Presidential Debate + RFK

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Trump was calling for change, even if that change was returning to the past, it was still a change from how things aee.

That is not change!

To call that "change" is a joke. You can use that word if you want, but it's not really change.

Change actually requires a new way of doing things and evolving to higher values.

Change would be if some evangelical preacher suddenly became an atheist. That would be some serious change.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Establishment entails more of the same

Which is exactly Trump's promise, when you peel off all the bullshit and spin.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Trump was anti establishment because he wasn’t in government. He himself constantly talked about how he’s an outsider and will drain the swamp. Everything about him from the way he talked to his controversies gave him a anti establishment edge,

None of that is what makes someone anti-establishment.

To truly be anti-establishment, Trump would have to actually confront deeply held American values. Which of course he never did.

Bernie did though. Bernie challenged America. And he lost for it.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

t’s the same reason why polls showed Bernie Sanders winning the general and he appealed to independents, he had a anti establishment flair with his populist messaging.

People were in a anti establishment mood, so candidates like Trump or Bernie had the advantage among the general electorate.

I will grant you that an "anti-establishment" message can have a surface level appeal. Certainly, Trump was able to tap into people's dissatisfaction. Trump is a narcissistic manipulator and he will twist things however he needs.

But if you cut through all the bullshit, fundamentally MAGA people did not want real change. They still do not.

That is why it's popular.

Trump has no interest in challenging anything fundamental to American culture. That would just make things more difficult for him.

The easiest path to power is just to play into what most people already believe in.

[Leo Gura]

Al Queda is anti-establishment in that they want to return to medieval Islam.

It's pointless to say "anti-establishment", the question is what are you replacing it with? Progress or regress? Future or past?

Edited July 2, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

That is not change!

To call that "change" is a joke. You can use that word if you want, but it's not really change.

Change actually requires a new way of doing things and evolving to higher values.

Change would be if some evangelical preacher suddenly became an atheist. That would be some serious change.

Which is exactly Trump's promise, when you peel off all the bullshit and spin.

None of that is what makes someone anti-establishment.

To truly be anti-establishment, Trump would have to actually confront deeply held American values. Which of course he never did.

Bernie did though. Bernie challenged America. And he lost for it.

I will grant you that an "anti-establishment" message can have a surface level appeal. Certainly, Trump was able to tap into people's dissatisfaction. Trump is a narcissistic manipulator and he will twist things however he needs.

But if you cut through all the bullshit, fundamentally MAGA people did not want real change. They still do not.

That is why it's popular.

Trump has no interest in challenging anything fundamental to American culture. That would just make things more difficult for him.

The easiest path to power is just to play into what most people already believe in.

You are misusing terms.

Change just means different from status quo. It can be negative or positive, a decline or progress.

Establishment just means status quo. What is established at the moment.

The political establishment are those who are already in politics and seen as making the current situation persist. 

The anti establishment are those who are seen as coming from outside to work against what is already established to create something else.

10% of Bernie Sanders primary voters went on to vote for Trump over Hillary. How can that be when Hillary is closer to Bernie’s positions? Simple, they saw Clinton as establishment and they didn’t like that.

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

You are misusing terms.

Change just means different from status quo. It can be negative or positive, a decline or progress.

Establishment just means status quo. What is established at the moment.

The political establishment are those who are already in politics and seen as making the current situation persist. 

The anti establishment are those who are seen as coming from outside to work against what is already established to create something else.

10% of Bernie Sanders primary voters went on to vote for Trump over Hillary. How can that be when Hillary is closer to Bernie’s positions? Simple, they saw Clinton as establishment and they didn’t like that.

No more on this.

We've derailed this thread enough.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

On 6/30/2024 at 1:08 AM, Leo Gura said:

The country was stupid enough to elect W Bush twice. So we're really just staying consistent.

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

 

[hundreth]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

No more on this.

We've derailed this thread enough.

You're both kind of talking past each other at this point, but I generally agree with @Raze that alternative candidates can and could have had a better chance in a general election.

The part that is missing is that the DNC railroads their own candidates in favor of the establishment ones. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

Quote

Among the emails released on Friday were several embarrassing messages that suggest the committee’s chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, and other officials favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Sanders — a claim the senator made repeatedly during the primaries.

In one of the emails, dated May 21, Mark Paustenbach, a committee communications official, wrote to a colleague about the possibility of urging reporters to write that Mr. Sanders’s campaign was “a mess” after a glitch on the committee’s servers gave it access to Clinton voter data.

“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee.

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

The part that is missing is that the DNC railroads their own candidates in favor of the establishment ones. 

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat running as a Democrat.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat.

So they shouldn’t be shocked when Trump beats them.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

So they shouldn’t be shocked when Trump beats them.

The Dem party certainly shoots itself in the foot with poor candidates. Candidate quality is key to winning elections.

They have no good replacement for Biden other than Gavin Newsom. Everyone else is a pathetic piece of wet white bread.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

 

This guy literally looks demented.

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Dem party certainly shoots itself in the foot with poor candidates. Candidate quality is key to winning elections.

They have no good replacement for Biden other than Gavin Newsom. Everyone else is a pathetic piece of wet white bread.

Gavin would be better but not by much, he comes across extremely slimy and and massively disliked. Trump will just spam campaign ads about Californias issues and claim he’s going to bring them to every state. 

They would be better off with a Democrat from a swing state, like Gretchen Whitmer, Tammy Baldwin, or Josh Shapiro.

[hundreth]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat running as a Democrat.

It is more or less a technicality. His ideas most closely align with the Democratic party, most of his allies are in the Democratic party, and he's running as a Democrat. The only thing he doesn't do is pay the exorbitant fees of some bullshit.

If it was actually about electability, which is what they were talking about, they should let the people decide and may the best man win.

That they shoot themselves in the foot and derail their own kind shows how little input we have as a population.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

Gretchen Whitmer, Tammy Baldwin, or Josh Shapiro.

I'm gonna vomit.

[Jodistrict]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Dem party certainly shoots itself in the foot with poor candidates. Candidate quality is key to winning elections.

They have no good replacement for Biden other than Gavin Newsom. Everyone else is a pathetic piece of wet white bread.

I have heard rumors that Michelle Obama would have the best chance of being elected.  The problem is that the Democratic party is an authoritarian top down system that filters candidates that are acceptable to the elites.   Instead of democracy which is bottom up and allows qualified candidates to emerge.  The last emperor of Rome was a boy.  Do you think that Rome had no other more qualified candidates?  Or was the problem the system for selection?

[Leo Gura]

Michelle Obama would not win. This is a silly idea.

You want to put a black woman vs Trump in a country of Christian nationalists and white supremcists? You're nuts if you think she would win.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Michelle Obama would not win. This is a silly idea.

You want to put a black woman vs Trump in a country of Christian nationalists and white supremcists? You're nuts if you think she would win.

Obama, a black man won against stronger candidates than trump 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

Obama, a black man won against stronger candidates than trump 

And Trump is the backlash to that victory. Congrats.

You guys are living in liberal fantasy land. Your wokeness is gonna land you in a  Christian dictatorship.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

@Raze But he is a man and he won in times when Iraq problems were at the peak.

[mmKay]

i miss obama