Hatfort

Oh, he really tweeted this? I'm gonna get some popcorn. ???

How cool, this is the moment! Checked NYTimes and Huffpost, classics. One says 273 the other 284 for Biden, AKA Sleepy Joe.

Paula White, amazing!

My prediction was that it was going to be very even and that Trump would win. I was right about the first part, but I'm very glad I was wrong about the winner. Trump has been beaten by Sleepy Joe, eat that, Trumpists! Looking at the vote numbers, Trump has had more votes than in 2016. I feared this, most people who voted for him before, have voted for him again, and even more in this polarized scenario. People prefer to stick with whatever they have done before admitting they were wrong, it's a self-defense mechanism. The lower in the spiral dynamics model, the more difficult to admit an error, they prefer to double down. I'm not that afraid of Trumpism in the medium term, he is still going to be an annoying figure for a while, but that's all. There's no one like him to take the place in the Republican party as far as I know. Society is evolving as well, so it will be more difficult that someone like him gets to power again. So why did Trump lose? Well, after four years of his bullshit, the opposition for him as awaken. In 2016 we had not seen him in charge yet and it was taken for granted that he would lose, not only by Hilary but the people in general, huge mistake. Biden sure has his base, but a lot of his votes have come from people who just dislike Trump and wanted him out of office. Totally legit reason to vote, thank god it happened. Trump has confirmed our worst fears, he is trying to stay in power even after losing the election. But seems to me more and more people will leave his boat and it will be fast. He's behaving antidemocratically. There's no way he can sustain why he wanted to stop the count in places he was leading and keep it in places he was not. It's just admitting he doesn't accept democracy, what people vote. Not even Fox News could go with that. He still has those inconditionals and followers in denial, those insisting the truth of fraud will come out. I checked Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro, they are there, and we have some examples on this thread as well, one is very obvious. But it won't, counting votes takes time, remember that other states have not finished counting either, the only thing is that there are four where the result is being very even for both. The system can and should be improved, but claims about fraud are baseless. So let's see how the next years go. Biden has room to amend some of the horrible policies and manners his predecessor has been implementing. I won't lie, I won't expect much from him. He seems blue - orange to me, with some sparks of green. But that's much better than an incendiary red narcissist like Trump. Glad he's done.

Hate speech is a problem, indeed. There are vulnerable people in society, like minorities that can never obtain political power to set the rules, for example, native Americans. Women, who have had less power than men through all history. LGTB people, who have dealt and deal with systemic hatred and offensive treatment. Inmigrants, which can be vulnerable economically and legally. Poor people, from any race. Blacks, slavery history, not that far from now. Children or elderly people, for obvious reasons. When hate speech goes towards any of these more vulnerable people, we've historical evidence that this can become dangerous for their integrity, and the harm can come from the institutions or from other people. As societies, we can aim for a more secure situation for all. Sometimes some people may need to be defended from the harassment of others, mostly when it's repeated or systemic. Where is the line where we should intervine or not? Difficult to say. As an example, it used to be normal to say hitting your wife is fine, should we allow that speech now, to someone that really believes it? Well, I thihnk at this point we've agreed to censor those speeches that directly look to harm any person or community. What about saying someone or a whole community is inferior? Is that fine? I don't think so, we gotto protect ourselves from ourselves as a community. I'm just rambling.

Okay, I'll put you in context. There's been a troll creating multiple accounts on this thread the last days, including this. So anyone appearing with a new account would seem to be him again. Don't take it personally. I was pro Bernie too, it sucked when he lost. But he's been an example, he's been campaining for the Democrat candidate against Trump, like he said he would, understanding he was a menace to democracy. Man, he was so right, warned about what Trump would do in the scenario of a tight election, he nailed it. He's way more talented than Biden, but it wasn't possible.

Trump is asking to stop counting votes in a democracy, it's happening now, but some guys here putting the focus anywhere else, like look how the other side is corrupt as well, look what Obama did or what Hillary said, of course, blaming how biased others are. Look guys, it sucks when the one you like doesn't win, or the one that you dislike wins. But if you want to set the precedent of not counting votes, candidates not conceding when losing, that goes against the most fundamental principals of democracy. There's something awful going on now and Trump is the responsible. Biden has not said anything out of tone since the election, that's the truth. Swallow your own bias for once and acknoledge what's happening, instead of gaslighting towards other topics. People have voted, votes have to be counted, then we see who leads for the next 4 years. Spoilers: Biden.

I don't know, man. The deer really made a huge mess in his way in and out!!

Let him moan, he's done. No way he's getting elected in 2024 after what he's doing and he'll be too old to run.

This is quite a black or white set out. One thing or the other. Things are more complicated. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, there is a cultural clash. in Western culture, it's normal and accepted those kinds of satire comics where everything can be made fun of. For religious people, particularly the ones that are not that familiar with the western culture, it's an offense to their identity. Should this mockes be ilegal? I don't think so, it is a freedom of speech matter, and the context of a satire comic magazine should be understood as what it is. The prohibition to depict their prophet is for Muslims, the rest of the world that aren't, don't need to follow that rule, but the problem is that the most closeminded believers there's only one truth, theirs, so they can't accept that this prohibition isn't universal. They can't even mentally process this. There are also security reasons to consider, we live in a global world now and there's been militar hostility towards the Middle East from the West and terrorist attacks the other way around. So what do we do? It's complicated. We are in this world together, yes, the Middle East is more undeveloped and they can act with stage red violence easily. The West has been making warzones on these areas for decades and those radicals have received training, technology and weapons from the West. The more developed part should accept a bigger burden and try to put some consciousness into these matters. Putting a fine to this old woman is not right. Yeah, calling savages to other cultures is good old fashioned racism or xenophobia, but she doesn't know better and there are other ways to confront what she did.

Republicans, depending on who's leading. Lovely!

@7thLetter I agree the crisis is huge whoever becomes president. But, again, benefiting the elites even more is not what is going to get us out from it, it's basically the opposite. To reactivate the economy, inequality must be addressed. That doesn't mean everyone must be rich, but it means that poverty has to be minimized. The rich has to be taxed more, that's just a must if you want to make the economy grow. The biggest corporations may be so powerful that they can even threaten and blackmail by playing with prizes to some extent like you say, but that's why citizens are supposed to have an institituion elected by them, the government, to mediate bettwen them and those extremelly powerfull entities. To tell them when they are violating the basic rights of people with their practices, when the society cannot afford those levels of inequality or that on a medical crisis like this we can't squeeze average people more, because they barely make it to pay their basic needs, so we can only turn for money to those who have most. A government should have that role, but that is not the case, what they do is approve laws dictated by corporations, no surprise the rich are getting richer, and more people face poverty or its edge. Lobbying the government by corporations should stop, men and women voted to be in charge are there to serve the citizens. Corporations must not pay polititians, they just gotta pay their fair share of taxes. There is a place for big corporations and there's nothing ilegal about making money and wanting to make more, after they pay their taxes first and their practices are accounted as legal. Biden will concede less than Trump to corporations. But this election wasn't about that at all, I don't think Biden would have won for being slightly fairer. That couldn't move so many greens to vote, not after they've tasted a bit of what Sanders was proposing. But after they've seen the real face of Trump and perhaps regretting not having voted against him in 2016. The vote for Biden was a vote against Trump.

If you allow him, set some rules, like always homework first or time limits. You can be flexible sometimes. Outdoor activities and interactions should be encouraged as well. Also, check how it affects him, any positive result, as his social life is richer, or negative, like being more aggressive or addiction patterns. Based on that, you act. And be part of it, ask him about his avatar or character, how he feels when he plays, how his game went, who is he playing with. Check yourself how the videogame is, observe him playing and ask him, what's this, what's that, who's that, what a nice creature, what an ugly creature, whatever.

@7thLetter First of all, right now we are seeing how Trump is not willing to count votes, making baseless claims about fraud. Consider if that behavior, from him or any polititian running, is beneficial for peace in a country, and its economy as a result, as that seems your main focus. Second, what you learned today is wrong. Raising taxes to the richest does not produce those apocaliptic results you listed, this is the narrative that sometimes direclty and sometimes more subtly the media funded or owned by those rich elites tell everyone, so we believe them keeping more money is good for the economy, bullshit. If that's so, let's the average people fundraise and give the money to the rich. The contrary is true, taxing the richest, who can afford it because they are still going to continue living very well, will permit the government to create a better welfare for all, even create jobs directly, which will create more jobs indirectly, because those with jobs and their families will have the purchasing power to make the businesses around them work, which will create even more families with higher purchasing power. We would have to address how basic needs as medical treatments or having a roof over your head can be facilitated because make no mistake, there are already heavy regulations marking how these matters work, lobbied by corporate interests to remain as they are, which are extremely costly for the average people, sometimes impossible to afford. This could be totally addressed by taxing the richest reasonably and making better regulations. Or maybe we can tax the homeless, taking their coins from their hats, then we give it to the rich people so they make the economy run right. Edit: I wish Biden would address the economy better, but he's not going to be that far from Trump, he'll still be devoted to corporate interests mostly, probably slightly less. The one with a decent list of policies was Sanders, like taking the student debt away, another measure directly benefiting the purchasing power of average people. But the election was between Trump and Biden now, so Biden is the right choice by a huge margin, Trump is an incendiary, crazy and authoritarian narcissist, that doesn't even respect the most basic democratic principle. If you are voted, you rule, if not, you get out.

Then count, count!

Stop counting, counting is fraud!

Can I go to the church on Sunday and start shouting my own speepch with a megaphone while the priest says his prayers and Bible stuff? It's more important my freedom of speech, of course, so the feelings of the priest and his believers don't matter and I am entitled to make my show. Can I take a megaphon and start shouting my speech in the middle of the night in the street? If you oppose these, you are against freedom of speech.

So it seems we are getting there, Biden can win this, by a small margin, but enough to send the clown away from power. I'm not declaring victory, but seems that the final count, considering what's left and from where, should favour Biden. Republicans being so nervous and declaring fraud is very significant as well, they expect to lose once those votes are counted, so they are messing around. As Leo said, Trump made a huge mistake by declaring victory and fraud so soon, how can a democratic candidate explain he wanted to stop counting the votes? How can his supporters defend this? I understand you want your candidate to win, but he's talking directly about not counting votes, wtf! In my country it's not uncommon one or two seats of the parlament changing once they count the mail votes, which can happen some hours later or even next day. Every political party and citizens accept this as part of the election game. How could we not? Trump is crazy and so are most Trumpists.

@7thLetter A bit about spiral dynamics, as I see it on this election: Republicans: Red - Blue - Orange Democrats: Blue - Orange - Green Trump is red himself and there is a significant part of the US population red too, all of them are going to vote for him. There was a woman recently elected for congress, I think, I don't recall the name, but on her ad she was literally holding a rifle and shooting and that's the lunatic Republicans chose as their representative. There is a video of Leo about content vs structure. Well, the content may be different, but the structure of this video is like an ISIS or Alcaeda terrorist one, totally crazy. People rallying with firearms like it's normal in front of the police. Well, mostly whites, I don't think the police would allow other ethnic groups to behave like that. Trump and Biden both can appeal to blues as a patriarchal patriotic figure. Blues don't care about the environment at all, unless the waste touches their door, in that case, they may go for Biden for his green touches. They are also triggered by all kinds of gender issues, which are usually addressed by greens, so they get defensive with those, and may vote for someone like Trump, who is perceived as the antithesis of feminism. Fox news just has to put those issues in front of their noses to trigger them, why speak about poverty and inequality when you can about trans toilets instead. Trump has also some kind of businessman reputation that appeals to oranges, but as fast as you scratch this surface, you can see the vacuum behind or the corruption in the worst case. Oranges leaning to green will vote for Biden. The thing is, Democrats need solid greens voting and maybe campaigning for them, it's also a significant part of the population of the US. Those won't vote for Trump, but it's not sure they will vote for Biden either, that's the problem of the Democrats. Some will understand Biden is the best we can reach right now, those are leaning to yellow. Others want all or nothing and they often get nothing, like perhaps now, we'll see.

Bernie Sanders called for the possibility and he nailed it, at least the first part for now.

No worries, be open to learn and you will. For the economy to work it needs the money to be flowing, so as many people as possible with a decent purchasing power making businesses work by their purchasings, literally. If you have a huge part of the population working for a wage that doesn't even cover their basic needs or that go bankrupt because they get a disease and can't face the medical bills, then the economy can't grow and if it does only for the elites, not to the economy of people in general. So why are not we doing this? A bigger living wage or a medicare for all go against the short term interest of the elites, they want as much money as they can and as fast as it's possible. What else happens? Who has the power to influence and control what's on the media that reaches all houses? The corporations that pay their publicity and the elites. The Internet is big, but there's still a huge amount of boomers that still get fed by the traditional TV. I'm sorry, but, as you, they think elites making even more money is good for the economy, bullshit. The internet is not free of the influence of corporations and elites, they are all over it, but there are at least some chances to get some independent information here and there. Green only focusing on the environment is a very superficial view of them. But, again, the environment is not that disconnected from the economy and society. At the very begining of the economic chain, we take our energy, fuel and resources from nature and we impact it. If a corporation is making huge amounts of gains by using the water of a river and polluting it, to make a simple example, who has to pay for a treatment system so local people can still enjoy the river or at the very least not be intoxicated by it? The taxpayers or the corporation itself with part of their gains? If the corporations take care of it, that's bad for them, so how does hold up the notion of elites doing well is good for the economy here? It does not.

Looks so tight. One of the candidates declaring victory without finishing the count and fraud without any evidence doesn't make him look lke a winner. Of course, it had to be Trump. I hope he loses, Biden must not concide to Trump, only to the numbers if it is the case that he loses, which is yet unknown.

You sound like a triggered snowflake.

Mind to share what have you seen so bad and which members didn't get banned for it? I'm curious.

Well, your understanding is not very deep and quite flawed. What is economy? Is it big corporations doing good but without this translating to the workers that work hard for them, but just to a minor elite? Well, this elite may buy yatches, it may be good for the business of yatches, but I can tell you that for the economy, in general, is awful. Going to social issues now, if people's purchasing power is low, it's bad for so many businesses they will stop getting service from. Those businesses are run by people with families too. Is it good for the economy that those elites don't pay taxes or legislations make it easy or even legal to evade them? For their economy it may be good, for the economy in general it's awful. Is it good for the economy to have people on the edge of poverty or directly homeless and struggling to have food? At some point, we gotta look the large numbers of the economy, see where the most amount of money is and where is not. The best way to reactivate the economy and the flow of money is to start redistributing again. The legal system now is being lobbied by corporation and elites for their benefit, this is not a neutral system that we are living in now, to think that the economy is not alrealy intervined is a delusion, it is, but for the favor of the ones that have the capacity of doing it, surprise, the rich ones, so they get richer. Republicans are not focused on economics, they are focused on elites. So are democrats, but they are obliged to implement some progressive policies here and there to maintain part of their base, which makes them a better option. Obama won with these promisses he didn't fulfill, Biden won't either if he wins, he's not promissing much either, it just happens that Trump is much worse than him from a progressive point of view. But this base is growing and they are going to demand more of those policies, which will be good for the economy for the reasons stated above. Environmental issues are not that disconnected from society and economy either, it's just fair to ask the ones that produce dirt and harm to take care of it. Yeah, they are gonna earn less, and less tax money will be used to clean their messes or the environment will suffer less in the first place. I can live with that.