted among registered or likely voters and house effects. They weight more reliable polls more heavily. And they use national polls to make inferences about state polls and vice versa. It requires a few extra CPU cycles — but the reward is a more stable average that doesn't get psyched out by outliers.
The line about outliers, for example, contained a link to a poll which has Harris up 17 points in Wisconsin - not matched by any other poll, so I gather it's just thrown out.
Silver could definitely be off (although his prediction is that it's 50/50, so anything other than a huge win by either candidate won't prove him wrong) - but if he's off it's because of something far more subtler than "fake polls".
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 10:56:55 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 31, 2024, 10:42:46 AMAnother curious take I've heard is that things are really weirdly close in many deep republican states whilst swing states are competitive or Trump leaning- the explanation being this is due to the republicans playing their games and throwing out bogus polls in those states.
Seems a bit wishful but for sure the fake polls thing is happening so....
I really don't buy this at all.
Poll aggregators / election predictors know who are reliable polls and who aren't. So even if some pollsters are more aligned with the Dems or GOP, they know which specific pollsters can be trusted and which can't. So I really don't think there are any "fake polls" being added to the mix.
Go look at https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model Nate Silver isn't the only election modeler, but he's a big name. You can see exactly which polls he uses, how much they're weighted, and how they're adjusted.
QuoteThe Silver Bulletin polling averages are a little fancy. They adjust for whether polls are conducted among registered or likely voters and house effects. They weight more reliable polls more heavily. And they use national polls to make inferences about state polls and vice versa. It requires a few extra CPU cycles — but the reward is a more stable average that doesn't get psyched out by outliers.
The line about outliers, for example, contained a link to a poll which has Harris up 17 points in Wisconsin - not matched by any other poll, so I gather it's just thrown out.
Silver could definitely be off (although his prediction is that it's 50/50, so anything other than a huge win by either candidate won't prove him wrong) - but if he's off it's because of something far more subtler than "fake polls".
Its not just me saying it, its coming from reliable observers.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/harris-vs-trump-analyst-tells-panicky-dems-gop-is-creating-fake-polls-desperate-unhinged-trumpian.html
IIRC 270 to win does mark which polls are biased and which aren't, but you have to dig in to see this. Even if they do control to reduce their impact, they still do effect the average more than they should.
The extent to which they're having an impact is debatable but that the gop are using this tactic isn't.
What's unknowable is the overall bias of the polls. You can know that poll A leans Dem 3 points more than poll B, but it's hard to know whether that means overall lean of 5 vs 2 or 3 vs 0 or -5 vs -8.
Based on early vote turnout by registrations, I think the polls may be overstating Trump's numbers (or understating Harris), but probably only by 1-2%. I'd be surprised if it's anything more than that. There was a video on Youtube where it stated that pollsters have never overstated one side 3 presidential election cycles in a row since 1972. Plus the fact that they understated the Democrats in the 2022 midterms. So I am hopeful that Harris is doing slightly better than expected. But it will still be a close race regardless.
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2024, 11:02:47 AMIts not just me saying it, its coming from reliable observers.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/harris-vs-trump-analyst-tells-panicky-dems-gop-is-creating-fake-polls-desperate-unhinged-trumpian.html
IIRC 270 to win does mark which polls are biased and which aren't, but you have to dig in to see this. Even if they do control to reduce their impact, they still do effect the average more than they should.
The extent to which they're having an impact is debatable but that the gop are using this tactic isn't.
But they're aware of it. From FiveThirtyEigh:
QuoteAre partisan pollsters biasing our averages?
One question that we sometimes get is whether polling averages like 538's are biased toward Trump because of the influx of polls conducted by Republican-aligned firms. Over the past two weeks, 22 of the 113 presidential polls released in the seven main swing states were from a Republican pollster or sponsor, while none were from Democratic organizations.** (The remaining 91 polls were nonpartisan.)
While there is always uncertainty about how accurate state polls are, partisan polls affecting our averages is not one of my bigger concerns. That's because we work hard to subtract potential statistical bias from each poll before putting it into our averages. As you can see in our polling-average methodology, we adjust partisan polls to account for the fact that these polls are typically a bit too good for the sponsoring party.
And even for nonpartisan polls, we apply something called a "house effects" adjustment that accounts for how much more Democratic- or Republican-leaning a pollster is than its peers (whether due to the partisan leanings of its principals or, simply methodological choices that typically produce more liberal or conservative samples). For example, if a pollster's polls have consistently been 2 points better for Trump than the polling average, after controlling for factors such as a poll's population (likely voters versus registered voters or all adults) and mode (e.g., live phone, online panel, text message, etc.), we adjust those polls 2 points toward Harris.
Finally, we give less weight to polls from pollsters without a 538 pollster rating and pollsters that release a bunch of polls in a short period of time. This ensures that pollsters that are "flooding the zone" with polls don't have outsized influence in our averages.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/trump-gained-538s-forecast-election-toss/story?id=114907042
Right that article mentioned McLaughlin, which is ranked last in the 538 pollster rating. That poll basically counts for nothing in the analysis. Rasmussen is also pretty low ranked, and it has a well-known house effect that gets adjusted out.
The race is a statistical dead heat and has been so for months. It's a toss up. There may be a significant polling error but there is no way to know which way it will cut. In 16 and 20 it cut for Trump, in 22 for the Democrats. Cross fingers and hope.
Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 09:59:17 AMThat's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
Yeah probably just cope but we'll know soon enough. It's a coin toss either way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 10:05:40 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 09:59:17 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of pollsters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
That's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
I get the understandable desire to look for hope, or the competing desire to look for the ways the opposition side is screwing you.
It's just too close to tell right now. Nobody can offer any more comfort than that.
The election could just as easily be a comfortable Harris win, as a comfortable Trump win. There's potential for polling error in either direction. There's reason to think Dem voters are being under-counted, and reasons to think GOP voters are being under-counter.
As a gross over-simplification: Harris in her "closing argument" is counting on attracting high-propensity white women to vote for her in the closing days. This is a huge voting block who vote reliably - but that reliability is counted in pollsters estimates so the odds of polling error is small.
Trump on the other hand is counting on young black males to come out and vote for him (this is all the anti-trans stuff). These are low-propensity voters though - so it's much harder for pollsters to estimate turnout. Trump doesn't need to get a majority of this group, but a significant enough swing of voters who wouldn't otherwise vote would be huge to win the election - and the odds of polling error is high.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:09:41 PMI get the understandable desire to look for hope, or the competing desire to look for the ways the opposition side is screwing you.
It's just too close to tell right now. Nobody can offer any more comfort than that.
So just like last election. Just have to hope women show up and vote.
QuoteTrump on the other hand is counting on young black males to come out and vote for him (this is all the anti-trans stuff). These are low-propensity voters though - so it's much harder for pollsters to estimate turnout. Trump doesn't need to get a majority of this group, but a significant enough swing of voters who wouldn't otherwise vote would be huge to win the election - and the odds of polling error is high.
LOL. Every damn election since like 1980 the Republicans insist this is the time black men finally switch. Every time I am told I am delusional for thinking this is unlikely and every time black men's voting rates remain pretty much the same.
But maybe the well known specific hatred of trans people by black men will do the trick.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2024, 02:24:46 PMLOL. Every damn election since like 1980 the Republicans insist this is the time black men finally switch. Every time I am told I am delusional for thinking this is unlikely and every time black men's voting rates remain pretty much the same.
As I understand it it has nothing to do with black men switching - it'll still be a majority Dem demographic.
It has more to do with percentage and turnout. It's such a close election every bit counts - but those two demos seem to be where the parties are putting their bets.
I've heard it said a big thing democrat campaigners are doing is encouraging women to vote and reminding them it's a secret ballot :ph34r:
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2024, 02:32:03 PMI've heard it said a big thing democrat campaigners are doing is encouraging women to vote and reminding them it's a secret ballot :ph34r:
You don't have to go with "I've heard it said". a Harris-aligned PAC very explicitly sent out an ad to that effect.
It had a couple of women in the voting booth, wink at each other, vote for Harris, then go out to meet their MAGA-adorned husband outside.
I maintain my prediction from when it was Biden vs Trump. Harris is going to win over 300 EVs. Voting margin favouring Harris close to 10 million.
Not that it matters much. Shenanigans and violence is sure to follow no matter the outcome.
Have Four Seasons Landscaping cleared their venue for Giuliani's press conference again?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2024, 02:47:39 PMI maintain my prediction from when it was Biden vs Trump. Harris is going to win over 300 EVs. Voting margin favouring Harris close to 10 million.
Not that it matters much. Shenanigans and violence is sure to follow no matter the outcome.
So I mean I hope you're right. #NeverTrump
But a really solid Harris win really removes the ability for "shenanigans" as opposed to it coming down to just 1 or 2 states.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:53:37 PMSo I mean I hope you're right. #NeverTrump
You don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:53:37 PMBut a really solid Harris win really removes the ability for "shenanigans" as opposed to it coming down to just 1 or 2 states.
Oh my sweet, summer child.
I think the big shift is that in 2016 and 2020 there were some segments that were sheepish about being Trump voters. Most of that reticence has been removed on his third go round, but the intimidation and threats of violence (sometimes in the home) have made Harris voters a lot less likely to speak up.
If it is a big Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating. If it is a narrow Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:54:56 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:53:37 PMSo I mean I hope you're right. #NeverTrump
You don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
Don't you tell me how to write! :ultra:
I think writing more colloquially helps to soften the blow where I contradict the person in the next sentence.
Quote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 03:15:11 PMIf it is a big Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating. If it is a narrow Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating.
And if it is a Trump win, they will claim it's evidence of cheating. Maybe we should agree with them. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 12:19:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 31, 2024, 11:02:47 AMIts not just me saying it, its coming from reliable observers.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/harris-vs-trump-analyst-tells-panicky-dems-gop-is-creating-fake-polls-desperate-unhinged-trumpian.html
IIRC 270 to win does mark which polls are biased and which aren't, but you have to dig in to see this. Even if they do control to reduce their impact, they still do effect the average more than they should.
The extent to which they're having an impact is debatable but that the gop are using this tactic isn't.
But they're aware of it. From FiveThirtyEigh:
QuoteAre partisan pollsters biasing our averages?
One question that we sometimes get is whether polling averages like 538's are biased toward Trump because of the influx of polls conducted by Republican-aligned firms. Over the past two weeks, 22 of the 113 presidential polls released in the seven main swing states were from a Republican pollster or sponsor, while none were from Democratic organizations.** (The remaining 91 polls were nonpartisan.)
While there is always uncertainty about how accurate state polls are, partisan polls affecting our averages is not one of my bigger concerns. That's because we work hard to subtract potential statistical bias from each poll before putting it into our averages. As you can see in our polling-average methodology, we adjust partisan polls to account for the fact that these polls are typically a bit too good for the sponsoring party.
And even for nonpartisan polls, we apply something called a "house effects" adjustment that accounts for how much more Democratic- or Republican-leaning a pollster is than its peers (whether due to the partisan leanings of its principals or, simply methodological choices that typically produce more liberal or conservative samples). For example, if a pollster's polls have consistently been 2 points better for Trump than the polling average, after controlling for factors such as a poll's population (likely voters versus registered voters or all adults) and mode (e.g., live phone, online panel, text message, etc.), we adjust those polls 2 points toward Harris.
Finally, we give less weight to polls from pollsters without a 538 pollster rating and pollsters that release a bunch of polls in a short period of time. This ensures that pollsters that are "flooding the zone" with polls don't have outsized influence in our averages.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/trump-gained-538s-forecast-election-toss/story?id=114907042
Their explanation contains a hint of how partisan polls can be skewing things anyway. They mention how they compare the poll result against the average to calculate the skew. Well, where does the average come from, a word of God or all the polls taken together? An influx of BS polls may be poisoning the average anyway. What may seem like a house effect of 3 points may actually be a house effect of 4 points.
All garbage
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2024, 03:39:33 PMTheir explanation contains a hint of how partisan polls can be skewing things anyway. They mention how they compare the poll result against the average to calculate the skew. Well, where does the average come from, a word of God or all the polls taken together? An influx of BS polls may be poisoning the average anyway. What may seem like a house effect of 3 points may actually be a house effect of 4 points.
But these poll aggregators could be wrong in 100s of different ways. They freely acknowledge it.
But what seems more likely - some factor they're completely unaware of, or some factor they're well aware of and trying to adjust for?
If the polls are off in 2024 it's likely for some novel reason, and unlikely to be for the same reason as 2020 or 2016.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:09:41 PMTrump on the other hand is counting on young black males to come out and vote for him (this is all the anti-trans stuff).
Heard an interview on NPR t'other day which said resistance to a female president was the factor pushing black voters to Trump.
Polls are pretty much useless at this point. The margin for error exceeds the difference between the polling numbers of either candidate. It's a toss up. That said, although it's a toss up it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a close election. Either candidate can win ALL or NONE of the swing states.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:54:56 PMYou don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
My view on "I mean" has evolved as I've been exposed to more and more content-free verbal ticks that are passive aggressive. "I mean" is objectionable because it's content free filler, but at least it's not passive aggressive.
Do you find many common expressions passive aggressive?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 04:06:51 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 02:09:41 PMTrump on the other hand is counting on young black males to come out and vote for him (this is all the anti-trans stuff).
Heard an interview on NPR t'other day which said resistance to a female president was the factor pushing black voters to Trump.
Could be. :idunno:
Edit: Did Harris being a black female make it better or worse?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 04:15:40 PMQuote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:54:56 PMYou don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
My view on "I mean" has evolved as I've been exposed to more and more content-free verbal ticks that are passive aggressive. "I mean" is objectionable because it's content free filler, but at least it's not passive aggressive.
I agree it's not passive aggressive and so don't really have a problem with it. But I find it amusingly objectionable for precisely the reason you state. I excuse it much more in speech than I do in writing, where we (some of us, anyway) can choose to be more or less succinct in getting our point across.
Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2024, 04:21:45 PMDo you find many common expressions passive aggressive?
I find commoners passive aggressive.
Quote from: The Brain on October 31, 2024, 04:21:45 PMDo you find many common expressions passive aggressive?
A few.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 03:39:00 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 03:15:11 PMIf it is a big Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating. If it is a narrow Harris win, Trumpists will claim its evidence of cheating.
And if it is a Trump win, they will claim it's evidence of cheating. Maybe we should agree with them. :hmm:
I think if he wins violence will come from the scum who take his mass deportation promises and internal enemy rhetoric seriously. Sort of like the more extreme version of the rise of racist incidents over here following the Leave vote. They'll think they have the green light to abuse people.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 04:23:27 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 04:15:40 PMQuote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:54:56 PMYou don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
My view on "I mean" has evolved as I've been exposed to more and more content-free verbal ticks that are passive aggressive. "I mean" is objectionable because it's content free filler, but at least it's not passive aggressive.
I agree it's not passive aggressive and so don't really have a problem with it. But I find it amusingly objectionable for precisely the reason you state. I excuse it much more in speech than I do in writing, where we (some of us, anyway) can choose to be more or less succinct in getting our point across.
Well, I mean, you know, that's, like, just your opinion, man!
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 04:26:31 PMQuote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 04:23:27 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 04:15:40 PMQuote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:54:56 PMYou don't have to go with "So I mean". You can just say what you hope!
My view on "I mean" has evolved as I've been exposed to more and more content-free verbal ticks that are passive aggressive. "I mean" is objectionable because it's content free filler, but at least it's not passive aggressive.
I agree it's not passive aggressive and so don't really have a problem with it. But I find it amusingly objectionable for precisely the reason you state. I excuse it much more in speech than I do in writing, where we (some of us, anyway) can choose to be more or less succinct in getting our point across.
Well, I mean, you know, that's, like, just your opinion, man!
:bash:
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 04:26:31 PMWell, I mean, you know, that's, like, just your opinion, man!
Scooby dooby doo!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 04:39:50 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 31, 2024, 04:26:31 PMWell, I mean, you know, that's, like, just your opinion, man!
Scooby dooby doo!
Not what I was thinking, but well played. :golfclap:
:)
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:00:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 10:05:40 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 09:59:17 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of pollsters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
That's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 08:57:47 AMI don't think it's so much fighting the 2016 battle but rather it's just bad politics to call the voting public names. I can't believe American politics has descended to this level, but there we are.
Well quite - see Nye Bevan (the founder of the NHS) saying Tories were "lower than vermin" followed by Young Conservatives launching "vermin clubs", wearing little badges with rats on them etc - and the following elections were incredibly close and Labour not helped by that.
Not to mention the radicalising effect - for example Maggie Thatcher becoming "Chief Rat" in her local branch of the Young Conservatives :ph34r:
QuoteMy view on "I mean" has evolved as I've been exposed to more and more content-free verbal ticks that are passive aggressive. "I mean" is objectionable because it's content free filler, but at least it's not passive aggressive.
Given your previous vicious attacks on me for saying "I mean" - I feel vindicated :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2024, 06:35:40 PMGiven your previous vicious attacks on me for saying "I mean" - I feel vindicated :P
You shouldn't. :area52:
If you and your overly submissive confreres dilute the manners market to the point where "I mean" becomes the expectation as opposed to a little fluffy bonus, Seppuku and I will have to reap the fallout from the high maintenance emo spazzes you've created.
I've seen many ads on Reddit reminding Texas women that it's a secret ballot and your husband does not need to know.
From our dear friends at the Lincoln Project.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 08:27:18 PM
From our dear friends at the Lincoln Project.
I like it. One of their best.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2024, 06:31:41 PMQuote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2024, 02:00:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 10:05:40 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 31, 2024, 09:59:17 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2024, 09:29:23 AMAn interesting article in The Globe and Mail, behind a paywall, Interviewing a number of pollsters, who indicate that there's a concern that the reason the race looks so close is because a lot of effort has gone into correcting for past years when Trump support was under reported in the polls.
The upshot, according to one of the people that was interviewed, is that all the surprises on election day will be in favour of Harris. That person said it's very difficult to judge how much the polls might be over corrected but estimated it could range from getting it exactly right to 9 points off in Harris' favour.
That's a tempting theory to accept. We'll soon see.
I laughed at this one:
https://x.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1852025474228113904
And yes, it hits straight to your existential dread when you're under 30 :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 31, 2024, 07:37:09 PMI've seen many ads on Reddit reminding Texas women that it's a secret ballot and your husband does not need to know.
My mom confessed to me recently she used to do this. She's a registered Republican but has been openly a hardcore Democrat for decades now. My dad is, and has always been, a frothing at the mouth Republican. When they were first married she was afraid of making him angry so voted Democrat secretly. Now, they pretty much openly hate each other so she doesn't bother lying anymore. :lol:
I voted yesterday, and it was so easy that I'm going to vote early every time in the future.
I am grateful to the Republican Party of Virginia for running such a slate of right wing morons that deciding who to vote for (beyond the need to cripple the MAGA Party) was a no-brainer. Trump would have gotten creamed in Virginia anyway, but he didn't need the "help" the Republican Party here gave him.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2024, 09:05:53 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2024, 08:27:18 PM
From our dear friends at the Lincoln Project.
I like it. One of their best.
And also another reason why I think polls may be understating Harris in polls. Some women may not be as forthcoming as saying they'll vote for her in them.
those booths don't look very secrety though. At least as opposed to our taller-than-a-human-3-walls-out-of-four-panneled-and-the-entrance-is-a-curtain booths.
But I guess the form and shape of the booths is different by county or state?
They look like that in Kentucky also.
I just got back from early voting and it was jam-packed, so I'm glad I didn't wait until next Tuesday to vote.
I always like going to vote on election day itself - just something about your entire community coming together in one place for this one civic act.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 01, 2024, 10:35:48 AMthose booths don't look very secrety though. At least as opposed to our taller-than-a-human-3-walls-out-of-four-panneled-and-the-entrance-is-a-curtain booths.
But I guess the form and shape of the booths is different by county or state?
It's similar to what I voted in in the UK. In Hungary they had the proper booth-sized booths, though like you described.
Back on the topic of money in US politics, the Globe and Mail has an excellent lengthy piece on the impact of the Billionares forming their own superpacs and effectively taking on the role of running elections - rather than just funding them.
There is a fairly deep dive into how effective (read inept) Musk has been. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall and I have run out of gifted links, but here is something I think most fill find amusing:
QuoteThe PAC's presence is not perceptible in rural Georgia, according to three Republican strategists who are closely monitoring the ground game in the battleground state. For example, America PAC has shown little evidence of leaving literature behind on doorsteps, as is common when a voter is not home, especially in remote places, the three people said.
There are also indicators Musk, a tech innovator, has been taken advantage of at his own game. In Nevada, three other people familiar with America PAC's efforts said hired canvassers paid tech-savvy operatives to digitally manipulate an app used to track their progress – appearing to falsify their data so they could get paid for work that they did not do. Canvassers are typically paid by the number of doors that they knock on.
There are signs the practice wasn't limited to Nevada. One person warned America PAC leadership weeks ago that canvasing data from multiple states showed signs that it had been falsified, but their concerns were not acted on, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
I've seen a bunch of clips of this guy talking about his time in the CIA.
First I'm surprised he can talk about all this stuff without criminal prosecution. On the other hand he says he can talk about anything that has been declassified, and I suppose 9/11 and Iraq are long enough ago that contemporaneous stuff has been declassified.
Also in another clip he mentions in passing that he went to prison. Didn't say for what. Which raises the possibility he's a disgruntled kook.
Fuck, that was supposed to go in the youtube thread. :Embarrass:
Nate Silver's latest free newsletter claims, quite plausibly to me, that pollsters are herding big time in battleground states. He suspects that pollsters are afraid to buck the polling average, and cherrypick their polls or methodologies until their results match the average. Given the margin of error, the polls can't be as close to each other as they are by chance. The results is that the polling average itself is unmoored from reality, and no longer has the law of large numbers going for it. In a way, the polling average is what the pollsters think it should be, not the best estimate that is a result of polling errors cancelling each other out.
Very interesting.
85-8. There are a lot of Puerto Rican voters out there. This could definitely help in some states
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/725378019312533557/1302080169749512262/puerto_rico.png?ex=6726d027&is=67257ea7&hm=d27d7daa518f8b6914f495a894e68e60381e2b9d1f9fdce15919c4a840710faf&)
Quote from: DGuller on November 01, 2024, 09:41:37 PMNate Silver's latest free newsletter claims, quite plausibly to me, that pollsters are herding big time in battleground states. He suspects that pollsters are afraid to buck the polling average, and cherrypick their polls or methodologies until their results match the average. Given the margin of error, the polls can't be as close to each other as they are by chance. The results is that the polling average itself is unmoored from reality, and no longer has the law of large numbers going for it. In a way, the polling average is what the pollsters think it should be, not the best estimate that is a result of polling errors cancelling each other out.
No one wants a poor rating from the poll aggregators so they all come up with roughly the same numbers. And then those numbers go into the aggregators lol
It's been funny to see the polling industry eat itself this cycle. Haven't trusted the polls at all for good reason. They're shit.
As said I've heard the best thing to do with polls is to just look a handful which do have a good record of calling things right behind them.
NYT Siena is said to be one of the better ones here.
I did read something curious this morning. That trumps campaign is really heavily online targeted whilst Harris is very traditional. This could well explain why Trump seems all over whilst Harris is quite invisible - the Internet is the main place I see what's going on.
Seltzer, the Iowa gold standard has Harris up 3 in that state!
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/725378019312533557/1302409260847595580/image.png?ex=672802a5&is=6726b125&hm=e94327ccec9d86bce6cfb3a128ccfaf60c5628d5717c4be54eb3257bf6e92b2f&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/725378019312533557/1302410210064732170/image.png?ex=67280387&is=6726b207&hm=c7f377b9e841a52bf318ae6a44715efbba809daef5fcb084af4599d40fcaed67&)
There's that old professor who's been predicting outcomes since Reagan and he's going for Harris. Given that he hasn't really been wrong yet...
Not sure what his name is, which is annoying me
Allan Lichtman
I like that too.
I think some pollsters are now starting to see a last minute surge for Harris which the ears on the ground have been saying for a few days now. Which does indicate independants and sane Republicans are breaking for Harris now.
I've avoided excess prognostication over this year's election, as many of you know I have no moral choice other than to vote for Trump as a defense of the Hamas elements that will almost certainly attempt to weaponize a Harris administration against Israel, but as someone who most election cycles is waist deep in degenerate poll analysis and election gambling I have become very pessimistic about Trump's chances.
I think the state by state polls ran by national polling firms have a systemic defect in how they are being constructed, and possibly in a way that has overstated Trump's chances.
I've been growing apprehensive the last 3-4 days based on a number of data points coming in that look very bad for Trump but don't jive with the state by state polling numbers (which are still close, but with a slight Trump lean--as they have had for 3 weeks.)
The "shoe drop" moment for me is Ann Seltzer (a highly reputable pollster who only polls Iowa, and almost always more accurately than any other pollster), released her final pre-election poll, which shows Harris up +3 in Iowa over Trump. (Note that the last 3 Presidential elections, her poll was within MOE, and in fact the only recent Iowa poll of hers to end up outside MOE was a governor's race in 2018.)
Even more concerning is the deep dive analysis Seltzer's poll has found--which is an unprecedented swing in the female vote to Harris.
Seltzer's poll has found that Seniors (65+) favor Harris, senior women by an unbelievable 63% to 28% margin, Harris was also shown to be winning amount Senior males in Iowa, 47-45.
This senior vote is particularly concerning for Trump, because there have been confounding data points out of states like PA that also show Trump losing the overall senior vote--a vote he won with 53% share in Pennsylvania in 2020.
Now yes, Iowa is one state--but to me it's the total picture that makes me worried that not only could Trump lose, I think it is possible we are looking at a perhaps unprecedented systemic polling "malfeasance" of some sort, and Trump could lose dramatically across the country.
The other issue at its core--win or lose, if Harris is close in Iowa, it is highly unlikely Trump would lose or barely win Iowa, but win WI / MI / PA, which have been consistently worse polling for him than Iowa.
Good Lord!
Trump only leading by 5 in Kansas
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1850973817213984974?
If those two state polls are anything near accurate it means that it's more like Harris is about 56% nationally and Trump about 44%, a swing of about 5% in favour for Harris. Or to put it another way you're in 1992 UK election territory for poll credibility - i.e. shattered.
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2024, 07:54:39 PMIf those two state polls are anything near accurate it means that it's more like Harris is about 56% nationally and Trump about 44%, a swing of about 5% in favour for Harris. Or to put it another way you're in 1992 UK election territory for poll credibility - i.e. shattered.
Alternatively a lot of people recently made up or changed their mind.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2024, 07:58:01 PMQuote from: PJL on November 02, 2024, 07:54:39 PMIf those two state polls are anything near accurate it means that it's more like Harris is about 56% nationally and Trump about 44%, a swing of about 5% in favour for Harris. Or to put it another way you're in 1992 UK election territory for poll credibility - i.e. shattered.
Alternatively a lot of people recently made up or changed their mind.
Well we should know for sure in the next couple of day when news polls come out. If they're still in dead heat territory than something is off. Even Nate has commented how the polls have been herding recently.
Quote from: PJL on November 02, 2024, 08:05:12 PMWell we should know for sure in the next couple of day when news polls come out. If they're still in dead heat territory than something is off. Even Nate has commented how the polls have been herding recently.
Yes, he said he suspects they're herding. Which means they might not be.
If Harris wins this it will be because of women vote. Look for State Republicans to start campaigning for 1 household 1 vote rule.
Otto FYI I have not read your long post on the small chance you are serious. Anyone voting for Trump, which is worse on what they think are policy reasons, is incapable of assessing politics and people.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 02, 2024, 06:32:00 PMThere's that old professor who's been predicting outcomes since Reagan and he's going for Harris. Given that he hasn't really been wrong yet...
Not sure what his name is, which is annoying me
I don't like the logic of "he's gotten X out of X calls right, he predicts Y". It's a classic example of survivorship bias. If you have enough people predicting coin flips, you'll have someone who predicted every coin flip correctly so far, that doesn't mean that they have special insight when it comes to the next coin flip. There haven't been that many elections where a call went anywhere near 50/50.
Quote from: Tamas on November 02, 2024, 09:29:17 PMOtto FYI I have not read your long post on the small chance you are serious. Anyone voting for Trump, which is worse on what they think are policy reasons, is incapable of assessing politics and people.
Otto suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trump tells him that Harris is a commie Nazi Hamas supporter that wants everyone in the US to to be surgically gender-changed against their will, and he is so credulous that he believes it.
He's a lost cause, suitable only as an example of what happens when people buy into The Big Lie.
Quote from: Tamas on November 02, 2024, 09:29:17 PMOtto FYI I have not read your long post on the small chance you are serious. Anyone voting for Trump, which is worse on what they think are policy reasons, is incapable of assessing politics and people.
I've never said I loved Trump--we have two choices in America. Unfortunately Kamala winning is a victory for figures like the Ayatollah, there's a reason they want her to win. They know the Democrats won't hold firm in support of Israel.
I don't think Kamala is personally sympathetic to the pro-pals, but she won't have the political power to stop their ascent within her party, and to maintain her power base she will have to capitulate on key issues to them.
The Ayatollah isn't winning right now, is he? Rashida Talib has refused to endorse Harris, instead supporting Stein. More and more Muslim are backing Trump. I think we may see a permeant reversal in Muslim voting patterns.
I can't wait until Israel is erased by a Harris win. East East Palestine should be our 51st state.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2024, 09:58:30 PMThe Ayatollah isn't winning right now, is he? Rashida Talib has refused to endorse Harris, instead supporting Stein. More and more Muslim are backing Trump. I think we may see a permeant reversal in Muslim voting patterns.
Yeah, if Trump wins Michigan it won't be because of people like Otto. It will be because parts of the Left don't think a Trump victory is all that different from a Harris victory.
If you really want to get frustrated, the Know Your Enemy podcast just debated this question.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/know-your-enemy/id1462703434?i=1000675316529
Long term it makes sense. If all you want is the US to stop supporting Israel Republicans have a much longer history of isolationism.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2024, 09:35:01 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 02, 2024, 06:32:00 PMThere's that old professor who's been predicting outcomes since Reagan and he's going for Harris. Given that he hasn't really been wrong yet...
Not sure what his name is, which is annoying me
I don't like the logic of "he's gotten X out of X calls right, he predicts Y". It's a classic example of survivorship bias. If you have enough people predicting coin flips, you'll have someone who predicted every coin flip correctly so far, that doesn't mean that they have special insight when it comes to the next coin flip. There haven't been that many elections where a call went anywhere near 50/50.
He seems to base his predictions on a number of relevant parameters, and apparently he hasn't been afraid to do some of his predictions years in advance.
So he might on to something.
Of course he also cautioned against taking his predictions as gospel since crazy stuff does happen.
But what he does seems a little more grounded than the polls, which say everything and nothing
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2024, 09:53:36 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 02, 2024, 09:29:17 PMOtto FYI I have not read your long post on the small chance you are serious. Anyone voting for Trump, which is worse on what they think are policy reasons, is incapable of assessing politics and people.
I've never said I loved Trump--we have two choices in America. Unfortunately Kamala winning is a victory for figures like the Ayatollah, there's a reason they want her to win. They know the Democrats won't hold firm in support of Israel.
I don't think Kamala is personally sympathetic to the pro-pals, but she won't have the political power to stop their ascent within her party, and to maintain her power base she will have to capitulate on key issues to them.
And the gop has gone full putin, who is supporting and is being supported by the Chinese, dprk, Iran (those ayatollahs)... that means Russia an ally of hezbollah and Hamas, which neatly explains why these groups have been in Moscow recently...
So it looks to me as if you're rooting for the destruction of Israel
Lichtman's "keys" are pretty well known but AFAIK no one respects them as being any real scientifically valid thing. You can boil most of his keys down to "is the economy doing well using classical economic indicators", and you can generally map out that most of the time the party in power wins elections when those economic indicators are good, so in a sense that is all his keys really show. I think he has a few keys tagged to ephemeral things like "has there been a major scandal", "has there been a war declared" things like that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 02, 2024, 09:03:02 PMIf Harris wins this it will be because of women vote. Look for State Republicans to start campaigning for 1 household 1 vote rule.
It could be really interesting if both trends that have been talked about are true: independent (mainly white, mainly older) women breaking for Harris and younger Latino and African-American men breaking for Trump.
I think it might produce a pretty unpredictable map where you could see very white states like Iowa or Kansas swinging more Democrat while more diverse ones like, say, Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona in play for Republicans.
Edit: And I 'd add that I think the issue Harris has the strongest approval on is abortion which is +17 lead. I think gutting Roe v Wade transforms that issue. It's an issue she can talk about in a totally different way (for many reasons) than Biden which I think is possibly the biggest difference between them as candidates (obviously beyond Biden's capacity being an issue).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2024, 08:58:31 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 02, 2024, 09:03:02 PMIf Harris wins this it will be because of women vote. Look for State Republicans to start campaigning for 1 household 1 vote rule.
It could be really interesting if both trends that have been talked about are true: independent (mainly white, mainly older) women breaking for Harris and younger Latino and African-American men breaking for Trump.
I think it might produce a pretty unpredictable map where you could see very white states like Iowa or Kansas swinging more Democrat while more diverse ones like, say, Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona in play for Republicans.
Edit: And I 'd add that I think the issue Harris has the strongest approval on is abortion which is +17 lead. I think gutting Roe v Wade transforms that issue. It's an issue she can talk about in a totally different way (for many reasons) than Biden which I think is possibly the biggest difference between them as candidates (obviously beyond Biden's capacity being an issue).
The chances of young men voting are low. The chances of determined women voting are high.
If that is what this election is going to come down to, I am feeling much better.
It won't matter in the end because the SCOTUS will declare it a Trump victory. :ph34r:
Quote from: Solmyr on November 03, 2024, 09:20:06 AMIt won't matter in the end because the SCOTUS will declare it a Trump victory. :ph34r:
Why didn't they do that in 2020?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2024, 09:08:50 AMThe chances of young men voting are low. The chances of determined women voting are high.
If that is what this election is going to come down to, I am feeling much better.
Yeah - and a thing that I keep thinking may be significant and gives me a bit of hope is the GOP blowing up their mail voting infrastructure for Trump's 2020 bull.
I could be totally wrong but that feels like a massive, tactical mistake which will have consequences over multiple elections.
Edit: As I say I could be totally wrong and it might not matter but I just feel like it's big and we've not fully seen the impact yet.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 03, 2024, 09:29:06 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 03, 2024, 09:20:06 AMIt won't matter in the end because the SCOTUS will declare it a Trump victory. :ph34r:
Why didn't they do that in 2020?
Too many states went for Biden. I think that would be a definitely possibility this time if it all went down to Pennsylvania. But if more that one, then the SCOTUS will side with the Dems.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2024, 09:53:36 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 02, 2024, 09:29:17 PMOtto FYI I have not read your long post on the small chance you are serious. Anyone voting for Trump, which is worse on what they think are policy reasons, is incapable of assessing politics and people.
I've never said I loved Trump--we have two choices in America. Unfortunately Kamala winning is a victory for figures like the Ayatollah, there's a reason they want her to win. They know the Democrats won't hold firm in support of Israel.
I don't think Kamala is personally sympathetic to the pro-pals, but she won't have the political power to stop their ascent within her party, and to maintain her power base she will have to capitulate on key issues to them.
If you feel like that, then the sensible course of action would be to vote for Harris as president but Republican down ballot. For the Republicans are more likely to be pro-Israel under Harris than Trump. Moreover according to John Bolton, Harris will provide continuity with Biden vis a vis foreign policy, whereas Trumps unpredictable and transactional nature will undermine US allies, including Israel.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2024, 09:08:50 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2024, 08:58:31 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 02, 2024, 09:03:02 PMIf Harris wins this it will be because of women vote. Look for State Republicans to start campaigning for 1 household 1 vote rule.
It could be really interesting if both trends that have been talked about are true: independent (mainly white, mainly older) women breaking for Harris and younger Latino and African-American men breaking for Trump.
I think it might produce a pretty unpredictable map where you could see very white states like Iowa or Kansas swinging more Democrat while more diverse ones like, say, Virginia, North Carolina and Arizona in play for Republicans.
Edit: And I 'd add that I think the issue Harris has the strongest approval on is abortion which is +17 lead. I think gutting Roe v Wade transforms that issue. It's an issue she can talk about in a totally different way (for many reasons) than Biden which I think is possibly the biggest difference between them as candidates (obviously beyond Biden's capacity being an issue).
The chances of young men voting are low. The chances of determined women voting are high.
If that is what this election is going to come down to, I am feeling much better.
A probably linked point is that the latest NYT/Sienna poll of swing states found 40% of voters had already cast their ballots and Harris had an 8% lead. Trump had a lead amongst those who hadn't voted yet but said they were very likely to. This gives me hope.
I was giving Trump a 65% chance a few days ago but leaning back towards a coin toss
Quote from: Gups on November 03, 2024, 10:26:33 AMI was giving Trump a 65% chance a few days ago but leaning back towards a coin toss
Yeah I've been a bit more optimistic the last few days too. Fingers crossed
"It's the hope that kills you"
It would be the cherry on top of one of the shittiest years I've ever had, so I have no doubt Trump will win.
(I know it won't affect me directly in the short term, but it will embolden our own far right).
Quote from: Habbaku on November 03, 2024, 09:29:06 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 03, 2024, 09:20:06 AMIt won't matter in the end because the SCOTUS will declare it a Trump victory. :ph34r:
Why didn't they do that in 2020?
Because it is largely an alarmist, nonsensical claim. There's two justices on the Supreme Court (Alito + Thomas) who might be willing to legitimately steal an election, but I even think for those two figures, you need a 2000 Bush v. Gore scenario. Which notably had several important factors:
- Election came down to a single state
- The state in question was incredibly close, with a fewer than 1000 vote margin in the initial count
- The butterfly ballot + punch card format meant it was incredibly difficult to actually conduct a reliable, accurate count no matter what level of recount was done. Additionally, due to partial impression, handling of the ballots could also "modify" the state of the ballot, which is an additional problem
- There is a genuine judicial controversy over the ongoing process, which has no clear precedent nor any clear "correct" resolution
FWIW, I have never said the decision in Bush v Gore was legally correct, but I do think it was a convoluted scenario in which even a perfectly nonpartisan court (which the 2000 court was not) would have struggled to determine in a way satisfactory to all. I also said at the time, pushing on 25 years ago now--that had the initial count been 500 in Gore's favor, I think the entire scenario would have played out with Gore winning. I basically think the machinery of our government defaulted to favoring the guy who won that initial, election night count. Right or wrong.
There's just no way the Supreme Court rolls an election result where you have multiple states. I think even if it came down to one state, if the margins were significant (say 15,000 or more) it is highly unlikely they would issue a ruling reversing whatever the initial count says.
A thought. If this election does come down to women turning out and men not, and the breakdown on gender lines being as expected.... That's a really huge deal.
More so than the first woman president thing which is just a non issue this election.
I know crystal ball gazing types have for a while been predicting the rise of women and a flip in the balance of power. This could really stand out as the pivotal moment in that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2024, 11:36:14 AM- There is a genuine judicial controversy over the ongoing process, which has no clear precedent nor any clear "correct" resolution
A "genuine judicial controversy" which the injured party made no attempt to adjudicate, believing it would be more advantageous to leave in the long list of unproven allegations of rigged election.
I assume you are talking about replacing Biden with Harris after the primary. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Josquius on November 03, 2024, 01:59:50 PMA thought. If this election does come down to women turning out and men not, and the breakdown on gender lines being as expected.... That's a really huge deal.
More so than the first woman president thing which is just a non issue this election.
I know crystal ball gazing types have for a while been predicting the rise of women and a flip in the balance of power. This could really stand out as the pivotal moment in that.
It's not all men, it's young men. And Otto.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2024, 06:17:42 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2024, 11:36:14 AM- There is a genuine judicial controversy over the ongoing process, which has no clear precedent nor any clear "correct" resolution
A "genuine judicial controversy" which the injured party made no attempt to adjudicate, believing it would be more advantageous to leave in the long list of unproven allegations of rigged election.
I assume you are talking about replacing Biden with Harris after the primary. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
He's talking about Bush v Gore. The USSC first stopped the recount, then two days later said that the recount could not be restarted because it couldn't be completed in time. Had they not made the first ruling, they couldn't have made the second one either, because the recount would have been completed. The halting of the recount process was not a genuine political controversy, it was a blatantly partisan ruling.[/list]
New poll has Democrats up in two Iowa Congressional districts, including mine. :w00t:
Is that the same Seltzer poll, or some other one?
It's Selzer. A seltzer poll is when we ask Syt to evaluate the bubbly.
I saw some people doing election math using the abortion referendum numbers for Kansas mail-in votes. Their conclusion is that Kansas is going blue.
Pollster have been over correcting MAGA support & under correcting women turn out with extremely small sample size.
Call me naively optimistic but this is going to be a Republican slaughter*.
*Question about sentence structure, is it 'victim slaughter' or 'perpetrator slaughter'?*
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2024, 04:30:31 AMNew poll has Democrats up in two Iowa Congressional districts, including mine. :w00t:
Just curious how you went from wanting Trump to lose badly (in which I agree) to wanting the Dems to win broadly in down-ballot races?
I'm not Yi, but the best possible result for me is a complete slaughter of Republicans up and down the ballot to purge any thought that Trumpism can win in the future.
Yeah, we need an alternative to the Democrats that aren't insane, and until Trumpism is eliminated there is only one party in the US that I'll vote for.
The US won't last for long with only one sane main party, because either the Republicans gain control and progressively destroy the country, or the Democrats will become more corrupt over time without a valid alternative to them. Republicans need to be violently rebuked now so they can be reformed, restored and become that valid alternative (or a third party rises to take their place).
You guys need more parties, although it's probably not gonna happen without a major electoral reform.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2024, 11:07:42 AMI'm not Yi, but the best possible result for me is a complete slaughter of Republicans up and down the ballot to purge any thought that Trumpism can win in the future.
I dunno man - GOP lost big in 2008, only to come roaring back in 2010 with Tea Partyism. Which I didn't have a problem with several aspects of, but in retrospect seemed to be a harbinger of Trumpism.
I'm just cheering for a massive rebuke of Trump, personally, with the GOP otherwise doing fairly well. I think that would be the best purge of Trumpism you could get.
The best purge of Trump is the one where all his accomplices and enablers suffer no consequences and continue collecting political benefits from his movement? :huh:
Yeah, the only Republicans that should be rewarded with a vote, if someone is inclined to vote conservative, are those that publicly disavowed Trump. Unfortunately those can be counted on a single hand of a particularly clumsy chainsaw juggler.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 11:04:02 AMJust curious how you went from wanting Trump to lose badly (in which I agree) to wanting the Dems to win broadly in down-ballot races?
1. They, the Republicans, had their chance at redemption during the two impeachment trials.
2. They are pandering to the same collection of thugs, grifters, and religious kooks as Trump is
3. They are wrong on every single policy issue in this election.
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 11:59:02 AMYeah, the only Republicans that should be rewarded with a vote, if someone is inclined to vote conservative, are those that publicly disavowed Trump. Unfortunately those can be counted on a single hand of a particularly clumsy chainsaw juggler.
So in a sense of cosmic justice this is correct.
But as you probably know, all those Republicans who publicly disavowed Trump are out of office. Your Liz Cheney's, your Adam Kinsingers - all gone.
But what happens if you have a massive Republican wipe-out? Now you're going to have a massive push claiming Harris has some huge mandate, who knows what gets passed, and then the inevitable swing back to the Republicans.
I think the better prospect is for Trump, personally to be defeated, for guys like Mike Johnson and Lindsey Graham to just kind of forget they ever knew the man and just move on.
Not so personally satisfying, but much more likely to end better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2024, 12:05:22 PM3. They are wrong on every single policy issue in this election.
Exactly what policies are the GOP (as a party) even running on?
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 12:08:43 PMExactly what policies are the GOP (as a party) even running on?
Tariffs, deportation, unconditional support for Israel, ditch Ukraine (implied).
And they would have a mandate, wouldn't they? Anti trumpers aren't anti Trump just because he's personally repuganant, but so are his policies (what little are actually articulated). If he was privately horrible but had good policies he'd be less of a existential threat to American policies.
Regardless, You can't stop a movement by pruning. You have to dismantle it root and stem. Taking out Trump but leaving everything else just allows the next guy to take it further. A politically talented, rather then just a charismaticaly talented, person is much more dangerous. And they'll be next. Grachhus only leads the way, someone else has to come along to damn the republic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2024, 12:13:28 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 12:08:43 PMExactly what policies are the GOP (as a party) even running on?
Tariffs, deportation, unconditional support for Israel, ditch Ukraine (implied).
That's Trump though.
Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 12:17:50 PMAnd they would have a mandate, wouldn't they? Anti trumpers aren't anti Trump just because he's personally repuganant, but so are his policies (what little are actually articulated). If he was privately horrible but had good policies he'd be less of a existential threat to American policies.
Regardless, You can't stop a movement by pruning. You have to dismantle it root and stem. Taking out Trump but leaving everything else just allows the next guy to take it further. A politically talented, rather then just a charismaticaly talented, person is much more dangerous. And they'll be next. Grachhus only leads the way, someone else has to come along to damn the republic.
Lots of people thought they could do "Trumpism without Trump". That was certainly Ron de Santis's pitch.
I don't think the pro-tariff, anti-Ukraine stuff has any inherent appeal to GOP voters other than Trump's personal appeal.
BB you are extremely wrong on this one. The current GOP is the Trump party as you yourself point out. Any seat they win is a Trump win. Any vote on them is a vote for Trump.
So let's worry about what happens when the only pro-democracy party left wins a big majority when we cross that bridge.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 12:21:06 PMQuote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 12:17:50 PMAnd they would have a mandate, wouldn't they? Anti trumpers aren't anti Trump just because he's personally repuganant, but so are his policies (what little are actually articulated). If he was privately horrible but had good policies he'd be less of a existential threat to American policies.
Regardless, You can't stop a movement by pruning. You have to dismantle it root and stem. Taking out Trump but leaving everything else just allows the next guy to take it further. A politically talented, rather then just a charismaticaly talented, person is much more dangerous. And they'll be next. Grachhus only leads the way, someone else has to come along to damn the republic.
Lots of people thought they could do "Trumpism without Trump". That was certainly Ron de Santis's pitch.
I don't think the pro-tariff, anti-Ukraine stuff has any inherent appeal to GOP voters other than Trump's personal appeal.
Keeping the roman theme alive, you can only have one caesar :P people failed at being trump because they were running against Trump.
By the way we can not discount the idea of 82 year old Donald Trump running again in 2028 even after two straight defeats.
I just think a GOP that is otherwise strong except for a big defeat on the Presidential level, is more likely to collectively decide "we don't need this guy" rather than a GOP that is defeated up and down the ballot.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 12:18:39 PMThat's Trump though.
Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).
This question made me think. Do state reps ever run on a policy platform? "Energy independence, yeah, that's MY thing!"
The president is the leader of the party. He sets the agenda.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2024, 12:35:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 12:18:39 PMThat's Trump though.
Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).
This question made me think. Do state reps ever run on a policy platform? "Energy independence, yeah, that's MY thing!"
The president is the leader of the party. He sets the agenda.
So a few different thoughts.
On the one hand I was thinking of "Contract with America" - but that was in 94, an off-year election.
State-level reps certainly can run campaigns separate from the national party. That's how JOe Manchin was able to survive for so long. I'll admit a lot of senators and congressmen don't really do that however.
Finally - The idea of a written campaign policy seems to sadly have gone to the wayside. To the extent a politician runs on a platform it's the themes they mention in campaign appearances, and the ads they run. I don't think (but could stand to be corrected) that GOP candidates for congress of senate spend any time talking about tariffs or sucking up to Russia. Deportations might be a different story.
FWIW the Republican ads I've seen in my district have been negative (defund the police) or constituent service stuff (I helped this nice old vet get an operation). Really no mention of policies she supports.
The Republican candidate for Congress in my districts is primarily running on "the US economy is totally broken," "the US is no longer sovereign because the border," and "parents should be able to send their kids and the tax money to support them to any school of their choice." He's go the usual bromides about strong defense and law and order, but his opponent has those as well.
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2024, 04:17:28 PMThe Republican candidate for Congress in my districts is primarily running on "the US economy is totally broken," "the US is no longer sovereign because the border," and "parents should be able to send their kids and the tax money to support them to any school of their choice." He's go the usual bromides about strong defense and law and order, but his opponent has those as well.
It's funny how things can be so common sense on one side of the border, yet seem completely crazy on the other.
The obvious example is health care.
But also on education... under our constitution, we have a public system, and a catholic system. You can check a box on your taxes whether you want your school taxes to go to either. And although you aren't guaranteed to be able to register with the catholic system (you may have to prove some connection to catholicism) basically you can freely choose to send your kids to either system (none of my kids are baptized catholics, and 2/3 go to the catholic system).
There are increasing moves to increase access to other separate schools (including evangelical, but also muslim, and non-religious) together with government funding, but because it's not in the Constitution access still falls behind the Catholic system.
Alberta has a constitution?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:39:26 PMAlberta has a constitution?
Same one Quebec has.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
The catholic school board has to follow the same standards as the public board here (I learned evolution for example). Don't think this governor hopeful envisions the same stringent standards for the school options he wants to make available.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 04:44:17 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:39:26 PMAlberta has a constitution?
Same one Quebec has.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
We don't have Catholic school boards, we also don't get to choose.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:55:40 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 04:44:17 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:39:26 PMAlberta has a constitution?
Same one Quebec has.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
We don't have Catholic school boards, we also don't get to choose.
From wiki:
QuoteFormerly, school boards were divided between Roman Catholic and Protestant (called "confessional schools"). Attempts were made to set up a Jewish school board before the Second World War, but it failed partly due to divisions within the Jewish community. This confessional system was established through the British North America Act, 1867 (today the Constitution Act, 1867), which granted power over education to the provinces. Article 93 of the act made it unconstitutional for Quebec to change this system. Consequently, a constitutional amendment was required to operate what some see as the separation of the State and the church in Quebec.
The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided for a change to linguistic school boards. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Quebec).
In the 1996–1997 school year, Quebec had 156 school districts including 135 Catholic districts, 18 Protestant school districts, and three First Nations districts. The school districts operated 2,670 public schools, including 1,895 primary schools, 576 general or professional secondary schools, and 199 combined primary and secondary schools.[1]
When public schools were deconfessionalized in 2000, Catholic and Protestant religious education classes along with nonreligious moral education classes continued to be part of the curriculum. Article 5 of the Quebec Public Education Act had been modified in 1997 so as to allow minority religious groups to be allowed religious education classes of their faith where their number were large enough, but this was removed in 2000. Then, in order to prevent court challenges by these same minority religious groups wanting specialist religious education in schools, the government invoked the notwithstanding clause, which expires after a maximum of 5 years. In 2005 the government of Premier Jean Charest decided not to renew the clause, abrogate Article 5 of the Public Education Act, modify Article 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and then eliminate the choice in moral and religious instruction that existed previously and, finally, impose a controversial new Ethics and religious culture curriculum to all schools, even the private ones. [citation needed] The ERC course has been taught starting in September 2008. Several court challenges have been launched against its compulsory nature.
From Constitution Act 1867
Quote93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
1.
Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
2.
All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
3.
Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education;
4.
In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)
Quebec
93A Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec.(51)
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 04:49:02 PMThe catholic school board has to follow the same standards as the public board here (I learned evolution for example). Don't think this governor hopeful envisions the same stringent standards for the school options he wants to make available.
I'm no Catholic, and it's a long time since I graduated from St' Paul's High School, but I'm pretty sure Catholics believe in evolution.
Technically it's a null position for the church re evolution.
But I'd very surprised if a large portion of American catholics weren't creationist.
Point stands though, most of these school funding guys (both south of the border and north) want convenient ways not to teach icky things like evolution or sex ed or other liberal lies.
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 05:21:18 PMTechnically it's a null position for the church re evolution.
But I'd very surprised if a large portion of American catholics weren't creationist.
Point stands though, most of these school funding guys (both south of the border and north) want convenient ways not to teach icky things like evolution or sex ed or other liberal lies.
This is very tangential, but it always struck me as weird how many US evangelicals have adopted very RC positions when it comes to birth control, when if you go back 50 years ago they'd be horrified at the very thought of it.
Cool, Canada. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2024, 05:29:03 PMCool, Canada. :rolleyes:
We're talking about grumblers congress buddy :P
Cold != cool :(
Quote from: HVC on November 04, 2024, 05:52:25 PMQuote from: garbon on November 04, 2024, 05:51:25 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 05:48:16 PMQuote from: garbon on November 04, 2024, 05:46:32 PMCold != cool :(
WE CAN BE BOTH THINGS!
:console:
Be nice, if the UK hadn't let you in you might have had to escape to Canada instead :P
Girl, I moved nearly a decade ago.
I am a Catholic, and an American so I can maybe speak to it a bit, but it will require delving into issues most probably aren't interested in.
Firstly, global churchwide, there is no official position on evolution, no dogma. Rather it has been said there isn't a dogmatic position that evolution is false, or that would cause an issue for any Catholic to believe, or even teach, evolution (including priests.)
In the United States, the church operates a large number of K-12 schools, and a number of colleges. Around 6000 K-12 schools, with around 1.6 million students. Both of these numbers represent significant declines from the year 2000--a number of factors have lead to ongoing declines in enrollment.
But anyway, as Catholic education is constructed in America, the cultural view has always been that these schools should strive to be very high quality in terms of producing educated students to the broader standards of society. This means that, due to the lack of any dogmatic position against evolution, embracing the teaching of evolution in our science classes is not really controversial. There are religious K-12 schools that teach creationism and denial of basic science, accredited universities tend not to even view students from those schools as having valid High School diplomas. Students from those schools often get funneled into the unaccredited bible college system, which produce bachelor's degrees that are generally not recognized by any secular organization that cares about college accreditation. (This means those graduates generally can't become K-12 public school teachers, their degrees don't satisfy degree requirements to attend higher level education like medical school or law school etc.)
The Catholic Church in America has never wanted that, we want our K-12 schools to have good reputations. Students graduating from them can go to good colleges--and if they go to a Catholic college, any number of those are very well respected academic institutions which are fully accredited (think: Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, Villanova et al.) I would say institutionally, American Catholic leaders of all political persuasion tend to view this academic reputation as a major church asset, and there is not really much controversy about evolution or anything that would threaten that.
Beyond that--American Catholicism is highly diocesan, which is after all the core organizational bloc of Catholicism everywhere. I assume in other countries Catholicism operates similarly, but I don't know that well enough to be sure. In the U.S. the ~200 dioceses we have and the ~200 bishops who rule them, set quite different tones. We have bishops who are far left, partisan Democrats, who push their dioceses as far into progressive Catholicism as can be pushed. The priests they ordinate priests of that sort of bent. Attending Church in one of those dioceses is going to be very different than a diocese overseen by a far right bishop. On that point we have many of those two--including several very prominent ones who are far right Republicans and regularly push a very partisan agenda. Attending Church in their diocese is going to be a very different vibe.
On top of that we have a ton of fraternal organizations that men are involved in, many of which are very conservative in nature. I would say among those conservative Bishops, conservative fraternal organizations--you will find many practicing Catholics in America who are highly "skeptical" of evolution, and have what I would often argue are strange evangelical views that have almost "seeped into" the Church.
I think Protestant evangelicalism is just such a powerful cultural force among the far right it has backdoored into some parts of the Catholic Church here. You see the same thing going on with the Orthodox Church as well--arguably even more there, because the Orthodox Community in the United States is much smaller, it is a well known problem that many converts to Orthodoxy in the United States are very politically conservative evangelicals, who are also bringing a lot of Protestant "mindset" into the Orthodox Church. Interesting to see how it all shapes up eventually.
Hadn't seen this one before:
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2024, 04:17:28 PMThe Republican candidate for Congress in my districts is primarily running on "the US economy is totally broken," "the US is no longer sovereign because the border," and "parents should be able to send their kids and the tax money to support them to any school of their choice." He's go the usual bromides about strong defense and law and order, but his opponent has those as well.
I wonder if they'd take the same logic of being able to take out my tax contribution towards the police and using it to hire my own security guard.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 04, 2024, 09:24:12 PMI wonder if they'd take the same logic of being able to take out my tax contribution towards the police and using it to hire my own security guard.
It's not the same logic. The logic of police is the logic of public goods. If you hire body guards you still get the benefit of the police.
I would argue there is a significant public good for my fellow citizens to be well educated.
Quote from: frunk on November 04, 2024, 10:16:54 PMI would argue there is a significant public good for my fellow citizens to be well educated.
Two different meanings of good. We have a wide variety of goods on sale. You are a good person.
Quote from: frunk on November 04, 2024, 10:16:54 PMI would argue there is a significant public good for my fellow citizens to be well educated.
We had a similar discussion a few months back. I wasn't able to win Yi over :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2024, 10:21:35 PMTwo different meanings of good. We have a wide variety of goods on sale. You are a good person.
Are you saying the police are for sale, rather than being a net positive for society to have?
Scooby dooby doo.
Too grouchy, let me try to answer.
"The police" are not for sale. They are a service funded by taxes and provided to the public free of charge at the point of service. Police officers have offered their labor for sale. Glocks, body armor, cop cars, all for sale.
Being a public good and being a net positive for society are not mutually exclusive, so rather does not play a part.
Big day today, I guess. I hope to wake up tomorrow morning to a world that's not on fire (not more than it currently is, anyways). :P
Members in republican states should stockpile bottled water and canned food, just in case :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 12:43:21 AMToo grouchy, let me try to answer.
"The police" are not for sale. They are a service funded by taxes and provided to the public free of charge at the point of service. Police officers have offered their labor for sale. Glocks, body armor, cop cars, all for sale.
Being a public good and being a net positive for society are not mutually exclusive, so rather does not play a part.
You are oversimplifying. The police isn't just a service for the public. They are a key element in maintaining the state's monopoly on violence which is the foundation of any functional state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czxrnw5qrprt?post=asset%3A727e7cac-092e-403f-a7c1-ff314d34459b#post
QuoteAs Americans prepare to vote, businesses board up
In Washington DC, the home of US politics, many businesses have boarded up their windows in preparation for possible unrest on or after election day.
Hundreds of National Guardsmen are also on standby in the American capital, as well as in other states - including Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina and New Mexico.
Metal fences began to be erected outside the White House from as early as the beginning of October - the same has since happened near other DC buildings, including the Capitol.
:(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 12:43:21 AMToo grouchy, let me try to answer.
"The police" are not for sale. They are a service funded by taxes and provided to the public free of charge at the point of service. Police officers have offered their labor for sale. Glocks, body armor, cop cars, all for sale.
Being a public good and being a net positive for society are not mutually exclusive, so rather does not play a part.
I went to wikipedia because the distinction you are making seems fuzzy and confusing. The wikipedia definition also seems contradictory, but I'll try to tease out what is being said.
QuoteUse by one person neither prevents access by other people, nor does it reduce availability to others.
To me law enforcement can very much be used up and availability reduced, at least when bounded by time. Police officers are not able to teleport instantly from place to place, and can only perform so many actions within a given timeframe. That's the definition of being limited and potentially preventing access for others. It certainly seems less able to scale than education, which can leverage technology to educate an unlimited number of people at minimal extra cost.
If the argument is that law enforcement can't be used up because more police can always be hired, more teachers can also be hired. I'm not seeing the distinction.
QuotePublic goods include knowledge,[4] official statistics, national security, common languages,[5] law enforcement, broadcast radio,[6] flood control systems, aids to navigation, and street lighting.
So I guess you are distinguishing between knowledge and education, where I would argue knowledge without its propagation isn't really a good.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 05:15:45 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:55:40 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 04, 2024, 04:44:17 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 04:39:26 PMAlberta has a constitution?
Same one Quebec has.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html
We don't have Catholic school boards, we also don't get to choose.
From wiki:
QuoteFormerly, school boards were divided between Roman Catholic and Protestant (called "confessional schools"). Attempts were made to set up a Jewish school board before the Second World War, but it failed partly due to divisions within the Jewish community. This confessional system was established through the British North America Act, 1867 (today the Constitution Act, 1867), which granted power over education to the provinces. Article 93 of the act made it unconstitutional for Quebec to change this system. Consequently, a constitutional amendment was required to operate what some see as the separation of the State and the church in Quebec.
The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided for a change to linguistic school boards. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Quebec).
In the 1996–1997 school year, Quebec had 156 school districts including 135 Catholic districts, 18 Protestant school districts, and three First Nations districts. The school districts operated 2,670 public schools, including 1,895 primary schools, 576 general or professional secondary schools, and 199 combined primary and secondary schools.[1]
When public schools were deconfessionalized in 2000, Catholic and Protestant religious education classes along with nonreligious moral education classes continued to be part of the curriculum. Article 5 of the Quebec Public Education Act had been modified in 1997 so as to allow minority religious groups to be allowed religious education classes of their faith where their number were large enough, but this was removed in 2000. Then, in order to prevent court challenges by these same minority religious groups wanting specialist religious education in schools, the government invoked the notwithstanding clause, which expires after a maximum of 5 years. In 2005 the government of Premier Jean Charest decided not to renew the clause, abrogate Article 5 of the Public Education Act, modify Article 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and then eliminate the choice in moral and religious instruction that existed previously and, finally, impose a controversial new Ethics and religious culture curriculum to all schools, even the private ones. [citation needed] The ERC course has been taught starting in September 2008. Several court challenges have been launched against its compulsory nature.
From Constitution Act 1867
Quote93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
1.
Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
2.
All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
3.
Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education;
4.
In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)
Quebec
93A Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec.(51)
BB, you may not have read down as far as section 93A, which expressly excludes Quebec.
If you think about who ran the schools in Quebec at the time of Confederation, combined with the need to protect Catholics outside Quebec, both the exclusion and the protections in section 93 will begin to make more sense.
GF is correct. Quebec no longer has Catholic School Boards. That Province removed them.
Quote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 02:42:53 AMMembers in republican states should stockpile bottled water and canned food, just in case :ph34r:
I live in a Republican State, but in a Democrat stronghold within that state. I'll be fine.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2024, 04:57:13 AMhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czxrnw5qrprt?post=asset%3A727e7cac-092e-403f-a7c1-ff314d34459b#post
QuoteAs Americans prepare to vote, businesses board up
In Washington DC, the home of US politics, many businesses have boarded up their windows in preparation for possible unrest on or after election day.
Hundreds of National Guardsmen are also on standby in the American capital, as well as in other states - including Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina and New Mexico.
Metal fences began to be erected outside the White House from as early as the beginning of October - the same has since happened near other DC buildings, including the Capitol.
:(
Yeah, I'm working from home today. My office is just a few blocks from the White House and the National Mall, and I wasn't particularly inclined to deal with rioting or whatever on my way home. Gonna play the rest of the week by ear.
Quote from: Caliga on November 05, 2024, 09:17:05 AMQuote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 02:42:53 AMMembers in republican states should stockpile bottled water and canned food, just in case :ph34r:
I live in a Republican State, but in a Democrat stronghold within that state. I'll be fine.
So, basically, you're under perfect siege conditions :P
Hey, I've got a dog if it gets bad enough.
"THEY'RE EATING... DOGS!"
US election 2024 live updates: Trump casts ballot in Florida and says he feels 'very confident' as result remains on knife edge https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/nov/05/us-election-2024-live-updates-donald-trump-vs-kamala-harris-results-presidential-elections-day-latest-news-polls-update?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-672a56278f08243590db2125#block-672a56278f08243590db2125
QuoteReporting from Allentown, Pennsylvania:
I've just left a polling station in Allentown, which was much quieter than the one I went to in nearby Bethlehem first thing this morning.
One the voters I spoke with was Felix Garcia, a 59-year old mechanic who is Puerto Rican. He said that the racist comments a comic made at a rally about the island wouldn't sway his vote.
"I decided to vote for him because I'm very concerned with the economy, the border. He said he can bring the companies to implement the jobs over here. I don't like the things they're teaching my kids in the school. A lot of bad things," he said.
"Trump didn't say [the racist comments about Puerto Rico at his Madison Square Garden rally]. It's not coming from him. He came to work for all America, not only Puerto Ricans. Not only Black guys. All of them. And I'm happy with that."
Another vocal Trump supporter was Jim Winburn, 62, who came out of the polling site and said, loudly, "Trump's already won."
"Republicans tell me what they're gonna do, they don't tell me what the problem with the other people is," he said.
:wacko:
Trump declares victory in New Hampshire based on win in Dixville Notch, demands that all further counting in the state cease.
You know I'm just trying to not over-think it.
If you just look at the polling averages, Trump wins it.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
PA, NC, NV - all go Trump. The fact Harris wins MI and WI isn't enough. 287-251 Electoral College.
Nationally, Harris is only up 0.1 points on Trump. In comparison, the polling was Biden up 7.2 in 2020 and Clinton up 3.2 in 2016 - and both those elections were closer than the final polls.
It's still an extremely close election so any outcome is possible - but I do not feel a sense of optimism.
So part of the reason some of the aggregators like 538 give Kamala final edge, is they weight based on "poll quality." RCP is more of a raw aggregator, they just show you every poll ran. Some of the Trumpier polls are actually ran by organizations who only do polls to set a political narrative (they don't even publish their cross tabs), those guys are filtered out of the 538 algorithm entirely. Some of the others are just "lower quality" for any number of reasons, and get poor grades.
It isn't perfect--but there's a reason I'm worried about Trump's chances, and it is that the deeper narrative behind many of these polls IMO is not positive to Trump.
I am aware of the fact many of you think Trump means the end of NATO and other things, that just isn't very likely. Trump would be President, not dictator, and not King. The President doesn't have unilateral power to leave NATO. The President lacks the power to do many of the worst case scenario things you guys are worried about.
The flipside, for those who are not fans of Trump (and by the way, I'm not either, voting isn't always about who you are a fan of)--Trump will likely secure Israel the protection and support it needs. We are literally looking at a large scale war with Iran in the very near future, and the Democrats are infamously weak and conciliatory towards Iran and increasingly Israel-skeptical. The harms from more Democratic rule, until they can right their ship on those issues, is something a lot of people are sleeping on.
Isn't the RCP average just an unweighted average of all polls? If so, it's not very informative. There are more GOP partisan polling companies operating this cycle.
I see Otto beat me to it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2024, 01:00:44 PMThe President doesn't have unilateral power to leave NATO.
Sure he does, in all but the most ghostly residual form.
He could direct the military to cease operating within the alliance framework, cease military coordination with NATO allies, publicly repudiate alliance commitments, and take other steps that would effectively kill the alliance. The words of the treaty might still be on the books but only as a dead letter.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2024, 01:00:44 PMI am aware of the fact many of you think Trump means the end of NATO and other things, that just isn't very likely. Trump would be President, not dictator, and not King. The President doesn't have unilateral power to leave NATO. The President lacks the power to do many of the worst case scenario things you guys are worried about.
The strength of NATO is Article V - mutual self-defence.
Trump is the Commander in Chief. If he says "Fuck Poland and the Baltics - those guys are on their own" then NATO is over, even if the formal structure remains in place. Similarly with Ukraine - even if Congress authorizes aid, Trump can refuse to give it.
None of this is theoretical - John Bolton (Trump's former National Security Advisor) has said Trump wants to withdraw from NATO. Trump already tried to withhold aid to Ukraine (that was the whole first impeachment) - and that was before the full-scale war started.
He's also able to unilaterally impose tariffs - he already did so in his first term.
John Bolton has also said that Trumps erratic, unpredictable and transactional nature would weaken alliances with the US, including Israel's. Whereas at least Harris will give continuity in the short term.
Yeah. Trump is absolutely the pick of Hamas, Putin, China and so on
QuoteReporting from Allentown, Pennsylvania:
Nearly every voter I've spoken with today has said the economy is their top issue.
Tiana Peters, a 39-year-old underwriter from Allentown is a Democrat, but she voted for Donald Trump. She also voted for Democrats in lower offices down the ticket.
"The last four years, nothing really good happened," she said. "Giving away free money to the people that can't afford houses, financially that doesn't work, you know."
"I've been wanting to buy a house for years now and under the current haven't been able to do that. It's just like half a million dollars for houses in the Lehigh Valley with four bedrooms. It's just not doable for a family making middle class money."
:huh:
Also, off topic, but its a bit of fascinating cultural difference between America and the UK that in the US it sounds like there are no poor people except the homeless because every working class people struggling to make ends' meet will call themselves the middle class. In the meantime in the UK it sounds like the middle class barely exists because every person with a 4 bedroom house and 3 cars in Surrey are proud of their working class pedigree.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2024, 04:57:13 AM:(
In a similar vein, saw stuff about insurers advertising for basically civil unrest coverage.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2024, 02:51:38 PMQuote from: garbon on November 05, 2024, 04:57:13 AM:(
In a similar vein, saw stuff about insurers advertising for basically civil unrest coverage.
Yes, insurers want to make money off of something that they think unlikely they'll have to pay a claim on.
(https://i.imgur.com/1d3aUOf.png)
:P
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2024, 02:48:01 PM:huh:
Also, off topic, but its a bit of fascinating cultural difference between America and the UK that in the US it sounds like there are no poor people except the homeless because every working class people struggling to make ends' meet will call themselves the middle class. In the meantime in the UK it sounds like the middle class barely exists because every person with a 4 bedroom house and 3 cars in Surrey are proud of their working class pedigree.
:lol: Yes. I think I mentioned it before but according to polling on social identity Britain is a more working class country now than it was in, say, the 80s. Which is...nonsense.
I think the Brit take on America is that they delude themselves into thinking they're a classless society, while Americans think Brits have a completely immaterial, homeopathic view of class. (And they're both right :ph34r: :P)
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2024, 07:24:14 AMI went to wikipedia because the distinction you are making seems fuzzy and confusing. The wikipedia definition also seems contradictory, but I'll try to tease out what is being said.
QuoteUse by one person neither prevents access by other people, nor does it reduce availability to others.
To me law enforcement can very much be used up and availability reduced, at least when bounded by time. Police officers are not able to teleport instantly from place to place, and can only perform so many actions within a given timeframe. That's the definition of being limited and potentially preventing access for others. It certainly seems less able to scale than education, which can leverage technology to educate an unlimited number of people at minimal extra cost.
If the argument is that law enforcement can't be used up because more police can always be hired, more teachers can also be hired. I'm not seeing the distinction.
QuotePublic goods include knowledge,[4] official statistics, national security, common languages,[5] law enforcement, broadcast radio,[6] flood control systems, aids to navigation, and street lighting.
So I guess you are distinguishing between knowledge and education, where I would argue knowledge without its propagation isn't really a good.
You're right, there are times, civil unrest being the most obvious example, when the police will be stretched too thin to respond to all ongoing crimes. That is the logic of looting. The pure public good of police is in their deterrence of crime. A carjacker will evaluate their chances of success differently in areas with police and areas without. And of course law enforcement remains a public good in non crisis times.
Similarly education does have aspects that are closer to a public good. A gigantic freshman lecture class could just be taped and put on the internet. Anyone who wants to access the information could watch the tape. Khan Academy is a public good. But there are aspects of education that make it a private good, the parts that require personalized attention. Answering questions, grading tests, etc.
The whole middle class thing is just a difference in word usage. Brits use middle class to mean a specific thing--basically what we would call the "professional class" in America, doctors, lawyers, certain types of businessmen etc. In America middle class is a much broader term that largely means "anyone who works for a living and who is neither destitute poor nor genuinely rich."
In America the term "working class" has less resonance / meaning, and is not exclusively with the term "middle class", in Britain the working class and middle class are distinctly different classes, whilst in the U.S. probably more than 50% of middle class people also identify as working class if they even think of that term at all.
Democracy being the top issue in the exit polls is a good thing for the good guys. Right? Right? Right?
Please agree... :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 05:21:08 PMDemocracy being the top issue in the exit polls is a good thing for the good guys. Right? Right? Right?
Please agree... :unsure:
Massive
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 05:21:08 PMDemocracy being the top issue in the exit polls is a good thing for the good guys. Right? Right? Right?
Please agree... :unsure:
Yes.
Top issues for Trump would be immigration / economy.
I'd worry if the top issues were sharks, eating wild geese, and the late, great Hannibal Lecter.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2024, 05:30:11 PMYes.
Top issues for Trump would be immigration / economy.
Yeah democracy/abortion v economy/immigration:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gbp1FsmWUAAKdk7?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2024, 05:32:43 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 05, 2024, 05:30:11 PMYes.
Top issues for Trump would be immigration / economy.
Yeah democracy/abortion v economy/immigration:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gbp1FsmWUAAKdk7?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Heh - it's like I knew what I was talking about! :yeah:
FWIW immigration is a top 3 issue for me.
And I'm not voting Trump . . .
I am optimistic that the vast majority of the "State of Democracy" folks are for Harris, while not all of "The Economy" folks are for Trump.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 05:31:50 PMI'd worry if the top issues were sharks, eating wild geese, and the late, great Hannibal Lecter.
Arnold Palmer's giant cock doesn't swing for you?
Quote from: Habbaku on November 05, 2024, 05:36:06 PMI am optimistic that the vast majority of the "State of Democracy" folks are for Harris, while not all of "The Economy" folks are for Trump.
It's kind of nutty that Trumpy people complain about inflation when:
1) every time Trump's numbers went up, the Trump trade would dump bonds and bid up the dollar on the assumption that his policies will be inflationary
2) He is a notorious monetary policy dove and is far more likely to put in a lax Fed governor.
Quote from: Gups on November 05, 2024, 05:38:26 PMArnold Palmer's giant cock doesn't swing for you?
Arnold Palmer's dick is a unifying national institution that transcends mere partisan politics.
I suspect the "the economy!" stuff is majority "we can't be having a woman /coloured /whatever president but still have enough respectability that we need an excuse..."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 05:35:57 PMFWIW immigration is a top 3 issue for me.
And I'm not voting Trump . . .
I mean you can make that argument about all the issues.
"State of democracy" - you could be a Trump voter who is convinced Trump's 2020 win was stolen.
"economy" - you think the economy is great under Biden and you want the good times to continue.
"abortion" - you're so glad Roe v Wade was overturned and want to reward Trump.
Yet I still think Sheilbh had the right analysis - democracy/abortion are likely Harris voters, economy/immigration are likely Trump voters. Because the question wasn't "top three", it was "most important".
Quote from: Josquius on November 05, 2024, 05:41:36 PMI suspect the "the economy!" stuff is majority "we can't be having a woman /coloured /whatever president but still have enough respectability that we need an excuse..."
Bill Clinton ran on "it's the economy stupid." What was the hidden agenda of Clinton voters?
Blaming the economy on the sitting president/administration is a constant. Has been for as long as I've been alive. It's bipartisan consensus. Allan Trachtman includes it in his predictive model.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 05:48:57 PMBill Clinton ran on "it's the economy stupid." What was the hidden agenda of Clinton voters?
Blaming the economy on the sitting president/administration is a constant. Has been for as long as I've been alive. It's bipartisan consensus. Allan Trachtman includes it in his predictive model.
And as Nate Silver pointed out there does seem to be a connection between experience of inflation (particularly for staples) in a state and how Trump is polling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 05:48:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 05, 2024, 05:41:36 PMI suspect the "the economy!" stuff is majority "we can't be having a woman /coloured /whatever president but still have enough respectability that we need an excuse..."
Bill Clinton ran on "it's the economy stupid." What was the hidden agenda of Clinton voters?
Blaming the economy on the sitting president/administration is a constant. Has been for as long as I've been alive. It's bipartisan consensus. Allan Trachtman includes it in his predictive model.
So the whole Trump experience since 2015 has taught me racism is a more significant factor in voting than I would have previously thought.
But otherwise - yes.
If Harris wins it'll actually be bucking trends, as many other incumbents across the democratic world seem to be losing. Inflation, in particular after decades of it not being a factor, has hurt a lot of people.
I have a couple of suspicions about "economy" voters. One suspicion is the same as Josq mentioned: it's better to sound vapid or stupid than to sound racist or sexist.
Another suspicion is that in the age where people live in different realities, people's perception of economy are what they want the perception to be. It's not just limited to GOP voters either, during the rule of GOP presidents Democrats talked down the economy as well, regardless of what it was actually doing.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 06:14:51 PMI have a couple of suspicions about "economy" voters. One suspicion is the same as Josq mentioned: it's better to sound vapid or stupid than to sound racist or sexist.
Another suspicion is that in the age where people live in different realities, people's perception of economy are what they want the perception to be. It's not just limited to GOP voters either, during the rule of GOP presidents Democrats talked down the economy as well, regardless of what it was actually doing.
So I was trying to be generous and not dismiss "racism/sexism" out of hand.
But even if you ask someone who is racist/sexist, I guarantee they aren't telling themselves "I'd vote for Kamala if only she wasn't a n-word/c-word". They are telling themselves "I don't trust her on the economy" or whatever - even if that boils down to not trusting her because she is black and/or a woman.
Yeah, I didn't mean to say that the deception only happens for other people. No one likes to think of themselves as bad guys, even very bad guys.
Indiana shifting towards the Democrats so far...giving me a good feeling for the rest of the midwest.
I've got a feeling,
A feeling deep inside,
Oh yeah, oh yeah, that's right.
I've got a feeling, a feeling I can't hide,
Oh no, no, oh no, oh no.
Yeah, yeah, I've got a feeling, yeah, whoo.
Oh please believe me,
I'd hate to miss the train,
Oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah.
And if you leave me,
I won't be late again, oh no, oh no, oh no.
Yeah, yeah, I've got a feeling, yeah I've got a feeling we're going to win!
What was the Indiana swing?
I've heard it's there but don't have a decent data source.
Betting markets moved 5 points for Trump, this is not good.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 07:42:30 PMBetting markets moved 5 points for Trump, this is not good.
:rolleyes:
Georgia going Trump big time
Too early to say, especially given the shenanigans in DeKalb and elsewhere.
Quote from: Josephus on November 05, 2024, 07:52:25 PMGeorgia going Trump big time
Fayette county is close to 50% to 50%. That's where which side Georgia will fall is going to be decided.
This ABC clip says Harris is beating the 538 "benchmarks" for how each candidate has to do in every single county in America.
I piss on your doom and gloom Josephus.
The Black Nazi is getting trounced in the North Carolina gubernatorial race. Hopefully that's a good sign for Harris.
You have to admit that so far surprises are not going in Harris direction. FL being not close at all is alarming.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 05, 2024, 08:18:19 PMThe Black Nazi is getting trounced in the North Carolina gubernatorial race. Hopefully that's a good sign for Harris.
Judging from the ads I've seen living in NC the focus has been on tying every other Republican running in state to Robinson, so I'm hoping he'll be a very effective millstone.
The NYT needle is slowly but surely going Trump's way, and so do the betting markets. Nothing seems to be developing to Kamala's advantage. It feels like at this point we really need a 2020 overnight turnaround.
Virginia & North Carolina are concerning.
Voters are sending a clear message. Blacks Nazis will not be tolerated. White Nazis? No problem.
So are any other states being called? Aside from Florida.
Whichever way the final vote goes, the left really needs to search deep into why they repel enough voters that they can't even reliably put Trump away (or at all). I think 2020 should've served as a wakeup call, but it didn't. Most Trump voters are in a death cult, but some got there through a gateway of being disillusioned with the left first.
270towin has a live tracker: https://www.270towin.com/2024-election-results-live/president/
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 08:22:51 PMYou have to admit that so far surprises are not going in Harris direction. FL being not close at all is alarming.
The only surprise I'm aware of is Iowa (!!!). Which surprises are you thinking of?
NYT tracker now "leaning Trump", 66% chance
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 05, 2024, 09:13:25 PM270towin has a live tracker: https://www.270towin.com/2024-election-results-live/president/
Trump only has 15 safe electoral votes left. :)
The worst thing is that I suspect that the needle is calibrated conservatively, because erring towards calling things later is the natural bias. The fact that the tracker doesn't have enough of a random walk is making me suspect that. That implies that the 66% Trump chance is an underestimate.
Quote from: Maladict on November 05, 2024, 09:22:37 PMNYT tracker now "leaning Trump", 66% chance
Yeah 20% chance for Kamala seems about right. :hmm:
Nebraska seems to still be competitive for Harris at 40% reporting in.
Dems are behind in the presidential race, house, senate, and congress? That's uhm... not good.
Looks like she's cooked.
Man, I was good with just one season of the Trump show. :glare:
I'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
So, if it does indeed come to fruition, who's gonna get the blame? Biden or Harris?
Quote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 10:09:20 PMSo, if it does indeed come to fruition, who's gonna get the blame? Biden or Harris?
Biden should get most of it, first for his reckless policy on choosing his VP, and then for his reckless decision to run again, which then left us with only his reckless choice of a VP as an option. Harris did better than I expected, but my expectations were pretty low for her.
If you guys are planning group suicide based on anything other than the NYT needle, I'd sure like to know about it.
I checked the 538 site and apart from the fact that they think Selzer got it disastrously wrong in Iowa, I'm not seeing armaggedon. Looking at Moldy's 270 site it looks like it'll come down to blue wall, just like it's been the whole campaign.
What do the NYT and y'all know that I don't know?
I did give the possibility of a turn around, but I've been pessimistic from the start.
*edit* just going by the Google election tracker. Seeing a lot of pink and red.
Yeah... I've come to terms with it. She lost.
Is she somehow pulls out a win, I'll be overjoyed, but I'm not expecting it anymore
As for who's to blame, I think she ran about as good a race as could be expected, certainly better than Hillary. However, the inflation killed her and she or any other candidate, couldn't do much about that.
I'm trying to keep being optimistic but I'm failing.
This is how fascism comes to America. In the end, Putin & Xi won. They can have their Empires back.
Enjoy your deportation camps, dumb Americans.
Two key lessons for Democrats from this:
1. Lie, lie, lie. Tell everyone what they want to hear, even if it's contradictory. Don't bother with honesty.
2. Promise to brutalize others. Americans don't want brotherly love. They want you to hurt the out group, and will pay you for it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 10:18:40 PMIf you guys are planning group suicide based on anything other than the NYT needle, I'd sure like to know about it.
I checked the 538 site and apart from the fact that they think Selzer got it disastrously wrong in Iowa, I'm not seeing armaggedon. Looking at Moldy's 270 site it looks like it'll come down to blue wall, just like it's been the whole campaign.
What do the NYT and y'all know that I don't know?
NYT needle seems to be the most sophisticated statistical way to get a live read. County by county, it checks the emerging results against expectation, and projects accordingly. I suspect that the sources you're following are just laggier, and as I said, I think even the needle is having a bit too much ballast to swing as rapidly as it should.
I just don't see how you can be so chill with the needle being at 80%+ and the betting markets being at 90%. I mean, 10% chance is still a chance, it's like pair of deuces against AK, with A on the flop. You can still find one of the deuces on turn or river, but it's not where you want to be.
538 has live ABC feed and blue wall looks bad.
Fucking Joe Rogan.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 05, 2024, 10:35:50 PMTwo key lessons for Democrats from this:
1. Lie, lie, lie. Tell everyone what they want to hear, even if it's contradictory. Don't bother with honesty.
2. Promise to brutalize others. Americans don't want brotherly love. They want you to hurt the out group, and will pay you for it.
It also appears that southerners and fly over staters aren't ready for a woman president
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 05, 2024, 10:35:50 PMTwo key lessons for Democrats from this:
1. Lie, lie, lie. Tell everyone what they want to hear, even if it's contradictory. Don't bother with honesty.
2. Promise to brutalize others. Americans don't want brotherly love. They want you to hurt the out group, and will pay you for it.
Don't forget voter suppression, gerrymandering, fearmongering, billionaires spreading slander and stupidity, book banning and hollowing out of public education to keep people ignorant.
I'm sure there's others.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:37:43 PMNYT needle seems to be the most sophisticated statistical way to get a live read. County by county, it checks the emerging results against expectation, and projects accordingly. I suspect that the sources you're following are just laggier, and as I said, I think even the needle is having a bit too much ballast to swing as rapidly as it should.
I just don't see how you can be so chill with the needle being at 80%+ and the betting markets being at 90%. I mean, 10% chance is still a chance, it's like pair of deuces against AK, with A on the flop. You can still find one of the deuces on turn or river, but it's not where you want to be.
OK, thanks.
Sometimes I hate being right.
This is one of those times.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Y'all need to chill.
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2024, 10:44:04 PMQuote from: HisMajestyBOB on November 05, 2024, 10:35:50 PMTwo key lessons for Democrats from this:
1. Lie, lie, lie. Tell everyone what they want to hear, even if it's contradictory. Don't bother with honesty.
2. Promise to brutalize others. Americans don't want brotherly love. They want you to hurt the out group, and will pay you for it.
Don't forget voter suppression, gerrymandering, fearmongering, billionaires spreading slander and stupidity, book banning and hollowing out of public education to keep people ignorant.
I'm sure there's others.
One answer. Robot overlords.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2024, 10:48:03 PMSometimes I hate being right.
This is one of those times.
Looks like you're getting your house and senate majority too.
None of the swing states have been called. I don't get the freakout here.
270 has called Georgia for Trump.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 05, 2024, 10:51:28 PMNone of the swing states have been called. I don't get the freakout here.
If you wait too long to panic you go down with the ship :P
I hope this isn't how the Democratic soul-searching will go. I had lunch with my co-worker today. Both of us voted D without a second thought, but both of us felt like the left was moving away from us.
Obviously given the alternative it could've moved a whole lot further and we would've still voted D without a thought, but there are people to the right of us. Surely if we feel alienated enough to at least feel resentment, some other people will feel alienated enough to be open to a pitch from a cult recruiter.
It's a numbers game. I can't fathom how you can be on the fence, but whether I can or can't doesn't change the fact that some are. Shit like DEI may be what nudge some to listen to a podcast or two, and then start listening more, and then maybe watch some Fox News.
She's running behind in the some of the college towns in the midwest. Not by huge percentage margins, but by enough to costs here thousands of votes per county. Ironic but it seems that the pro-Palestinian campus activists and their allies are taking the same side as Otto in this election. I expect they both will be badly disappointed but for different reasons. We'll see soon enough.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 05, 2024, 10:51:28 PMNone of the swing states have been called. I don't get the freakout here.
You don't need to wait until you're in a delivery room before getting a pretty good idea that you're going to have a baby at some point. We know enough about how human bodies work to see how the situation will develop from early signs.
Georgia is (was) a swing state . . .
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:53:40 PMI hope this isn't how the Democratic soul-searching will go. I had lunch with my co-worker today. Both of us voted D without a second thought, but both of us felt like the left was moving away from us.
Obviously given the alternative it could've moved a whole lot further and we would've still voted D without a thought, but there are people to the right of us. Surely if we feel alienated enough to at least feel resentment, some other people will feel alienated enough to be open to a pitch from a cult recruiter.
It's a numbers game. I can't fathom how you can be on the fence, but whether I can or can't doesn't change the fact that some are. Shit like DEI may be what nudge some to listen to a podcast or two, and then start listening more, and then maybe watch some Fox News.
Given my vast political knowledge ( :P ) I don't think it's the DEI stuff necessarily. Sure it might swing some of the fringe ends, but the main motivator is I think people are angry (or at least moody). Things are getting more expensive and wages aren't keeping up. The GOP is the party for angry people, as emblematized by the orange whiner in chief.
It doesn't matter. There won't be elections anymore.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2024, 11:07:43 PMIt doesn't matter. There won't be elections anymore.
Nah, there's another 1 or 2 republican president before that happens.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 10:54:50 PMShe's running behind in the some of the college towns in the midwest. Not by huge percentage margins, but by enough to costs here thousands of votes per county. Ironic but it seems that the pro-Palestinian campus activists and their allies are taking the same side as Otto in this election. I expect they both will be badly disappointed but for different reasons. We'll see soon enough.
The goal of the anti-anti-Trumpers has been, and always will be, that in order to defeat the Republican Party you have to destroy the Democratic Party first. They have been rather adamant on this point.
While it's noble to see to see they're more worried about Palestinian healthcare than their own, I really don't think it's going to be the win they think it is.
Oh yeah, and this nation hates negroes and women in charge of shit. Derp. Been telling you people that for fucking years. The fuck you people expect.
Quote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 11:05:12 PMGiven my vast political knowledge ( :P ) I don't think it's the DEI stuff necessarily. Sure it might swing some of the fringe ends, but the main motivator is I think people are angry (or at least moody). Things are getting more expensive and wages aren't keeping up. The GOP is the party for angry people, as emblematized by the orange whiner in chief.
Yeah, Democrats got some bad cards, but it's not like GOP got dealt aces, they had Trump. The warning was blaring very loudly in 2020 that they've lost some people. They should've swept everything but barely eked out anything. I really hope that the reaction of the left to second term of Trump would be a lot more pragmatic than the reaction to the first one.
What does *more pragmatic* look like?
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:18:57 PMWhat does *more pragmatic* look like?
I sincerely think that the first woman president will have to be a republican. Only way to win over the south and fly over states. Even the female voters within.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:18:57 PMWhat does *more pragmatic* look like?
Less wokism, more freedom from consequences of speech (so if nothing else you actually find out before elections that people understand what "woke" means, and that a lot of them even in your camp don't really like it).
So I watched a bit of ABC news and I'm sorry to say that my 300 EV, +10 million vote differential for Harris might be just sliiiiiiiiiiiiightly off.
This is crazy. Americans truly are a nation of morons. Still, she might still pull off the blue wall.
Disheartening
DEI was already well entrenched in the corporate world during the Bush presidency. Nobody cared a damn thing about it until Ron DeSchmuckis and Fox News made it into a buzzword. Just like "Critical Race Theory" had a run for a bunch of months and then everyone forgot about it again. It has zero to do with what happened in this election. No one came into the booth saying my top priority is to stop DEI.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 11:26:29 PMLess wokism, more freedom from consequences of speech (so if nothing else you actually find out before elections that people understand what "woke" means, and that a lot of them even in your camp don't really like it).
I know these are your pet peeves, but none of that matters as long as the Democrats defer to Republican talking points. There could be a single instance of "woke gone wild" in the whole country, and it would still be whipped up as the most dangerous development in America by talk radio and FoxNews.
At some point, Democrats need to get rid of the delusion that their accomplishments speak for themselves.
The Democrats came to the realization, too late in the cycle, that their position on immigration is a loser. That's something they could give up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 11:36:55 PMDEI was already well entrenched in the corporate world during the Bush presidency. Nobody cared a damn thing about it until Ron DeSchmuckis and Fox News made it into a buzzword. Just like "Critical Race Theory" had a run for a bunch of months and then everyone forgot about it again. It has zero to do with what happened in this election. No one came into the booth saying my top priority is to stop DEI.
I disagree strongly with this, because for one the E in DEI was a fairly recent addition, but that wasn't even the point I was making. People coming into the booth probably were reciting some Fox News bullshit, but they got into that rabbit hole to begin with because sometime before that they were alienated by stuff like DEI and became receptive to the pitch from the right.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:38:22 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 11:26:29 PMLess wokism, more freedom from consequences of speech (so if nothing else you actually find out before elections that people understand what "woke" means, and that a lot of them even in your camp don't really like it).
I know these are your pet peeves, but none of that matters as long as the Democrats defer to Republican talking points. There could be a single instance of "woke gone wild" in the whole country, and it would still be whipped up as the most dangerous development in America by talk radio and FoxNews.
At some point, Democrats need to get rid of the delusion that their accomplishments speak for themselves.
They are not just my pet peeves, though, and I really think that a lot of people on the left just don't get it. Just because Fox News latches onto something doesn't mean that they're not tapping into a resentment that's real. Just keep swatting away any discussion, keep talking about what a nothingburger it is, keep asking what "woke" even means, let's see how that continues to work out. However, let's not, I have to live in this country, and I really think it's better when Democrats get elected.
I'm with DGuller on DEI.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:00:42 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:38:22 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 11:26:29 PMLess wokism, more freedom from consequences of speech (so if nothing else you actually find out before elections that people understand what "woke" means, and that a lot of them even in your camp don't really like it).
I know these are your pet peeves, but none of that matters as long as the Democrats defer to Republican talking points. There could be a single instance of "woke gone wild" in the whole country, and it would still be whipped up as the most dangerous development in America by talk radio and FoxNews.
At some point, Democrats need to get rid of the delusion that their accomplishments speak for themselves.
They are not just my pet peeves, though, and I really think that a lot of people on the left just don't get it. Just because Fox News latches onto something doesn't mean that they're not tapping into a resentment that's real. Just keep swatting away any discussion, keep talking about what a nothingburger it is, keep asking what "woke" even means, let's see how that continues to work out. However, let's not, I have to live in this country, and I really think it's better when Democrats get elected.
Well you see it's all Andrew Tate's fault.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 10:54:50 PMShe's running behind in the some of the college towns in the midwest. Not by huge percentage margins, but by enough to costs here thousands of votes per county. Ironic but it seems that the pro-Palestinian campus activists and their allies are taking the same side as Otto in this election. I expect they both will be badly disappointed but for different reasons. We'll see soon enough.
Well, all the bright side Trump is promising to deport "pro-Hamas" radicals, so quite a few of their fellow students and professors won't stir up trouble for us next time. This is the 2nd time the Palestinians have fucked us. First they kill Kennedy and now this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2024, 11:49:02 PMThe Democrats came to the realization, too late in the cycle, that their position on immigration is a loser. That's something they could give up.
I don't agree with this either, I think that issue did very little other than to reinforce existing entrenched positions. The issue did hurt Harris was the price rise.
The politics of immigration is going to change soon. There is an extreme and very rapid demographic transition going in Latin America right now. Birth rates are collapsing at extraordinary speed. The days of mass migration north are numbered. That demographic transition is similar to the one already affecting Europe and nearly all of Asia. The US is an outlier but even here the existing native population is below replacement rate. The failure to maintain high levels of legal immigration, focused both on immigrants with high level skills and education AND lower skill workers to fill key service shortages is going to very costly over the medium and long term.
@Guller
QuoteThey are not just my pet peeves, though, and I really think that a lot of people on the left just don't get it. Just because Fox News latches onto something doesn't mean that they're not tapping into a resentment that's real. Just keep swatting away any discussion, keep talking about what a nothingburger it is, keep asking what "woke" even means, let's see how that continues to work out. However, let's not, I have to live in this country, and I really think it's better when Democrats get elected.
Except that this doesn't provide any answer for the moment the Republicans will breathlessly switch to another buzzword. You'll answer the "woke" accusations on transkids with what? Then, what do you do with DEI? With critical race theory? With whatever other form the culture war is going to take?
I don't doubt that this seeks to give voice to some form of amorphous resentment. My point is that answering that resentment (how? with what?) simply opens up new forms for another version of that resentment, and keeps it in the news cycle. I don't see a "fix" for that which doesn't leave the Republicans in charge of the talking points the following week.
There are other forms of resentment, hopes and aspirations - some of which do get scooped up by all that talk about wokeness. My sense is that it touches upon a sense of creeping disempowerment, a sense of losing out, including among groups that felt in control, and who once felt they ought to be counted amongst winners. There are progressive ways to tap into that sentiment, and to build Democrats talking points that ought to put the Republicans on the defensive. To me, that is taking control of the discourse. Instead, we got reasonable people talking reasonably about a million different things, and defering to the reflexes of the press for justification.
@Minsky
I don't think diminishing birth numbers will effect it the much. Portugal has been shrinking for a while now, and people still move because it's poor, for example. People from poor countries will always try to move to greener pastures. Unless declining birth rates coincide with increased prosperity, which I don't foresee happening in Latin America, nothing much will change.
And that's to say nothing of the abysmal management by the Democrats of the unfolding institutional crisis.
The people carping about DEI now are the same tea party people demanding that Obama get his government hands off their social security.
The underlying phenomenon is that the social status and economic prospects of white non-college graduates has been declining steadily since the late 70s. Something like DEI is a useful outrage generator for that demo but if it's not that it's "critical race theory" or "ESG" or "anticolonialism" or "wokeness" or "socialized medicine." All those things could disappear overnight it wouldn't change anything.
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 12:26:09 AM@Minsky
I don't think diminishing birth numbers will effect it the much. Portugal has been shrinking for a while now, and people still move because it's poor, for example. People from poor countries will always try to move to greener pastures. Unless declining birth rates coincide with increased prosperity, which I don't foresee happening in Latin America, nothing much will change.
What will change is that: (1) there will simply be fewer available to move, (2) the advantages to having them come will be more obvious, and (3) there will be more competition for the best workers across the job spectrum.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:20:09 AMI don't agree with this either, I think that issue did very little other than to reinforce existing entrenched positions. The issue did hurt Harris was the price rise.
The politics of immigration is going to change soon. There is an extreme and very rapid demographic transition going in Latin America right now. Birth rates are collapsing at extraordinary speed. The days of mass migration north are numbered. That demographic transition is similar to the one already affecting Europe and nearly all of Asia. The US is an outlier but even here the existing native population is below replacement rate. The failure to maintain high levels of legal immigration, focused both on immigrants with high level skills and education AND lower skill workers to fill key service shortages is going to very costly over the medium and long term.
You may be right. Perhaps the current Democratic set of principles and positions is enough to consistently win the White House as long as inflation is low, unemployment low, and incomes rising. Neither of us "knows" the true motivations of Trump voters. We're making inferences and guesstimates.
The rest of your post is a non sequitur. People have expressed concern for immigration right now, not in what it will be in 20 years. And neither side has made *legal* immigration an issue.
Gotta hope Trump's brain is too melted to do much but he's still with it enough to fend off Vance from 25thing him
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 12:57:01 AMYou may be right. Perhaps the current Democratic set of principles and positions is enough to consistently win the White House as long as inflation is low, unemployment low, and incomes rising.
One could have made the same point in Nov 2020 about the Republicans and Trump, when Trump had all the advantages of incumbency and was facing a candidate with a speech impediment and a long track record of badly losing presidential primary contests prior to 2020.
QuotePeople have expressed concern for immigration right now, not in what it will be in 20 years
We need policy to change right now if we want the right outcome 20 years out. if we wait 20 years, it will be much too late.
@Joan
I don't understand your first point.
You're talking policy. I was talking votes.
So uh what happens with all the pending court cases? Isn't there supposed to be sentencing for the rapes, the felonies, the stealing of documents and the Georgia stuff?
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 01:26:14 AMSo uh what happens with all the pending court cases? Isn't there supposed to be sentencing for the rapes, the felonies, the stealing of documents and the Georgia stuff?
Just typing this out made me laugh out loud. Look who you guys elected lol.
:(
I think 2020 was effectively a loss for Democrats. In poker, winning small with a huge hand is tantamount to a loss, because you're going to get your share of bad hands that's you'll be wrecked with, and without winnings from good hands you'll be down.
Democrats had a huge hand and barely won, and one consequence of barely winning was that they couldn't effectively claw back the advantages that GOP entrenched for itself when they got dealt good hands.
What a fucked up 4 years this is going to be. And while 80 years old Trump will be napping in Florida, the insane asylum around him will have control of both the Congress and the Senate.
Wow.
So presuming Trump wins this - how long until Trump is declared mentally unfit and President Vance can take over? :ph34r:
Oh, and even if Harris wins - with the Republicans winning Senate majority it will be more gridlock. Yay!
270 just called PA for Donnie. It's officially over.
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2024, 01:34:43 AMSo presuming Trump wins this - how long until Trump is declared mentally unfit and President Vance can take over? :ph34r:
Given what we've seen so far, even if Trump suffers a stroke and pisses his pants, Republicans around him would be too timid to do anything.
Oh this is going to be a fun 4 years (or more!).
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2024, 10:29:18 PMI'm trying to keep being optimistic but I'm failing.
This is how fascism comes to America. In the end, Putin & Xi won. They can have their Empires back.
In the end China won the cold war.
My advice to Democrats now is to just shut up for four years. Every single thing we say just convinces Trump voters even more they are right.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 01:26:14 AMSo uh what happens with all the pending court cases? Isn't there supposed to be sentencing for the rapes, the felonies, the stealing of documents and the Georgia stuff?
All the federal cases are gone.
The NY case would not usually involve a jail sentence. Judge Merchan will not trigger a constitutional showdown by imposing one.
The Georgia case is still alive in theory but expect to see the Ga Supreme Court tank it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 01:47:03 AMMy advice to Democrats now is to just shut up for four years. Every single thing we say just convinces Trump voters even more they are right.
So the Dems should give up on being a party? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 01:47:03 AMMy advice to Democrats now is to just shut up for four years. Every single thing we say just convinces Trump voters even more they are right.
Silence will convince them even more.
What can you do when most people want a fucked up felon like Trump?
OK so twice a woman run against Trump once a man. Can we say America is not ready for women to leave the kitchen?
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 01:50:19 AMSo the Dems should give up on being a party? :hmm:
We should act like a party that has lost a crushing electoral defeat fair and square.
I think staying put as the institutional guardrails of the USA constitutional order are being dismantled is not a sound strategy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 06, 2024, 02:01:48 AMI think staying put as the institutional guardrails of the USA constitutional order are being dismantled is not a sound strategy.
What is a better one?
Guller did you see the Jersey numbers?
Check out Passaic and Bergen.
I really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:00:04 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 01:50:19 AMSo the Dems should give up on being a party? :hmm:
We should act like a party that has lost a crushing electoral defeat fair and square.
Like the GOP in 2020? :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:03:50 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 06, 2024, 02:01:48 AMI think staying put as the institutional guardrails of the USA constitutional order are being dismantled is not a sound strategy.
What is a better one?
Stop being so fucking passive.
Yi Trump didn't follow any of the rules you are suggesting. He didn't shut up and didn't moderate, he did the exact opposite. And it didn't stop him him from winning
The democrats aren't going to convince voters they deserve to govern by rolling over and hiding.🫣
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 06, 2024, 02:11:26 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:03:50 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 06, 2024, 02:01:48 AMI think staying put as the institutional guardrails of the USA constitutional order are being dismantled is not a sound strategy.
What is a better one?
Stop being so fucking passive.
Ah, so more protests.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:05:28 AMGuller did you see the Jersey numbers?
Check out Passaic and Bergen.
:x Guys, something's wrong here, let's figure out what. This is scary.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
What the fuck is there to analyse here? How the fuck can you win if what Donald Trump offers is what the American people want? Promise deportations? Collect some felonies?
Dont tell me about economic policies and such, Harris had those while Trump had Almon Palmers or is size. One was largely ignored the other dominated even the leftist media I listen to.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
I mean, the biggest shift was with hispanic men and Trump is openly saying he's going to round them up into camp and deport them.
Can we really do much when people just willfully vote against their own self interest like that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:05:28 AMGuller did you see the Jersey numbers?
Check out Passaic and Bergen.
Van Drew won comfortably, and that's all you need to know.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
The lesson here is people are self-interested scum. I want to move out of Cumberland (Trump country) because the yokels are already so insufferable.
I guess we can't do anything. Let's feel superior about ourselves, we at least know how to do that.
Quote from: Syt on November 06, 2024, 01:34:43 AMSo presuming Trump wins this - how long until Trump is declared mentally unfit and President Vance can take over? :ph34r:
2 1/2 years so he can have 10 years in power.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 02:20:31 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
I mean, the biggest shift was with hispanic men and Trump is openly saying he's going to round them up into camp and deport them.
Can we really do much when people just willfully vote against their own self interest like that?
I'm increasingly convinced that while voters generally want to be better off after elections, currently a lot of them prefer feeling better about themselves (and if it means being worse off while "the right people" are even more worserer off, then that's worth it).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2024, 02:21:41 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:05:28 AMGuller did you see the Jersey numbers?
Check out Passaic and Bergen.
Van Drew won comfortably, and that's all you need to know.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
The lesson here is people are self-interested scum. I want to move out of Cumberland (Trump country) because the yokels are already so insufferable.
The south of New Jersey has always been Alabama. Bergen county, however, is exactly the kind of demographic that Democrats should be capturing: suburban highly educated folks that probably commute to NYC. To be almost even with Trump there? There is clearly a message there.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:22:49 AMI guess we can't do anything. Let's feel superior about ourselves, we at least know how to do that.
Let's hear some ideas from you. Go.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:22:49 AMI guess we can't do anything. Let's feel superior about ourselves, we at least know how to do that.
If the people want to eat shit, who are we to stop them?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:00:04 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 01:50:19 AMSo the Dems should give up on being a party? :hmm:
We should act like a party that has lost a crushing electoral defeat fair and square.
I didn't realise that is what you meant. Of course, I agree that we shouldn't be saying the election wasn't fair. But I thought that was a given.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:14:20 AMYi Trump didn't follow any of the rules you are suggesting. He didn't shut up and didn't moderate, he did the exact opposite. And it didn't stop him him from winning
The democrats aren't going to convince voters they deserve to govern by rolling over and hiding.🫣
Trump had the brilliant political insight that around 50% of the American electorate is made up of angry morons. Morons who are impervious to reason. How do you win back people who are impervious to reason, certainly don't accept your moral authority, and in fact reflexively think everything you say is a lie?
I think you do that by leaving them alone and letting them discover the value of all the principles we uphold for themselves. Give them the time to discover fire for themselves.
It's either that or move to a deep blue state and try to secede.
Civil war is not an option because we would get bitch slapped.
I don't get it. I really don't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 02:20:31 AMI mean, the biggest shift was with hispanic men and Trump is openly saying he's going to round them up into camp and deport them.
Can we really do much when people just willfully vote against their own self interest like that?
The shift was with Hispanic citizens who can vote. Trump didn't say anything about rounding them up.
One very, very easy lesson that Democrats should learn from this election is that being lax on immigration does *not* deliver the Hispanic vote. It might deliver the Hispanic activist vote.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 01:29:52 AM:(
Quite.
Suddenly orban looks like a fucking genius
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:37:25 AMTrump had the brilliant political insight that around 50% of the American electorate is made up of angry morons. Morons who are impervious to reason. How do you win back people who are impervious to reason, certainly don't accept your moral authority, and in fact reflexively think everything you say is a lie?
I think you do that by leaving them alone and letting them discover the value of all the principles we uphold for themselves. Give them the time to discover fire for themselves.
It's either that or move to a deep blue state and try to secede.
Civil war is not an option because we would get bitch slapped.
Ah, I get it now. While some of us can retreat selfishly into privilege, I'm not sure we all can. But yes, personally for self-preservation I can care less and let others try out the beds they made, cold comfort for those without such luxuries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:44:52 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 02:20:31 AMI mean, the biggest shift was with hispanic men and Trump is openly saying he's going to round them up into camp and deport them.
Can we really do much when people just willfully vote against their own self interest like that?
The shift was with Hispanic citizens who can vote. Trump didn't say anything about rounding them up.
One very, very easy lesson that Democrats should learn from this election is that being lax on immigration does *not* deliver the Hispanic vote. It might deliver the Hispanic activist vote.
He's talked about revoking birth right citizenship. He's not going to discriminate between the two.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 02:45:27 AMAh, I get it now. While some of us can retreat selfishly into privilege, I'm not sure we all can. But yes, personally for self-preservation I can care less and let others try out the beds they made, cold comfort for those without such luxuries.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I reread my post and I can't see privilege or not caring anywhere within eyesight.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 02:47:23 AMHe's talked about revoking birth right citizenship. He's not going to discriminate between the two.
That doesn't impact Hispanic citizens either.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 02:18:26 AMPromise deportations?
Yes, a President should enforce the laws and protect the border; or in Trump's case make an empty promise to enforce the laws and protect the border. Much better than pretending that immigration abuse isn't a problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:14:20 AMYi Trump didn't follow any of the rules you are suggesting. He didn't shut up and didn't moderate, he did the exact opposite. And it didn't stop him him from winning
The democrats aren't going to convince voters they deserve to govern by rolling over and hiding.🫣
They should claim the election was stolen and launch case after case. Clearly the US wants Trump so let's give them more Trump than they can handle? It's the one thing not tried yet I guess.
Biden should pardon his son. if the voting public acts indifferent to criminality so should he.
Quote from: chipwich on November 06, 2024, 02:57:04 AMBiden should pardon his son. if the voting public acts indifferent to criminality so should he.
Oh they care, but: "It's not a crime if
our people do it."
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:31:03 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:22:49 AMI guess we can't do anything. Let's feel superior about ourselves, we at least know how to do that.
Let's hear some ideas from you. Go.
I already covered a lot of it, but I'll try to summarize.
- Drop the woke shit. And drop the "what does woke even mean? :huh: " shit
- Recognize that when it comes to woke shit, people don't feel free to say what's on their mind. Stop that.
- Don't martyr yourself on issues where you think you're in the right, but which are unpopular. Make sure you give yourself the chance to understand when your issues are unpopular, so don't intimidate people into agreeing with you so they don't get canceled.
- Stop ticking demographic boxes. The reason Democrats were stuck with Kamala traces back to Biden's decision in 2020 to have a woman VP. Turns out limiting the pool of talent can backfire on you later.
- Allow for the possibility that Fox News sometimes taps into a legitimate grievance, even with illegitimate talking points. Pay attention sometimes, don't reflexively mock.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:50:53 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 02:45:27 AMAh, I get it now. While some of us can retreat selfishly into privilege, I'm not sure we all can. But yes, personally for self-preservation I can care less and let others try out the beds they made, cold comfort for those without such luxuries.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I reread my post and I can't see privilege or not caring anywhere within eyesight.
You've asked the Democrats to keep quiet and let people work out for themselves why they should value things the Democrats value. Waiting it out is entirely the perogative of the privileged. For those who have already had their rights eroded or are in the firing line, just waiting can hardly seem like a viable option.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:08:27 AMYou've asked the Democrats to keep quiet and let people work out for themselves why they should value things the Democrats value. Waiting it out is entirely the perogative of the privileged. For those who have already had their rights eroded or are in the firing line, just waiting can hardly seem like a viable option.
If by speaking up you think you will change minds for the better, by all means do so. I think it will do the opposite.
I do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:21:55 AMI do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
I think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 03:15:39 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:08:27 AMYou've asked the Democrats to keep quiet and let people work out for themselves why they should value things the Democrats value. Waiting it out is entirely the perogative of the privileged. For those who have already had their rights eroded or are in the firing line, just waiting can hardly seem like a viable option.
If by speaking up you think you will change minds for the better, by all means do so. I think it will do the opposite.
Not speaking up is a good way to convince one's allies that you don't support them.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:31:16 AMNot speaking up is a good way to convince one's allies that you don't support them.
If supporting your allies is a higher priority than winning elections, go for it. My priorities are different.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:30:18 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:21:55 AMI do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
I think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
Yeah, especially as they see themselves the "no nonsense" side, I am not keen to walk on egg shells lest I disturb he delicate mental balance of people voting fascist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 02:52:16 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 02:47:23 AMHe's talked about revoking birth right citizenship. He's not going to discriminate between the two.
That doesn't impact Hispanic citizens either.
Millions of Hispanic citizens are citizens because of birthright citizenship.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:30:18 AMI think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
Patronizing is built into it. They're morons.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 03:45:18 AMMillions of Hispanic citizens are citizens because of birthright citizenship.
And Trump said this would be applied retroactively? Then OK, they just fucked themselves.
I would like you to take note of how you feel when I concede your point and consider picking up the habit yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 03:50:47 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 03:45:18 AMMillions of Hispanic citizens are citizens because of birthright citizenship.
And Trump said this would be applied retroactively? Then OK, they just fucked themselves.
I would like you to take note of how you feel when I concede your point and consider picking up the habit yourself.
The real way they fucked themselves is that if deportations and/or other hostile acts begin, they will be just some brown-faced people to the racists like they have always been. In the racists' eyes, their untermensch status will be made official whether they have paperwork to keep them in the country or not.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I hope the age of misogyny angle gets some examination out of this. I do think its quite the cornerstone factor of everything here.
As the power of women in the world rises, factually they're increasingly the ones getting the good education, the jobs (albeit not the TOP jobs), etc... whilst traditional "mens work" and "values" collapses...this has a lot of men pissed off and jumping to reactionary nonsense.
Harris being a woman was an issue in itself but it also helped tie her to the trash about "woke" gender changing immigrants eating dogs in schools. Also she was Californian. That's not good for reactionaries.
I have seen examinations in Europe of how this is the way things are increasingly diverging here... But nothing from an American angle yet.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:59:10 AMQuote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:31:03 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:22:49 AMI guess we can't do anything. Let's feel superior about ourselves, we at least know how to do that.
Let's hear some ideas from you. Go.
I already covered a lot of it, but I'll try to summarize.
- Drop the woke shit. And drop the "what does woke even mean? :huh: " shit
- Recognize that when it comes to woke shit, people don't feel free to say what's on their mind. Stop that.
- Don't martyr yourself on issues where you think you're in the right, but which are unpopular. Make sure you give yourself the chance to understand when your issues are unpopular, so don't intimidate people into agreeing with you so they don't get canceled.
- Stop ticking demographic boxes. The reason Democrats were stuck with Kamala traces back to Biden's decision in 2020 to have a woman VP. Turns out limiting the pool of talent can backfire on you later.
- Allow for the possibility that Fox News sometimes taps into a legitimate grievance, even with illegitimate talking points. Pay attention sometimes, don't reflexively mock.
I don't really disagree with this but it seems to require that Dems act as a monolithic block. For example, it doesn't much matter if 80% of Dems drop the "woke shit". If 20% don't then, it provides sufficient ammunition for Trump etc to attack.
Quote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 11:21:52 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:18:57 PMWhat does *more pragmatic* look like?
I sincerely think that the first woman president will have to be a republican. Only way to win over the south and fly over states. Even the female voters within.
They aren't going to ever nominate a woman, are you crazy?
Good point, Gups. I totally didn't get any "woke" shit being forced by the mainstream of the Democratic party, unless opposing mass deportations, and being pro-choice on abortion count.
FFS, it only took one ugly boxing lady on the Olympics for the right to see it proven that woke agenda has ruined everything.
When the left actually defeat a surging right in the 30s and 40s it did so by standing up to it AND bribing people into voting for them. Do that, not the "ah, ok, you disagree with me. I'll shut up then" act DG and Yi seem to advocate.
Surging right in the 30s and 40s? WTF are you talking about?
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:39:54 AMQuote from: HVC on November 05, 2024, 11:21:52 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 05, 2024, 11:18:57 PMWhat does *more pragmatic* look like?
I sincerely think that the first woman president will have to be a republican. Only way to win over the south and fly over states. Even the female voters within.
They aren't going to ever nominate a woman, are you crazy?
I don't know, maybe Trumps grand daughter or something :P
Unlike CdM I think America will get a woman president eventually, just don't think it'll be a democrat.
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:52:53 AMUnlike CdM I think America will get a woman president eventually, just don't think it'll be a democrat.
Yeah yeah. Yi said that about a black President as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 04:48:57 AMSurging right in the 30s and 40s? WTF are you talking about?
I think he is referring to extremist forces during the depression.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:54:24 AMQuote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:52:53 AMUnlike CdM I think America will get a woman president eventually, just don't think it'll be a democrat.
Yeah yeah. Yi said that about a black President as well.
Black women vote for a black man, did black men vote for a black woman? Legitimate question, but I guess that stat will have to wait for exit polls to be tabulated.
*edit* wait, Yi said that the republicans would nominate a black man? That's quite an out there prediction.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 04:32:32 AMI hope the age of misogyny angle gets some examination out of this. I do think its quite the cornerstone factor of everything here.
As the power of women in the world rises, factually they're increasingly the ones getting the good education, the jobs (albeit not the TOP jobs), etc... whilst traditional "mens work" and "values" collapses...this has a lot of men pissed off and jumping to reactionary nonsense.
Harris being a woman was an issue in itself but it also helped tie her to the trash about "woke" gender changing immigrants eating dogs in schools. Also she was Caliofornian. That's not good for reactionaries.
I have seen examinations in Europe of how this is the way things are increasingly diverging here... But nothing from an American angle yet.
That's great. Is there a way we use this knowledge to get more votes?
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:55:53 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:54:24 AMQuote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:52:53 AMUnlike CdM I think America will get a woman president eventually, just don't think it'll be a democrat.
Yeah yeah. Yi said that about a black President as well.
Black women vote for a black man, did black men vote for a black woman? Legitimate question, but I guess that stat will have to wait for exit polls to be tabulated.
*edit* wait, Yi said that the republicans would nominate a black man? That's quite an out there prediction.
Long ago he said he thought the first black president would be a Republican. For largely the same logic I think.
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:55:53 AM*edit* wait, Yi said that the republicans would nominate a black man? That's quite an out there prediction.
I think I might have said the first black president would be a Republican.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:58:30 AMQuote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:55:53 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:54:24 AMQuote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:52:53 AMUnlike CdM I think America will get a woman president eventually, just don't think it'll be a democrat.
Yeah yeah. Yi said that about a black President as well.
Black women vote for a black man, did black men vote for a black woman? Legitimate question, but I guess that stat will have to wait for exit polls to be tabulated.
*edit* wait, Yi said that the republicans would nominate a black man? That's quite an out there prediction.
Long ago he said he thought the first black president would be a Republican. For largely the same logic I think.
I mean republicans at least kind of like women, especially (now) if they're crazy. Can't say the same thing about their overall view of African Americans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 03:50:47 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 03:45:18 AMMillions of Hispanic citizens are citizens because of birthright citizenship.
And Trump said this would be applied retroactively? Then OK, they just fucked themselves.
I would like you to take note of how you feel when I concede your point and consider picking up the habit yourself.
Sorry if I came off in a confrontational way. Didn't mean to offend.
I believe it was written down in plan 2025. So, I will concede it more likely that Vance or one of his minions came up with it.
And of course as Tamas, said, the legalities of it all won't really matter
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 05:02:13 AMI mean republicans at least kind of like women, especially (now) if they're crazy. Can't say the same thing about their overall view of African Americans.
I don't think so. Haley was the most successful one I have seen so far and she didn't do great.
But we'll see. I am skeptical though. The Republicans clearly know what they want: strong alpha male dude.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:55:36 AMI think he is referring to extremist forces during the depression.
The German American Bund? That was a couple thousand people. Not very surgy.
The rise and fall of the influence of the Klan would be a much better case study.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:05:31 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 04:55:36 AMI think he is referring to extremist forces during the depression.
The German American Bund? That was a couple thousand people. Not very surgy.
The rise and fall of the influence of the Klan would be a much better case study.
The Klan got demolished by the depression and then put out of its misery by Roosevelt so not really.
Maybe the America First movement?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 05:02:24 AMSorry if I came off in a confrontational way. Didn't mean to offend.
You didn't. I'm not offended. Failure to concede points is just part of what I see as the greater trend of decaying manners that I would like to see reversed.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 05:07:19 AMThe Klan got demolished by the depression and then put out of its misery by Roosevelt so not really.
Maybe the America First movement?
Wasn't the heyday of the Klan around the time of Wilson's administration? I'm operating on imperfect information but I thought they had ceased to be an important factor in national politics long before the Depression. How did the Depression demolish them? All unemployed and couldn't afford sheets and crosses?
I just wikied America First. Gerald K. Smith got 1,780 votes in the 1944 election.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 05:02:24 AMI believe it was written down in plan 2025. So, I will concede it more likely that Vance or one of his minions came up with it.
To clarify, are you saying that plan 2025 says birthright citizenship should be stripped *retroactively*?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:21:53 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 05:07:19 AMThe Klan got demolished by the depression and then put out of its misery by Roosevelt so not really.
Maybe the America First movement?
Wasn't the heyday of the Klan around the time of Wilson's administration? I'm operating on imperfect information but I thought they had ceased to be an important factor in national politics long before the Depression. How did the Depression demolish them? All unemployed and couldn't afford sheets and crosses?
I just wikied America First. Gerald K. Smith got 1,780 votes in the 1944 election.
It's hey day was in the 1920s, and loomed particularly large in the 1924 election to the point that the Democratic nominee had to denounce it. But it was designed to be a business empire as well as a terrorist one and the depression killed its financial footing. So it was a husk by the time Roosevelt killed it.
I was just speculating what Tamas was referring to. I think Roosevelt did a great job stopping extremist movements from starting despite a load of charismatic demagogues out there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:28:04 AMQuote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2024, 05:02:24 AMI believe it was written down in plan 2025. So, I will concede it more likely that Vance or one of his minions came up with it.
To clarify, are you saying that plan 2025 says birthright citizenship should be stripped *retroactively*?
That sounds like way too much work for the Trump Whitehouse to do. They would probably just change it going forward.
Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders – especially Stephenson's conviction for the abduction, rape, and murder of Madge Oberholtzer – and external opposition brought about a collapse in the membership of both groups. The main group's membership had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930.
wiki on the Klan
I meant also Europe not just the US. Nowhere the recipe for success against the far-right was to shut up and let them roam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 04:57:20 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 04:32:32 AMI hope the age of misogyny angle gets some examination out of this. I do think its quite the cornerstone factor of everything here.
As the power of women in the world rises, factually they're increasingly the ones getting the good education, the jobs (albeit not the TOP jobs), etc... whilst traditional "mens work" and "values" collapses...this has a lot of men pissed off and jumping to reactionary nonsense.
Harris being a woman was an issue in itself but it also helped tie her to the trash about "woke" gender changing immigrants eating dogs in schools. Also she was Caliofornian. That's not good for reactionaries.
I have seen examinations in Europe of how this is the way things are increasingly diverging here... But nothing from an American angle yet.
That's great. Is there a way we use this knowledge to get more votes?
If the easy solution was known people would be doing it.
I do think long term the solution is clear; education, focus on improving quality of life for the working class.
But this doesn't happen overnight, and the other party have a direct interest in sabotaging any efforts in this direction.
Tackling social media could also be something.
Thing I'm struck by is that it's a real win on all sides - by the looks of it electoral college, popular vote and a broader coalition than 2020 or 2016.
That means the comfort of illusions about quasi-illegitimacy (Russia, didn't win the popular vote) won't be available to Democrats and they'll instead take a bit of a root and branch approach of what went wrong.
Obviously the bigger context is that, with very few exceptions, very few incumbents have done well in elections since 2022 - and inflation is lethal politically in a way unemployment isn't. But I'm sure there are also specifics we'll learn in the analysis of voting patterns in the coming days - one that I do think is a problem, is that I think Democrats did have a tendency to basically tell voters they're wrong. That they're wrong to complain about the economy as these three charts show, it's doing well; that they're wrong to have concerns about the mental state of the President, he's sharper than ever and have you seen the other guy. I think they maybe put a bit too much hope in the power of how things are talked about rather than how they're experienced by voters.
This is so depressing.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 05:37:22 AMI meant also Europe not just the US. Nowhere the recipe for success against the far-right was to shut up and let them roam.
What countries are you thinking of? Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria and the UK certainly aren't examples of successfully resisting a surging far right. France maybe? Unless you have an example of a far right party gaining control of government and the left winning it back, I don't see that's very helpful to our situation.
Wow, my bubble was so wrong.
One other quick thought is that I think this should make us look at Biden 2020 in a different light and worth looking at closely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:51:12 AMWhat countries are you thinking of? Spain, Germany, Italy, Austria and the UK certainly aren't examples of successfully resisting a surging far right. France maybe? Unless you have an example of a far right party gaining control of government and the left winning it back, I don't see that's very helpful to our situation.
The far right is nowhere near power in Spain, though.
It's bad enough, seeing there was no far right party 20 years ago and now Vox is third, but they are still very far behind the main two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:01:26 AMQuote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 04:55:53 AM*edit* wait, Yi said that the republicans would nominate a black man? That's quite an out there prediction.
I think I might have said the first black president would be a Republican.
I think that was a pretty common belief before Obama got elected when people thought a Colin Powell type could win as a republican
I would agree with the first woman as a republican angle. It makes sense.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 06:44:20 AMI would agree with the first woman as a republican angle. It makes sense.
Well we have an example: Kari Lake. We had lots of people who voted for Trump and then voted for her male Democratic opponent.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 05:40:09 AMThing I'm struck by is that it's a real win on all sides - by the looks of it electoral college, popular vote and a broader coalition than 2020 or 2016.
No. This is a huge win with a big mandate.
It was a massacre.
Another one. This just keeps happening to us. Just usually it is on a midterm.
Obviously the state/electoral college point is what Democrats will (and should) focus on.
But just on that popular vote point, I think turnout is probably lower and we're still at 80% reporting but Trump is on about 71 million compared to 74 million in 2020 (and 63 million in 2016). Harris is on 66 million compared to 81 million in 2020 (and 66 million in 2024).
That strikes me as a bit of a disaster. It's really important to understand who those voters are.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 07:11:19 AMNo. This is a huge win with a big mandate.
It was a massacre.
That's what I was saying, no? :hmm:
I agree anyway.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 07:14:16 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 07:11:19 AMNo. This is a huge win with a big mandate.
It was a massacre.
That's what I was saying, no? :hmm:
I agree anyway.
Yes I was agreeing that no, this was not like 2016. This was far worse.
I think Harris ran a decent traditional campaign with an impressive ground game. Unfortunately that doesn't matter anymore. I think there was a huge amount of micro-targeted anti-Harris agitprop in social media, and it mostly didn't get reported. The last week of the election my limited social media interaction hit me with several clips including one that claimed Harris would start WW III. My sense is that a non-zero number of those were AI generated, and we really don't have a good way of tracking what is going on in this environment at all. Almost all reporting was about what the campaigns and candidates were doing, which is not what most people are exposed to and hence really doesn't matter.
The other odd point is the ~10% split in states with abortion referendums between the success of the referendum and Harris. I'd be curious to see if the referendums actually suppressed voting for Harris since the voter could consider themselves as having protected abortion rights even when not supporting Harris. Unfortunately the chance for a nationwide abortion ban has just shot way up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 05:59:02 AMOne other quick thought is that I think this should make us look at Biden 2020 in a different light and worth looking at closely.
Run likeable enough white men?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJQAB9tYt1k
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I think any piece of shit left-wing voter who held their nose and withhehld their vote deserves to see the collapse of any of their pet causes. See if those consequences are more to their liking.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 07:00:17 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 06:44:20 AMI would agree with the first woman as a republican angle. It makes sense.
Well we have an example: Kari Lake. We had lots of people who voted for Trump and then voted for her male Democratic opponent.
We've also lots of examples of male offbrand trumps losing.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 07:46:21 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I think any piece of shit left-wing voter who held their nose and withhehld their vote deserves to see the collapse of any of their pet causes. See if those consequences are more to their liking.
Yeah, the astounding naivety of the Left who thought defeating Harris was the imperative so they can get what they want next time.
Cue the Monty Python "splinter" sketch.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 07:35:47 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 05:59:02 AMOne other quick thought is that I think this should make us look at Biden 2020 in a different light and worth looking at closely.
Run likeable enough white men?
Let's face it: yes. Dems have tried: a white woman, an old school white guy, and a black woman. Only one of them managed to beat Trump.
Then again, at 82, Trump shall struggle to maintain his mojo, so there's that
So, at the end of day, Harris did worse than Hillary Clinton?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 05:59:02 AMOne other quick thought is that I think this should make us look at Biden 2020 in a different light and worth looking at closely.
IMO a lot of that was due to the pandemic. In a normal year, Trump would have won that one as well.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:07:55 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 07:35:47 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2024, 05:59:02 AMOne other quick thought is that I think this should make us look at Biden 2020 in a different light and worth looking at closely.
Run likeable enough white men?
Let's face it: yes. Dems have tried: a white woman, an old school white guy, and a black woman. Only one of them managed to beat Trump.
Hardly a revelation though.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 07:46:21 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I think any piece of shit left-wing voter who held their nose and withhehld their vote deserves to see the collapse of any of their pet causes. See if those consequences are more to their liking.
They don't care. They like it that way, theh have a reason to complain about life being miserable.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 03:38:07 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:30:18 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:21:55 AMI do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
I think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
Yeah, especially as they see themselves the "no nonsense" side, I am not keen to walk on egg shells lest I disturb he delicate mental balance of people voting fascist.
I think it goes back to what I think should be the top question: do you want to feel superior about yourself or do you want to win elections?
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 08:36:39 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 03:38:07 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:30:18 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:21:55 AMI do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
I think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
Yeah, especially as they see themselves the "no nonsense" side, I am not keen to walk on egg shells lest I disturb he delicate mental balance of people voting fascist.
I think it goes back to what I think should be the top question: do you want to feel superior about yourself or do you want to win elections?
I am pretty sure not telling them they are wrong to vote Trump will not stop them voting Trump.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I'd say let's try not losing the ones we have.
Guys, I hate to make it about myself, but I think it's been clear that for a while I've been really annoyed with the left, and how it became incredibly dogmatic on some topics. If you think that I'm just being a unique snowflake, then you're really in a bubble.
What's really disheartening to see here is that so many here are doubling down on "fuck, we're just too awesome to win elections against scum, we should commit to more awesomeness". Hopefully it's just the initial disappointment and not the representative mindset.
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2024, 08:32:33 AMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 07:46:21 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I think any piece of shit left-wing voter who held their nose and withhehld their vote deserves to see the collapse of any of their pet causes. See if those consequences are more to their liking.
They don't care. They like it that way, theh have a reason to complain about life being miserable.
No doubt this describes some people. But are they really significant enough in number to matter? Do we have data on this?
The far left not voting for a moderate conservative to beat a fascist is indeed dumb. But fairly to be expected I'd say.
As you say lots of kooky accerationist theories.
What's far worse are those who really should know better, who directly stand to be in the firing line, but who have decided the funny racist woman hating crook is a better choice than a serious woman.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 08:44:28 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I'd say let's try not losing the ones we have.
Guys, I hate to make it about myself, but I think it's been clear that for a while I've been really annoyed with the left, and how it became incredibly dogmatic on some topics. If you think that I'm just being a unique snowflake, then you're really in a bubble.
What's really disheartening to see here is that so many here are doubling down on "fuck, we're just too awesome to win elections against scum, we should commit to more awesomeness". Hopefully it's just the initial disappointment and not the representative mindset.
Nobodies venting on a small message board amongst a group you have known years isn't the same thing as actual democrat party strategy in action.
Here it's perfectly fine to say fuck trump voters with a rusty spoon. Obviously not a recommendation for politicians to try and follow through with.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 03:30:18 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:21:55 AMI do recall reading a Reddit poster who was an Ohio Republican voting for Harris. He implored the others on that liberal subreddit to please not argue politics with their Republican friends who may be on the fence, because he saw multiple times how it snaps them back into Trump territory. There is something to be said about not triggering people's defensiveness and letting them arrive at a conclusion on their own.
I think it would be a mistake (and patronising) to suggest most voters didn't vote based on their own conclusions but simply as they were "triggered."
It would be a mistake to generalise about millions of people in anyway.
But this definitely does describe a certain group of people in at least part of their thinking. It's fairly basic psychology.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 08:44:28 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:28:24 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 05, 2024, 10:07:49 PMI'm calling it, there is just nothing going Kamala's way, nothing at all. Every update is just an additional nail in her coffin. The left really needs to get its shit together and decide whether it wants to win elections or signal its virtues.
Well, courting Republicans clearly hasn't worked, so next time maybe try going for more left-wing voters?
I'd say let's try not losing the ones we have.
Guys, I hate to make it about myself, but I think it's been clear that for a while I've been really annoyed with the left, and how it became incredibly dogmatic on some topics. If you think that I'm just being a unique snowflake, then you're really in a bubble.
What's really disheartening to see here is that so many here are doubling down on "fuck, we're just too awesome to win elections against scum, we should commit to more awesomeness". Hopefully it's just the initial disappointment and not the representative mindset.
Why don't we turn that around? Was the Right's answer to losing twice to Obama was to say "ok let's step back, listen to why the other half of the country was an N word who wants to ruin the country, and tone down the arrogance" or did they go full speed on the "other side is scum and enemies" bit?
But, you do have a point however what you are ignoring is that the wokeism you hate is a made-up issue. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist at all, but in the sense of practical impact on people's lives.
Let me confirm, as someone who has closely followed Hungarian politics which frankly is turning out to be the pioneer of the same dynamics playing out with some delay in the US, you absolutely do NOT need real issues to whip up fear when you have a dominating hold on your target demographics' media.
You walk back on trans rights, you kick out immigrants etc. and you will find yourself fighting again for gay rights and women's rights and who knows what else.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:53:43 AMBut, you do have a point however what you are ignoring is that the wokeism you hate is a made-up issue. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist at all, but in the sense of practical impact on people's lives.
This is bubble thinking. The left really needs to understand just how much resentment on the very fucking left their woke dogma is causing. Doesn't mean that everyone on the left with resentment stops voting left, but to me all you people who minimize the impact of wokedom just seem to live in a different reality. I understand why, the left does its best to shut off critical discussions of wokedom at the root, but please stop that minimization.
Not to mention there's strong indications that a lot of the lost votes were on the far left side of the party, not the right.
I mean the Harris campaign got the endorsement of prominent Republicans, that doesn't strike me as being too far to the left.
You can't control what everyone says on social media that might be associated with your side, and to hope that somehow the other side won't find (or make up) a soundbite to exploit and whip up fears is pointless.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 09:02:15 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:53:43 AMBut, you do have a point however what you are ignoring is that the wokeism you hate is a made-up issue. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist at all, but in the sense of practical impact on people's lives.
This is bubble thinking. The left really needs to understand just how much resentment on the very fucking left their woke dogma is causing. Doesn't mean that everyone on the left with resentment stops voting left, but to me all you people who minimize the impact of wokedom just seem to live in a different reality. I understand why, the left does its best to shut off critical discussions of wokedom at the root, but please stop that minimization.
You still don't get it.
The main source of woke dogma is from the right.
As Tamas said all it took was one ugly boxer and they were off. Zero regard for facts. Just... Red mist and concern trolling for "female" rights.
"Woke" absolutely is a real issue. But it's not the issue the right pretend it is. The centre and even much of the left generally have too many actual concerns to worry about fine tuning minority rights or somehow completely flipping the current zeitgeist and massively pushing forward trans rights.
The true issue of woke is social media and this distorted idea that somebody else having rights means you have less rights.
It's just an echo of the same zero sum shit too many believe about economics.
Fair enough the approach of ignoring it that Harris followed was wrong. But even more wrong would be just surrendering and going "Facebook says criminals posing as trans people are going to women's loos just to rape real women? OK. Trans people are banned."
A better approach was seen in Walz I think. He put it very neatly in a relatable working class way. It's about freedom. Mind your business and let others mind theirs.
Get it mentioned and out of the way then say more important than policing whether MLK is somebody whose work kids should be exposed to is the actual issues in the here and now.
Far left people who are really really obsessed with infeasible expansions to minority rights will always be a thing. They're not going anywhere. It needs to be stressed that's not what the centre is thinking about at all.
It'll take a while to process this all, but my initial thoughts are:
1. The entire DNC leadership should resign. They have completely lost touch with the American people.
OR
2. America just hates it leadership so much that the 'incumbent' will always be blamed for its problems, no matter what.
I hope 2 is true, and if so I predict the Democrats and likely Tim Walz will win the 2028 election.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 09:21:33 AMIt'll take a while to process this all, but my initial thoughts are:
1. The entire DNC leadership should resign. They have completely lost touch with the American people.
OR
2. America just hates it leadership so much that the 'incumbent' will always be blamed for its problems, no matter what.
I hope 2 is true, and if so I predict the Democrats and likely Tim Walz will win the 2028 election.
Is walz a serious prospect?
I do like what I've seen from him. He seems to hit the right chords and imagine he does well with the groups they need to win.
But I was thinking someone like him rather than he himself.
The worry with 2 is the American economy is the envy of the world. It just takes time to trickle down. Trump might take credit for Bidens good work.
That's naive of you, Cal. Elections are a thing of the past.
1. Is pretty apt, I think. My sense is that the DNC headquarters are chasing trends and hunting for tiny slivers of the electorate. I don't think it's a winning strategy: I still think they haven't figured out what to do when confronted with proto fascists (or they just don't really care that much).
Voter shift per NYT. Longer arrows = bigger shift:
(https://i.imgur.com/CuFIdAv.png)
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 09:25:07 AMTrump might take credit for Bidens good work.
Nah, Trump would never take credit for someone else's work.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 09:21:33 AMIt'll take a while to process this all, but my initial thoughts are:
1. The entire DNC leadership should resign. They have completely lost touch with the American people.
OR
2. America just hates it leadership so much that the 'incumbent' will always be blamed for its problems, no matter what.
I hope 2 is true, and if so I predict the Democrats and likely Tim Walz will win the 2028 election.
Maybe finally clear out the geriatric dross. :hmm:
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 09:25:07 AMBut I was thinking someone like him rather than he himself.
That's fair. Someone like Walz is the only candidate who can win for the Democrats. Obama was as unique a figure in American politics as Trump is (or at least, I hope he is).
In a way I am happy Trump won the popular vote as well and that the Trump Party took both houses. No excuse to hide behind for the Dems.
Also I heard it on the Rest is Politics live show('s recording) and it's hard to argue with (and it agrees with DGuller as well in a way): the Democrats have lost the culture war.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 01:52:53 AMOK so twice a woman run against Trump once a man. Can we say America is not ready for women to leave the kitchen?
It seems the majority of voters would like to return to the 50s. The 1850s, if possible.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:29:29 AMQuote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2024, 02:21:41 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:05:28 AMGuller did you see the Jersey numbers?
Check out Passaic and Bergen.
Van Drew won comfortably, and that's all you need to know.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:09:55 AMI really hope that Democrat introspection would be an open and honest one, and not a sarcastic one like "we should lie without shame, our women should be back in the kitchen", and so on.
They've lost grip on an important constituency, and clearly they didn't get enough in return. We may not have too many more free and fair elections, let's try to extract the right lessons this time.
The lesson here is people are self-interested scum. I want to move out of Cumberland (Trump country) because the yokels are already so insufferable.
The south of New Jersey has always been Alabama. Bergen county, however, is exactly the kind of demographic that Democrats should be capturing: suburban highly educated folks that probably commute to NYC. To be almost even with Trump there? There is clearly a message there.
Maybe I haven't been here long enough, but I'm only mildly surprised by Bergen, Passaic, and (to a lesser extent) Morris. My impression is that the highly-educated in Bergen are more likely to be in jobs and income brackets where their self-interest supersedes their politics. Contrast Bergen with Essex, where I feel these people are more likely to be in media (and which was the most blue county this election). Then there's the whole Highway 17 corridor, which has always struck me as the kind of area Trump has been doing unexpectedly well in. In Passaic it may have been that head-scratching Hispanic vote that tiled the county.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2024, 09:48:53 AMMaybe I haven't been here long enough, but I'm only mildly surprised by Bergen, Passaic, and (to a lesser extent) Morris. My impression is that the highly-educated in Bergen are more likely to be in jobs and income brackets where their self-interest supersedes their politics. Contrast Bergen with Essex, where I feel these people are more likely to be in media (and which was the most blue county this election). Then there's the whole Highway 17 corridor, which has always struck me as the kind of area Trump has been doing unexpectedly well in. In Passaic it may have been that head-scratching Hispanic vote that tiled the county.
The Hispanic vote really isn't that head-scratching. As a voting bloc they are not interested in identity politics, and are by and large poor, so the messaging that resonates with them is 'give us more money'. The Democrats have been trying to treat them the same as black voters, and that doesn't and isn't going to work.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 09:41:30 AMIn a way I am happy Trump won the popular vote as well and that the Trump Party took both houses. No excuse to hide behind for the Dems.
I was thinking the opposite. There is no excuse for Trump and the Trump Party to not do all the things they promised.
But of course mysteriously nobody ever seems to remember any of the policies Trump promised and they seem to just lap up whatever he does do, so maybe that is not even a factor. :wacko:
QuoteAlso I heard it on the Rest is Politics live show('s recording) and it's hard to argue with (and it agrees with DGuller as well in a way): the Democrats have lost the culture war.
The culture war is a weird thing though. It was around 2016 that people were saying we needed to shut up about it because the left had obviously won, only for it to almost immediately be lost again.
So we'll see on that one. The problem is that this is not a political issue but a cultural one and it comes from the core supporters not some political strategy.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 09:53:46 AMThe Democrats have been trying to treat them the same as black voters, and that doesn't and isn't going to work.
Sure but the Democrats have plenty of Hispanics in the party. But they do not seem to be providing any guidance or leadership here. The problem with Hispanics was obvious four years ago. People were sounding the alarm. But for whatever reason the Party was unable to respond.
I am, of course, completely clueless. I could think of many people who might pull Hispanic votes but Donald Trump was not on my list. He has the juice. That has always been obvious.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:07:55 AMLet's face it: yes. Dems have tried: a white woman, an old school white guy, and a black woman. Only one of them managed to beat Trump.
It might help, but I think we need to integrate Obama's two terms into this analysis. There is definitely a backlash side to that but there are also much talked about Obama-Trump swing voters.
Obviously I would say this because it agrees with my priors, but I remember saying in 2020 that there were basically two strategies from the Democratic candidates: one was to double down on college-educated Americans and minorities (the "Obama coalition") which I think was the strategy of, say, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris; the other was to keep fighting for working class Americans and orient your position around them (without giving ground on other issues), which was Sanders and Biden. Basically a white collar v blue collar Democratic strategy - I'd also put Clinton in the first camp.
And I wonder if part of it - which is why we distinguish Obama - is that how his coalition has been interpreted is college educated plus minorities, which is a really important part of it but not all of it. But I think the most baffling state level result in recent years is Obama winning Indiana in 2008 - and in both 2008 and 2012 he performed really strongly in mid-Western states. Part of that may be Illinois/Chicago effect but I also wonder if part of it - in the context of the crash and bank bailouts etc - is that he was also able to pick up that blue collar support. And perhaps that is the key bit? We underestimate Obama's appeal for a specific blue collar constituency.
I could be totally wrong and this is just my priors but I think if you're on the left of politics you can't give up the space around class and trying to win working class voters because, without that, what are you even for? I hope that's something the Democrats look at. (I'd add that from a UK perspective Starmer's campaign team are absolutely focused on class and working class voters - they do not want to cede a single working class voter to the Tories or Reform - I think it's also true of the more successful centre-left parties in the rest of Europe - and the one incumbent who has done well in recent years: Morena.)
Also I do think the political correctness (and I don't mean "wokeness" here) hurt Democrats because they were not able to say things that were obviously true and of concern to voters. Whether it's Biden's health, how good a candidate Harris was, or even issues like cost of living or immigration. There's been far too many examples of Democrats thinking they can remove an issue from voters minds by simply refusing to talk about it. And people who pushed against that there were criticised for not getting on board, or hurting your own side or using Republican talking points. I think it's a particular weakness against Trump because he isn't a traditional disciplined, focus-grouped, on message candidate with talking points - but I also think the culture prevented really significant problems being addressed properly, or more convincing, empathetic arguments being worked out.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 09:41:30 AMAlso I heard it on the Rest is Politics live show('s recording) and it's hard to argue with (and it agrees with DGuller as well in a way): the Democrats have lost the culture war.
That's a pretty definitive statement. If it were true, then Keri Lake wouldn't be trailing well below the national ticket in Arizona, Robinson wouldn't have been crushed etc.
Numbers are still coming in. But what it looks like is: (1) significant chunk of Democratic voters stayed home, and (2) since 2016 there has been a small bloc of voters (around 1% maybe a little more) that flips back and forth and votes against the party in power.
It's a free country (still), so construct any grand narrative you want, but I don't think the data is going to support it.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 09:02:15 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:53:43 AMBut, you do have a point however what you are ignoring is that the wokeism you hate is a made-up issue. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist at all, but in the sense of practical impact on people's lives.
This is bubble thinking. The left really needs to understand just how much resentment on the very fucking left their woke dogma is causing. Doesn't mean that everyone on the left with resentment stops voting left, but to me all you people who minimize the impact of wokedom just seem to live in a different reality. I understand why, the left does its best to shut off critical discussions of wokedom at the root, but please stop that minimization.
Please give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 09:02:15 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 08:53:43 AMBut, you do have a point however what you are ignoring is that the wokeism you hate is a made-up issue. Not in the sense that it doesn't exist at all, but in the sense of practical impact on people's lives.
This is bubble thinking. The left really needs to understand just how much resentment on the very fucking left their woke dogma is causing. Doesn't mean that everyone on the left with resentment stops voting left, but to me all you people who minimize the impact of wokedom just seem to live in a different reality. I understand why, the left does its best to shut off critical discussions of wokedom at the root, but please stop that minimization.
Please give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
False alarm guys, it turns out woke isn't real.
Ok this is for DG not so much for Chip (although feel free to chip in), what's a particular woke thing, that you think is done regularly and the Democrats should either not do it or if they haven't been doing it, also call out against it.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMPlease give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
I live in a NYC area. A whole lot of stores have a lot of their merchandise locked away behind glass these days. That used to happen only in very dangerous neighborhoods. I've had several incidents just in the last year where I'm stuck in a subway car with a clearly aggressive homeless person, and all I'm thinking is "please don't draw his attention, make him harass someone else", because I'm stuck in a metal box there. That gives a very clear feeling that something is not right in the society.
Why did that come about? Because wokedom suppressed balanced adult discussions about policing, and eventually because of a thumb on the scale of discussion policies were enacted that essentially gave up on enforcement of petty crimes. A couple of months ago, the last time I was in a subway car with a homeless person walking around terrifying passengers who were all frozen, I had a though that a couple of Trump voters were born that day. People really value not being scared above almost everything else.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 10:42:02 AMOk this is for DG not so much for Chip (although feel free to chip in), what's a particular woke thing, that you think is done regularly and the Democrats should either not do it or if they haven't been doing it, also call out against it.
Pro-Hamas campus hate encampments.
Wow, police ignoring petty crimes is woke? I guess that word really does mean absolutely nothing.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:50:58 AMWow, police ignoring petty crimes is woke? I guess that word really does mean absolutely nothing.
(https://wisehome.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/3wise.jpg)
Also, I think asking for "practical impact" of wokedom is already biasing a discussion in a certain direction. The guiding question should be "why is the left losing some on the left"? The "practical impact" question implicitly assumes that there had to be practical impacts causing it, but that goes down the well-worn path of "your feelings are wrong, look at these statistics". I think one of the issues with wokedom is that it disenfranchised people from opining on issues. Even if those issues are not practical to them, people really resent being disenfranchised.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:50:58 AMWow, police ignoring petty crimes is woke? I guess that word really does mean absolutely nothing.
With all due respect, this is an incredibly stupid post that indicates lack of willingness to ever engage in a discussion. Now this kind of behavior is a woke trait.
(https://i.redd.it/5htogan1vazd1.jpeg)
Pandering to moderate Republicans is a losing strategy. They will never vote Democrat. Democrats should get their votes from people on the left who can actually be swayed.
Can't do that. The Capital class doesn't like that.
Ok DG trying to understand your point. Rise in petty crime is because of wokeism preventing police to tackle it by making them afraid to act.
In this context, is the woke part an overreaction/cancellation due to perceived racism (police won't catch an ethnic thief because they'll get fired), or simply the woke part is using force (not lethal, just force) against who are considered downtrodden victims by the woke crowd?
In the latter case, do we know of any actual instances, where police stepping up to throw homeless off subways got into trouble with the public?
I dunno, in the example given it seems to me that the way to solve it is to help the homeless person via social work instead of having the police throw them off the subway. But I guess that would be woke.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 11:03:13 AMOk DG trying to understand your point. Rise in petty crime is because of wokeism preventing police to tackle it by making them afraid to act.
It's not wokeism that prevents police from acting, it's the policies and the direction from above. Police are afraid to act against policies (and should be). The policies are enacted as a result of a debate that is devoid of critical thinking. Social justice arguments get uncritical acceptance, and a lot of arguments in favor of status quo policing (as of then) wouldn't even be made because you could get canceled making them (even if they're factually correct).
A week ago I watched a John Oliver video about traffic stops, and the element of race involved. I had to stop watching because the lack of good faith in the statistical arguments presented was just too much. Frankly I don't want to get into the details of why I found his arguments to be in incredibly bad faith, because tI'm not comfortable talking about that publicly.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 11:03:13 AMIn the latter case, do we know of any actual instances, where police stepping up to throw homeless off subways got into trouble with the public?
Not so much with the public but there have been controversies about this in New York.
See the Guardian article and condemnation of "criminalising homelessness" for plans to enforce transit rules (from Cuomo):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/12/new-york-homeless-subways-police-crackdown
Three years later there was a NYT article about the city planning to enforce transit rules more strictly and provide more mental health services following a reported increase in violence (from Adams):
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/nyregion/homeless-people-subway-trains-mta.html
I think there have been a lot of rows around this issue in New York specifically, not least because there's 24 hour trains and a long history of the homeless sleeping there. It's one of those issues where I'm very left wing (we have in the past basically ended rough sleeping and it shouldn't exist in a wealthy society), and right wing (trains are for transit not being a dual purpose homeless shelter). I also think a lot of the public are similarly placed.
With petty crime I have similar fairly draconian views because I think it is only petty if you don't live in an area affected by it, or don't work in a sector (I've seen multiple thefts from my local Co-op which is now basically like a bank in security levels round the till - and spirits section crucially). The quality of life impact is really high for people in those areas and jobs (I think there's something about privilege here of the views on petty crime). I also always think about the City of London police seeing a 90% reduction in bike thefts because they arrested 4 people who were basically organised criminals stealing and fencing bikes. It is petty but has a quality of life impact and, in this case, was actually also not petty - it was low-level organised crime.
I wouldn't frame this around woke - I think a lot of it for me is about erosion of public trust and a shared, public common space. I think the next step (which you already see in the US) will be private security, private communities, insurance filling that gap - again leaving the poor exposed.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:58:24 AM(https://i.redd.it/5htogan1vazd1.jpeg)
Pandering to moderate Republicans is a losing strategy. They will never vote Democrat. Democrats should get their votes from people on the left who can actually be swayed.
Check the figures for independents
Isn't this an obvious example of woke activism impacting on people and dragging down the Dems with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
So Iowa went Trump 55, Harris 42. I guess that poll everyone was going on about (which had Harris up by 3 points in Iowa) was just a good old-fashioned rogue poll.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:33:14 AMSo Iowa went Trump 55, Harris 42. I guess that poll everyone was going on about (which had Harris up by 3 points in Iowa) was just a good old-fashioned rogue poll.
I wonder if polls like that actually lowered on the fence Democrat voter turn out.
*edit* although, I guess with these results I don't know if it would have made a huge difference
Incidentally I thought this was interesting and something I got totally wrong - as I thought Harris should have gone even harder on abortion. But I feel like this is maybe an area where voters really see Trump as different from the rest of the Republicans, that Harris only leads among people who think it should legal in most cases by 3 points:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbrVYIAWEAE7B0F?format=png&name=900x900)
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMPlease give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
So here's the thing - sometimes people vote on issues that DON'T majorly impact people's lives.
You wouldn't tell a man they shouldn't care about abortion because it doesn't impact them, would you? Or tell a white voter they shouldn't care about racism?
We know a certain number of people made up their minds because of "wokeism". Telling those people that "wokeism" doesn't exist is not going to convince them to change their vote, because they certainly think it does.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 10:45:16 AMA couple of months ago, the last time I was in a subway car with a homeless person walking around terrifying passengers who were all frozen, I had a though that a couple of Trump voters were born that day.
As a regular rider of the NYC subway going back decades, there is nothing new about that. I had regular experiences like that during the Obama years and yet Obama won 2 elections comfortably; the word woke did not even exist in the political lexicon.
The last mayoral election in NYC, the super liberal New York democrats picked a cop running on a law-and-order platform and rejected more lefty alternatives. Woke was not a factor. Maybe it should have been, maybe we should have woke up to the fact that the man was corrupt.
Whatever you want to say about Kamala Harris, she did not run a woke campaign. Every appearance again and again she went on about being a prosecutor and putting away drug gangs. Not one Palestinian-American was allowed to show their face in the entire campaign, but Liz Cheney was everywhere. If anything, assuming the final tally confirms that Democratic turnout was down, the facts would seem to suggest that she erred by trying too hard to chase the middle and didn't do enough to keep her own base happy.
DG I get that you don't like the rhetoric and you have a gut feeling it is impacting elections, but you are a data driven guy. Where's the data?
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 10:45:16 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMPlease give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
I live in a NYC area. A whole lot of stores have a lot of their merchandise locked away behind glass these days. That used to happen only in very dangerous neighborhoods. I've had several incidents just in the last year where I'm stuck in a subway car with a clearly aggressive homeless person, and all I'm thinking is "please don't draw his attention, make him harass someone else", because I'm stuck in a metal box there. That gives a very clear feeling that something is not right in the society.
Why did that come about? Because wokedom suppressed balanced adult discussions about policing, and eventually because of a thumb on the scale of discussion policies were enacted that essentially gave up on enforcement of petty crimes. A couple of months ago, the last time I was in a subway car with a homeless person walking around terrifying passengers who were all frozen, I had a though that a couple of Trump voters were born that day. People really value not being scared above almost everything else.
But NYC had elected a tough on crime mayor...
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:33:14 AMSo Iowa went Trump 55, Harris 42. I guess that poll everyone was going on about (which had Harris up by 3 points in Iowa) was just a good old-fashioned rogue poll.
I guess that poll, and the guy with 13 indicators, once again shows the fallacy of champion coin-flipper argument. It also shows that Nate Silver is pretty good at this, no matter how annoying you find him. He was pretty much on point predicting that despite close polling, the most likely scenario is either Trump or Harris sweeping every battleground state, and that's exactly what happened.
Pre-election I was listening to a podcast that had James Carville on it. He is always an entertaining listen, and he can have some good insights. He's the one who came up with "it's the economy, stupid" during Clinton's 1992 campaign.
He was saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that one of the things voters care most about is order. So it's not quite so much that "wokeness" hurts democrats, but disorder. So the massive 2020 protests, the campus anti-Israel protests, very visible homelessness and lawlessness (Canada, but I visibly saw people shoplifting twice in the last week who were called out by clerks, but otherwise made no attempt to stop them).
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 11:42:33 AMQuote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:33:14 AMSo Iowa went Trump 55, Harris 42. I guess that poll everyone was going on about (which had Harris up by 3 points in Iowa) was just a good old-fashioned rogue poll.
I guess that poll, and the guy with 13 indicators, once again shows the fallacy of champion coin-flipper argument. It also shows that Nate Silver is pretty good at this, no matter how annoying you find him. He was pretty much on point predicting that despite close polling, the most likely scenario is either Trump or Harris sweeping every battleground state, and that's exactly what happened.
So the "13 indicators guy" is just a whole bunch of totally subjective factors with little to no rigour to them, so I would totally agree.
The Selzer Iowa poll was very rigorous with fairly minimal "smoothing", which is why it's supposed to be such a high-quality poll. But polls just sometimes get it wrong. It's the whole "+/- 3 points, 19 times out of 20". This seems like it was just the 20th poll.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 11:41:21 AMThe last mayoral election in NYC, the super liberal New York democrats picked a cop running on a law-and-order platform and rejected more lefty alternatives. Woke was not a factor. Maybe it should have been, maybe we should have woke up to the fact that the man was corrupt.
Woke was a factor in that a backlash to tone-deaf wokism made New Yorkers elect someone who was anti-woke, even if it was fairly obvious that he was going to be a shit and corrupt mayor.
QuoteWhatever you want to say about Kamala Harris, she did not run a woke campaign. Every appearance again and again she went on about being a prosecutor and putting away drug gangs. Not one Palestinian-American was allowed to show their face in the entire campaign, but Liz Cheney was everywhere. If anything, assuming the final tally confirms that Democratic turnout was down, the facts would seem to suggest that if anything she erred by trying too hard to chase the middle and didn't do enough to keep her own base happy.
No, she didn't run a woke campaign at all. I think both her and Joe Biden understood what poison wokism was. The problem is that the people on the left that were lost were already lost and unreachable by her.
QuoteDG I get that you don't like the rhetoric and you have a gut feeling it is impacting elections, but you are a data driven guy. Where's the data?
I am a data guy, but I'm the rare data guy that understands that data can't answer everything, and that it's a catastrophic blunder to try to answer with data something that can't be answered with data. For example, I am a very firm believer in "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".
My opinion is definitely driven by my experience, not data. My experience is this: I know several liberals like myself who are actually as anti-woke as I am. According to people here, such people shouldn't exist in significant numbers. There is also another gut feeling adding to my opinion. When we discuss our anti-woke liberalism, we do it much like my parents' generation would: quietly, after looking left and right.
DG basically you are saying that the problem is not the leading Democratic Party politician and operatives, who are savvy enough to avoid woke rhetoric. The problem is ordinary Democrat voters or supporters or fringy minor office holders who come into contact with decent Americans and turn them off. What then is the solution? Mass self-censorship? Hakim Jeffries to form vigilante squads to gag Park Slope progressives and hide their $1000 strollers? The Cone of Silence to be deployed on college campuses?
I'm being facetious but seriously. What is the equivalent in Trumpworld. The Proud Boys. MTG and her space lasers. Nick Fuentes and other genuine rah yeah Hitler Nazis. The Christian theocrats who want to criminalize all abortions no exceptions and deploy bounty hunters to hunt down teenage rape victims who leave to state to terminate. You are saying that people see all that and are prepared to live with it, but if someone says the terrifying words "structural racism" it reduces those same people to unreasoning hysteria? Perhaps you are right and I can't see past my bubble but I genuinely don't get that.
Can I also suggest that Harris was also just kind of a boring candidate, and would have been unlikely to survive the nomination process?
I heard her speak a few times. I mean she was 'fine', but she didn't have the huge charisma of an Obama (or Trump), wasn't running on any particular inspiring policy or platform, and just didn't give people much a reason to vote for her?
In fact - should we be blaming Jim Clyburn for today? He famously saved Biden's campaign for the nomination in 2020 by endorsing Biden before the South Carolina primary which shifted numerous black voters. In exchange though Clyburn wanted Biden to pick a woman of colour for VP. That wound up being Harris. And then precisely because Harris was a woman of colour Biden had no choice but to keep her in 2024.
If the 2020 Veep candidate had been Pete Buttigieg how differently would things have turned out?
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 11:13:12 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 11:03:13 AMOk DG trying to understand your point. Rise in petty crime is because of wokeism preventing police to tackle it by making them afraid to act.
It's not wokeism that prevents police from acting, it's the policies and the direction from above. Police are afraid to act against policies (and should be). The policies are enacted as a result of a debate that is devoid of critical thinking. Social justice arguments get uncritical acceptance, and a lot of arguments in favor of status quo policing (as of then) wouldn't even be made because you could get canceled making them (even if they're factually correct).
A week ago I watched a John Oliver video about traffic stops, and the element of race involved. I had to stop watching because the lack of good faith in the statistical arguments presented was just too much. Frankly I don't want to get into the details of why I found his arguments to be in incredibly bad faith, because tI'm not comfortable talking about that publicly.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:39:33 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMPlease give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
So here's the thing - sometimes people vote on issues that DON'T majorly impact people's lives.
You wouldn't tell a man they shouldn't care about abortion because it doesn't impact them, would you? Or tell a white voter they shouldn't care about racism?
We know a certain number of people made up their minds because of "wokeism". Telling those people that "wokeism" doesn't exist is not going to convince them to change their vote, because they certainly think it does.
Ok. Certainly I am not on the cutting edge of current liberal thinking on everything. Trans rights vs. protecting women for example, I am not JK Rowling but I am still uncomfortable with the whole thing.
What I propose to consider is: I think what you are doing is taking what is the difference between you and what you think is the liberal/progressive mainstream, and label that woke. Maybe those difference instead are the things where you are more conservative than the progressive side you consider to be part of.
This sounds like a trivial non-difference but it actually is a difference. "Wokeism" implies something new and radical that can be stopped. While in fact it is just the natural drift of cultural and political norms with age. You are not forced to agree with it but also it is not just a switch that you can just turn off and get back to the mid-90s version of liberalism that you and I spent our formative years in.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 12:12:53 PMCan I also suggest that Harris was also just kind of a boring candidate, and would have been unlikely to survive the nomination process?
I agree. She wouldn't have.... look how quickly she got bounced out of the 2020 primaries. I content a Tim Walz-like candidate would have prevailed in a 2024 open Democratic primary, and then had a better shot against Trump.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:39:33 AMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 10:27:18 AMPlease give examples of how "woke dogma" has majorly impacted people's lives. Shit made up by conservatives doesn't count.
So here's the thing - sometimes people vote on issues that DON'T majorly impact people's lives.
You wouldn't tell a man they shouldn't care about abortion because it doesn't impact them, would you? Or tell a white voter they shouldn't care about racism?
We know a certain number of people made up their minds because of "wokeism". Telling those people that "wokeism" doesn't exist is not going to convince them to change their vote, because they certainly think it does.
I'm not talking about a certain number of people, I am talking about DGuller who I thought was smart but who seems convinced "wokeism" exists.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:06:40 PMDG basically you are saying that the problem is not the leading Democratic Party politician and operatives, who are savvy enough to avoid woke rhetoric. The problem is ordinary Democrat voters or supporters or fringy minor office holders who come into contact with decent Americans and turn them off. What then is the solution? Mass self-censorship? Hakim Jeffries to form vigilante squads to gag Park Slope progressives and hide their $1000 strollers? The Cone of Silence to be deployed on college campuses?
Harris definitely did not run on an identity-based campaign. I doubt very much she ever uttered the word "woke".
But she never denounced it either. She never had her "Sister Souljah moment".
And yes - Trump never denounced the Proud Boys or space lasers either. But apparently he didn't need to.
FWIW misdemeanors in NYC are lower than they were in 2017 and at a very low level historically. I.e. it was 374,000 in Obama's re-election year of 2012 and 287,000 last year. I suspect numbers would be pretty similar in other cities.
The low point in NYC misdemeanors (pre COVID) occurred during the mayoralty of the notoriously woke Bill de Blasio who presided over a continuous and very significant decrease in offense levels over the course of his term in office.
I get the argument that facts don't matter only perceptions but at a certain point the cognitive dissonance becomes ridiculous.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:06:40 PMDG basically you are saying that the problem is not the leading Democratic Party politician and operatives, who are savvy enough to avoid woke rhetoric. The problem is ordinary Democrat voters or supporters or fringy minor office holders who come into contact with decent Americans and turn them off. What then is the solution? Mass self-censorship? Hakim Jeffries to form vigilante squads to gag Park Slope progressives and hide their $1000 strollers? The Cone of Silence to be deployed on college campuses?
I'm being facetious but seriously. What is the equivalent in Trumpworld. The Proud Boys. MTG and her space lasers. Nick Fuentes and other genuine rah yeah Hitler Nazis. The Christian theocrats who want to criminalize all abortions no exceptions and deploy bounty hunters to hunt down teenage rape victims who leave to state to terminate. You are saying that people see all that and are prepared to live with it, but if someone says the terrifying words "structural racism" it reduces those same people to unreasoning hysteria? Perhaps you are right and I can't see past my bubble but I genuinely don't get that.
I don't know what the solution is besides just a culture shift in discourse on the left. I do recognize that a lot of the worst elements of the left come from grassroots, not the party.
That said, one thing the party can certainly stop doing is saying "My VP will be a woman" or "The next Supreme Court justice will be a black woman". This stuff did come directly from a Democratic politician, the highest profile one at that, and it sent a clear message that racism and sexism has been normalized as long as it's against the right race or sex. In fact, the lack of any pushback from Democrats against such statements can also be interpreted that Democrats see it as not only okay, but even virtuous.
I think Democrats vastly underestimated just how poorly such identity politics play, and not just among white men.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 12:14:57 PMI agree. She wouldn't have.... look how quickly she got bounced out of the 2020 primaries. I content a Tim Walz-like candidate would have prevailed in a 2024 open Democratic primary, and then had a better shot against Trump.
Yeah a competitive primary process instead of "her turn" would be one suggestion. :hmm:
I'm very glad this election was decided by a full court press rather than some lawsuit or voter suppression or some dipshit in Wisconsin.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:18:45 PMFWIW misdemeanors in NYC are lower than they were in 2017 and at a very low level historically. I.e. it was 374,000 in Obama's re-election year of 2012 and 287,000 last year. I suspect numbers would be pretty similar in other cities.
The low point in NYC misdemeanors (pre COVID) occurred during the mayoralty of the notoriously woke Bill de Blasio who presided over a continuous and very significant decrease in offense levels over the course of his term in office.
I get the argument that facts don't matter only perceptions but at a certain point the cognitive dissonance becomes ridiculous.
Part of it is my fault. When a year or so ago I walked past a guy jerking off right there on the corner of 27th street and 5th Ave, at 6 pm, I didn't report him. I'm guessing that petty crime and quality of life crime never gets reported all that consistently, and it certainly gets reported less often when it becomes normalized. Maybe you've been around men jerking off during Obama years as well, but for me it was a new experience.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 06, 2024, 12:22:12 PMQuote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 12:14:57 PMI agree. She wouldn't have.... look how quickly she got bounced out of the 2020 primaries. I content a Tim Walz-like candidate would have prevailed in a 2024 open Democratic primary, and then had a better shot against Trump.
Yeah a competitive primary process instead of "her turn" would be one suggestion. :hmm:
By the time Biden stepped down Harris was the only possible nominee. It wasn't a "her turn" energy like it was for Hillary in 2016, but rather as the sitting VP she was the only choice.
The counter though is if Biden had not run again in 2024 and there was an open nomination there's no guarantee a moderate would win the nomination. Would it instead have been Kirsten Gillibrand as the nominee?
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:28:34 PMMaybe you've been around men jerking off during Obama years as well, but for me it was a new experience.
For real- that's a new experience? How much time did you spend in NYC before 2016?
If the claim is that misdemeanors went down by almost 100,000 because people stopped reporting, I can't take that seriously.
Crazy homeless people are what NYC was known for before they Disney-fied downtown.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:34:39 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:28:34 PMMaybe you've been around men jerking off during Obama years as well, but for me it was a new experience.
For real- that's a new experience? How much time did you spend in NYC before 2016?
If the claim is that misdemeanors went down by almost 100,000 because people stopped reporting, I can't take that seriously.
I think it's entirely possible the drop in misdemeanours in NYC is because of the end of the "stop-and-frisk" policy.
Or not.
WHile measuring the number of charged laid (or number of convictions) is quite easy, measuring crime itself is much more difficult.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 12:16:44 PMI'm not talking about a certain number of people, I am talking about DGuller who I thought was smart but who seems convinced "wokeism" exists.
So when you hear someone you consider smart saying something you disagree with, your instinct is to no longer regard them as smart? Personally my instinct is "if a smart person is saying something I disagree with, maybe I can learn from them".
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 12:39:30 PMI think it's entirely possible the drop in misdemeanours in NYC is because of the end of the "stop-and-frisk" policy.
That could explain drops in certain kinds of possession misdemeanors.
But it couldn't explain declines in (e.g.) minor assault offenses or criminal trespass.
Another problem in the "woke" theory is how do you explain why the Democrats won in 2020 in the wake of the massive BLM protests? Why did the GOP underperform so badly in 2022, arguably the woke high tide? Why only in 2024, with woke rhetoric on the decline and the party leadership actively de-emphasizing it, did voters turn suddenly against Democrats?
Quote from: chipwich on November 06, 2024, 02:52:33 AMYes, a President should enforce the laws and protect the border; or in Trump's case make an empty promise to enforce the laws and protect the border. Much better than pretending that immigration abuse isn't a problem.
Given that nobody was "pretending that immigration abuse isn't a problem," I have no idea what you are arguing. The border didn't get fixed under Biden because Republicans vetoed any attempt to fix it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:34:39 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:28:34 PMMaybe you've been around men jerking off during Obama years as well, but for me it was a new experience.
For real- that's a new experience? How much time did you spend in NYC before 2016?
Yes, it was a new experience. I started working in NYC from 2016 on, so I didn't spend that much time in NYC between when I moved out of it and 2016. That said, the number of masturbating men I encountered, deliberately or accidentally, was zero for all years before 2024.
I did take PATH and subway trains for all the years I've lived in US regularly, except for the COVID years, my personal experience was what I said it was. At no time during the last 20 years I've commuted in trains I've felt unsafe, until the last couple of years when it became a very regular occurrence.
You can minimize my experience, you can say how all your life you've been around people who were shooting at you with one hand and cranking one out with their other, it's just part of life, or you can take it as a data point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:45:03 PMAnother problem in the "woke" theory is how do you explain why the Democrats won in 2020 in the wake of the massive BLM protests? Why did the GOP underperform so badly in 2022, arguably the woke high tide? Why only in 2024, with woke rhetoric on the decline and the party leadership actively de-emphasizing it, did voters turn suddenly against Democrats?
Anti-incumbency.
2020 Trump was the incumbent so he wore the BLM protests. 2022 I'm not so sure about the GOP underperforming - they seemed to do pretty well (and of course were not the incumbents).
2024 Harris had a large headwind against her being closely tied to the incumbent. She needed every advantage going her way, and wokeism wasn't helping.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:45:03 PMAnother problem in the "woke" theory is how do you explain why the Democrats won in 2020 in the wake of the massive BLM protests? Why did the GOP underperform so badly in 2022, arguably the woke high tide? Why only in 2024, with woke rhetoric on the decline and the party leadership actively de-emphasizing it, did voters turn suddenly against Democrats?
I already addressed that. I think Democrats in reality lost in 2020, because they missed their rare chance to run up the numbers, and in the end what they did win was insufficient to do what needed to be done (thanks Sinema and Manchin). They were poised to win very big, and they almost didn't win at all. I think BLM was a big part of that.
When you win small on your good hands and lose big on your bad hands, you're losing.
I lived/visited NYC frequently from 1999 to 2010, and I think my masturbating man count is 2 and sleeping bum on the subway is too frequent to even consider tracking. By that estimate you are probably due another black swan event in the next couple of years.
Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2024, 12:56:59 PMI lived/visited NYC frequently from 1999 to 2010, and I think my masturbating man count is 2 and sleeping bum on the subway is too frequent to even consider tracking. By that estimate you are probably due another black swan event in the next couple of years.
Sleeping bums on the subway were always a thing. Menacing bums on the subway were not.
Quote from: Gups on November 06, 2024, 11:32:51 AMIsn't this an obvious example of woke activism impacting on people and dragging down the Dems with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
Doesn't seem so obvious given that the Democrats won the presidential and House elections that year.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 12:51:20 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 12:45:03 PMAnother problem in the "woke" theory is how do you explain why the Democrats won in 2020 in the wake of the massive BLM protests? Why did the GOP underperform so badly in 2022, arguably the woke high tide? Why only in 2024, with woke rhetoric on the decline and the party leadership actively de-emphasizing it, did voters turn suddenly against Democrats?
Anti-incumbency.
2020 Trump was the incumbent so he wore the BLM protests. 2022 I'm not so sure about the GOP underperforming - they seemed to do pretty well (and of course were not the incumbents).
2024 Harris had a large headwind against her being closely tied to the incumbent. She needed every advantage going her way, and wokeism wasn't helping.
In your opinion what were the wokeist elements either in her campaign or in public life associated with her party?
In retrospect, I think that the better Democratic strategy may have been the platform of "we already have given you everything Trump promises, except for the border, where he vetoed our plan."
The problem that the Democrats had was that the average voter didn't understand how well off they (finally) were, so were vulnerable to the ridiculous claim that "America is broken and only Trump can fix it.".
I see Trump got less total votes than in 2020, but Harris did even worse. I guess it's all about turn out.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 01:13:25 PMIn your opinion what were the wokeist elements either in her campaign or in public life associated with her party?
Well she was stung by the allegations that she was a "DEI hire", because it was true in a way. Biden made her his VP precisely because she was a black woman.
Not it's not to say she was unqualified - she was a senator from a major state, state DA before that. But it kind of sticks to some people.
Then I conceded her campaign stayed very far away from those kind of themes. She never talked about being the first woman President. But the wider stuff in the left-wing ecosystem which she didn't endorse, but didn't distance herself either.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:39:34 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 12:16:44 PMI'm not talking about a certain number of people, I am talking about DGuller who I thought was smart but who seems convinced "wokeism" exists.
So when you hear someone you consider smart saying something you disagree with, your instinct is to no longer regard them as smart? Personally my instinct is "if a smart person is saying something I disagree with, maybe I can learn from them".
No, my instinct is that I've seen so much whining about "wokism" (meaning absolutely anything that person does not like), that it's hard for me to take seriously anyone using that term.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 01:19:42 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 01:13:25 PMIn your opinion what were the wokeist elements either in her campaign or in public life associated with her party?
Well she was stung by the allegations that she was a "DEI hire", because it was true in a way. Biden made her his VP precisely because she was a black woman.
Not it's not to say she was unqualified - she was a senator from a major state, state DA before that. But it kind of sticks to some people.
Then I conceded her campaign stayed very far away from those kind of themes. She never talked about being the first woman President. But the wider stuff in the left-wing ecosystem which she didn't endorse, but didn't distance herself either.
I also think that Shapiro was out of the running as veep because he was an outspoken pro-Israel Jew, so that's another area where wokedom had some influence influence. Anti-Israeli sentiment isn't just a woke phenomenon, but it definitely has wokedom on its side, with all the usual selective standards of justice applied.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 01:27:11 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:39:34 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 12:16:44 PMI'm not talking about a certain number of people, I am talking about DGuller who I thought was smart but who seems convinced "wokeism" exists.
So when you hear someone you consider smart saying something you disagree with, your instinct is to no longer regard them as smart? Personally my instinct is "if a smart person is saying something I disagree with, maybe I can learn from them".
No, my instinct is that I've seen so much whining about "wokism" (meaning absolutely anything that person does not like), that it's hard for me to take seriously anyone using that term.
I have a feeling that you have a hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks differently from you. The reasons may be situational, but the outcome will be the same.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 01:18:07 PMI see Trump got less total votes than in 2020, but Harris did even worse. I guess it's all about turn out.
Yeah here is Texas for instance.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gbtmpa-XIA06yZI?format=jpg&name=small)
You can clearly see Valmy's house. :D ;)
Sheilbh was correct. Man got battered in here but he was right. Should've had a primary.
That is such a horrible result for us. This election was a disaster for the Texas Democratic Party. Most of the progress we made over the past decade was washed away and it is because we bombed the Hispanic vote. I have no idea why, obviously this was a problem 4 and 2 years ago but this was on a different level.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 01:44:19 PMThat is such a horrible result for us. This election was a disaster for the Texas Democratic Party. Most of the progress we made over the past decade was washed away and it is because we bombed the Hispanic vote. I have no idea why, obviously this was a problem 4 and 2 years ago but this was on a different level.
I already answered the question as to why earlier in this thread. Hispanic voters don't respond to identity politics. The Republicans convinced everyone the economy was doing badly, and voters who tend to be poorer don't have the energy to care about idealistic things like trans rights, affirmative action, and so on. They want someone who promises them that they'll be able to pay their bills. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, dude.
North Carolina actually came out of this better, but that's only because we were in such a deep hole. Democrats kept the Governorship and the veto proof Republican Congress has been broken.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 06, 2024, 01:44:15 PMSheilbh was correct. Man got battered in here but he was right. Should've had a primary.
Sure we can just spout random things but this isn't really an alt hist fan site.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 01:33:16 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 01:27:11 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:39:34 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 12:16:44 PMI'm not talking about a certain number of people, I am talking about DGuller who I thought was smart but who seems convinced "wokeism" exists.
So when you hear someone you consider smart saying something you disagree with, your instinct is to no longer regard them as smart? Personally my instinct is "if a smart person is saying something I disagree with, maybe I can learn from them".
No, my instinct is that I've seen so much whining about "wokism" (meaning absolutely anything that person does not like), that it's hard for me to take seriously anyone using that term.
I have a feeling that you have a hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks differently from you. The reasons may be situational, but the outcome will be the same.
Not really, no. Just people who complain about "woke".
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 02:03:52 PMI already answered the question as to why earlier in this thread. Hispanic voters don't respond to identity politics. The Republicans convinced everyone the economy was doing badly, and voters who tend to be poorer don't have the energy to care about idealistic things like trans rights, affirmative action, and so on. They want someone who promises them that they'll be able to pay their bills. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, dude.
I don't think I saw a single ad about identity politics from Harris's campaign, while I saw tons from Trump. The Harris campaign ads I saw were almost all about the economy, taxes and how dangerous Trump is.
So, I mean it's not like Harris didn't try and they certainly weren't out of touch on the issue.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 06, 2024, 01:44:15 PMSheilbh was correct. Man got battered in here but he was right. Should've had a primary.
Not long enough of a time frame. Even a good candidate would have trouble, and I don't think the dems even have a good candidate, truthfully.
In 2028 Dems need to go full blown socialist agenda, handouts to the poor.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 02:11:54 PMQuote from: FunkMonk on November 06, 2024, 01:44:15 PMSheilbh was correct. Man got battered in here but he was right. Should've had a primary.
Sure we can just spout random things but this isn't really an alt hist fan site.
:console:
If the anti-Israel stance of the far-left is a wokism than wokism is what, 60 years old?
Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2024, 02:12:20 PMI don't think I saw a single ad about identity politics from Harris's campaign, while I saw tons from Trump. The Harris campaign ads I saw were almost all about the economy, taxes and how dangerous Trump is.
So, I mean it's not like Harris didn't try and they certainly weren't out of touch on the issue.
I'm not meaning to say that I think the Harris campaign tried to use identity politics as part of their strategy. I'm saying they won't vote as a bloc based on their racial identity... whatever tactics work with working-class whites will work with them. So comments like Valmy's 'we bombed the Hispanic vote' don't make sense... what the Dems bombed was the working class vote. There IS no separate Hispanic vote.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 02:18:31 PMQuote from: frunk on November 06, 2024, 02:12:20 PMI don't think I saw a single ad about identity politics from Harris's campaign, while I saw tons from Trump. The Harris campaign ads I saw were almost all about the economy, taxes and how dangerous Trump is.
So, I mean it's not like Harris didn't try and they certainly weren't out of touch on the issue.
I'm not meaning to say that I think the Harris campaign tried to use identity politics as part of their strategy. I'm saying they won't vote as a bloc based on their racial identity... whatever tactics work with working-class whites will work with them. So comments like Valmy's 'we bombed the Hispanic vote' don't make sense... what the Dems bombed was the working class vote. There IS no separate Hispanic vote.
Whereas, and this is a secret I'll let you in on, all black people get sent secret messages to let us know how to vote.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 02:03:52 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 01:44:19 PMThat is such a horrible result for us. This election was a disaster for the Texas Democratic Party. Most of the progress we made over the past decade was washed away and it is because we bombed the Hispanic vote. I have no idea why, obviously this was a problem 4 and 2 years ago but this was on a different level.
I already answered the question as to why earlier in this thread. Hispanic voters don't respond to identity politics. The Republicans convinced everyone the economy was doing badly, and voters who tend to be poorer don't have the energy to care about idealistic things like trans rights, affirmative action, and so on. They want someone who promises them that they'll be able to pay their bills. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, dude.
I mean that is a theory I could subscribe to. I don't know for sure though. If the next time there is an economic fuck up on the Republicans watch and they all come rushing back then great. But this was a consistently Democratic voting block for over 100 years. I don't think that suddenly they will start swinging back and forth based on the economy.
But I don't know shit.
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 02:20:53 PMWhereas, and this is a secret I'll let you in on, all black people get sent secret messages to let us know how to vote.
I apologize if I caused any offense to you, g.... but there are also signs identity politics don't work with black voters anymore either. Maybe America is generally moving away from that now.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 02:15:33 PMIf the anti-Israel stance of the far-left is a wokism than wokism is what, 60 years old?
You can go back to the 50s if you include the civil rights movement.
I find some "woke" stuff dumb (very dumb at times), but I don't think that's what cost the election. Harris didn't run on that platform. She had a lot other things going against her before the woke boogeyman even touched her.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 02:22:10 PMQuote from: garbon on November 06, 2024, 02:20:53 PMWhereas, and this is a secret I'll let you in on, all black people get sent secret messages to let us know how to vote.
I apologize if I caused any offense to you, g.... but there are also signs identity politics don't work with black voters anymore either. Maybe America is generally moving away from that now.
Because this is just silly rhetoric. The only reason black people (among whom many have conservative political values) didn't vote for Republicans is that the party was constantly demonizing them. That still happens but now it is alright.
After all, this election has shown let your bigotry all hang out. That's hip again.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 02:12:06 PMNot really, no. Just people who complain about "woke".
Ok, I get it, it's hard for you to take me seriously. Try your best. Do you really think that you come off looking smart when you imply that I'm not?
Hey I would vastly prefer if politics was based on administrative competence and legislative achievements rather than identity politics. But identity politics gets people to the polls, not that shit. Trump was amazing at rallying the Christian nationalist vote.
I think you are smart DGuller. I just don't see that the Democratic Party has the ability to make its leftwing supporters act differently. And telling your core supporters they are bad and wrong and are the cause of your defeats is probably only going to make things worse, even if it is true.
So I got nothing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 02:37:26 PMI think you are smart DGuller. I just don't see that the Democratic Party has the ability to make its leftwing supporters act differently. And telling your core supporters they are bad and wrong and are the cause of your defeats is probably only going to make things worse, even if it is true.
So I got nothing.
Yeah, I'm not sure condemning wokeness will do any good, you might appease DGuller's camp, but you'll piss off the other side. Maybe even lose more then you gain.
Leftwing supporters aren't going to act differently because they are stupid zealots.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:53:02 PMI think Democrats in reality lost in 2020
OK. Personally I wish the party could have many more such losses.
It seems like the conclusion is that identity politics no longer works on any category of voters other than white males . . .
Quote from: chipwich on November 06, 2024, 02:40:37 PMLeftwing supporters aren't going to act differently because they are stupid zealots.
Well we have to deal with the stupid zealots we have, not the stupid zealots we wish we had.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:42:56 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 12:53:02 PMI think Democrats in reality lost in 2020
OK. Personally I wish the party could have many more such losses.
Sure, I'm okay winning the minimum with the aces, if you deal me aces every hand. Problem is that I won't always get aces. If every time Republicans get dealt aces they rig the system even more to their benefit, and every time the Democrats get dealt aces they just put that rigging on pause, who's exactly winning over the long run?
Come on, seriously, don't pretend you don't get my point. Do you really think this advances the conversation?
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 02:50:27 PMQuote from: chipwich on November 06, 2024, 02:40:37 PMLeftwing supporters aren't going to act differently because they are stupid zealots.
Well we have to deal with the stupid zealots we have, not the stupid zealots we wish we had.
Left wing zealots are also more prone to punishing their parties for not going far enough than right wing zealots.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 01:31:55 PMI also think that Shapiro was out of the running as veep because he was an outspoken pro-Israel Jew, so that's another area where wokedom had some influence influence. Anti-Israeli sentiment isn't just a woke phenomenon, but it definitely has wokedom on its side, with all the usual selective standards of justice applied.
Shapiro was not selected as the VP candidate because he wasn't willing to accept less than an effective co-presidency. Being a typical vice-president isn't the stepping-stone to presidential office it once was.
"Woke" is not hiding behind every tree. In fact, please define for me "woke" in a way that people you think are "woke" would agree with.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:45:05 PMIt seems like the conclusion is that identity politics no longer works on any category of voters other than white males . . .
Do you think that the left played no part in putting them on the defensive? Do you think the white males shouldn't feel unwelcome when a Democratic president publicly declares that he won't make one them his veep or his SC nominee?
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:53:32 PM"Woke" is not hiding behind every tree. In fact, please define for me "woke" in a way that people you think are "woke" would agree with.
I already tried doing that once, then everyone derailed the conversation with some stupid nonsense about ChatGPT. I'm not going there again.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:53:53 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:45:05 PMIt seems like the conclusion is that identity politics no longer works on any category of voters other than white males . . .
Do you think that the left played no part in putting them on the defensive? Do you think the white males shouldn't feel unwelcome when a Democratic president publicly declares that he won't make one them his veep or his SC nominee?
Well I guess I took it that he was trying to balance the ticket. Got to make sure other groups are on board. Like Obama had to pick a white man and so did Kamala. When JFK picked LBJ because he wanted a Southerner I don't think all the Midwesterners were outraged. It was all done for electoral reasons. To get out the black and female vote, not to exclude anybody.
But anyway he won. Kamala picked a white male for her VP and she lost. So...how about that?
Besides she was literally the first VP in history who wasn't a white male. And now a white male will be VP again. I guess I didn't feel threatened by that.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:54:45 PMQuote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:53:32 PM"Woke" is not hiding behind every tree. In fact, please define for me "woke" in a way that people you think are "woke" would agree with.
I already tried doing that once, then everyone derailed the conversation with some stupid nonsense about ChatGPT. I'm not going there again.
Grumbler's long-term memory has degenerated to less than 6 months. :(
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:51:58 PMSure, I'm okay winning the minimum with the aces, if you deal me aces every hand. Problem is that I won't always get aces. If every time Republicans get dealt aces they rig the system even more to their benefit, and every time the Democrats get dealt aces they just put that rigging on pause, who's exactly winning over the long run?
Come on, seriously, don't pretend you don't get my point. Do you really think this advances the conversation?
Your insistence that politics is the same as poker doesn't advance the conversation, either. Calling a win a loss because it wasn't a big win misses the entire point of politics, which is to get power. Even limiter power.
You guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
Apparently Harris got less than Biden in terms of percentage of the female vote. 45 % of women voted Trump. There's only so much you can explain and decipher. Maybe y'all are just morons.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:54:45 PMQuote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:53:32 PM"Woke" is not hiding behind every tree. In fact, please define for me "woke" in a way that people you think are "woke" would agree with.
I already tried doing that once, then everyone derailed the conversation with some stupid nonsense about ChatGPT. I'm not going there again.
If you tried and failed to define "woke," will you accept that it is a nonsense word to anyone but you? Language is about communication, and even you admit that "woke" doesn't communicate anything that you can articulate.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:59:01 PMYou guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
Apparently Harris got less than Biden in terms of percentage of the female vote. 45 % of women voted Trump. There's only so much you can explain and decipher. Maybe y'all are just morons.
I don't know if "stupid" is the right descriptor, but yes very disheartening.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:57:43 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:51:58 PMSure, I'm okay winning the minimum with the aces, if you deal me aces every hand. Problem is that I won't always get aces. If every time Republicans get dealt aces they rig the system even more to their benefit, and every time the Democrats get dealt aces they just put that rigging on pause, who's exactly winning over the long run?
Come on, seriously, don't pretend you don't get my point. Do you really think this advances the conversation?
Your insistence that politics is the same as poker doesn't advance the conversation, either. Calling a win a loss because it wasn't a big win misses the entire point of politics, which is to get power. Even limiter power.
Defining a loss as underperforming expectation where dynamics are cyclical is often a very useful definition of a loss. I can come up with other analogies. Winning 60% of your games in tennis when you have a serve isn't really winning. Yes, if you want to be literal to the point of being misleading, you did win those games, but from the point of view of winning the match, you're not getting the job done, because you're supposed to win most game when you have a serve if you want to win the match.
Trump was the first incumbent President to lose re-election since Carter, who faced far more brutal economic conditions. By the book, he should have won that election handily.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:59:32 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:54:45 PMQuote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 02:53:32 PM"Woke" is not hiding behind every tree. In fact, please define for me "woke" in a way that people you think are "woke" would agree with.
I already tried doing that once, then everyone derailed the conversation with some stupid nonsense about ChatGPT. I'm not going there again.
If you tried and failed to define "woke," will you accept that it is a nonsense word to anyone but you? Language is about communication, and even you admit that "woke" doesn't communicate anything that you can articulate.
You can't communicate anything to people who don't want to be communicated to. The ChatGPT fiasco proved to me that the one constant in discussions about wokedom is that those defending it don't want to discuss it. The endless demands to define it are just at attempt to head off conversations at the very start.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 02:56:46 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:53:53 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 02:45:05 PMIt seems like the conclusion is that identity politics no longer works on any category of voters other than white males . . .
Do you think that the left played no part in putting them on the defensive? Do you think the white males shouldn't feel unwelcome when a Democratic president publicly declares that he won't make one them his veep or his SC nominee?
Well I guess I took it that he was trying to balance the ticket. Got to make sure other groups are on board. Like Obama had to pick a white man and so did Kamala. When JFK picked LBJ because he wanted a Southerner I don't think all the Midwesterners were outraged. It was all done for electoral reasons. To get out the black and female vote, not to exclude anybody.
But anyway he won. Kamala picked a white male for her VP and she lost. So...how about that?
Besides she was literally the first VP in history who wasn't a white male. And now a white male will be VP again. I guess I didn't feel threatened by that.
What bugged me about the Kamala Harris VP pick was how open they were about it being for identity politics.
You're supposed to at least pretend that you went out and found your ideal running mate - who just so happens to bring "balance" to the ticket, either geographically, religiously, race, gender, whatever.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:59:01 PMYou guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
That may be true but badly under-explanatory. The same stupid Americans voted Obama in twice with safe margins.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:04:04 PMYou can't communicate anything to people who don't want to be communicated to. The ChatGPT fiasco proved to me that the one constant in discussions about wokedom is that those defending it don't want to discuss it. The endless demands to define it are just at attempt to head off conversations at the very start.
I am not even defending it. It could be something worth defending, or it might not. I don't know. When you say it what comes to mind to me is those fanatics on twitter who do things like cancel some poor bastard when they mispoke or said something off-color. And yeah I hate those people.
My only point is I am not interested in stabbing in the back any group in our coalition just to win votes. So if going against wokedom is throwing trans people under the bus I am not interested.
But in any case, as I said, the Democrats ability to dictate to their supporters how they should act is rather limited anyway. I guess the better question is how best the Democrats could mitigate the damage cause by wokedom. That might be something worth talking about. Any thoughts on that? That might be more productive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 03:05:42 PMQuote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:59:01 PMYou guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
That may be true but badly under-explanatory. The same stupid Americans voted Obama in twice with safe margins.
And then did 2010. Truly baffling.
One thing that I do find rather disconcerting DGuller is that at certain points the online fanatics will decide that somebody sucks. Like Musk or Rogan. And the I will spend a considerable amount of time defending these people only to eventually discover that, actually they do suck and they fanatics were right.
That bugs me a lot.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 03:04:45 PMWhat bugged me about the Kamala Harris VP pick was how open they were about it being for identity politics.
What puzzles me is:
1) the lack of similar outrage over the Harris campaign targeting a white midwestern man for her VP
2) why the supposed outrage over the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all but four years later somehow hurt the Harris campaign.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 03:04:45 PMWhat bugged me about the Kamala Harris VP pick was how open they were about it being for identity politics.
You're supposed to at least pretend that you went out and found your ideal running mate - who just so happens to bring "balance" to the ticket, either geographically, religiously, race, gender, whatever.
True. That was probably a mistake on Joe's part.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:07:13 PMBut in any case, as I said, the Democrats ability to dictate to their supporters how they should act is rather limited anyway. I guess the better question is how best the Democrats could mitigate the damage cause by wokedom. That might be something worth talking about. Any thoughts on that? That might be more productive.
As I already mentioned, a good start can be to not declare ahead of time that you're going to be sexist and/or racist when choosing people for important positions. They should recognize that this kind of virtuous bias plays a lot worse than they think it does.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:14:22 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:07:13 PMBut in any case, as I said, the Democrats ability to dictate to their supporters how they should act is rather limited anyway. I guess the better question is how best the Democrats could mitigate the damage cause by wokedom. That might be something worth talking about. Any thoughts on that? That might be more productive.
As I already mentioned, a good start can be to not declare ahead of time that you're going to be sexist and/or racist when choosing people for important positions. They should recognize that this kind of virtuous bias plays a lot worse than they think it does.
Yeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 12:13:47 PMThis sounds like a trivial non-difference but it actually is a difference. "Wokeism" implies something new and radical that can be stopped. While in fact it is just the natural drift of cultural and political norms with age. You are not forced to agree with it but also it is not just a switch that you can just turn off and get back to the mid-90s version of liberalism that you and I spent our formative years in.
So, and this may shock you, I think there is an element of class to this.
I think with "wokeness" I don't think it's about the cultural or political trends so much as the language and I think it is distinctively rooted in academic discourse. I think activists in the past have worked to try and refine their message to meet the widest audience, while here (I think because there's been more cross-over from, especially full time, activists and the academic world) I sometimes feel that the language matters more than the message. And I think it is alienating - and, for want of a better word, smacks of privilege - to people who are not from or have not had access to that world. It's like opera or ballet - there's lots of red flags saying it's not for that type of person.
An example would be Latinx which is now in decline. But I remember in 2018 when there were warning signs about the Latino vote for Democrats, loads of people were saying we need to listen to people like Ruben Gallego - young, electorally successful progressive politician in a swing state. He did a big Twitter thread and his first point was "stop using Latinx - it's meaningless and alienating in the community you're trying to talk to and about." The response to that from the same people who'd called for his opinions was basically "absolutely not, here I stand". Now six years on, multiple electoral cycles of Latino voters drifting there is a move away from the term.
But even then, just last week two Harvard professors did a really interesting paper which shows that politicians who use "Latinx" lose 6 percentage points in vote share. It's about 16% among independent voters and more than 90% of Hispanic voters are less likely to vote for politicians who use "Latinx" (it is worth noting the paper also had a sample that was twice as college-educated as the population - so it's probably worse). Their take was basically that this was a "problem for Democrats" as "segments of the Latino community [...] are queerphobic and [who] would otherwise support them are less likely to do so if queerness is made salient through inclusive language". Their conclusion was that basically the solution is "political education meant to root out queerphobia in Latino communities".
As pointed out by John Burn-Murdoch, the FT data journalist, the paper is really interesting and very detailed, but it doesn't really show this. It shows that basically the Latino really dislikes the phrase "Latinx" - even people with very pro-LGBTQ+ views dislike the word and are less likely to vote for a politician to use it.
So six years, multiple electoral cycles and we now have really good research backing up what Gallego was saying in 2018 - and use of the word is declining. But in the meantime it is likely it has cost thousands of votes given that research who may have, in that time, got used to voting Republican. And I think that's the wider point - I actually think a majority support the substantive content of "wokeness" but the language is alienating. In part because I think it is from the academy - there are times and places for that language - but political activism and coalition building isn't it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 03:12:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 03:04:45 PMWhat bugged me about the Kamala Harris VP pick was how open they were about it being for identity politics.
What puzzles me is:
1) the lack of similar outrage over the Harris campaign targeting a white midwestern man for her VP
2) why the supposed outrage over the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all but four years later somehow hurt the Harris campaign.
While we all knew Kamala was going to pick a white man to be her VP, preferably from the former Blue Wall, I don't know if she ever said that.
Also if you specifically go out of your way to pick a white guy, nobody thinks you are being DEI because...you know...America.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:14:22 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:07:13 PMBut in any case, as I said, the Democrats ability to dictate to their supporters how they should act is rather limited anyway. I guess the better question is how best the Democrats could mitigate the damage cause by wokedom. That might be something worth talking about. Any thoughts on that? That might be more productive.
As I already mentioned, a good start can be to not declare ahead of time that you're going to be sexist and/or racist when choosing people for important positions. They should recognize that this kind of virtuous bias plays a lot worse than they think it does.
It plays so bad that Biden got the most votes in history.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:15:31 PMYeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.
I would even go further than that. Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately. If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.
Yeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.
But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:19:18 PMYeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.
But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.
It pops up once in a while. That's the patronizing side of leftism (being woke?) that I find most annoying. Protecting others from themselves because they don't know enough to be offended by something.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:17:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:15:31 PMYeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.
I would even go further than that. Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately. If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.
I mean we have had all white male VPs for our entire history and the single time it wasn't it was because of sexism? Most of those white male VPs were also picked for electoral considerations, not based on who happened to be the best politician at the time. I don't think Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because he was some kind of mastermind politician. You think he would have picked Frederick Douglas?
Quote from: HVC on November 06, 2024, 03:21:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:19:18 PMYeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.
But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.
It pops up once in a while. That's the patronizing side of leftism (being woke?) that I find most annoying. Protecting others from themselves because they don't know enough to be offended by something.
Yeah. If Spanish is sexist in its grammar, let the leftist Spanish speakers come up with something.
And let it be better than LatinX, sounds like some shit Elon Musk would come up with.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 03:12:04 PMWhat puzzles me is:
1) the lack of similar outrage over the Harris campaign targeting a white midwestern man for her VP
2) why the supposed outrage over the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all but four years later somehow hurt the Harris campaign.
1) Harris never stated that she would consider only elderly white Midwestern men. Biden said that he'd only consider women.
2) The assumption that "the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all" is very much unproven.
I don't believe that the way Harris became VP and then the Democratic candidate for president decided many votes against her, but it may have had an impact on Democratic turnout, which was the key to the race, it seems.
Saying the quiet part out loud was dumb, but VPs are picked not for who they are, but what votes they can bring.
Less forgivable for positions were merit matters, like SC (theoretically :D ).
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:19:18 PMBut I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.
There was an article recently about it being in decline. The research paper covers Google and newspaper (and scholarly) usage which appears to have peaked relatively recently:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ga-0vvRbsAAGPUj?format=png&name=small)
The stats on politicians only goes to 2020, but I suspect it followed the trend of Google search and newspapers and probably peaking 2020-22:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ga-0w7YaUAA1tv2?format=png&name=small)
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:23:08 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:17:39 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:15:31 PMYeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.
I would even go further than that. Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately. If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.
I mean we have had all white male VPs for our entire history and the single time it wasn't it was because of sexism? Most of those white male VPs were also picked for electoral considerations, not based on who happened to be the best politician at the time. I don't think Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because he was some kind of mastermind politician. You think he would have picked Frederick Douglas?
I don't think we should be evening the score. The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race. Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old. If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.
The problem is the VP doesn't really do anything. So the best VP for the job is strictly the one that can best get you elected. It's the ultimate position with almost no responsibility (at least over the past 60 years). So Biden's only real crime was saying it out loud, not about actually doing it.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:27:28 PMPick the best candidate for veep
The only time I can every remember that happening is when Clinton picked Gore. Every other VP pick in my personal memory has targeted a demo.
Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2024, 03:33:45 PMThe problem is the VP doesn't really do anything. So the best VP for the job is strictly the one that can best get you elected. It's the ultimate position with almost no responsibility (at least over the past 60 years). So Biden's only real crime was saying it out loud, not about actually doing it.
And it's always been used to send a message about the ticket - either balancing, or doubling down, or whatever. I'm not sure I really see the difference for saying you want a woman or person of colour v Senator or Governor from the South or Mid-West or whatever other historic criteria.
I don't think it's ever been about picking the best person for the job (and what job?) - and to an extent that could actually be a bit of a problem.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:27:28 PMI don't think we should be evening the score. The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race. Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old. If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.
You know what? This is a pointless discussion. I asked you for your thoughts and here I am stupidly arguing with you.
Sorry, I am an idiot.
Ok point one:
colorblind and genderblind casting of politicians.
Anything else?
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:36:45 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 03:27:28 PMI don't think we should be evening the score. The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race. Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old. If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.
You know what? This is a pointless discussion. I asked you for your thoughts and here I am stupidly arguing with you.
Sorry, I am an idiot.
Ok point one:
colorblind and genderblind casting of politicians.
Anything else?
But also if you accept DG's point on this, you CANNOT do colour and genderblind casting for politicians. If you truly ignore colour and gender and end up with a female ethnic minority candidate, you hurt your chances due to appearing woke, as per DG that's what loses elections. So sure, go colour and genderblind, as long as that means going with a white male. That's the logical conclusion from DG's argument.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 03:45:45 PMBut also if you accept DG's point on this, you CANNOT do colour and genderblind casting for politicians. If you truly ignore colour and gender and end up with a female ethnic minority candidate, you hurt your chances due to appearing woke, as per DG that's what loses elections. So sure, go colour and genderblind, as long as that means going with a white male. That's the logical conclusion from DG's argument.
Well look, we all know how colorblind stuff goes. I lived through the 1990s.
But I am interested in DGuller's ideas. Just because I accept his points as his points doesn't mean I am going to write the DNC and recommend they all get put into action. He is a smart guy, his ideas might change my mind. So I don't want to just bicker over every point.
Besides, I clearly have no idea what the Democrats need to do to turn this thing around.
Just to repeat here from another discussion: I think my problem isn't with DG's core argument. He might even be right. But "woke" has been for many years a far-right term used to define the things they do not like. If you define/summarise your problem with parts of the Left as "woke-ism" you are demonstrably under right-wing influence, even if your concerns are otherwise valid.
Boo hoo someone has rightwing influence.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:59:01 PMYou guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
Apparently Harris got less than Biden in terms of percentage of the female vote. 45 % of women voted Trump. There's only so much you can explain and decipher. Maybe y'all are just morons.
I don't think so. Sure, lots of Americans are stupid, but so are lots of French people, lots of British people... lots of people everywhere.
What I do think Americans are more than many other people, is selfish and self-centered, and as I've argued earlier I think that is what resulted in Trump's victory. The Democrats either just can't grasp this, or refuse to pander to it. As we know, Trump is unbound by his party and free to say or do whatever he likes, and is happy to play to Americans' basest instincts. That's why I said the DNC should resign en masse, since they can't grasp this or won't accept it.
Remember when the US wasn't a shitshow? Even Pepperidge Farm doesn't.
It's always been a mess.
Quote from: The Brain on November 06, 2024, 04:18:45 PMRemember when the US wasn't a shitshow? Even Pepperidge Farm doesn't.
So... Washington?
what if the issue people have with the (far) left isn't the 'woke'/'progressiveness' explicitly but the way that part of the political spectrum goes about everything... their arrogance in thinking that they are the sole arbiters of what is good and proper and that everyone who doesn't fully agree must surely be somekind of scum.
Or as a former politician-and-journalist recently said:
(had to run it through google translate, but it conveys his thought well enough)
"Those who see themselves as the unique guardians of the good have great difficulty in elegantly disagreeing with dissenters. Because thinking differently here can only mean that the dissenter does not have the best interests of the world, the class, the people at heart, right?"
It's an attitude that's very like the one the priests had only a few decades ago when they claimed to be the sole guardians of morality. A priesthood with a wagging finger and an penchant for excommunication (better than blowing up or stabbing to death as is popular with other cults).
The result being that the people claiming to stand for diversity, inclusion, tolerance... actually end up being the opposite of that.
just a thought, maybe sufficient to add some additional perspective
I think it puts well the biggest problem. A lot of the more minor problems are secondary to this intolerance of dissent. Stupid ideas survive when the can't be exposed through honest discussion.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:27:22 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 02:12:06 PMNot really, no. Just people who complain about "woke".
Ok, I get it, it's hard for you to take me seriously. Try your best. Do you really think that you come off looking smart when you imply that I'm not?
Look, if you want to complain about dirty homeless people tarnishing your beautiful subway, then do that. Don't call it "woke" because that has nothing to do with woke and simply erases any meaning of that word.
Quotewhat if the issue people have with the (far) left isn't the 'woke'/'progressiveness' explicitly but the way that part of the political spectrum goes about everything... their arrogance in thinking that they are the sole arbiters of what is good and proper and that everyone who doesn't fully agree must surely be somekind of scum.
This sounds far more like Trump than anyone amongst the Democrats.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:53:47 PMBesides, I clearly have no idea what the Democrats need to do to turn this thing around.
To be honest, I don't have many ideas either. I get the point that a lot of people are making, that what I'm often criticizing is the left, not the Democratic Party. It's a valid point. However, I always found "don't bring problems, bring solutions" saying stupid; it's fine to describe the problems if you think you've identified them, maybe there is a person out there who's bad at identifying problems but good at finding solutions, so you still helped things along.
One very vague solution is that we really need to stress the importance of having good politicians. Being a politician shouldn't be a dirty word. We need shrewd political operators, not people who tick the boxes. Our bastards even, if that's what it takes. Being a bad politician is a sin when your opponents are trying to destroy democracy. LBJ wasn't a nice person, but he got a lot of nice things done in his own way. It's a better outcome than what we got with Obama.
Just heard Harris' concession speech. It really fell flat. She essentially said she did what she set out to do. No she did not. She then ended the speech by saying America was entering a period of darkness. She just pissed off everyone. She pissed off her base by claiming all had gone well with her campaign. And she pissed off everyone who didn't vote for her by saying they were effectively forces of darkness.
That might be something she could pull off is she won the vote count but lost in the EC. But she lost by every measure. That is the time a politician says the people have spoken, we hear them, and will do better.
Quote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:47:42 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:27:22 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 02:12:06 PMNot really, no. Just people who complain about "woke".
Ok, I get it, it's hard for you to take me seriously. Try your best. Do you really think that you come off looking smart when you imply that I'm not?
Look, if you want to complain about dirty homeless people tarnishing your beautiful subway, then do that. Don't call it "woke" because that has nothing to do with woke and simply erases any meaning of that word.
When you put it that way, no, it has nothing to do with woke. But why would you put it that way, why misrepresent what I said so severely?
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 09:53:46 AMThe Hispanic vote really isn't that head-scratching. As a voting bloc they are not interested in identity politics, and are by and large poor, so the messaging that resonates with them is 'give us more money'. The Democrats have been trying to treat them the same as black voters, and that doesn't and isn't going to work.
I think it's the other way around. Plenty of Hispanics have made it up the economic ladder. Then they want to hang out with the rich white guys. They want to join the country club. They want status. They vote Republican. The Democrats are the party of losers. The Republicans are the party of winners.
Btw I thought felons couldn't vote, so how come Trump voted yesterday.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:06:03 PMI think it's the other way around. Plenty of Hispanics have made it up the economic ladder. Then they want to hang out with the rich white guys. They want to join the country club. They want status. They vote Republican. The Democrats are the party of losers. The Republicans are the party of winners.
Interesting. I do agree many Hispanics have made it up the economic ladder, too (I think not the majority but could be wrong). I would still argue identity politics doesn't work on them, and your point holds. It would be if like someone tried to appeal to Italian Americans specifically. It would never work because they're fully integrated into American culture. Maybe that's true of Hispanics now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2024, 04:59:05 PMJust heard Harris' concession speech. It really fell flat. She essentially said she did what she set out to do. No she did not. She then ended the speech by saying America was entering a period of darkness. She just pissed off everyone. She pissed off her base by claiming all had gone well with her campaign. And she pissed off everyone who didn't vote for her by saying they were effectively forces of darkness.
That might be something she could pull off is she won the vote count but lost in the EC. But she lost by every measure. That is the time a politician says the people have spoken, we hear them, and will do better.
I won't watch it as it will just be depressing. But as you explain it here it sounds like a good balance? The dems finally getting the message?
Not just all smiles, everything is fine, this is normal, congratulations to my opponent who would do the same in my position.
But at the same time not throwing a trumpian hissy fit and attempting a coup.
Rather Trump has won the election but he's still a horrible piece of shit and we should prepare for the worst.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 03:03:57 PMTrump was the first incumbent President to lose re-election since Carter, who faced far more brutal economic conditions. By the book, he should have won that election handily.
Bush 41
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 03:54:18 PMJust to repeat here from another discussion: I think my problem isn't with DG's core argument. He might even be right. But "woke" has been for many years a far-right term used to define the things they do not like. If you define/summarise your problem with parts of the Left as "woke-ism" you are demonstrably under right-wing influence, even if your concerns are otherwise valid.
This is a repeat of Squeeze's guilt by association argument. The word was introduced by the left. The fact that right wingers use it doesn't mean they are under left wing influence. It's short hand for a set of ideas which you can agree with or disagree with. You can disagree with them reasonably, which makes you a DGuller type centrist, or unreasonably, which makes you a right winger.
What set of ideas? Maybe it's well defined in the US but in the UK it is used for any kind of complaints by the right.
Anyways the rest is history guy again had a good summary I think: it's been proven that Trump wasn't an anomaly, this is 21st century politics now, the post-war, settled, consensual style of politics is gone for ever, it's an age of turbulence and chaos and we need politics that deals with that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2024, 04:59:05 PMJust heard Harris' concession speech. It really fell flat. She essentially said she did what she set out to do. No she did not. She then ended the speech by saying America was entering a period of darkness. She just pissed off everyone. She pissed off her base by claiming all had gone well with her campaign. And she pissed off everyone who didn't vote for her by saying they were effectively forces of darkness.
That might be something she could pull off is she won the vote count but lost in the EC. But she lost by every measure. That is the time a politician says the people have spoken, we hear them, and will do better.
Yes, reality will hit the bad guys hard soon enough.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 05:37:29 PMWhat set of ideas? Maybe it's well defined in the US but in the UK it is used for any kind of complaints by the right.
The way the right has distorted the meaning of the word, it has the meaning described by Yi. But that was not the meaning the word had originally.
I wish I still had the quote in my signature describing how quickly the meaning changed.
at least schadenfreude will be in ample supply
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 05:37:29 PMWhat set of ideas? Maybe it's well defined in the US but in the UK it is used for any kind of complaints by the right.
I'm guessing it's not used for complaints about taxes being too high or highways being built too close to their houses.
Classical wokeism is a black only thing. It's the assertion that racism is everywhere around us and if you don't realize that you're stupid. I think crazy canuck has the definition in his signature. (Is that what the area at the bottom is called?)
The word has migrated to occupy the space once filled by politically correct. Political correctness is the belief that the world is divided into oppressed minorities and oppressors. That any grievance claimed by a member of an oppressed minority is by definition legitimate and must be accomodated. That anyone opposing that grievance is by definition evil.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 12:12:53 PMCan I also suggest that Harris was also just kind of a boring candidate, and would have been unlikely to survive the nomination process?
I heard her speak a few times. I mean she was 'fine', but she didn't have the huge charisma of an Obama (or Trump), wasn't running on any particular inspiring policy or platform, and just didn't give people much a reason to vote for her?
I think this played a large role. I also think that her brand was inherently contradictory; she was the candidate who was going to "Turn the page," but she's currently the Vice President of the United States. She ran on "Joy" yet her foremost argument was fear (of another Trump presidency.)
This was further complicated by the way she entered the race; late into the election cycle and not following the usual selection process. Even if she had followed a more traditional route it still would have been difficult as she is following an unpopular president in her own party.
Under those circumstances, I think she ran the best campaign she was capable of. Maybe she would have won Pennsylvania if she had picked Shapiro rather than Walz as her running mate, but even that wouldn't have given her an Electoral College victory.
I voted for Harris but couldn't stand listening to her talk for more than 3 seconds. She was basically an A.I composite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:49:11 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 05:37:29 PMWhat set of ideas? Maybe it's well defined in the US but in the UK it is used for any kind of complaints by the right.
I'm guessing it's not used for complaints about taxes being too high or highways being built too close to their houses.
Classical wokeism is a black only thing. It's the assertion that racism is everywhere around us and if you don't realize that you're stupid. I think crazy canuck has the definition in his signature. (Is that what the area at the bottom is called?)
The word has migrated to occupy the space once filled by politically correct. Political correctness is the belief that the world is divided into oppressed minorities and oppressors. That any grievance claimed by a member of an oppressed minority is by definition legitimate and must be accomodated. That anyone opposing that grievance is by definition evil.
Thanks.
you betcha
:wacko:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 06, 2024, 04:43:51 PMwhat if the issue people have with the (far) left isn't the 'woke'/'progressiveness' explicitly but the way that part of the political spectrum goes about everything... their arrogance in thinking that they are the sole arbiters of what is good and proper and that everyone who doesn't fully agree must surely be somekind of scum.
Or as a former politician-and-journalist recently said:
(had to run it through google translate, but it conveys his thought well enough)
"Those who see themselves as the unique guardians of the good have great difficulty in elegantly disagreeing with dissenters. Because thinking differently here can only mean that the dissenter does not have the best interests of the world, the class, the people at heart, right?"
It's an attitude that's very like the one the priests had only a few decades ago when they claimed to be the sole guardians of morality. A priesthood with a wagging finger and an penchant for excommunication (better than blowing up or stabbing to death as is popular with other cults).
The result being that the people claiming to stand for diversity, inclusion, tolerance... actually end up being the opposite of that.
just a thought, maybe sufficient to add some additional perspective
There's no doubt that a segment of the left, just like the right, calls themselves the only moral people and crusade to smite those not committed to the cause. The problem becomes that the moderate right no longer has any problems with their politicians appealing to that lunatic fringe, while the moderate left has no tolerance for, and even alienates, their lunatic fringe.
The left needs to explore what are the reasonable accommodations needed to keep their loons onboard, without giving the loons the power to alienate the moderate wing and independent voters.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 04:53:53 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 06, 2024, 03:53:47 PMBesides, I clearly have no idea what the Democrats need to do to turn this thing around.
To be honest, I don't have many ideas either. I get the point that a lot of people are making, that what I'm often criticizing is the left, not the Democratic Party. It's a valid point. However, I always found "don't bring problems, bring solutions" saying stupid; it's fine to describe the problems if you think you've identified them, maybe there is a person out there who's bad at identifying problems but good at finding solutions, so you still helped things along.
One very vague solution is that we really need to stress the importance of having good politicians. Being a politician shouldn't be a dirty word. We need shrewd political operators, not people who tick the boxes. Our bastards even, if that's what it takes. Being a bad politician is a sin when your opponents are trying to destroy democracy. LBJ wasn't a nice person, but he got a lot of nice things done in his own way. It's a better outcome than what we got with Obama.
I don't disagree. Sometimes the Democrats do dirty tricks and they work. But it isn't necessarily part of the overall strategy.
Anyway thank you for your thoughts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:49:11 PMcalled?)
The word has migrated to occupy the space once filled by politically correct. Political correctness is the belief that the world is divided into oppressed minorities and oppressors. That any grievance claimed by a member of an oppressed minority is by definition legitimate and must be accomodated. That anyone opposing that grievance is by definition evil.
.
Which is pretty ironic considering trumps whole thing is going on about the elites, playing the victim card for how everyone is against "real Americans" and him, anyone with even somewhat divergent views is all manner of awful things,white working class men should be listened to even when they're talking bollocks, and so on.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 07:14:41 PMWhich is pretty ironic considering trumps whole thing is going on about the elites, playing the victim card for how everyone is against "real Americans" and him, anyone with even somewhat divergent views is all manner of awful things,white working class men should be listened to even when they're talking bollocks, and so on.
I don't think it's ironic at all. I think it's a very common, human nature based instinct to respond to accusations of evil by saying no, you're evil.
Nate Silver's blog post has a rather alarming plot of voting patterns by every NYC borough: https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-story-of-trumps-win-was-foretold. Staten Island has always been an outlier, it's a really a suburb in New Jersey, but 40% of Queens going for Trump? I'm not sure I understand what's going on, but I hope someone with influence does.
Quote from: grumbler on November 06, 2024, 06:33:12 PMThe left needs to explore what are the reasonable accommodations needed to keep their loons onboard, without giving the loons the power to alienate the moderate wing and independent voters.
I am now much less sure that is possible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:22:10 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2024, 03:03:57 PMTrump was the first incumbent President to lose re-election since Carter, who faced far more brutal economic conditions. By the book, he should have won that election handily.
Bush 41
FFS how did I forget that?
He had a bad recession too although things started to perk up right before the election. There was also the weird Perot factor.
Buyer's remorse for these guys is going to be instantaneous
https://x.com/ask_aubry/status/1854337207185580201
QuoteSo the Trump administration after getting the Latino vote is going to go after those have Naturalized Citizenship.
Leopards Eating Face
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gbvt3RJWYBMGmHa?format=jpg&name=900x900)
"Oh no! The leopard ate MY face. Who could see that happening?!"
Denaturalization and remigration was a major topic of a secretive meeting between far rightwingers from Austria and Germany this or last year.
Part of me kinda wished my family would come under scrutiny, but even if they did they'd probably rationalize it away as being the fault of the illegals making this necessary in the first place. :P
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 05:05:48 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 04:47:42 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 06, 2024, 02:27:22 PMQuote from: Solmyr on November 06, 2024, 02:12:06 PMNot really, no. Just people who complain about "woke".
Ok, I get it, it's hard for you to take me seriously. Try your best. Do you really think that you come off looking smart when you imply that I'm not?
Look, if you want to complain about dirty homeless people tarnishing your beautiful subway, then do that. Don't call it "woke" because that has nothing to do with woke and simply erases any meaning of that word.
When you put it that way, no, it has nothing to do with woke. But why would you put it that way, why misrepresent what I said so severely?
Because woke describes anything from police not solving petty crimes to being able to create a trans character in a video game. It's a word with no meaning anymore and using it in the way you do does not help your argument at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 05:49:11 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 06, 2024, 05:37:29 PMWhat set of ideas? Maybe it's well defined in the US but in the UK it is used for any kind of complaints by the right.
I'm guessing it's not used for complaints about taxes being too high or highways being built too close to their houses.
Yes it absolutely is. Taxes being too high is communism, so woke.
Something I've often thought would be good to do but have never had the willpower to get on with it is collect a list of every article I come across decrying something as woke.
As I've seen all sorts. Two that I remember-
Gardens- https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/gardener-faces-citation-her-woke-200000651.html
Feathered dinosaurs which do more than fight all the time- https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/18257993/david-attenborough-woke-t-rex/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2024, 07:18:14 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2024, 07:14:41 PMWhich is pretty ironic considering trumps whole thing is going on about the elites, playing the victim card for how everyone is against "real Americans" and him, anyone with even somewhat divergent views is all manner of awful things,white working class men should be listened to even when they're talking bollocks, and so on.
I don't think it's ironic at all. I think it's a very common, human nature based instinct to respond to accusations of evil by saying no, you're evil.
He's the one who started this however. The deplorable comment came after mountains of hate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2024, 12:59:53 AMBuyer's remorse for these guys is going to be instantaneous
https://x.com/ask_aubry/status/1854337207185580201
QuoteSo the Trump administration after getting the Latino vote is going to go after those have Naturalized Citizenship.
Leopards Eating Face
My GF's dad's cousin ('s best friend's dog's vet's sister's boyfriend's....) is a Swiss guy who emigrated to the US many decades ago (Florida :x). He's married to a woman who immigrated from El Salvador.
They're both big Trumpies.
The leopards will be interesting to see. Wonder whether they'll show more of a taste for one of them?
It seems that more and more anything that can be seen has a benevolent will be labaled has woke by the Trump mob.
Quote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:49:49 AMPre-election I was listening to a podcast that had James Carville on it. He is always an entertaining listen, and he can have some good insights. He's the one who came up with "it's the economy, stupid" during Clinton's 1992 campaign.
He was saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that one of the things voters care most about is order. So it's not quite so much that "wokeness" hurts democrats, but disorder. So the massive 2020 protests, the campus anti-Israel protests, very visible homelessness and lawlessness (Canada, but I visibly saw people shoplifting twice in the last week who were called out by clerks, but otherwise made no attempt to stop them).
I forgot to say this feels like spin the wheel and pick a rationale. If order is a key drive, you would presumably pick the former prosecutor not the felon.
Yeah, Trump is definitely not the candidate of order.
It is a bit odd to try to fit him into a status quo conservative mold. His brand is chaos and disruption.
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2024, 09:21:33 AMIt'll take a while to process this all, but my initial thoughts are:
1. The entire DNC leadership should resign. They have completely lost touch with the American people.
OR
2. America just hates it leadership so much that the 'incumbent' will always be blamed for its problems, no matter what.
I hope 2 is true, and if so I predict the Democrats and likely Tim Walz will win the 2028 election.
You'll be lucky if you get a fair election in 2028. I don't think Democrats stand a fair chance of regaining the Presidency any time soon.
As things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2024, 07:24:17 AMQuote from: Barrister on November 06, 2024, 11:49:49 AMPre-election I was listening to a podcast that had James Carville on it. He is always an entertaining listen, and he can have some good insights. He's the one who came up with "it's the economy, stupid" during Clinton's 1992 campaign.
He was saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that one of the things voters care most about is order. So it's not quite so much that "wokeness" hurts democrats, but disorder. So the massive 2020 protests, the campus anti-Israel protests, very visible homelessness and lawlessness (Canada, but I visibly saw people shoplifting twice in the last week who were called out by clerks, but otherwise made no attempt to stop them).
I forgot to say this feels like spin the wheel and pick a rationale. If order is a key drive, you would presumably pick the former prosecutor not the felon.
Unless the voter's definition of order is kicking and stomping the undesirables.
I think that regardless of issues, the one constant is that the voter logic works this way: "I'm unhappy with this issue, so I'll vote for the other party." The way the voter logic does NOT work is this way: "I'm unhappy with this issue, but the other party is just going to be so much worse at this."
We need to understand how this works. We don't have to respect it, because for fucks sake this is idiotic, but it's how it works. In our timeline, Jews would vote for Hitler because they were unhappy with anti-Semitism under Weimer Republic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
As things stand the Republicans have no hope in winning in 1968. The Republican have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Democrats have become the voice of the wage labourer.
As things stand the Democrats have no hope in winning in 1976. The Democrats have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
I could go on and on. Things never stand. Life happens, events occur, perceptions change. Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a 2 year old.
The Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 10:27:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
As things stand the Republicans have no hope in winning in 1968. The Republican have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Democrats have become the voice of the wage labourer.
As things stand the Democrats have no hope in winning in 1976. The Democrats have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
I could go on and on. Things never stand. Life happens, events occur, perceptions change. Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a 2 year old.
The Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
You can keep telling yourself that but the election results. Tell a very different story. If working-class Americans didn't vote for Trump, he would not have won this election.
If you and other Democrats keep telling yourself that the voters just got it wrong and you don't need to change you're going to keep losing elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:29:06 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 10:27:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
As things stand the Republicans have no hope in winning in 1968. The Republican have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Democrats have become the voice of the wage labourer.
As things stand the Democrats have no hope in winning in 1976. The Democrats have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
I could go on and on. Things never stand. Life happens, events occur, perceptions change. Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a 2 year old.
The Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
You can keep telling yourself that but the election results. Tell a very different story. If working-class Americans didn't vote for Trump, he would not have won this election.
If you and other Democrats keep telling yourself that the voters just got it wrong and you don't need to change you're going to keep losing elections.
I don't think he said voters are wrong but fickle. So this doesn't represent some massive realignment but more in this cycle the Republican messaging appealed to them.
It also doesn't help that although there was some demographic shifts Trump got pretty much the same number of votes in 2020 and 2024. It was the Democrats that lost votes by the buckets after the historically highest number of votes for a presidential candidate in 2020. It's not that Trump was appealing in his message, it's that Democrats failed to engage enough despite a much more vigorous campaign that was almost entirely about the economy and significant numbers of volunteers reaching out to people to GOTV.
You can criticize the campaign for not succeeding, but not on the basis of ivory tower eggheadedness or not focusing on working class people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 10:27:07 AMThe Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
This talk about the people funding Trump brought me back to another interesting point I heard yesterday.
As you know this election was fought almost entirely in 7-8 battleground swing states. WI, MI, PA, NC, GA, NV - maybe one or two more. Those states saw huge floods of advertising.
But in all the remaining states they were uncontested by both sides.
But when you look at the results in uncontested states - either bright blue Illinois or New York, or bright red Iowa or Kentucky - Trump did significantly better than his last two times.
So there does seem to be something "in the air" that was attracting people to Trump.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2024, 10:11:28 AMI think that regardless of issues, the one constant is that the voter logic works this way: "I'm unhappy with this issue, so I'll vote for the other party." The way the voter logic does NOT work is this way: "I'm unhappy with this issue, but the other party is just going to be so much worse at this."
We need to understand how this works. We don't have to respect it, because for fucks sake this is idiotic, but it's how it works. In our timeline, Jews would vote for Hitler because they were unhappy with anti-Semitism under Weimer Republic.
Yeah
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2024, 11:13:59 AMIt also doesn't help that although there was some demographic shifts Trump got pretty much the same number of votes in 2020 and 2024. It was the Democrats that lost votes by the buckets after the historically highest number of votes for a presidential candidate in 2020. It's not that Trump was appealing in his message, it's that Democrats failed to engage enough despite a much more vigorous campaign that was almost entirely about the economy and significant numbers of volunteers reaching out to people to GOTV.
You can criticize the campaign for not succeeding, but not on the basis of ivory tower eggheadedness or not focusing on working class people.
Focusing on the working class has been pretty much the Democratic strategy since Hillary Clinton fell. It's what they ran on in 2020, it's how they governed (or at least attempted to) and it was Harris strategy as well. It was why she picked Walz, and eschewed appeals based on identity, to the point that the key area of emphasis in her otherwise interesting biography was a summer job at McDonalds.
The first Presidential campaign where I had some sense what the hell was going on was 1984. The election featured a reace between a hardscrabble midwesterner who grew up poor in Depression and spent a lifetime championing working people. He faced a former Hollywood actor who more than any other single human being had undermined the power and status of American labor, a man whose Presidency marks the origin point of a long-term trend of real wage stagnation.
Working Americans voted in droves for the actor. Why? They remembered that when the midwesterner was VP, there was inflation and unemployment, and by 1984, they were both down.
Also, the other guy he was too youthful and inexperienced. :sleep:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:29:06 AMIf working-class Americans didn't vote for Trump, he would not have won this election.
If you and other Democrats keep telling yourself that the voters just got it wrong and you don't need to change you're going to keep losing elections.
cc is right.
Let me tell you guys an ancedote. A few weeks back I had an appointment with my hair stylist. She's a single young female, very working class, with tattoos, piercings, etc. In other words, I think most people around here would look at her and thing 'Oh, Democrat'.
She asked me about the election and what I was thinking, and I told her I was a near-lifelong Democrat (been a registered Democrat my entire life) who hadn't voted Republican since 2000. I explained why I liked Harris and Walz, what I didn't like about Trump, etc. She listened thoughtfully and then replied, "Well, all's I know is prices just keep going up and if that doesn't stop I don't know how I can keep paying for this lease." With that, I knew she'd be voting for Trump even though she didn't say so, and I suspect millions of Americans had a similar internal dialogue and made the same decision, too.
The Democrats do not know how to appeal to working-class America anymore. They keep trying (the Walz pick was an obvious attempt to do that), but they're not connecting like they need to.
1984 is kind of funny when you think about it though. Yes, inflation had been tamed by 1984 - but only after going through a really tough recession from 1980-1982 with really high interest rates, which you're normally think would be a killer for incumbents.
Going through a similar economic environment in Canada we threw the bums out in 1984, not re-electing them (although the Liberals had also ruled through the 1970s).
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2024, 12:20:28 PMShe asked me about the election and what I was thinking, and I told her I was a near-lifelong Democrat (been a registered Democrat my entire life) who hadn't voted Republican since 2000. I explained why I liked Harris and Walz, what I didn't like about Trump, etc. She listened thoughtfully and then replied, "Well, all's I know is prices just keep going up and if that doesn't stop I don't know how I can keep paying for this lease." With that, I knew she'd be voting for Trump even though she didn't say so, and I suspect millions of Americans had a similar internal dialogue and made the same decision, too.
If the logic stops at "price are going up, I have to change to the other guy" there is no way to win that voter by appealing to working class issues. The mind has already been made up. In NC I was bombarded for two months with Harris campaign ads saying Trump was going to make the economy worse and that Harris was going to cut taxes and make it easier for people. What ads targeted at the working class do you think would get through?
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2024, 12:39:21 PMQuote from: Caliga on November 07, 2024, 12:20:28 PMShe asked me about the election and what I was thinking, and I told her I was a near-lifelong Democrat (been a registered Democrat my entire life) who hadn't voted Republican since 2000. I explained why I liked Harris and Walz, what I didn't like about Trump, etc. She listened thoughtfully and then replied, "Well, all's I know is prices just keep going up and if that doesn't stop I don't know how I can keep paying for this lease." With that, I knew she'd be voting for Trump even though she didn't say so, and I suspect millions of Americans had a similar internal dialogue and made the same decision, too.
If the logic stops at "price are going up, I have to change to the other guy" there is no way to win that voter by appealing to working class issues. The mind has already been made up. In NC I was bombarded for two months with Harris campaign ads saying Trump was going to make the economy worse and that Harris was going to cut taxes and make it easier for people. What ads targeted at the working class do you think would get through?
Yeah all I get from Cal's anecdote is it will be nearly impossible to get some people's votes when your party is the incumbent.
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2024, 12:39:21 PMIf the logic stops at "price are going up, I have to change to the other guy" there is no way to win that voter by appealing to working class issues. The mind has already been made up. In NC I was bombarded for two months with Harris campaign ads saying Trump was going to make the economy worse and that Harris was going to cut taxes and make it easier for people. What ads targeted at the working class do you think would get through?
You can make the argument that Harris actually out-performed in swing states precisely because of those kinds of ads - it just wasn't good enough. In states where she didn't compete there was more of a swing to Trump.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2024, 10:59:54 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:29:06 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 10:27:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
As things stand the Republicans have no hope in winning in 1968. The Republican have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Democrats have become the voice of the wage labourer.
As things stand the Democrats have no hope in winning in 1976. The Democrats have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
I could go on and on. Things never stand. Life happens, events occur, perceptions change. Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a 2 year old.
The Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
You can keep telling yourself that but the election results. Tell a very different story. If working-class Americans didn't vote for Trump, he would not have won this election.
If you and other Democrats keep telling yourself that the voters just got it wrong and you don't need to change you're going to keep losing elections.
I don't think he said voters are wrong but fickle. So this doesn't represent some massive realignment but more in this cycle the Republican messaging appealed to them.
Fickle is a wiggle word used to avoid grappling with what has happened. Trump won the popular vote. Trump! He won despite being Trump because the Dems lost the thread.
It's challenging talking to people who are clearly not thinking things through deeply. I imagine it is particularly challenging for highly educated professionals, because it's just super hard for us to get into the minds where there isn't much going on, when we constantly deal with people who can operate at a much higher level. Maybe we need an influx of politicians who aren't that, who can lead people to the right conclusions even through awful logic, because they can better identify with how such people think.
Quote from: DGuller on November 07, 2024, 01:26:36 PM...when we constantly deal with people who can operate at a much higher level.
Your post is representative of the conceit that has cost the Dems support.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
I'm not sure that the wage laborers like the Republicans so much as they don't like the current status quo and wanted very much to re-roll the dice.
More than half the Trump voters disapproved of Trump, from the exit polls I have seen.
Unless the Trump admin actually makes their situation better, we could see labor wanting to re-roll again in 2028.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 12:24:21 PM1984 is kind of funny when you think about it though. Yes, inflation had been tamed by 1984 - but only after going through a really tough recession from 1980-1982 with really high interest rates, which you're normally think would be a killer for incumbents.
If Reagan had to fight election in 1982, things might have turned out very differently. In the 82 midterms the GOP was massacred in the House. Reagan executed a big course correction and there was a cull of the more controversial cabinet members like Watt and Gorsuch. But what really saved him was that the Volcker medicine did break inflation and the Fed eased up on rates.
That points to the key fact that pundits always ignore because their stock in trade is Monday morning quarterbacking strategy. The most important attribute any candidate can have is not good campaign tactics. It's timing.
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2024, 12:20:28 PMShe asked me about the election and what I was thinking, and I told her I was a near-lifelong Democrat (been a registered Democrat my entire life) who hadn't voted Republican since 2000. I explained why I liked Harris and Walz, what I didn't like about Trump, etc. She listened thoughtfully and then replied, "Well, all's I know is prices just keep going up and if that doesn't stop I don't know how I can keep paying for this lease." With that, I knew she'd be voting for Trump even though she didn't say so, and I suspect millions of Americans had a similar internal dialogue and made the same decision, too.
Cal your anecdote contradicts your point.
tatoo girl wasn't voting Trump because she thought the Democrats were "elistist" or weren't trying to appeal to the working class, or woke or for any reason having to do with their messaging. She voted Trump because prices went up. Which means no message could elect Harris, other than giving her a time machine, Roman dictatorial power to control the economy and a giant price sticker gun.
Quote from: grumbler on November 07, 2024, 01:36:50 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 09:55:13 AMAs things stand the Dems have no hope of winning in 28. The Dems have become the party of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
The Dems cannot win if they don't change that.
I'm not sure that the wage laborers like the Republicans so much as they don't like the current status quo and wanted very much to re-roll the dice.
More than half the Trump voters disapproved of Trump, from the exit polls I have seen.
Unless the Trump admin actually makes their situation better, we could see labor wanting to re-roll again in 2028.
Yes, I agree. And that the concerning thing. The fact that they voted for Trump even though they disapprove of him shows how far off the mark the Dems were with their policies/messaging/optics.
I fear the Dems are opening the door wide open for Vance. His rhetoric is all about concerns for the working class and he won't be Trump.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 02:03:37 PMtatoo girl wasn't voting Trump because she thought the Democrats were "elistist" or weren't trying to appeal to the working class, or woke or for any reason having to do with their messaging. She voted Trump because prices went up. Which means no message could elect Harris, other than giving her a time machine, Roman dictatorial power to control the economy and a giant price sticker gun.
I didn't intend to say I thought she was thinking the Democrats were elitist, or anything negative at all about them. I agree she voted Trump because prices went up. I guess what I'm questioning is, why when people vote for 'x' when prices go up, they're now voting for Republicans whereas I don't think that was always true. How can the Democrats recapture that vote? Maybe the incumbent party just can't hope to?
Hasn't it been the overwhelming norm for the incumbent President to win a second term?
Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 03:18:09 PMHasn't it been the overwhelming norm for the incumbent President to win a second term?
In recent years, when they don't win a second term, it has been due to economic problems (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
Quote from: Caliga on November 07, 2024, 03:17:05 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 02:03:37 PMtatoo girl wasn't voting Trump because she thought the Democrats were "elistist" or weren't trying to appeal to the working class, or woke or for any reason having to do with their messaging. She voted Trump because prices went up. Which means no message could elect Harris, other than giving her a time machine, Roman dictatorial power to control the economy and a giant price sticker gun.
I didn't intend to say I thought she was thinking the Democrats were elitist, or anything negative at all about them. I agree she voted Trump because prices went up. I guess what I'm questioning is, why when people vote for 'x' when prices go up, they're now voting for Republicans whereas I don't think that was always true. How can the Democrats recapture that vote? Maybe the incumbent party just can't hope to?
The whole read my lips things led to a democratic win. For presidential elections timing seems to have an over weighed component on the outcome.
Don't know how they (democrats) fucked up congress and e house too though. Riding the wave?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 10:27:07 AMAs things stand the Republicans have no hope in winning in 1968. The Republican have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Democrats have become the voice of the wage labourer.
As things stand the Democrats have no hope in winning in 1976. The Democrats have become of the educated elite- and only part of that group. And the Republicans have become the voice of the wage labourer.
I could go on and on. Things never stand. Life happens, events occur, perceptions change. Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a 2 year old.
The Republicans under Trump are not the voice of the wage laborer, they have temporarily succeeded in attracting that vote in 2024 as they did to some extent in 2016 and failed to do in 2020. The people funding and backing Trump and the GOP consist of a foreign born media mogul who is the richest man in the world, a series of multi-billionaire private equity fund titans, big oil and gas company executives, the owners of the NYSE, fellow real estate moguls, etc. The policy agenda is to gut worker regulation, gut worker bargaining power, gut antitrust enforcement. It's the most aggressive antiworker agenda we've seen in decades.
So I totally agree with the first part.
With the second part I think the caveat is there's been for at least the 10-15 years an intellectual effort on part of the right around "post-liberalism". That's argued for an agenda for the GOP to become a multi-racial party of working people from at the softer end people like Reihan Salam or Sohrab Ahmari to the more wild like Patrick Deneen. They've argued that is the route to political success but also that the social and cultural liberalism they oppose is also a product of liberal, globalised capitalism. In a way it's the old line that the left romanticise the economic order of early post-war America, the right the social order - and their argument is, in part, that that was a package and the disintegration of both has the same cause.
I've always kind of dismissed them for the same reason you give and how dismissive they are of unions (though I'd note Ahmari has been petty pro-union lately), which to me seem like the only way of exercising worker power against capital. But there's a project there, and Trump has, I believe, just won voters earning under $100,000 a year and increased his vote share everywhere - but particularly Latinos and African-American men. I also saw JD Vance of all people say the problem with "corporate America" is that corporations socialise costs and privatise gains in a way that most mainstream Democrats (or Labour MPs here) would shy away from.
So I think everything you say is true. But I'm not sure it's all the story (and I think that's basically the difference between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump's position as candidates).
But I totally agree that nothing is inevitable and it's for the Democrats to work out what next for them. But I wouldn't bet on that GOP pitch for working votes just evaporating or automatically falling back.
Here is a good summary of the why, I think: https://youtu.be/WAyIAJCWVxA?si=M8w_suk7itLnN3DJ
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 03:26:15 PMBut I totally agree that nothing is inevitable and it's for the Democrats to work out what next for them. But I wouldn't bet on that GOP pitch for working votes just evaporating or automatically falling back.
The people bankrolling Trump and the party will never permit the kind the rhetoric that Vance is throwing about to ever become policy. If you look at the concrete policy direction, it goes the other way.
Vance may talk a good game, but there is a man who despite his youth has already built a formidable track record of talking out of the both sides of his mouth. He may play the man of the people and tell cute little stories about his meemaw, but he is former private equity exec angling for a role to eviscerate business regulation.
FWIW I looked at the breakdown of the Bergen County vote - that's a well-to-do NJ commuter county just over the GW Bridge where I live now. I was interested because although the county went Harris, the vote margin was way down. Looking at the votes, the lunchbox towns like Hackensack and Englewood stayed solid Dem. Alpine - possibly the richest town in the state and home to various celebrities - flipped. Englewood Cliffs - home to many corporate HQs and well-manicured estates - also flipped. Other flips include upscale commuter towns like Ridgewood and Mahwah.
I get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 03:26:15 PMBut I totally agree that nothing is inevitable and it's for the Democrats to work out what next for them. But I wouldn't bet on that GOP pitch for working votes just evaporating or automatically falling back.
You're assuming a lot. You're assuming there could be free and fair elections in 4 years at the Presidential level.
I think it's even a stretch to imagine fair election at the Senate level in 2 years. The Dems are gone for a long while now and nothing short of a collapse of the GOP or a revolution can bring them back.
Trump might be forced up to leave the space for someone else more malleable, but the GOP is there to stay. Musk and the others did not invest so much for a one term stint.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMI get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
I see voter turnout down. So it seems that, again, many Democrats stayed home.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2024, 04:36:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMI get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
I see voter turnout down. So it seems that, again, many Democrats stayed home.
I've seen a reasonable amount of Democratic conspiracy mongering on Twitter - that the Democratic vote is down millions from 2020.
I think it mostly comes down to California (and lesser extent Oregon and Washington) which still have huge piles of votes to count, and will be majority democratic. It won't make any difference to the electoral college, but it will to vote totals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMThe people bankrolling Trump and the party will never permit the kind the rhetoric that Vance is throwing about to ever become policy. If you look at the concrete policy direction, it goes the other way.
Vance may talk a good game, but there is a man who despite his youth has already built a formidable track record of talking out of the both sides of his mouth. He may play the man of the people and tell cute little stories about his meemaw, but he is former private equity exec angling for a role to eviscerate business regulation.
I don't disagree - but I think politics is upstream of policy. If the route for Republican victories becomes as those "post-liberal" guys argue a populist multi-racial coalition of working people, then I think that will shape what the Republican party becomes. And likewise if the Democrats can't break out of college educated and people earning $100k+ then that is what they will become and that'll shape the polices both of them offer.
And in part it depends on what narratives form about this election and what lessons both parties take from the first Republican popular vote victory since 2004.
And of course another bit of the story which could be the dominant narrative (though I think it'd be high risk) is simply that it's a shit time to be an incumbent. As pointed out in the FT so far this year for the first time in the post-war era every election in a developed country has seen the governing party lose vote share (and the Democrats have done better than most).
QuoteFWIW I looked at the breakdown of the Bergen County vote - that's a well-to-do NJ commuter county just over the GW Bridge where I live now. I was interested because although the county went Harris, the vote margin was way down. Looking at the votes, the lunchbox towns like Hackensack and Englewood stayed solid Dem. Alpine - possibly the richest town in the state and home to various celebrities - flipped. Englewood Cliffs - home to many corporate HQs and well-manicured estates - also flipped. Other flips include upscale commuter towns like Ridgewood and Mahwah.
I get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
Yeah the thing I'd read was basically that in 2020 Trump beat Biden among people earning over $100k but Biden won people earning less than that - and this election it flipped.
But obviously the wider context of that is that Trump did pretty well across the board:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbumGYFXMAkIK5y?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 04:48:09 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 07, 2024, 04:36:19 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMI get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
I see voter turnout down. So it seems that, again, many Democrats stayed home.
I've seen a reasonable amount of Democratic conspiracy mongering on Twitter - that the Democratic vote is down millions from 2020.
I think it mostly comes down to California (and lesser extent Oregon and Washington) which still have huge piles of votes to count, and will be majority democratic. It won't make any difference to the electoral college, but it will to vote totals.
We'll when the final vote count is out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMFWIW I looked at the breakdown of the Bergen County vote - that's a well-to-do NJ commuter county just over the GW Bridge where I live now. I was interested because although the county went Harris, the vote margin was way down. Looking at the votes, the lunchbox towns like Hackensack and Englewood stayed solid Dem. Alpine - possibly the richest town in the state and home to various celebrities - flipped. Englewood Cliffs - home to many corporate HQs and well-manicured estates - also flipped. Other flips include upscale commuter towns like Ridgewood and Mahwah.
I get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
Was this (https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/07/how-nj-towns-vote-map-trump-harris-election-2024/76108812007/) the breakdown? That map doesn't surprise me much, based on the overall election results. The biggest is that I thought Nutley was going to be much more in favor of Trump. :P Apparently they're a flip this election! BTW, did you mean Ridgefield rather than Ridgewood (which is showing as solidly blue)?
What's really interesting are the tables below the map. There were 180,000 fewer votes cast across the five counties this year versus 2020. Basically all those missing votes look to have come out of Harris's total (vice Biden). Trump was basically flat (he got 2% more votes this time, but there were 3% more registered voters). The numbers make it seem like Democratic apathy swung this, rather than any Trump appeal.
From Al-Jazeera: (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/6/we-warned-you-arab-americans-in-michigan-tell-kamala-harris)
Quote'We warned you,' Arab Americans in Michigan tell Kamala Harris
A shift away from pro-Israel Democrats in communities like Dearborn underscores anger over war in Gaza and Lebanon.
Dearborn, Michigan – When Fox News called Pennsylvania for Donald Trump in the early hours of Wednesday, all but confirming that he would be the next president of the United States, there were a handful of Arab activists left at a watch party in Dearborn, Michigan.
"Genocide is bad politics," said one attendee at the event, which had Palestinian and Lebanese flags hanging outside its doors.
As the reality of another Trump presidency set off anger and sorrow from many Democratic commentators, at the Dearborn gathering organised by American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), there was a sense of indifference – if not vindication.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris had ignored the community's calls for reconsidering the unconditional US support for Israel. The vice president also continued to assert what she calls "Israel's right to defend itself" despite the brutal atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon.
Activist Adam Abusalah said part of the reason why Harris lost was her decision to side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the expense of alienating the Democratic base – Arab and Muslim Americans as well as young people and progressives.
"We've been warning the Democrats for over a year now, and the Democrats continue to downplay what's going on."
He added that Harris's main message to the Arab community was to warn of the dangers of a Trump presidency. This tactic failed to work as voters in the area were laser-focused on the continuing war in the Middle East that affected many of them personally.
Dearborn shift
In the Arab-majority suburb of Dearborn, anger over Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and Lebanon was tangible at the ballot box.
Harris lost the city to Trump by more than 2,600 votes. President Joe Biden beat Trump by more than 17,400 votes – a more than 20,000-vote swing that helped the Republican former president reclaim Michigan.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who centred opposition to the war in her platform, also performed relatively well in the city, growing her party's support from 207 votes in 2020 to more than 7,600 this year.
Hussein Dabajeh, a Lebanese American political consultant in the Detroit area, noted that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat, significantly outperformed Harris in Dearborn, receiving more than 9,600 votes than the vice president.
"The Arab community said we're anti-genocide. We supported the candidates that supported the community, and we stood against the candidates that stood against the community," Dabajeh told Al Jazeera.
It is unclear what a Trump presidency will mean for Arab and Muslim Americans and the country at large.
"I hope it's something good. I hope the country comes together. I hope the Democrats are brought to their senses," Dabajeh said.
While the former president has a long history of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant statements and policies, he has promised to bring "peace" to the region.
Trump also softened his antagonistic tone towards Arabs and Muslims as he courted their communities in Michigan.
He brought Arab and Muslim officials and imams to the stage during his rallies and called them "great people".
Trump also visited Dearborn and listened first-hand to demands to end the war, which Harris failed to do.
'It doesn't stop here'
Ali Alfarjalla, a 32-year-old Iraqi American real estate agent in Dearborn, said that for all his flaws, Trump represents a change from the Biden-Harris administration that has been unflinchingly supporting the Israeli assault on Gaza and Lebanon.
He stressed that the election is not the end of political engagement, saying that the community will press Trump to deliver on his promise of bringing peace to the region.
"It doesn't stop here," Alfarjalla told Al Jazeera.
"We have to work more to make sure our issues are heard – to stop the genocide in Gaza, stop the invasion of south Lebanon, and let Palestine have its own state. We're hopeful about that. That's our number one priority for this community."
He also said that Harris supporters' "lesser of two evils" pitch to the community backfired because many voters could not see a worse evil than the administration providing the bombs that were killing their families and destroying their hometowns.
While both major candidates back Israel, the Harris campaign committed a series of unforced errors that further alienated the community in Michigan and beyond, Arab American advocates told Al Jazeera.
At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, the Harris campaign rejected demands to allow a speech by a Palestinian speaker.
The Democratic candidate also turned down a request for a meeting by the Uncommitted Movement, which was founded during the Democratic Primary process to pressure Biden over his unconditional support for Israel.
Unlike Trump, Harris did not visit Dearborn, the de-facto seat of Arab American political and financial power, during her campaign.
Instead, Harris met with handpicked Arab and Muslim "leaders" in Flint, about an hour north of Detroit, last month.
Moreover, Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney in Michigan and welcomed the endorsement of her father, former President Dick Cheney – an architect of the so-called "War on Terror" that devastated the Middle East.
Numerous Arab American activists invoked Harris's embrace of the Cheneys when underscoring her apparent disregard for their communities.
"We had Harris endorsed by neoconservatives like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney, and she's openly campaigning with them and talking about how great they are," Dearborn councilman Mustapha Hammoud told Al Jazeera on Tuesday night as the results trickled in.
"You know what? I don't think people are willing to vote for George W Bush, so you weren't going to see people vote for Harris, either."
'I smile and laugh at it'
Speaking under a Harris campaign sign last week, former President Bill Clinton claimed that Hamas "forces" Israel to kill Palestinian civilians and suggested that Zionism pre-dates Islam.
The campaign's behaviour led some advocates to question whether the Democratic candidate has given up on the Arab community.
"Vice President Harris has shown over and over again that she actually doesn't want our vote," Uncommitted Movement leader Layla Elabed told Al Jazeera last week.
Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud also noted that the Harris campaign was hesitant to engage Arab Americans directly.
"They don't want the heckling to occur. They don't want to knock on the doors where they think the conversations are going to drag, and the votes might not be there," the mayor told Al Jazeera before the elections.
On the policy front, Harris did not make any concrete promises to the community – even within the acceptable realm of mainstream politics – like reopening the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington, DC, or resuming funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).
In contrast, Biden released platforms for Arab and Muslim Americans in 2020, promising domestic and foreign policy moves sought by the community – many of which went unfulfilled.
Bottom line, many Arab Americans say they already survived four years of Trump while many of their relatives in Palestine and Lebanon did not survive the Biden-Harris presidency.
They say they will continue to push for change, no matter who is in power.
Asked about some liberal social media users attacking Arab Americans and blaming them for Harris's defeat, Alfarjalla said many people in the community have survived war and adversity, so they are not concerned about what others say.
"I smile and laugh at it," he said.
Harris was faced with an dilemma of either alienating Jewish voters or alienating Muslim/activist voters. She might have done a better job with Arab-American outreach, as the article says, but it really is hard to see how they're better off with Trump.
And it's not as if the Arab-American vote would have made up the difference either.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 06:26:42 PMAnd it's not as if the Arab-American vote would have made up the difference either.
Still what dumbfucks. Their "protest" is going to gain them anything.
Edit: forgot the word not :blush:
They have four years to explore the depths of their stupidity.
Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 06:26:42 PMAnd it's not as if the Arab-American vote would have made up the difference either.
She might have been able to take Michigan with a more solid Arab-American turnout. It's difficult to tell from the article since it focuses exclusively on Dearborn, which is where the Muslims live. There's a large Christian Arab-American community in Metro Detroit as well, but their communities (and how the war impacted their vote) are ignored in the article. Of course it wouldn't have made a difference in the general election.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2024, 04:33:05 PMFWIW I looked at the breakdown of the Bergen County vote - that's a well-to-do NJ commuter county just over the GW Bridge where I live now. I was interested because although the county went Harris, the vote margin was way down. Looking at the votes, the lunchbox towns like Hackensack and Englewood stayed solid Dem. Alpine - possibly the richest town in the state and home to various celebrities - flipped. Englewood Cliffs - home to many corporate HQs and well-manicured estates - also flipped. Other flips include upscale commuter towns like Ridgewood and Mahwah.
I get that the story may be different elsewhere. But at least swiveling my head where I live, I don't see a clear play out of the supposed Trumpian workers revolting against their elites. I see a lot of well-educated affluent folk voting their tax bracket.
I looked at Jersey City results, for each Ward/District combination. I was relieved to find that Ward E, where most of the well-off yuppies like me live, usually in highrises, the Harris share is almost the highest. Only the low-income Ward A is higher. The ones that that are Trumpiest? The Heights and Journal Square, which are middle income. The Heights in particular has a high proportion of Hispanic population.
I've only looked at it quickly, and not in a very organized way. I also wish I could compare against 2020, but such detail is not available for that one, and probably redistricting would make such comparisons impossible anyway.
Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2024, 06:29:09 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 06:26:42 PMAnd it's not as if the Arab-American vote would have made up the difference either.
Still what dumbfucks. Their "protest" is going to gain them anything.
Edit: forgot the word not :blush:
They wouldn't be the first Arabs to destroy themselves because of Israel.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 07, 2024, 06:14:14 PMWhat's really interesting are the tables below the map. There were 180,000 fewer votes cast across the five counties this year versus 2020. Basically all those missing votes look to have come out of Harris's total (vice Biden). Trump was basically flat (he got 2% more votes this time, but there were 3% more registered voters). The numbers make it seem like Democratic apathy swung this, rather than any Trump appeal.
One thought (I am - can't emphasise this enough - not a data person) is that it'd be interesting to track it against 2016 and previous recent elections. Because in the same way as Biden was an outlier, I think 2020 had a huge turnout compared to other recent American elections while I think this year is more normal.
I wonder if it is a return to the mean - so it'd be interesting maybe to track Democrat and Republican votes against that?
I agree that I don't think it's helpful to compare against 2020, because it was an outlier year. I also think the assumption that Trump voters from 2020 turned out at the same rate, but only Biden voters turned out less, is completely unsupported. Theoretically both parties could've lost the same share voters in the turnout, but Trump just converted some that did turn out.
A thought. Which is a potential positive out of all this.
So many people saying it's the economy that was their main concern.
I think this is bs for many but not all. Just lack of awareness.
Then there's those who's say they hate trunp but petrol is more expensive than it used to be (isn't it always?)
This is really something for all those woke zealots gloating and spraying their nonsense. People aren't into fascism. They just weirdly believe trump will be better for the economy. Which is hopeful.
There's still the concern though that the Biden recovery continues and really starts hitting normal people. Absolutely a good thing to hope for.... But at the same time likely to be credited to trump if so.
Once the Fascist(s) hold(s) power, they don't let go.
Jos, I am pretty sure people were well aware of what was concerning them when they said the economy was there main concern.
It obviously would not have been for you, but that does not make your priorities better, nor diminish theirs.
That is how democracy works.
Quote from: Josquius on November 08, 2024, 03:08:35 AMThen there's those who's say they hate trunp but petrol is more expensive than it used to be (isn't it always?)
I don't think there are that many Americans saying "petrol is more expensive". :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2024, 09:20:17 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 08, 2024, 03:08:35 AMThen there's those who's say they hate trunp but petrol is more expensive than it used to be (isn't it always?)
I don't think there are that many Americans saying "petrol is more expensive". :sleep:
Price is lower when you buy by the litre.
I'll try to remember that the next time I go to the garage to fill up and put air in my tyres.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 08, 2024, 07:07:28 AMOnce the Fascist(s) hold(s) power, they don't let go.
So, like, yes and no.
I don't think a 2028 election will be as free and fair as 2024. Trump is going to try to bring the big media outlets to heel. We've already seen Bezos/WaPo crumble. Mind you now that Trump won the majority popular vote they may not be as invested in trying to "steal" the election through other shenanigans.
But on the other hand - the Constitution will still apply. An election will be held. I mean even Putin knows he needs the fig leaf of legitimacy that an election gives him. And Trump has far less control over the levers of power than Putin does.
I fear Vance will be to Maduro as Trump was/is to Chavez. Not as charismatic, but still able to rig things in his favour regardless.
Quote from: PJL on November 08, 2024, 12:50:22 PMI fear Vance will be to Maduro as Trump was/is to Chavez. Not as charismatic, but still able to rig things in his favour regardless.
Vance is such a cypher though.
First of all the 2028 primaries are likely to be competitive, and being VP doesn't guarantee anyone a spot at the top of the ticket (Just ask Mike Pence, or Dan Quayle).
But if he was top of the ticket... he has never struck me as being a MAGA "true believer". He just has no internal compass so he'll go from being a marine, to a Yale-educated lawyer, to being the "Hillbillies in the mist" author, to being a Trumpist. So it's possible he doesn't try to even be a Maduro-like figure, even if he gets the nod to be the nominee.
Vance is amoral and unethical. Not exactly an improvement on the orange fatso.
He has grown to prominence in the post-Trump GOP. He has to be dangerous.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 06, 2024, 02:59:01 PMYou guys are digging and digging. Maybe the answer is that a majority of your countrymen are just stupid.
Apparently Harris got less than Biden in terms of percentage of the female vote. 45 % of women voted Trump. There's only so much you can explain and decipher. Maybe y'all are just morons.
I'm listening to Republican strategist Sarah Longwell on NPR talking about public opinion of Trump's tyrannical posture and she just said:
"When I ask voters in focus groups if they think Donald Trump is an authoritarian, the #1 response by far is, 'what's an authoritarian?'"
They're(and we) are about to find that out first hand.
Quote from: Tamas on November 08, 2024, 02:45:35 PMHe has grown to prominence in the post-Trump GOP. He has to be dangerous.
Indeed.
I think the the miscalculations of DeSantis and Haley trying to primary is that they're now done. Barring unforeseen developments over the next four year...If they try and compete against Vance, they will just get sunk again. Had they not tried to go against Trump, they may have had a clean shot in four.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 08, 2024, 03:13:44 PMIndeed.
I think the the miscalculations of DeSantis and Haley trying to primary is that they're now done. Barring unforeseen developments over the next four year...If they try and compete against Vance, they will just get sunk again. Had they not tried to go against Trump, they may have had a clean shot in four.
This year was DeSantis's only real shot. He'll be term limited out in 2026 and there won't be an open senate seat in Florida in 2026 (and it's unlikely he would have run against Scott or Rubio regardless). His Covid policies and his 2022 campaign will be ancient history in 2028.
I thought this analysis was interesting. Vibes with some of what I've been thinking even before the election and some responses we've seen here.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/10/donald-trump-the-left-social-media-rightwing-propaganda-progressives-woke
QuoteFrom Trump's victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people despise the left
The tumult of social media and rightwing propaganda has successfully cast progressives as one judgmental, 'woke' mass
There is no need to pick only a few of the many explanations of Donald Trump's political comeback. Most of the endless reasons we have heard over the past five days ring true: inflation, incumbency, a flimsy Democratic campaign, white Americans' seemingly eternal issues with race, and what one New York Times essayist recently called "a regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright". But there is another story that has so far been rather more overlooked, to do with how politics now works, and who voters think of when they enter the polling booth.
Its most vivid element is about the left, and one inescapable fact: that a lot of people simply do not like us. In the UK, that is part of the reason why Brexit happened, why Nigel Farage is back, and why our new Labour government feels so flimsy and fragile. In the US, it goes some way to explaining why more than 75 million voters just rejected the supposedly progressive option, and chose a convicted criminal and unabashed insurrectionist to oversee their lives.
The latter story goes beyond Kamala Harris and her failed pitch for power. When established parties on the progressive and conservative wings of politics go into an election, in the minds of many people, they represent a much larger set of forces, whether their candidates like it or not. After all, what people understand as the left and right operate far beyond the institutions of the state: political battles are fought in the media, on the street, in workplaces, campuses, and more. This has always been the case, but as social media turn the noise such activity makes into a deafening din, seeing most big parties and candidates as the tips of much larger icebergs becomes inevitable.
Trump leads the movement that was responsible for the January 6 insurrection, has made less-than-subtle noises about his affinity with the far right, and makes absolutely no bones about any of it. For the Democrats, the lines that connect a centrist figure such as Harris to the wider US left tend to look much fuzzier, but that does not make millions of people's perceptions of them any less real. Around the world, in fact, the left looks to many voters like a coherent bloc that goes from people who lie in the road and shut down universities to would-be presidents and prime ministers – the only difference between them, as some see it, is that radical activists are honest about their ideas, whereas the people who stand for office try to cover them up.
What the US election result shows is that, when told to make a choice, millions of people will draw on those ideas, and ally themselves with the other political side. Many of them, of course, have arrived at that conclusion thanks to outright bigotry. But given the remarkable spread of votes for Trump – into Latino and black parts of the electorate, and states considered loyal Democratic heartlands, from California to New Jersey – that hardly explains the entirety of his win. What it highlights is something that many American, British and European people have known for the past 15 years, at least: that the left is now alienating huge chunks of its old base of support.
That story has deep roots, partly bound up with the decline of political loyalties based around class: compared with 2008, 2024's Democratic coalition was skewed towards the higher end of the income range, whereas Trump's tilted in the other direction. The same kind of fracturing now seems to be affecting many ethnically based political loyalties: as Trump well knows, there are now large numbers of voters from minorities – and immigrant backgrounds – who largely accept rightwing ideas about immigration. That is partly because modern economies create such a desperate competition for rewards.
Why America voted for Donald Trump (again) – video
11:59
Why America voted for Donald Trump (again) – video
But there seems to be more to it than that: polling shows the suggestion that "government should increase border security and enforcement" is supported by higher percentages of black and Hispanic voters than among white progressives – but the same applies to "most people can make it if they work hard" and "America is the greatest country in the world". Growing chunks of the electorate, in other words, are not who the left think they are.
Meanwhile, the widening political gap based around people's education levels – voters without college degrees supported Trump by a 14-point margin, while Harris had a 13-point advantage among college-educated people – creates yet more problems. Some of them are to do with "wokeness" and its drawbacks. Because the cutting edge of left politics is often associated with institutions of higher education, ideas that are meant to be about inclusivity can easily turn into the opposite. The result is an agenda often expressed with a judgmental arrogance, and based around behavioural codes – to do with microaggressions, or the correct use of pronouns – that are very hard for people outside highly educated circles to navigate.
At the same time, our online discourse hardens good intentions into an all-or-nothing style of activism that will not tolerate nuance or compromise. A message about the left then travels from one part of society to another: there is a transmission belt between clarion calls that do the rounds on college campuses, the Democratic mainstream, and unsettled voters in, say, suburban and rural Pennsylvania. And the right can therefore make hay, as evidenced by a Trump ad that was crass and cruel, but grimly effective: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."
In its own ugly way, that line highlights what might have been Trump and his supporters' strongest asset: the idea that, because they are so distant and privileged, modern progressives would rather ignore questions about everyday economics. Nearly 40% of all Americans say they have skipped meals in order to meet their housing payments, and more than 70% admit to living with economic anxiety. A second Trump term, of course, is hardly going to make that any better: the point is that he was able to successfully pretend that it would.
Think you know how bad Trump unleashed will be? Look at the evidence: it will be even worse
Jonathan Freedland
Jonathan Freedland
Read more
That then opened the way for something even more jaw-dropping: Trump's sudden claim to be a great unifier, something implicitly contrasted with progressives' habit of separating people into demographic islands. It takes an almost evil level of chutzpah to flip from his hate and nastiness to a new message of love for most Americans, but consider what he said about his coalition of voters: "They came from all quarters: union, non-union, African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Arab American, Muslim American. We had everybody. And it was beautiful." That is the increasingly familiar sound of populist tanks being parked on the left's lawn.
None of this is meant to imply that most progressive causes are mistaken, or to make any argument for leaning into Trumpism. What the state of politics across the west highlights is more about tone, strategy, empathy, and how to take people with you while trying to change society – as well as the platforms that poison democratic debate, and the harm they do to progressive politics. The next time you see someone on the left combusting with self-righteous fury on the hellscape now known as X, it's worth remembering that its current owner is Elon Musk, who may be about to assist Trump in massively cutting US public spending, while cackling at the weakness of the president's enemies, and their habit of walking into glaring traps.
Woke is a joke. But its one that an awful lot of people have been conditioned to believe is a very real nebulous threat doing all manner of ridiculous things.
Combine this with another look, which again vibes with some thoughts that have been flying around
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/young-men-donald-trump-kamala-harris
QuoteA fatal miscalculation': masculinity researcher Richard Reeves on why Democrats lost young men
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz had an opportunity to win a demographic that swung toward Trump – but they didn't fight for it, says the author
In the months leading up to election day, pollsters were fixated on one demographic: young men. This group, often elusive in political data, was showing signs of a notable swing toward Donald Trump and away from the progressive viewpoints of young women.
Traditionally a policy wonk, Richard Reeves became an unlikely media mainstay this election cycle, sought after by those trying to decode the concerns and motivations of these gen Z male voters. Reeves is president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, which he started in 2023 to create research-based approaches to bettering the education, mental health, and work and family life of men. Many of the institute's policy proposals were outlined in Reeves's 2022 book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It.
Before the election, Reeves told the Guardian he was critical of the Democrats' inability to talk directly to men about their policy platform. He pointed to poorer educational outcomes with fewer men graduating from college and worsening standardized test scores. He also spoke about the worsening mental health, loneliness and suicide crises among this group and the lack of willingness by Democrats to address them directly. Now, with Trump claiming victory with significant support from American men, he says he understands why so many chose to vote Republican.
The day after the election, I spoke with Reeves to hear his take on the results and what they reveal about this misunderstood voting bloc.
Exit polls after an election are notoriously inaccurate. But do you think, from initial data, that young men played a big role in this election?
I think we need to wait and see before quoting specific numbers, but I think it's fair to say that gender did play a big role in this election, but not in the way we expected.
If you're ever going to have a ticket that could speak to men, for the love of God, it was this one
The expectation was we're going to see this break towards Trump among men overall and we're going to see a break towards Kamala Harris among women overall. But only half of that really seemed to come true. Trump did overperform among young men, but Harris underperformed among young women. That is a surprise. I think that an election that was initially expected to be about women and women's issues turned out to be an election about men. My former colleague Elaine Kamarck, now of Brookings Institute, was on NPR saying that abortion just didn't play as big an issue as people thought. It's not that women didn't care about it. It just wasn't as salient.
When we spoke a few months ago, you made a case for ways in which the Democrats could speak to men and women. It seems like the Democrats went in the opposite direction – they really presented themselves as the party of women.
Correct. And not only do I think that was a gamble that didn't pay off, I think it was an unnecessary gamble. This was an opportunity. The Harris-Walz campaign could have leaned pretty hard into a pro-male policy agenda and presentation. When you have a woman at the top of the ticket, no one thinks she's a closet misogynist. With Walz, you've got the first public school teacher to run for high office, who is also a coach. I mean, if you're ever going to have a ticket that could speak to men, for the love of God, it was this one.
a man in black clothes and a headset looks up
Rogan, Musk and an emboldened manosphere salute Trump's win: 'Let that sink in'
Read more
They could have gone out there with some pretty substantive ideas. Instead, zip. Even my progressive feminist friends were watching the DNC and saying: "Is there going to be anything for men?" Whereas the RNC was a carnival of masculinity. The Republicans put out a welcome mat there for men and said: "We can see you, we're cool with you being guys, we like guys, the Democrats hate you, they think you're the problem."
Absent a proper Democrat response to that, I think Harris just ceded the ground.
So you don't think it was inevitable that Harris would actively lose the votes of young men?
I think you don't win votes if you're not fighting for them. And the Democrats didn't really fight very hard for the votes of young men. But they could have said: "There are so many progressive young women who are worried about the mental health of their boyfriend or brother. There are so many progressive women who wanted a party that would support their reproductive rights and do a better job of educating their son."
Democrats benched themselves from the argument about men
Instead, at the very last gasp, they started to say to men: "Well, if you care about the women in your life, you should vote for us. Or maybe the reason you're not voting for us is because you're secretly a little bit sexist?" Trying to either shame or guilt trip or scare men into voting Democrat was spectacularly unsuccessful.
In the end, the Dems just didn't do well enough among women to offset the gains that the Republicans made among men. It turned out that was a fatal miscalculation.
Meanwhile, Republicans did a good job of stoking resentment. They had one ad that told men: "You did everything right in life, you went to college, you got a job, and now the Democrats and women want to hold you back."
The zero-sum framing around this issue has been a huge problem on both sides. On the Democrat side it led to political failure. They benched themselves from the argument about men, because their zero-sum frame meant that they couldn't address issues of boys and men and still be taken seriously as a party for women.
On the other side, the Republican zero-sum framing was: you are struggling and we know who's to blame for that. We have someone to point to: women and Democrats. The reason that was a politically successful sentiment was because those men's problems are real, and for a long time they'd been neglected, so they actually did turn into grievances, and then those grievances could be weaponized.
man with hand on chin
View image in fullscreen
Richard Reeves is president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. Photograph: Martin Argles/The Guardian
So Republicans found success in the idea that the success of women has come at the expense of men.
In reality, it's not zero-sum. Men are not struggling because women are flourishing. But absent other reasons, it was allowed to become a more effective political strategy. What men heard from the right was: you've got problems, we don't have solutions. What they heard from the left is: you don't have problems, you are the problem. And between those two choices, it's not really surprising to me that more men chose the Republican one.
The Republicans also seemed to successfully detoxify Trump among young men.
One way they did that was through new media and podcasts. On [The Joe Rogan Experience], Trump went on these weird rants but you just got the sense of Trump figuring it out. Sure, he's got weird views on stuff, but he didn't come across as a hateful figure. The claims on the Democrat side about just how awful Trump was didn't resonate with the men who had just watched him do that podcast.
[The journalist and podcaster] Ezra Klein talks about Trump's disinhibition and that being both his strength and his weakness. I think that for quite a few men, just the injection of a bit of humor, a bit of irony, a reduction in some of the earnestness, a lowering of the stakes, it all helped humanize him.
Why didn't Harris go on Rogan? Why would she not do that? I mean, literally, the biggest platform in the world. She would have come across as real and human. It's not that that it would have changed the outcome of the election, but it's symptomatic of the Democratic attitude.
Your institute has a number of policy proposals for the betterment of boys and men. How do you feel about your chances of advancing those in the context of a Republican presidency and Republican Senate?
If Democrats draw the conclusion that it was because it was a female candidate, that will be the wrong conclusion. Empirically
Well, I do think that with men having delivered for Trump, Trump now needs to deliver for men. The question is: OK, is the CDC now going to actually take male suicide rates seriously and recognize the gender gap in suicide?
A super wonky one for you is, what's going to happen to the gender policy council in a White House? Now, I may be one of the very few people asking that question today, but I've criticized the gender policy council for being one one-sided. You can easily imagine that Trump and his folks would just abolish it as a kind of woke relic of the Biden-Harris era. What I hope they'll do is retask it so that it looks at gender issues both ways.
What about more concrete policies? Do you expect anything from Trump?
One big question is whether Trump will actually work seriously on apprenticeships, which he did, to be fair, a little bit in his first term. Getting an apprenticeship bill through, redirecting some of the money that currently goes to elite higher education into apprenticeships, trade schools, technical schools – all of that would be fantastic for boys and men.
What do the Democrats need to learn from this?
The danger is that they just say all these men became sexist, that they were lured by misogyny. The danger is Democrats believe they just need to double down on attacks on patriarchy and toxic masculinity. That would be disastrous.
Instead, they should show young men that they've got an agenda that's more up their street. Instead of going on and on about cancelling student debt, which is not a popular policy among men, they should talk more about trade schools and manufacturing jobs. I hope that they'll conclude that they need to win men back by explicitly pitching them, rather than trying to recruit them as allies to the cause of women, which is a political theory that they just tested to destruction.
I presume the conclusion they're also going to reach is that they can't run a female candidate for a really long time?
I really, I really, I really hope they don't draw that conclusion.
There's a reason the General Social Survey stopped asking the question about a female candidate in 2010: because it hit 96% support, and it's even higher among young men. I suppose it's possible that those men are secretly sexist or racist and won't tell pollsters that, but that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, we can't know.
If Democrats draw the conclusion that it was because it was a female candidate, that will be the wrong conclusion. Empirically. It will insult the male voters they need and it will hobble the careers of female politicians, potentially for a long time.
As said I do think the Dems, and indeed the left in general, should lean a lot more into the sort of messaging that Waltz had.
Obsessing over trans people using the toilet and other such nonsense? That's weird. Why the hell do you care so much about that? Back in my town we just let our neighbours live their lives as they let you live yours. Really dumb to be obsessing over this when you've got all these actual issues going on like the cost of living, decline in working class communities, etc....
The only conditioning I see is in trying to remove the word "woke", as if it will magically remove things people think of as "woke". Frankly what depresses me almost as much as the election results is the seeming inability to acknowledge that woke shit causes resentment across the board. It depresses me because if representative, it just signals continued dominance of far right ideas, because the woke left will just continue staying it its bubble and dooming the rest on the left.
I also think that the woke bubble left fundamentally misunderstands where resentment on trans issues comes from. I think the fundamental issue is disenfranchisement of big elements of society based on their views of trans issues. The attitude is: "You don't understand the nature of gender, so you don't get to opine on it". Whether that's correct or not is beside the point, people don't like being dictated new societal norms.
I also think that on some of the trans issues, people feel really gaslighted. Of course being trans would help you swim better in women's swimming sports, are you seriously trying to claim that it doesn't? Whether the issue is important or not in the big scheme of things, people's don't enjoy being gaslighted.
People love to be gaslighted. That's why the Republicans won.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2024, 12:35:20 PMThe only conditioning I see is in trying to remove the word "woke", as if it will magically remove things people think of as "woke". Frankly what depresses me almost as much as the election results is the seeming inability to acknowledge that woke shit causes resentment across the board. It depresses me because if representative, it just signals continued dominance of far right ideas, because the woke left will just continue staying it its bubble and dooming the rest on the left.
What other option is there?
The left completely betraying it's ideals and deciding some minority groups deserve to be thrown on the bonfire... If they're doing that then there's no point in them winning. They'd be just the same as the right.
No.
Things need to be reframed. Get people to stop believing the bullshit about minorities being some big terrible threat. Get them back to the age old idea of mind your own business and I'll mind mine.
Give them a focus on issues that matter and they actually care about.
Quotealso think that the woke bubble left fundamentally misunderstands where resentment on trans issues comes from. I think the fundamental issue is disenfranchisement of big elements of society based on their views of trans issues. The attitude is: "You don't understand the nature of gender, so you don't get to opine on it". Whether that's correct or not is beside the point, people don't like being dictated new societal norms.
This goes back to the thing of one encounter with a weirdo who has nothing to do with any mainstream party = everyone on the left is this way.
The gaslighting comes from the woke obsessed groups. And it has worked.
QuoteI also think that on some of the trans issues, people feel really gaslighted. Of course being trans would help you swim better in women's swimming sports, are you seriously trying to claim that it doesn't? Whether the issue is important or not in the big scheme of things, people's don't enjoy being gaslighted.
1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled - and that issue isn't that the way many sports define gender sometimes lets trans people under certain circumstances take part.
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2024, 01:10:49 PMPeople love to be gaslighted. That's why the Republicans won.
I guess I should've clarified that people hate being gaslighted unsuccessfully.
Quote from: Josquius on November 11, 2024, 01:15:40 PM1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled.
A lot of people interpret "show science" as a stalling tactic. They see Lia Thomas breaking records, and what they hear is "don't believe your lying eyes or your common sense, show me some science". Rightly or wrongly, that sounds exactly like the gaslighting I mentioned. I think this also assumes that science (or what is presented as such) hasn't been impacted by politics, which when it comes to woke issues a lot of people don't believe.
As far as it being an effective weapon, I think this weapon is very effective precisely because the left trapped itself arguing a position that to most people looks patently absurd. If your political opponent staked out a patently absurd position that makes him look out of touch, of course you're going to keep bringing it up, just so that your opponent can keep reminding everyone how out of touch they are.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2024, 01:32:43 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 11, 2024, 01:15:40 PM1: show the science. Don't just use your preconceptions that of course trans people have x advantage.
Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it isn't.
2: trans women in sports is one of the most stupid issues in all of creation. And also an effective weapon in the woke zealots arsenal.
This shouldn't be a political issue. It should be up to the sports governing bodies to apply science to the topic.
Yet people are sacrificing getting a say on stuff that actually matters in favour of banging on about this bollocks.
There's a clear issue here that needs to be tackled.
A lot of people interpret "show science" as a stalling tactic. They see Lia Thomas breaking records, and what they hear is "don't believe your lying eyes or your common sense, show me some science". Rightly or wrongly, that sounds exactly like the gaslighting I mentioned. I think this also assumes that science (or what is presented as such) hasn't been impacted by politics, which when it comes to woke issues a lot of people don't believe.
As far as it being an effective weapon, I think this weapon is very effective precisely because the left trapped itself arguing a position that to most people looks patently absurd. If your political opponent staked out a patently absurd position that makes him look out of touch, of course you're going to keep bringing it up, just so that your opponent can keep reminding everyone how out of touch they are.
Fair. Engaging system 2 will always be harder than those who just tap straight into system 1.
But that doesn't make the pro science side wrong. It doesn't mean they should embrace anti science. It just means they're handling it wrong.
It means don't fall into the trap. When the man on the street wants to talk about trans women swimming nod along politely, echo their language with a "whilst they're going on about that woke stuff. We are campaigning on better opportunities for working people." and giving some graspable and relatable things there.
Then once in power they can bat away the attempts to roll back trans rights as a side matter whilst focusing on the important stuff. When trans baiting stops being a vote winner the right will drop it (overtly).
This is from someone in the UK and there's charts related to the UK. But I think there is a lot to this thread from a pollster and focus group guy (from the right).
Although I would say that as my view is that actually the substantive content of "woke" has majority support, it's the language and the tone that's problematic (and plus ca change on the left - we have four Trotskyist parties in this country whose analysis, ideology and program are basically exactly the same but all hate each other over tactics :lol: :bleeding:):
QuoteLuke Tryl
@LukeTryl
🧵There's a line of thought that Trump's victory means progressive causes are doomed in the court of public opinion. I don't think that's true, but I do think it shows more thought needs to be given to what ought to be a tautology but infact often isn't - inclusive progressivism
As someone who comes 'from the right' now spending a lot of time helping civil society understand/navigate public opinion, one thing has jumped out is how hard some parts (though not all) of the 'progressive ecosystem' can make it to be 'part of the club'
These are 5 reflections on how I think progressives could build a bigger tent. 1) Framing - it can sometimes feel like progressive causes use frames that actively reinforce us vs them dynamics & make it harder for people to get onboard with a cause they might otherwise support
I was struck in our work on EDI how many people said versions of "EDI is always about other people, never people like me", part of that is that EDI work has had a tendency to neglect class in favour of other characteristics. But partly it's about the language used.
An example is white privilege. That frame only attracts real support from the most progressive segment. But ask if there are 'Areas of life that those from ethnic minorities experience discrimination compared to those who are white' and a majority agree & just 1 in 4 disagree
Why? In focus groups people recoil from white privilege & respond "i've never had privilege in my life" the frame is seen to ascribe blame & to minimise others experience of hardship - as opposed to recognition that racism/discrimination still exist which most people agree with
Linked to this - it's far better to focus on real people and their experiences, than campaigner language and abstract frames and structures. People want to be able to relate to a cause in terms of how it affects them, their family, their community, not an academic phrase.
People really care about fair play - so frames that chime with that work and that go beyond the individual. One of the strongest arguments I found equal marriage was that it was more likely to harm the institution if people saw their friends/kids/grand kids couldn't take part.
2) Tone: Linked to the above. There's been a lot of this in the post US election - how you communicate progressive goals really matters. Some will complain about tone policing, but it's the reality of how things are received. If you're seen to make people feel bad they'll recoil
Only Progressive Activists [this is one of the segments in his organisations polls] think it is helpful to criticise people when they make mistakes on diversity issues. When people are criticised (especially the well meaning) they clam up and become resentful or even hostile - the opposite of what progressives are trying to achieve
No one likes to be made to feel bad. Instead if you can create the space for people to be able to ask questions, make mistakes - and crucially (and to the next point) even respectfully challenge without fear of consequence you're more likely to bring people with you.
Part of that is not being purist - take wins. Recycling is a good example - Brits take pride in their recycling (& sometimes being curtain twitchy about less good neighbours). Rather than dismissing that as too little climate campaigners should think about how to build on it.
Ditto - something like Homes for Ukraine - rather than dismissing the strong public support for taking in Ukrainian refugees as 'because they're white Europeans' (which also isn't true!) look at how to build on that spirit of solidarity and welcoming for refugees.
3) Debate - Political debate isn't appropriate in every setting. But for campaigners themselves to adopt 'no debate' is disastrous - it A) looks dismissive B) appears like arguments won't stand up to scrutiny C) cedes the airwaves/power to persuade entirely to the other side.
During equal marriage debates I worked at Stonewall, and during the Bill passage the organisation was focused on going out and making the case - I remember speaking in Truro Cathedral - hardly home turf - because speaking to social conservative/religious voices mattered.
That isn't to say there should be no limits as to who you will and won't debate - there will clearly be those that just want to engage in out and out prejudice, but the limits should be defined to enable as many opportunities as possible for persuasive debate with opponents.
4) Avoid universal progressivism - This is a big difference between some left & right wing campaigners - right wing campaigners are often willing to let you sign up even if you only agree on that issue. Whereas on the left you're expected to sign up to host of adjacent causes
Most people won't have a strict left/right worldview - ideological consistency is weird. People maybe pro-climate but migration sceptic, pro-drug decriminalisation but pro-death penalty. That doesn't mean not supporting others... but it does mean limiting litmus tests.
If you think of support for issues as a venn diagram, the more people you insist are in the intersection between supporting a whole series of different causes the smaller the area of support you're going to get is. Take people who don't agree with you on everything.
5) Don't spoil things for people - the fact that the actions of Just Stop Oil protestors now mean everyone visiting the national gallery faces long queues, or stopped workers getting to work, or getting to school/hospital
If people feel that progressivism = anti-social behaviour that makes their lives harder, they will react against it - and reach for options at the ballot box that will put a stop to it.
Obviously public opinion isn't all, but it is the surest route to winning. There maybe times to ignore the above, but I think what underpins all of those five points is that exclusive progressivism that makes people feel bad or creates a high bar to entry is unlikely to succeed.
Coda! Campaigners will be outliers in how much they care about their issue & likely wider world view. Progressive activists are the backbone/energy of many campaigns but can be ideological outliers. What they think will land may not. Speak to as many non-engaged people as poss!
I'd add specifically in the context of the EDI/DEI stuff that while there's always been criticism from the left of how corporate Pride has become etc that it was possibly tactically a huge mistake to let diversity become HRified. Because most people hate HR (sorry Cal :P) :ph34r:
I remember we discussed the white privilege thing before and I agree with the article
I thought that was an excellent article, Sheilbh. I especially liked the focus on "inclusive progressivism". Feeling excluded is one of the most powerful emotions a human can experience, and powerful emotions provoke people to make irrational decisions. You can blame them for making irrational decisions, or you can ask yourself whether you've done anything that unnecessarily excluded them.
I thought all three articles were good.
How about this one: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/. I swear I didn't read it until just now, so I didn't take any arguments from there.
QuoteDuring the race, many journalists wrote about the ubiquity—and the grimness—of the Trump ads on trans issues, notably Semafor's David Weigel. But at the time, I was surprised how dismissive many commentators were about their potential effect, given the enormous sums of money involved. My theory was that these ads tapped into a larger concern about Democrats: that they were elitists who ruled by fiat, declined to defend their unpopular positions, and treated skeptics as bigots. Gender might not have been high on voters' list of concerns, but immigration and the border were—and all the same criticisms of Democratic messaging apply to those subjects, too.
I wasn't dismissive. I knew they were working, I just thought that reflected badly on us. That we just hate and fear trans people so much.
I was glad the Democrats didn't stab the trans people in the back.
They might have found a better way to deal with it than they did but I am glad they didn't just panic and start attacking their own supporters. I don't give a damn how Unpopular those people are, they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves.
As for immigration, that is an issue where the Democrats were politically unable to do the right thing: real immigration reform. And politically unable to do the wrong thing: just cave to the right, because the right wouldn't let them.
Either way they are bad on that issue.
Anyway this is good. The best time to reflect and reform is right after you lose an election.
This is when all the internal fights can be fought.
I think the point that every article pasted here made was that it it's not the what that mattered, but the how. As Fareed Zakaria put it, you can't fight for liberal ideas, no matter how virtuous, with illiberal means.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2024, 04:57:33 PMI was glad the Democrats didn't stab the trans people in the back.
They might have found a better way to deal with it than they did but I am glad they didn't just panic and start attacking their own supporters. I don't give a damn how Unpopular those people are, they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves.
This is very zero sum rhetoric.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2024, 01:19:27 PMQuote from: grumbler on November 11, 2024, 01:10:49 PMPeople love to be gaslighted. That's why the Republicans won.
I guess I should've clarified that people hate being gaslighted unsuccessfully.
And the lack of success in gaslighting is because people already hate one gaslighting faction and love the other. Gaslighting doesn't cause distaste. The response to gaslighting reflects distaste.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2024, 05:39:46 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 11, 2024, 04:57:33 PMI was glad the Democrats didn't stab the trans people in the back.
They might have found a better way to deal with it than they did but I am glad they didn't just panic and start attacking their own supporters. I don't give a damn how Unpopular those people are, they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves.
This is very zero sum rhetoric.
Is there a way to sell out trans people in a way that is a win-win?
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2024, 06:59:28 PMIs there a way to sell out trans people in a way that is a win-win?
Sell out is by definition a lose.
Did Clinton sell out black people?
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2024, 05:12:23 PMI think the point that every article pasted here made was that it it's not the what that mattered, but the how. As Fareed Zakaria put it, you can't fight for liberal ideas, no matter how virtuous, with illiberal means.
Sure. I hope lessons were learned.
But whatever they are I just don't want it to be: sell out our supporters. The Democrats did all that in the 1990s and it didn't stop the Republicans beating them later anyway.
Something I have been thinking about for a while is the role played by stoicism. The belief that when life deals you lemons, you suck it up and make the best of it. Very related in my mind to rugged individualism. No handouts please, I can handle this.
This relate very closely to the emerging consensus view that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to target the white working class. A handout conflicts with their self identity.
It also relates to identity politics. If an oppressed minority bitches about their life sucking the response of the stoic is not going to be, yeah, my life sucks too, let's band together and fight The Man. It's going to be that y'all are a bunch of whiners. Or in the profound words of P.J. O'Rourke, pull up your pants, put your hat on straight and get a job.
The most successful human rights campaigns were built on stoicism. Gandhi said we will go to prison and bear it. We will get our skulls cracked and bear it. We will get gunned down at Amritsar and bear it. Eventually you (the British) will see our stoicism and respond to it, because you are good people. MLK followed the same course. Our 14 year old daughters will put on their one good Sunday dress and be attacked by dogs and fire hoses and we will bear it.
The left needs to develop more stoicism. Or at least treat stoicism with more respect.
I don't think Trump's campaigns are built on stoicism.
Edit: Nor was Obama's.
From before the election
QuoteNothing made this clearer to me than Monday's front-page story (gift link) in The New York Times about how the Harris campaign is hunting down the remaining undecided voters in swing states. As Reid Epstein and Shane Goldmacher wrote, "Inside the Delaware headquarters of Ms. Harris's campaign, analysts have spent 18 months curating a list of which television shows and podcasts voters consume in the battleground states. Her team has assigned every voter in these states a 'contactability score' from 0 to 100 to determine just how hard that person will be to reach — and who is best to deliver her closing message. The results are guiding Ms. Harris's media and travel schedule, as well as campaign stops by brand-name supporters. For instance, the movie star Julia Roberts and the basketball great Magic Johnson earned high marks among certain voters, so they have been deployed to swing states."
What is with this mad devotion to turning the messiness of human engagement into something that can be scored with the precision of a Wall Street trader assigning a risk level to a derivative? Well, actually, the analogy is kind of apt, though I'm sure the data whizzes driving the Democratic obsession with fine-tuning paid media think they are doing much holier work than Wall Street quants. The same kind of cold-blooded hubris dominates the decision-making of Future Forward, the $700 million SuperPAC that was first anointed by Biden's team as its designated partner for mega-donors. According to a story a week ago (gift link) by Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher also in the Times, Future Forward has conducted more than 4 million voter surveys and "ranked the effectiveness of more than 300 ads that were run online and on television on behalf of both candidates — down to a tenth of a percentage point of precision in multiple categories." A tenth of a point of precision is nonsense. People shift in intensity of their opinions all the time. Future Forward, they report, has a "dogmatic belief" in the power of late advertising, and so we are now in the midst of a great field test of that theory, along with the entire notion that it's better to spend hundreds of millions on paid advertising even while leaving grassroots organizations in swing states severely underfunded.
All of this makes me shudder with PTSD about how the smartest people in the room who were also powered by the best data and the most money drove Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign into the trash bin of history. Let's not forget that it wasn't the fault of on-the-ground campaigners in Michigan that caused the Clinton team to ignore the warning signs of Trump's rise. It was data whizzes in Brooklyn who told volunteers to stay in Iowa in the last week because their models showed Clinton winning Michigan by 5 points as late as Election Day. As Isaac Dovere-Smith wrote in Politico in a post-mortem that ought to be required reading for all budding politicos, "The only metric that people involved in the operations say they ever heard headquarters interested in was how many volunteer shifts had been signed up — though the volunteers were never given the now-standard handheld devices to input the responses they got in the field, and Brooklyn mandated that they not worry about data entry. Operatives watched packets of real-time voter information piled up in bins at the coordinated campaign headquarters. The sheets were updated only when they got ripped, or soaked with coffee. Existing packets with notes from the volunteers, including highlighting how much Trump inclination there was among some of the white male union members the Clinton campaign was sure would be with her, were tossed in the garbage."
https://theconnector.substack.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 11, 2024, 09:31:44 PMI don't think Trump's campaigns are built on stoicism.
Edit: Nor was Obama's.
I keep seeing these kinds of comments about this and that campaign, and I think they inevitably talk past the person being responded to. Campaigns are sometimes at the mercy of the reputation of the factions they represent. No, Kamala definitely did not conduct a woke campaign, but she got saddled with the baggage of wokism regardless, and only a deliberate renunciation would have a chance of unsaddling her.
To Yi's point, the left has been associated with endless whining about how life is not fair for this or that segment, and that doesn't appeal to people whose cultural values are rooted in stoicism. Personally, I myself get annoyed at the endless negativity about opportunities in the US as well. I'm part of an immigrant community that by and large is very successful, and we're successful because we take advantage of a lot of what this country has to offer. Frankly all this endless negativity is ungrateful. US is not without its problems, but lack of opportunities for success in general hasn't been one of them so far.
Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2024, 10:02:00 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on November 11, 2024, 09:31:44 PMI don't think Trump's campaigns are built on stoicism.
Edit: Nor was Obama's.
I keep seeing these kinds of comments about this and that campaign, and I think they inevitably talk past the person being responded to. Campaigns are sometimes at the mercy of the reputation of the factions they represent. No, Kamala definitely did not conduct a woke campaign, but she got saddled with the baggage of wokism regardless, and only a deliberate renunciation would have a chance of unsaddling her.
To Yi's point, the left has been associated with endless whining about how life is not fair for this or that segment, and that doesn't appeal to people whose cultural values are rooted in stoicism. Personally, I myself get annoyed at the endless negativity about opportunities in the US as well. I'm part of an immigrant community that by and large is very successful, and we're successful because we take advantage of a lot of what this country has to offer. Frankly all this endless negativity is ungrateful. US is not without its problems, but lack of opportunities for success in general hasn't been one of them so far.
If the values were really rooted in stoicism then right wing grievance populism like Trump wouldn't be popular. Guys like McCain and Romney would still be running the Republican Party. But they aren't.
I think these ideas are just the kind of centrism that has been firmly rejected by both Republican and Democratic voters.
I get these ideas appeal to you and Yi, but I think they are political values from the 1990s and are currently losers all over the world.
Trump bailed out the farmers with 2 billion dollars, after his tariffs fucked them, and he and the populist right made sure there were cash payments in the COVID bills and all the stoics were cheering him on. They seem to love handouts to me.
Not sure I want to go into battle with the right wing populists as a supposed leftwing party talking like Ayn Rand. I think no current Republican voters would be tempted by that and Democrat voters would stay home.
There is this myth that there is this significant bloc of never-trump right wing people just waiting to be courted, and the Democrats tried by trotting out all the Republicans who endorsed Harris, but this did very little for her. I just think this is a non-existent political force the Democrats keep thinking exists.
I think there is a way to handle "woke" or whatever in a way that assuages the more hysterical propaganda while keeping Democratic supporters onside.
Likewise I don't think Biden was wrong by going down the supporting Unions and trying to get manufacturing jobs back with things like the CHIPS act. I think those kinds of things might work out. But there might be a better way to sell it.
But I don't know. I guess all this will be fought out in the party right now, so if you think there is a lot of support for something now is the time to get it out there.
And of course the key problem is that you need something core Democratic voters will want in Primaries as well. Otherwise all this carefully considered planning will just lose before it ever gets to the general.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2024, 10:29:43 PMIf the values were really rooted in stoicism then right wing grievance populism like Trump wouldn't be popular. Guys like McCain and Romney would still be running the Republican Party. But they aren't.
I think these ideas are just the kind of centrism that has been firmly rejected by both Republican and Democratic voters.
I get these ideas appeal to you and Yi, but I think they are political values from the 1990s and are currently losers all over the world.
I'm ambivalent about stoicism. I just don't have sympathy for people who play down opportunities that this country offers. That doesn't mean that we don't need a safety net to protect against bad luck, bad genes, or bad parents, but for fucks sake some people make it sound like US does nothing right, and this negativity by default is super toxic.
The farm bill is a clear area where the right has built a myth that simultaneously provides free money and doesn't undermine their identity as rugged individualists.
On a separate subject, I just checked the election maps of NYC, precinct by precinct. They even have a comparison between 2020 and 2024. Boy, that was depressing.
If you walk around many neighborhoods in south Brooklyn, you'll still see many Ukrainian flags, almost 3 years into the war. The immigrant community from USSR is definitely on the side of Ukraine, by all observable signs. And yet despite Trump giving every indication that he'll abandon Ukraine, the south of Brooklyn goes Alabama red, more so than in 2020.
I get that geopolitics isn't at the top of many people's reasons for voting, but you'd think it would have some impact on the margins, that it would make some people break out of the spell of Trumpism. Judging by some precincts going 90/10, I would say that didn't happen all that often. :(
Yes there are still opportunities left in America.
However it is also true that social mobility has declined.
The GOP has figured out how to exploit that decline without doing anything to fix it or even trying
The Democrats say they want to fix it but haven't come up with the formula to do it or convince voters they know how
I'm reminded of one episode in one of my prior companies. It was 2020, after the notorious events. The mandate came down from senior leadership that all teams should openly and frankly discuss social justice issues as they affect us.
At the time we had two people in our group working out of China, a guy and a young woman. The guy went all "I don't know nothing about nothing. I have no opinion on anything. People should get along and stop not getting along". :rolleyes: The young woman was a lot more outspoken, and sounded bemused by the whole exercise. She went "In the US, if you're willing to work hard, you'll get what you want. I don't get what you're all complaining about."
I don't have a point, but I thought it was funny how some people living in China had a more positive view of the US than what was fashionable in the US at the time.
This idea of going to the center never works unless you're Macron. Trump got 93 % of registered republicans in 2020. He got 93% in 2024, despite the Lincoln Project, Cheney, Kinzinger, and the 40+ previous members of Trump's administration coming out against him.
You have to increase turnout and you have to get independents. These are folks that are low information. You need simple messaging that actually reaches them.
Independents are usually thought to inhabit the center, liking some ideas from the left and some from the right.
It is conceivable that they are equally happy on either fringe. Like the Berniebros who voted Trump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2024, 09:28:48 PMSomething I have been thinking about for a while is the role played by stoicism. The belief that when life deals you lemons, you suck it up and make the best of it. Very related in my mind to rugged individualism. No handouts please, I can handle this.
This relate very closely to the emerging consensus view that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to target the white working class. A handout conflicts with their self identity.
It also relates to identity politics. If an oppressed minority bitches about their life sucking the response of the stoic is not going to be, yeah, my life sucks too, let's band together and fight The Man. It's going to be that y'all are a bunch of whiners. Or in the profound words of P.J. O'Rourke, pull up your pants, put your hat on straight and get a job.
The most successful human rights campaigns were built on stoicism. Gandhi said we will go to prison and bear it. We will get our skulls cracked and bear it. We will get gunned down at Amritsar and bear it. Eventually you (the British) will see our stoicism and respond to it, because you are good people. MLK followed the same course. Our 14 year old daughters will put on their one good Sunday dress and be attacked by dogs and fire hoses and we will bear it.
The left needs to develop more stoicism. Or at least treat stoicism with more respect.
That is more the modern "pop-stoicism", which only takes one part of it and chucks the rest. Now that is fine when using philosophy...but it leaves out some of the other useful parts.
I don't think he meant the philosophy of Stoicism. Or at least I don't recall that part of Marcus Aurelius' meditations.
I think he meant stoic in the emotionless through hardship sense.
Some commentators on the weekend mentioned that Democrats failed to connect on a personal level - whatever you think of Trump, he connects emotionally to his electorate.
Secondly, lack of focus on the economic experience - the economy may be doing well, in actual terms, but people don't feel that it does. Needs better addressing than, "Your feelings are wrong, actually."
Third, no compelling narrative. Trump: "You're worse off because of Democrats and immigrants." Democrats could of course say, "Not the immigrants, it's billionaires and corporations," which is something that I see e.g. on my family's facebook pages and could be a useful angle. Problem is, though, that you then also have billionaire Mark Cuban as a surrogate and huge chunks of your campaign funds come from corporations and billionaires. :P
Finally, there's a general feeling (in many countries, I think) that things are getting worse and established politicians aren't able to change things or representing their constituency, so "outsiders" (real or perceived) are gaining votes "to shake things up". I'm torn on this. Modern politics and running of countries has become incredibly complex, so I do see a need for career politicians and a big legislative/executive apparatus to handle this. However, the link of communication between those politicians and voters seems broken; voters don't feel taken seriously, while politicians fail to explain what they do and why in a soundbite media landscape, leading to frustrations on both sides. Add the perception that politicians only do things to get voted in again (just how corporations are perceived to only look at their corporate results) instead of long term strategies. All of this is of course partly true, partly not, depending on each politician and voters, but that's the general perception, I feel.
Quote from: Valmy on November 11, 2024, 04:57:33 PMI wasn't dismissive. I knew they were working, I just thought that reflected badly on us. That we just hate and fear trans people so much.
I was glad the Democrats didn't stab the trans people in the back.
They might have found a better way to deal with it than they did but I am glad they didn't just panic and start attacking their own supporters. I don't give a damn how Unpopular those people are, they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves.
While there is some right-wing opposition to trans-people based on their very existence, I think most opposition to "trans" issues revolves around three points:
-youth medical transitions
-trans people in sports
-cost to government (aka the trans prisoners)
I think it is VERY possible to say you're opposed to all three, but that trans people still deserve respect and empathy. I don't think being opposed to transwomen in female sports is "stabbing people in the back" or "throwing them to the wolves".
This is the "no enemies to the left" kind of politics, which is almost always wrong. One can be very supportive of, lets say, black rights, without endorsing "defund the police".
QuoteAs for immigration, that is an issue where the Democrats were politically unable to do the right thing: real immigration reform. And politically unable to do the wrong thing: just cave to the right, because the right wouldn't let them.
Either way they are bad on that issue.
I thought Harris and the Democrats did very well on immigration, precisely because they did move to the middle. Harris said "I'll sign the bipartisan immigration bill" which included significant border enforcement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2024, 09:28:48 PMSomething I have been thinking about for a while is the role played by stoicism. The belief that when life deals you lemons, you suck it up and make the best of it. Very related in my mind to rugged individualism. No handouts please, I can handle this.
This relate very closely to the emerging consensus view that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to target the white working class. A handout conflicts with their self identity.
It also relates to identity politics. If an oppressed minority bitches about their life sucking the response of the stoic is not going to be, yeah, my life sucks too, let's band together and fight The Man. It's going to be that y'all are a bunch of whiners. Or in the profound words of P.J. O'Rourke, pull up your pants, put your hat on straight and get a job.
The most successful human rights campaigns were built on stoicism. Gandhi said we will go to prison and bear it. We will get our skulls cracked and bear it. We will get gunned down at Amritsar and bear it. Eventually you (the British) will see our stoicism and respond to it, because you are good people. MLK followed the same course. Our 14 year old daughters will put on their one good Sunday dress and be attacked by dogs and fire hoses and we will bear it.
The left needs to develop more stoicism. Or at least treat stoicism with more respect.
So I want to believe in this virtue of stoicism, but I think most evidence points to the contrary.
I wish I could find the anecdote, but I remember reading a story of John McCain being at a town hall in I think his 2004 campaign. Some voter was complaining about how his son couldn't get a job down at the local mill or factory or whatever. McCain responded "Sir, I think both you and I were hoping for better for your son".
That's a great response, as far as I'm concerned. But The story was being retold in 2008, and the McCain advisors were like "that sounds great, but it's actually a terrible response".
Because Trump's campaign had absolutely nothing to do with stoicism. It was all about grievance. And it worked - or worked well enough.
Trumpism is about if you lose, you don't take it like a man, you whine and bitch and deny it happened like a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum. It's about trolling on the internet and complaining how unfair the media is. It's about sending massive stimulus checks but you make Treasury substitute your name on the check for the USA so you can brag about how you personally gave everyone free money instead of it coming from the taxpayer. It's about subsidies for coal and oil and farm products. It's about handing out tax break to foreign companies to build factories and then walking away after the ribbon is cut and nothing gets built.
Trumpism is as Stoic as it is Christian
Guys, please, stop with "the X campaign did not" responses, because they never address what is being discussed, the talk way past the point being made every time. Even Jon Stewart did this, and it was fucking annoying, because he (or his script) seemed to be on the verge of saying something meaningful.
Just because Kamala says she owns a Glock and uses it as a sex toy every night doesn't suddenly take guns issue off the table. Just because Trump says something populist doesn't meant he takes the "Republicans are crony capitalists" vibe off the table.
Candidates get stuck with the policies of their camp, unless they actively renounce them in a way that's difficult to walk back. It's not illogical either, would Trump saying "I will get rid of government corruption during my second term" make all the arguments about who will be more corrupt irrelevant?
Trumpism is also about 50% of his voters having a negative opinion of him.
Quote from: Syt on November 12, 2024, 01:54:51 AMSome commentators on the weekend mentioned that Democrats failed to connect on a personal level - whatever you think of Trump, he connects emotionally to his electorate.
Rick Perlstein the great historian of the American right (Nixonland, The Invisible Bridge, Reaganland) has a story from Reagan's gubernatorial run in 1966. Reagan was obviously surrounded by consultants and spin doctors etc - and they kept telling him to stop talking about law and order/disorder on college campuses because it did not come up as an issue anywhere in the polling. It was bread and butter issues people cared about and that was what he should talk about. Reagan was generally a pretty pliable candidate but pushed back on this because if there's one thing he was vastly better at than them, it was reading a crowd - and he said that it might not show up in the polls but it was the thing that went down best whenever he did a speech. It was the issue that got a crowd animated. So he was going to keep talking about it.
I think there's something similar with Trump. So much focus is on social media and microtargeting etc - but I think Trump's rallies are really key to him because I think that's how he works out the messages that work with his audience and it's the same thing as Reagan did then (and I'd note there's always been lots of reports of people around Trump trying to handle him and saying certain messages don't work etc but him going off their reception at his rallies).
While I think the Democrats (and other parties in the Western world) are still fighting traditional elections. They are fighting campaigns using the techniques honed above all by the Clintons in the 90s. It's about micro-targeting, very specific focused policy offers to help assemble a lego-brick coalition, with strong message discipline all of it backed by very strong consultant advice. I think that approach is not working very effectively anywhere - I think we're in an age like the transition to radio or to TV and what works in a campaign is shifting.
QuoteSecondly, lack of focus on the economic experience - the economy may be doing well, in actual terms, but people don't feel that it does. Needs better addressing than, "Your feelings are wrong, actually."
Yeah I've moaned about this before because there is a type of American liberal/Democrat (think Chris Hayes) who seriously thinks showing one more chart of how America's economy has done well will convince people on this issue.
What matters is their lived experience and from 2021-23 (at least), real wages were falling. Cost of living and inflation were a big problem - but also very spotty so certain goods (particularly food staples) were particularly hard hit. If you're reasonably comfortable you might not notice so much because it would balance out, but if you're just about getting by and spending more of your money on those staples then the increase in food costs is really obvious.
I think it's really tough for the Democrats and for every other incumbent party in the world. I'm not sure there's an easy answer - but the one more chart approach is, if anything, just a red rag to a bull.
QuoteThird, no compelling narrative. Trump: "You're worse off because of Democrats and immigrants." Democrats could of course say, "Not the immigrants, it's billionaires and corporations," which is something that I see e.g. on my family's facebook pages and could be a useful angle. Problem is, though, that you then also have billionaire Mark Cuban as a surrogate and huge chunks of your campaign funds come from corporations and billionaires. :P
Yeah - I also think it's why the Democrats have become a little embroiled on identity politics is that it allowed them to "outflank" some anti-corporate left populism.
I hate to use the phrase because of all its connotations but I think the Democrats are and seem too Professional Managerial Class. A slightly insane fact I only read this week: Tim Walz is the first person on a Democratic presidential ticket since Jimmy Carter to have not attended law school. So Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, Liberman, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kain and Harris in a row is a lot. I think that plays into class but also the type of politics Democrats do (and think they can do).
Obviously many Republicans also have law degrees but there's people with military or intelligence backgrounds (Bush Sr, McCain, Cheney - arguably Vance who is also a lawyer), people from the world of business or entertainment, even union leaders (Reagan :lol:) among GOP candidates.
I don't think it's insurmountable or impossible. But that's a big gap between the educational and career backgrounds of Democratic elites (both funders and senior politicians) and the people Democrats aspire to represent and who form their traditional base.
QuoteFinally, there's a general feeling (in many countries, I think) that things are getting worse and established politicians aren't able to change things or representing their constituency, so "outsiders" (real or perceived) are gaining votes "to shake things up". I'm torn on this. Modern politics and running of countries has become incredibly complex, so I do see a need for career politicians and a big legislative/executive apparatus to handle this. However, the link of communication between those politicians and voters seems broken; voters don't feel taken seriously, while politicians fail to explain what they do and why in a soundbite media landscape, leading to frustrations on both sides. Add the perception that politicians only do things to get voted in again (just how corporations are perceived to only look at their corporate results) instead of long term strategies. All of this is of course partly true, partly not, depending on each politician and voters, but that's the general perception, I feel.
I think this is interesting and I'm not sure.
In part I think there is a specific American angle to this. Partly because of the Presidential system which means you can come in and only ever run for the top job, while in a parliamentary system (at least a Westminster system), in order to be PM you need first to be an MP. There is an outsider-y route but I can't think of any examples of someone like Trump or, say, Macron setting up his own party and winning the Presidency. It is structurally very difficult.
But also America has a history of these candidates - typically from the military. But all through the twentieth century there is talk of running government like a business, needing an outsider CEO to get a grip etc - and there are candidates who play into that. I find it interesting because I think there is a particular American desire for an outsider.
And also I think there is a mirror image of this on the sort of EU model. There has been moves to "depoliticise" issues - we remove them from politicans, or the pressures of electoral politics. Instead we want decisions made by independent, neutral experts. Peter Mair's Ruling the Void is fantastic on this from a Euro-perspective.
It seems to me that both of those angles are basically saying that politicians and democratic politics can't be trusted - and perhaps what we have is the politics you get and deserve in that context?
I would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".
https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893
See also Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/nov/10/kamala-harris-is-just-the-latest-victim-of-global-trend-to-oust-incumbents
(Might still be coincidence, but the perceived economic situation/challenges seem growing, and trust in ruling parties in this year's elections to solve them seem low - next index point will likely be Germany and their early elections)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2024, 07:50:31 AM[
Rick Perlstein the great historian of the American right (Nixonland, The Invisible Bridge, Reaganland) has a story from Reagan's gubernatorial run in 1966. Reagan was obviously surrounded by consultants and spin doctors etc - and they kept telling him to stop talking about law and order/disorder on college campuses because it did not come up as an issue anywhere in the polling. It was bread and butter issues people cared about and that was what he should talk about. Reagan was generally a pretty pliable candidate but pushed back on this because if there's one thing he was vastly better at than them, it was reading a crowd - and he said that it might not show up in the polls but it was the thing that went down best whenever he did a speech. It was the issue that got a crowd animated. So he was going to keep talking about it.
I think there's something similar with Trump. So much focus is on social media and microtargeting etc - but I think Trump's rallies are really key to him because I think that's how he works out the messages that work with his audience and it's the same thing as Reagan did then (and I'd note there's always been lots of reports of people around Trump trying to handle him and saying certain messages don't work etc but him going off their reception at his rallies).
While I think the Democrats (and other parties in the Western world) are still fighting traditional elections. They are fighting campaigns using the techniques honed above all by the Clintons in the 90s. It's about micro-targeting, very specific focused policy offers to help assemble a lego-brick coalition, with strong message discipline all of it backed by very strong consultant advice. I think that approach is not working very effectively anywhere - I think we're in an age like the transition to radio or to TV and what works in a campaign is shifting.
Trumps rallies... he's putting on a show for his base. He's not going to win many new supporters doing this. Just really nail down those that he's got. Which is important. But still, I don't think these big rallies are the key useful way to do that. Its more him enjoying the power.
"Micro targeting" of segments and all that may be age old and its certainly what the Dems are still heavily reliant on, but Trump and co go further than that, they're nano-targeting, heavily around social media. Doing more than just direct campaign messaging with it too but actively playing the big game to subtly tweak people's thinking before they even encounter the ads.
The dems may be leaning too heavy into putting out ads every election saying "Hey you're a black 40-something woman so you care about this" but the Trumpies of the world are constantly throwing out doubt and messaging about villains in your own town, when the targeted message hits you its far more calculated not on you fitting into a particular category but hey, this guy is gullible, likes dogs and gets upset about bad things happening to dogs, hit him with the Haitians.
This is the core of where all the Russian interference stuff comes in. Its not just with clever machine learning tools they're doing this stuff. There's a lot of workers controlling the accounts that do the ground work in building trust then subtly pull things in the desired direction.
Quote from: Syt on November 13, 2024, 08:08:41 AMI would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".
If there is one thing that Americans push back against, it's the suggestion that we are not our own little unique national snowflake, but maybe are impacted by global level trends.
Quote from: Syt on November 13, 2024, 08:08:41 AMI would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".
No I think that's absolutely true and I think it s a huge issue everywhere now. I don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.
Although I think this has actually been a year with a huge number of elections - I saw lots of pieces about the "year of democracy" but I'm not sure I've got the stats.
I think the US is distinct on this but I think in Europe, certainly (and maybe the US), the institution that has most atrophied and that used to be core to the connection between governed citizens and governing politicians is the political party. I think that used to be absolutely core to our democratic system in Europe as democracies with mass membership parties and in the US I think more with various associated groups (even if they were seen negatively as machine politics). And I think that was an important line of communication between voters and politicians that has substantially disappeared in the last 30 years - and I don't think it can be revivified.
I think that may lead to more personalist candidacies as the party, which already matters less in our societies also starts to matter less to our politics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2024, 11:32:16 AMI don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.
Unemployment affects some, inflation affects all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2024, 11:32:16 AMNo I think that's absolutely true and I think it s a huge issue everywhere now. I don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.
I think in case of unemployment it's easier for politicians to spin the narrative to put the fault either on the unemployed (too lazy, unemployment benefits too attractive, "nobody wants to work anymore", welfare queens ... ) or deflect to an outgroup (foreigners stealing jobs), or the current administration (wages/taxes too high and causing corporations to go somewhere more competitive ... ). Inflation doesn't offer such attractive narratives, so the government gets saddled with the responsibility.
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2024, 11:43:09 AMUnemployment affects some, inflation affects all.
Yes, but fear of being unemployed can also be a powerful motivator.
The incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water. Lots of Democratic incumbents won. And pointing to the downfall of right of centre governments around the world isn't that persuasive either. In BC a left of centre government remained in power and retained its historic share of the vote. They did that by never abandoning their core constituency.
The problem with US politics isn't that incumbents have trouble getting elected. Quite the opposite. The real challenge occurs in mid-terms, not general elections.
There are lots are articles being produced over that last week remarking on the shift occurring in US politics. Ignoring those changes is not wise.
Quote from: Syt on November 13, 2024, 12:54:42 PMQuote from: HVC on November 13, 2024, 11:43:09 AMUnemployment affects some, inflation affects all.
Yes, but fear of being unemployed can also be a powerful motivator.
Being employed matters less if your employment income is not enough to put food on the table.
True
I knew we were fucked early on when it became clear that COVID was going to create worldwide inflation. The Republicans were already blaming Biden for it before he even came into office.
But I thought we had weathered the storm in 2022. Despite inflation running wild, the Democrats managed to politically weather the storm.
But I was clearly wrong. Even years after the inflation was managed, it was still coming for Biden and those from his administration. And it could be the Democrats were always going to be doomed in this election just because of that.
But I guess we will never know for sure.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2024, 12:55:37 PMThe incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water. Lots of Democratic incumbents won.
In the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK. That dynamic doesn't work for President.
Quote from: Josquius on November 13, 2024, 09:00:32 AMTrumps rallies... he's putting on a show for his base. He's not going to win many new supporters doing this. Just really nail down those that he's got. Which is important. But still, I don't think these big rallies are the key useful way to do that. Its more him enjoying the power.
He's over 50% and has added votes.
But my argument is that it's like gigs for a comedian working on his set. He uses the rallies to workshop his material.
Quote"Micro targeting" of segments and all that may be age old and its certainly what the Dems are still heavily reliant on, but Trump and co go further than that, they're nano-targeting, heavily around social media. Doing more than just direct campaign messaging with it too but actively playing the big game to subtly tweak people's thinking before they even encounter the ads.
I just don't buy this - and I never have. Part of that is, possibly, spending most of my working life working in some way with online, personalised/behavioural advertising and the entire industry is riddled with fraud and unverifiable claims. Have a drink with anyone in it and they'll basically all admit that in many ways it is a bit of a con. It's also a dying and declining ecosystem. So I slightly struggle with that practical, professional experience of this stuff and the very hyperbolic claims about its impact in politics (which is, incidentally, very much like the salespitch you get from the companies about how effective they are :lol:). I struggle to believe that the one area they've really, really cracked is politics.
But yes, Facebook will deny it but are very happy if you think they're so good they can win an American election. Steve Bannon and Dom Cummings etc want people to think they're geniuses in Bond villain lairs. I think it's a way for people to delegitimise democratic results they don't like (it was actually Russians/Cambridge Analytica etc) which is challenging after this election and to explain away defeat. We didn't lose because we weren't good enough, we were just too pure for this world.
QuoteThe dems may be leaning too heavy into putting out ads every election saying "Hey you're a black 40-something woman so you care about this" but the Trumpies of the world are constantly throwing out doubt and messaging about villains in your own town, when the targeted message hits you its far more calculated not on you fitting into a particular category but hey, this guy is gullible, likes dogs and gets upset about bad things happening to dogs, hit him with the Haitians.
I also think, with this example, that it gets the internet wrong. I think the reason microtargeting doesn't work anymore is that everyone can see what you're saying across social media - I think one of the reasons for polarisation is that we can, suddenly, all see all the freaky little sub-cultures on all sides. The stuff on Haitians eating pets was in no way micro-targeted. It was at a rally, extensively reported for weeks on all the news channels, raised in the debate etc - Trump's very good at earning free media in the old media.
But I think Trump's effectiveness is precisely that he isn't surgically targeting the precise voter in Pennsylvania that he can swing. It's that he's broadcasting and that his message is not targeted it is, if nothing else, broad. And I think as Syt says prompts an emotional response (positive and negative). I've said it before but I think the internet phenomenon that's key to Trump is fan culture - it's the Messi v Ronaldo wars on social media (and I think a few other figures, like Corbyn have had similar) - and Trump's broad message is part of that because it allows for basically fanfic, fanvids, for a parasocial bond etc. And I think that's a new attitude to politics and a political leader which I think comes from internet culture.
QuoteIn the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK. That dynamic doesn't work for President.
It feels like this election Trump actually has coat-tails which hasn't previously been the case, or am I wrong?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2024, 03:51:41 PMIt feels like this election Trump actually has coat-tails which hasn't previously been the case, or am I wrong?
Hilariously not really. The only real consequence downballot in this election was the Pennsylvania Senate seat.
Ohio and Montana were always going to be long shots for the Democrats.
And in the House, things are just so gerrymandered that the impact there is also rather small. The Republicans will probably narrowly maintain their majority.
So sure the Republicans did well in this election but it wasn't the massacre it feels like it was.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2024, 03:51:41 PMHe's over 50% and has added votes.
But my argument is that it's like gigs for a comedian working on his set. He uses the rallies to workshop his material.
He's on 50% what?
Of the overall vote? I'm not sure where this connects to whether his rallies were actually a particularly useful part of his campaign.
QuoteI just don't buy this - and I never have. Part of that is, possibly, spending most of my working life working in some way with online, personalised/behavioural advertising and the entire industry is riddled with fraud and unverifiable claims. Have a drink with anyone in it and they'll basically all admit that in many ways it is a bit of a con. It's also a dying and declining ecosystem. So I slightly struggle with that practical, professional experience of this stuff and the very hyperbolic claims about its impact in politics (which is, incidentally, very much like the salespitch you get from the companies about how effective they are :lol:). I struggle to believe that the one area they've really, really cracked is politics.
But yes, Facebook will deny it but are very happy if you think they're so good they can win an American election. Steve Bannon and Dom Cummings etc want people to think they're geniuses in Bond villain lairs.
I've been around this stuff professionally too.
There's definitely a tonne of snake oil out there. Its nowhere near as good in a lot of areas as many might believe. But at the same time it actually is very good in others; better even considering stuff most wouldn't have thought of.
The idea that with all this hyper targeting you can precisely rebuild a person in a specific way is of course untrue.
But that's the beauty of Trump and co. They don't need to get people believing perfectly crafted arguments. They just throw out a tonne of shit to tap into raw emotion, pretty basic algorithms work to help hone in on the stuff that works.
Did someone dwell on a story a while, did they like it, did they reply, did they share... none of this is rocket science. Its all very measurable and exploitable data.
Its a lot easier to target something that will get someone upset than to figure out a product they're actually going to buy. Its pretty well known that facebook et al really thrive on engagement rather than happiness and the best form of engagement comes from negative emotion.
QuoteI think it's a way for people to delegitimise democratic results they don't like (it was actually Russians/Cambridge Analytica etc) which is challenging after this election and to explain away defeat. We didn't lose because we weren't good enough, we were just too pure for this world.
That people don't like the results is irrelevant.
Little in life has a single cause. But to dismiss the fact that far right populism is heavily built on social media toxicity is just denying reality.
Absolutely the Democrats made a tonne of mistakes- not doing anything to counter this reality for instance- but that doesn't make the notes about how Trump builds a lot of support any less true.
QuoteI also think, with this example, that it gets the internet wrong. I think the reason microtargeting doesn't work anymore is that everyone can see what you're saying across social media - I think one of the reasons for polarisation is that we can, suddenly, all see all the freaky little sub-cultures on all sides. The stuff on Haitians eating pets was in no way micro-targeted. It was at a rally, extensively reported for weeks on all the news channels, raised in the debate etc - Trump's very good at earning free media in the old media.
But I think Trump's effectiveness is precisely that he isn't surgically targeting the precise voter in Pennsylvania that he can swing. It's that he's broadcasting and that his message is not targeted it is, if nothing else, broad. And I think as Syt says prompts an emotional response (positive and negative). I've said it before but I think the internet phenomenon that's key to Trump is fan culture - it's the Messi v Ronaldo wars on social media (and I think a few other figures, like Corbyn have had similar) - and Trump's broad message is part of that because it allows for basically fanfic, fanvids, for a parasocial bond etc. And I think that's a new attitude to politics and a political leader which I think comes from internet culture.
Trump absolutely isn't surgically targeting people. He is very broad indeed.
Those behind him however?
Surgical is the wrong word for it. Surgical implies they get it spot on first time. The way it works tends to be far more in the realm of saturation bombardment and steadily honing in on a target. Just keep the shit flying until you get a hit. Then you focus your stuff ever tighter.
By keeping the early range finding stuff very broad and not particularly related to politics at all they can often very neatly get some hooks into people without them noticing it has even happened.
I remember an early example of this, 15 years ago or so, one of those British Nazi groups, Britain First maybe, spewing innocent stuff around facebook pictures of dogs and various hard to disagree with things to get their hooks into boomers before steadily building up the racism.
And this was very early stuff, very manual, not much money, no algorithms or anything like that. Yet it worked.
With the power of modern technology, vast sums, hostile state actors, supporters ownership of platforms, and so on... Don't underestimate what even very simple techniques can accomplish.
And again it goes back to the core problem of how the right taps into system 1 whilst the left is left floundering with system 2. Its a lot easier to get people reactive and angry then to get them believing in positive change.
One of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2024, 03:23:47 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2024, 12:55:37 PMThe incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water. Lots of Democratic incumbents won.
In the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK. That dynamic doesn't work for President.
You cut out the rest of my post that went on to explain that incumbency is actually a powerful force for Presidents. Its the mid terms where they have the problem.
Quote from: HVC on November 13, 2024, 06:13:35 PMOne of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?
It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.
So for Attorney General of USA, the largest legal department in the free world, the President-elect has nominated a pedo whose entire legal experience consists of 2 years as a junior associate in a small Florida law firm.
For defense secretary, a vast government department with a near trillion dollar budget and 3 million employees, a former National Guard platoon leader turned TV newstainment host with zero managerial experience.
For the Director of National Intelligence, the executive that heads up the entire US intelligence establishment, a former military policeman and four term Congresswoman with no background or experience in intelligence gathering or managing an agency (or anything else), but a troubling history of spreading FSB backed narratives and conspiracy theories.
And we are supposed to believe that voters turned against the Democrats because they didn't choose people based on merit?
An entire class of capital looked at Russia and thought themselves we can be those Oligarch in the US. Trump is fastforwarding them the keys to the future US oligarchy.
And it gets worse. At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2024, 08:57:50 PMAnd it gets worse. At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.
Well right. Eight years ago I would have been like "look at all the crazy shit he is doing people! Return to sanity!"
But...well...the insanity is the point.
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2024, 10:11:11 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2024, 08:57:50 PMAnd it gets worse. At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.
Well right. Eight years ago I would have been like "look at all the crazy shit he is doing people! Return to sanity!"
But...well...the insanity is the point.
Yep
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2024, 08:57:50 PMAnd it gets worse. At least 50% of Americans are going to think those appointments are great.
Thunderous applause, how democracy dies this is.
Quote from: DGuller on November 13, 2024, 08:12:25 PMQuote from: HVC on November 13, 2024, 06:13:35 PMOne of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?
It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.
I'm reading they weren't allowed to let American citizens trade in it. Watch for the feds! :P
Quote from: celedhring on November 14, 2024, 01:52:43 AMQuote from: DGuller on November 13, 2024, 08:12:25 PMQuote from: HVC on November 13, 2024, 06:13:35 PMOne of those election betting websites got raided today. Polymarket. Ring a bell DGuller?
It does, that was the site I was following on election night to spare myself the pointless banter on cable news sites.
I'm reading they weren't allowed to let American citizens trade in it. Watch for the feds! :P
Dguller going down :ph34r:
I wasn't trading, I was just watching the price. My imagination is not sick enough to understand US voters.
I think Reich got this bit right in his Guardian opinion
QuoteWhat's the Lesson of the 2024 election?
According to exit polls, Americans voted mainly on the economy – and their votes reflected their class and level of education.
While the US economy has improved over the last two years according to standard economic measures, most Americans without college degrees – that's the majority – have not felt it.
In fact, most Americans without college degrees have not felt much economic improvement for four decades, and their jobs have grown less secure.
The real median wage of the bottom 90% is stuck nearly where it was in the early 1990s, even though the economy is more than twice as large now as it was then.
Most of the economy's gains have gone to the top.
This has caused many Americans to feel frustrated and angry. Trump gave voice to that anger. Harris did not.
I mean he won so I guess I cannot disagree with anything said about why he won.
I saw lots of anti-immigrant stuff. Not a ton on anger at the stagnation of wages.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2024, 03:20:27 PMI mean he won so I guess I cannot disagree with anything said about why he won.
I saw lots of anti-immigrant stuff. Not a ton on anger at the stagnation of wages.
Yeah - I really think Reich's post is one of those posts (like Bernie) who blames the Democrats election defeat on their own personal beliefs, and not on any actual evidence.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2024, 03:41:34 PMYeah - I really think Reich's post is one of those posts (like Bernie) who blames the Democrats election defeat on their own personal beliefs, and not on any actual evidence.
In the case of Bernie - I'd point out that a pollster published a piece I think in the Guardian or NYT about how he was tracking opinion in Pennsylvania and the "threat to democracy"/"fascism" line of attack in the last third of the campaign was not cutting through with working class voters at all.
I think he's since said that after printing that piece, Bernie called him and had a very detailed call about what he was seeing in Pennsylvania from polling.
Obviously everyone's conclusions are (shockingly!) their priors (and I'm as bad as anyone).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2024, 03:52:25 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 14, 2024, 03:41:34 PMYeah - I really think Reich's post is one of those posts (like Bernie) who blames the Democrats election defeat on their own personal beliefs, and not on any actual evidence.
In the case of Bernie - I'd point out that a pollster published a piece I think in the Guardian or NYT about how he was tracking opinion in Pennsylvania and the "threat to democracy"/"fascism" line of attack in the last third of the campaign was not cutting through with working class voters at all.
I think he's since said that after printing that piece, Bernie called him and had a very detailed call about what he was seeing in Pennsylvania from polling.
Obviously everyone's conclusions are (shockingly!) their priors (and I'm as bad as anyone).
I think (hope) that everyone knew the "threat to democracy" line would be effective amongst a small slice of the electorate that might otherwise vote GOP, but was never going to be a grand slam home run message. :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2024, 03:20:27 PMI mean he won so I guess I cannot disagree with anything said about why he won.
I saw lots of anti-immigrant stuff. Not a ton on anger at the stagnation of wages.
The piece I posted says that the economy was the issue. The bit you are talking about is an inference that the reason the economy was a big issue, despite the economy improving, and inflation being tamed, is that wages have not kept pace with the cost of living. The reason for that of course is wages have stagnated.
From what I've heard from reporters covering the campaign, that was the focus of the last third of the campaign (which is partly what gave me 2016 vibes). That was the closing message.
Other interesting comment about that pollster was that apparently the "don't go back" line really didn't work as a message because lots of voters felt like they were doing pretty well in 2016-20, while 2020-24 was tough. It may seem unfair but I think there's a "rally round the flag"/exceptional circumstances degree of forgiveness from voters for the immediate response to covid, but they expect a lot of governments in the aftermath (I think a bit like a natural disaster).
I think aside from incumbency in general or at this moment it gets a real challenge for Harris with only three months to campaign (but for all VPs running) of how to do continuity and change. I think it's one of the most difficult messages to communicate successfully in politics - and I do have a lot of sympathy for Harris on this (even if I think some form of selection process would have been a better option) because she only had three months to set up that message (and also to experiment and work out what line works).
Quote from: Savonarola on November 07, 2024, 06:25:28 PMFrom Al-Jazeera: (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/6/we-warned-you-arab-americans-in-michigan-tell-kamala-harris)
Quote'We warned you,' Arab Americans in Michigan tell Kamala Harris
A shift away from pro-Israel Democrats in communities like Dearborn underscores anger over war in Gaza and Lebanon.
Dearborn, Michigan – When Fox News called Pennsylvania for Donald Trump in the early hours of Wednesday, all but confirming that he would be the next president of the United States, there were a handful of Arab activists left at a watch party in Dearborn, Michigan.
"Genocide is bad politics," said one attendee at the event, which had Palestinian and Lebanese flags hanging outside its doors.
As the reality of another Trump presidency set off anger and sorrow from many Democratic commentators, at the Dearborn gathering organised by American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), there was a sense of indifference – if not vindication.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris had ignored the community's calls for reconsidering the unconditional US support for Israel. The vice president also continued to assert what she calls "Israel's right to defend itself" despite the brutal atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon.
Activist Adam Abusalah said part of the reason why Harris lost was her decision to side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the expense of alienating the Democratic base – Arab and Muslim Americans as well as young people and progressives.
"We've been warning the Democrats for over a year now, and the Democrats continue to downplay what's going on."
He added that Harris's main message to the Arab community was to warn of the dangers of a Trump presidency. This tactic failed to work as voters in the area were laser-focused on the continuing war in the Middle East that affected many of them personally.
Dearborn shift
In the Arab-majority suburb of Dearborn, anger over Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and Lebanon was tangible at the ballot box.
Harris lost the city to Trump by more than 2,600 votes. President Joe Biden beat Trump by more than 17,400 votes – a more than 20,000-vote swing that helped the Republican former president reclaim Michigan.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who centred opposition to the war in her platform, also performed relatively well in the city, growing her party's support from 207 votes in 2020 to more than 7,600 this year.
Hussein Dabajeh, a Lebanese American political consultant in the Detroit area, noted that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat, significantly outperformed Harris in Dearborn, receiving more than 9,600 votes than the vice president.
"The Arab community said we're anti-genocide. We supported the candidates that supported the community, and we stood against the candidates that stood against the community," Dabajeh told Al Jazeera.
It is unclear what a Trump presidency will mean for Arab and Muslim Americans and the country at large.
"I hope it's something good. I hope the country comes together. I hope the Democrats are brought to their senses," Dabajeh said.
While the former president has a long history of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant statements and policies, he has promised to bring "peace" to the region.
Trump also softened his antagonistic tone towards Arabs and Muslims as he courted their communities in Michigan.
He brought Arab and Muslim officials and imams to the stage during his rallies and called them "great people".
Trump also visited Dearborn and listened first-hand to demands to end the war, which Harris failed to do.
'It doesn't stop here'
Ali Alfarjalla, a 32-year-old Iraqi American real estate agent in Dearborn, said that for all his flaws, Trump represents a change from the Biden-Harris administration that has been unflinchingly supporting the Israeli assault on Gaza and Lebanon.
He stressed that the election is not the end of political engagement, saying that the community will press Trump to deliver on his promise of bringing peace to the region.
"It doesn't stop here," Alfarjalla told Al Jazeera.
"We have to work more to make sure our issues are heard – to stop the genocide in Gaza, stop the invasion of south Lebanon, and let Palestine have its own state. We're hopeful about that. That's our number one priority for this community."
He also said that Harris supporters' "lesser of two evils" pitch to the community backfired because many voters could not see a worse evil than the administration providing the bombs that were killing their families and destroying their hometowns.
While both major candidates back Israel, the Harris campaign committed a series of unforced errors that further alienated the community in Michigan and beyond, Arab American advocates told Al Jazeera.
At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, the Harris campaign rejected demands to allow a speech by a Palestinian speaker.
The Democratic candidate also turned down a request for a meeting by the Uncommitted Movement, which was founded during the Democratic Primary process to pressure Biden over his unconditional support for Israel.
Unlike Trump, Harris did not visit Dearborn, the de-facto seat of Arab American political and financial power, during her campaign.
Instead, Harris met with handpicked Arab and Muslim "leaders" in Flint, about an hour north of Detroit, last month.
Moreover, Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney in Michigan and welcomed the endorsement of her father, former President Dick Cheney – an architect of the so-called "War on Terror" that devastated the Middle East.
Numerous Arab American activists invoked Harris's embrace of the Cheneys when underscoring her apparent disregard for their communities.
"We had Harris endorsed by neoconservatives like Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney, and she's openly campaigning with them and talking about how great they are," Dearborn councilman Mustapha Hammoud told Al Jazeera on Tuesday night as the results trickled in.
"You know what? I don't think people are willing to vote for George W Bush, so you weren't going to see people vote for Harris, either."
'I smile and laugh at it'
Speaking under a Harris campaign sign last week, former President Bill Clinton claimed that Hamas "forces" Israel to kill Palestinian civilians and suggested that Zionism pre-dates Islam.
The campaign's behaviour led some advocates to question whether the Democratic candidate has given up on the Arab community.
"Vice President Harris has shown over and over again that she actually doesn't want our vote," Uncommitted Movement leader Layla Elabed told Al Jazeera last week.
Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud also noted that the Harris campaign was hesitant to engage Arab Americans directly.
"They don't want the heckling to occur. They don't want to knock on the doors where they think the conversations are going to drag, and the votes might not be there," the mayor told Al Jazeera before the elections.
On the policy front, Harris did not make any concrete promises to the community – even within the acceptable realm of mainstream politics – like reopening the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington, DC, or resuming funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).
In contrast, Biden released platforms for Arab and Muslim Americans in 2020, promising domestic and foreign policy moves sought by the community – many of which went unfulfilled.
Bottom line, many Arab Americans say they already survived four years of Trump while many of their relatives in Palestine and Lebanon did not survive the Biden-Harris presidency.
They say they will continue to push for change, no matter who is in power.
Asked about some liberal social media users attacking Arab Americans and blaming them for Harris's defeat, Alfarjalla said many people in the community have survived war and adversity, so they are not concerned about what others say.
"I smile and laugh at it," he said.
Harris was faced with an dilemma of either alienating Jewish voters or alienating Muslim/activist voters. She might have done a better job with Arab-American outreach, as the article says, but it really is hard to see how they're better off with Trump.
And, not surprisingly, there's already buyer's remorse: Trump's pro-Israel cabinet picks upset Muslims who voted for him (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/muslims-who-voted-trump-upset-by-his-pro-israel-cabinet-picks-2024-11-15/)
suckers
Democrats should have explained that when they said that Trump would be a new Hitler they didn't mean he would be antisemitic.
Literally the first thing the man did last time he was elected was to put in place an illegal ban on ALL MUSLIMS entering the United States. It's the same man who when asked about his top accomplishments as President, always mentions moving the US embassy in Israel so that part of it now sits on occupied land in East Jerusalem.
I can grasp if not understand the cut off the nose to spite one's face strategy of "sending a message" to Harris and the Democrats. But expressing surprise that the most over-exposed and heavily covered person on earth acts the same way he's always acted for a decade? Words fail