Presidential Debate + RFK

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

It's not really that we are talking past each other. I understand their argument and I think they understand mine.

We just disagree on certain nuances.

Here is their position summarized:

"Trump won because people were fed up with the establishment and wanted change, which he tapped into. The democrats could have won, but they selected a more status quo politician like Hilary rather than Bernie. Bernie was actually more popular because he was more anti-establishment and promised people the change they wanted, but he was disadvantaged by the primary which only caters to and is biased towards DNC insiders. Here is polling showing how well Bernie would have done with independents, which shows he could win a general. Here is an article showing that the DNC colluded against Bernie. So if it wasn't for DNC corruption and the two party system, Bernie would have won."

^ It's not a totally unreasonable take. I can see how someone would draw that conclusion. And there's some truth to it.

But I am arguing that there are subtler distinctions that are being missed here.

If the DNC is corrupt and colluded against Bernie, that is actually proof that he wasn't electable. He couldn't even appeal to enough democrats, which is why they colluded against him.

But let's relate all this back to Biden before we derail this thread with Bernie again.

BOTH of you believe that Biden doesn't have a chance to win and should probably be replaced. This is not a coincidence, given how you see alternative, anti-establishment candidates like Bernie. You think these people can win. You think people want these candidates. And what I'm suggesting is that's not how it works.

Centrists win elections. By the simple fact that elections are about who appeals, often on a superficial level, to the most number of people. That's democracy. And most people are in the center. They are not radicals and they're not progressives. They don't even follow politics all that closely.

Of course alternative candidates can still sometimes win elections. But usually their victories tend to be more niche. The more broad you go, the harder it becomes for that strategy to work because you will start alienating more and more people. And the presidency is the ultimate for general appeal.

Then you ask, "but then how did Trump win the election? He was such an anti-establishment radical who won because people wanted big change!" And that's exactly why I tried to bash you over the head with the fact that actually Trump catered to American culture quite well. He fits what a lot of SD Blue / Orange people want and plays into the culture war perfectly. There's nothing mysterious about this.

Also, consider that Trump WAS, and still is, widely unpopular. He couldn't even become a two-term president. And who did people react and replace him with? Sleepy Joe Biden. One of the most establishment politicians we have.

Of course it's possible Trump wins in 2024 and I will have to eat those words. But nonetheless, that Joe Biden won at all shows that most people are not looking for extreme candidates. It's simply not possible for them to succeed. Especially not when it comes to sustainability.

You have to appreciate what it actually takes to win a presidential election. No fringe, alternative candidate is capable of this. You have to recognize that, otherwise you will be forever supporting moonshots.

Understood. 

I think for me, it's less about a leftist candidate, and more about alternate candidates vs. Biden. In another post I mentioned that a normal decent party member who is younger would be ideal. I feel that the bar to do better than Biden is very low.

But then, I looked at the polls.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024

What in the world is happening here?? Michelle Obama?? WHY? Harris?? She's horrendous.

I literally just don't understand who these people are who vote in these polls. Yes, we have a corrupt DNC. Yes, we have corporate lobbyists influencing elections. Yes, we have many other issues.

However, it seems the greatest problem of all is that our population at large is braindead. 

The 3 leaders our society has picked out of 300 million citizens are Biden, Trump, and RFK jr. It's hopeless.

[aurum]

3 hours ago, hundreth said:

However, it seems the greatest problem of all is that our population at large is braindead. 

The 3 leaders our society has picked out of 300 million citizens are Biden, Trump, and RFK jr. It's hopeless.

Yes that's exactly right. 

A democratic leader can only be as wise as the citizenry that elect them.

We have Trump, Biden and RFK because they deeply appeal to the majority of Americans.

Of course a better candidate is still theoretically possible. This is not set in stone. But these three have been very successful at persuading people to vote for them.

Also, Trump is just power-hungry and willing to manipulate at a level many normal people are not. So it could be argued that he has gotten to the top through deception and not genuine appeal, which is a problem. But nonetheless, people still like him because he is effective at playing into their value system.

[Leo Gura]

Politics in a capitalist democracy is not about finding excellence, intelligence, or wisdom. It's about finding the lowest common denomiantor that people are willing to live with who is corrupt enough to give his supporters rewards for donating to him.

You MUST be corrupt to win the US presidency. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Because the people who elect the president are themselves deeply corrupt. So they cannot vote for someone who is pure.

Devils must vote for a devil. That IS democracy.

Edited July 4 by Leo Gura

[Jodistrict]

Robert Kennedy is the only one talking about the real issue.  In this case, the banksters who have bought up all the market now buying up all the single family homes.  You can't really be free if you are an economic slave.   The Republican vs Democrat clown show is a deflection of how wealth is being concentrated by a parasitic class that games the system and doesn't provide real productive value. 

 

 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/already-own-89-p-500-113144903.html

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Politics in a capitalist democracy is not about finding excellence, intelligence, or wisdom. It's about finding the lowest common denomiantor that people are willing to live with who is corrupt enough to give his supporters rewards for donating to him.

You MUST be corrupt to win the US presidency. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Because the people who elect the president are themselves deeply corrupt. So they cannot vote for someone who is pure.

Devils must vote for a devil. That IS democracy.

Most Americans agree money should be removed from politics, just that reform alone would remove a lot of the corruption. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Most Americans agree money should be removed from politics

They agree in the abstract, but they would not be willing to vote for someone who would actually be serious about that issue. 

What they really care about more is culture wars. Because to actually vote based on curing corruption would require surrendering all your selfish personal desires, like guns, abortion, identity politics, Jesus, tax cuts, Gaza, etc. And the average voter is not mature or wise enough to do that.

Edited July 4 by Leo Gura

[Alex4]

On 2/7/2024 at 0:10 AM, Leo Gura said:

I don't see Ukraine as existential. The US has way too much influence in that region where it doesn't belong. The US is overreaching and causing needless trouble for itself. Backing off with NATO is the wisest course of action. There is no threat to the US or NATO from Russia. That is paranoia.

Hey Leo,

I just listened to the first episode of Conscious Politics, where you criticize isolationist policies. Why do you believe the USA should withdraw its support for Ukraine? Wouldn't that be an isolationist policy? Maybe you think the European Union alone should support Ukraine? 

 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Alex4 said:

Hey Leo,

I just listened to the first episode of Conscious Politics, where you criticize isolationist policies. Why do you believe the USA should withdraw its support for Ukraine? Wouldn't that be an isolationist policy? Maybe you think the European Union alone should support Ukraine? 

It would take 50 other withdrawals for the US to actually be isolationist. The US operates like an empire. So we have a long way to go to isolation.

The US is pushing NATO expansion too aggressively, which has needlessly provoked Putin. There is no need to be so paranoid and provocative. Putin needs to be given some room otherwise many people will die.

Edited July 4 by Leo Gura

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It would take 50 other withdrawals for the US to actually be isolationist. The US operates like an empire. So we have a long way to go to isolation.

The US is pushing NATO expansion too aggressively, which has needlessly provoked Putin. There is no need to be so paranoid and provocative. Putin needs to be given some room otherwise many people will die.

And Project 2025 sounds like the empires next latest hit album. From the Project 2025 mandate :

''In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some represent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea.''

A country flanked by vast seas they control, a ally to its north and a subservient to its South, are soooo at risk, existentially as well. Notice how these "threats" conveniently align with countries that challenge U.S. hegemony or sit on resources.

The US has over 750 military bases in at least 80 countries. That's not a defensive posture; it's a chokehold on global geopolitics. One or two withdrawals isn't isolation, it's a tactical reshuffling of the empire's chess pieces.

Edited July 4 by zazen

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

Robert Kennedy is the only one talking about the real issue.  In this case, the banksters who have bought up all the market now buying up all the single family homes.  You can't really be free if you are an economic slave.   The Republican vs Democrat clown show is a deflection of how wealth is being concentrated by a parasitic class that games the system and doesn't provide real productive value. 

 

 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/already-own-89-p-500-113144903.html

This. It's a cultural cage match, not a political choice of 'oh this policy of such and such will do my country or myself any good'. Instead its 'this party and person tickles my tribalistic tendencies and makes me fuzzy inside with a sense of belonging to a identity.'

People aren't just voting for who they like, as much as they are voting for who they hate. Foreign policy and domestic oligarchic vampirism remains the same (how many wars started during Obamas time) - the overwhelming majority of the empire's abusiveness happens outside the borders of the US whilst within its borders domestically trivial things change. 

A shiny new social program here or a progressive sounding slogan there. While people are arguing over pronouns and plastic straws, the oligarchs are cleaning up middle America and democratic foundations faster than that Hawk Tuah girl went viral - thats a consistent no ones able to vote against.

Its not just about left vs right but about top vs bottom. Soft feudalism with a ''democratic'' coat of paint. The parasitic elite don't build without extracting. They don't produce without manipulating. They don't affect change without it benefiting the few at the expense of the many.

Edited July 4 by zazen

[Davino]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Politics in a capitalist democracy is not about finding excellence, intelligence, or wisdom. It's about finding the lowest common denominator that people are willing to live with, who is corrupt enough to give his supporters rewards for donating to him.

Shocked 

How are we getting out of this situation? What should be done if democracy is used by ignorance and devils to shoot everyone in the foot?

I know these are all systemic problems but what can I do as an individual? What is my responsibility here? In a way I've always minded my own business so I can thrive independently of the geopolitical factors but I also feel like I'm looking to the other side shirking my responsibility.

 

 

 

[Yimpa]

@Davino 

[Amadeusz]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It would take 50 other withdrawals for the US to actually be isolationist. The US operates like an empire. So we have a long way to go to isolation.

The US is pushing NATO expansion too aggressively, which has needlessly provoked Putin. There is no need to be so paranoid and provocative. Putin needs to be given some room otherwise many people will die.

What about  2021 when US withdrawn troops from Middle East. Then he attacked in 2022. He's been given the room and still attacked.  Seems like it didn't work. 

[Danioover9000]

   Oh my god! This presidential debate just sucks overall!

   But at least from a debate and rhetoric standpoint, Trump is slightly better.

Edited July 4 by Danioover9000

[mrPixel]

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   But at least from a debate and rhetoric standpoint, Trump is slightly better.

To be better in a debate don't you have to say things that are true?

[Danioover9000]

@mrPixel

2 minutes ago, mrPixel said:

To be better in a debate don't you have to say things that are true?

   No, to be better at debating you just need to appear rhetorically superior to your opponent. Just ask Hassan that. Debating really is a persuasion game, and Trump in this specific moment appears slightly better. That being said I still don't think he'll win, and this apocalypse mindset from the lefties fearing he'll win is just stupid.

[mrPixel]

7 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

No, to be better at debating you just need to appear rhetorically superior to your opponent.

I think it depends on who you ask. Put two different people with opposing values in the same room and have them watch a debate. Each will tell you that the debate had a different outcome. I am concerned by those who watch a debate and care more about "strength" than they do truth.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Davino said:

What is my responsibility here?

Vote and help educate others and raise awareness by speaking in a mature and intelligent manner.

Edited July 4 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Amadeusz said:

What about  2021 when US withdrawn troops from Middle East. Then he attacked in 2022. He's been given the room and still attacked.  Seems like it didn't work. 

The Middle East has nothing to do with Russia's doorstep.

[Yimpa]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Vote and help educate others and raise awareness by speaking in a mature and intelligent manner.

Testing that with family is a challenge.. may even require a cultural war, so to speak.

Edited July 4 by Yimpa