Kamala-Trump Debate

[Fearey]

Hopefully this debate opened the eyes of a not too insignificant number of people as to how unhinged Trump is, and consequently, how unhinged that makes them for following, or having blindly followed someone like Trump for so many years, after all he's done.

 

"The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them."

[ici]

I love Trump

[Display_Name]

On 12/09/2024 at 11:19 AM, questionreality said:

• What I do want to do add - is I don't think it was the moderator's job to fact check Trump, but of Kamala's. 

I can see why the conservatives are outraged - it's a debate between two candidates, and that was clearly not the moderators' jobs.

To fact check one candidate and not the other (even though Trump said a lot more inaccurate things than Kamala did) is clearly not right.

 

I noticed that when both candidates spoke untruths about eachother, the moderators did not step in but allowed the other to respond and defend themselves. However, the two fact checks to Trump were so obviously, clearly different cases to any other untruth in that debate.

1. Trump's BS was far more egregious than Kamala's. If a fact check is done on every single untruth from both sides, the debate never ends. However, there is a certain line that can be crossed to needing a fact check. Only Trump crossed that line.

2. There were 2 fact checks.

3. Trump got the last word on every topic, and with significantly more speaking time in total

If anything, Trump got treated favorably. His own fault he fucked it up with nonsense like dog eating and post birth abortion and bragging about rallies and concepts of a plan. He could have drilled Kamala on her reasonable weaknesses, but he hung himself with his own answers. The 3v1 debate moderator cope is hilarious, just how it's hilarious how the right has become so de-sensitised and bought into Trump's nonsense and moved the goalpost so much, that now not being able to spout the most blatant nonsense because you got checked TWICE in a 2 hour debate is unfair. To what historically should be a reasonable, intelligent, authentic presidential candidate by the way. It's fascinating.

 

 

Edited September 13 by Display_Name

[ryandesreu]

2 hours ago, Fearey said:

Hopefully this debate opened the eyes of a not too insignificant number of people as to how unhinged Trump is, and consequently, how unhinged that makes them for following, or having blindly followed someone like Trump for so many years, after all he's done.

 

"The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood, he was one of them."

In the vast majority of cases, something personally fundamental about a minion has to change to get them to stop following that guy. Facts and reality just aren't going to reach them at this point. 

[Emerald]

22 hours ago, Joshe said:

I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid.

Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well. 

I think you're reading intelligent strategy into what is a knee-jerk emotional response on the part of Donald Trump when Kamala baited him about his rallies.

Trump is clearly in a lot of right wing echo chambers as those are the contexts that are the most sycophantic to him. And he has a fragile ego, and so he tends to surround himself in echo chambers full of yes-men.

And he also has tended more and more over the years to gravitate towards far-right online spaces, which has caused him to not have his finger on the pulse of normie America.

And he tends to put a lot of stock into the perspectives that arise in these far-right online spaces because those are the most validating voices to him.

So, when he brought up the "immigrants are eating your dogs" thing, it's because he exists in right wing echo chambers where the fake-news story of the week was about Haitian immigrants eating cats and geese. 

And because that was the story of the week in that echo-chamber, and he has lost sight of the fact that he's in an echo-chamber because of the near-ubiquitous validation he gets. And he has convinced himself that normies are just as tuned in to the stories around immigrants eating pets. 

But of course, he doesn't really care about this. He didn't even get the fake news story right because he said it was dogs that immigrants were eating. He's just trying to throw red meat to the electorate... because he assumes that most of the electorate is keyed into this story of immigrants eating pets.

He just doesn't realized that it's unhinged Facebook grandpa behavior because he has to believe that EVERYONE adores him. And so, the echo chambers where people adore him, get seen as EVERYONE in his eyes for the sake of bolstering and maintaining his ego.

[Hardkill]

22 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I think you're reading intelligent strategy into what is a knee-jerk emotional response on the part of Donald Trump when Kamala baited him about his rallies.

Trump is clearly in a lot of right wing echo chambers as those are the contexts that are the most sycophantic to him. And he has a fragile ego, and so he tends to surround himself in echo chambers full of yes-men.

And he also has tended more and more over the years to gravitate towards far-right online spaces, which has caused him to not have his finger on the pulse of normie America.

And he tends to put a lot of stock into the perspectives that arise in these far-right online spaces because those are the most validating voices to him.

So, when he brought up the "immigrants are eating your dogs" thing, it's because he exists in right wing echo chambers where the fake-news story of the week was about Haitian immigrants eating cats and geese. 

And because that was the story of the week in that echo-chamber, and he has lost sight of the fact that he's in an echo-chamber because of the near-ubiquitous validation he gets. And he has convinced himself that normies are just as tuned in to the stories around immigrants eating pets. 

But of course, he doesn't really care about this. He didn't even get the fake news story right because he said it was dogs that immigrants were eating. He's just trying to throw red meat to the electorate... because he assumes that most of the electorate is keyed into this story of immigrants eating pets.

He just doesn't realized that it's unhinged Facebook grandpa behavior because he has to believe that EVERYONE adores him. And so, the echo chambers where people adore him, get seen as EVERYONE in his eyes for the sake of bolstering and maintaining his ego.

What do you think about the fact that only about 25% of Americans are stuck in some kind of right-wing echo chamber?

Edited September 14 by Hardkill

[Jodistrict]

I think Trump’s Haitian cat meme was a fatal blunder.  It took focus away from the real issue and appealed to prejudice based on unverified reports.   The media has learned his tactics so they didn’t take the bait, downplaying the story.   I think he is an amateur debater who regurgitates lines from his stump speeches and appeals to emotions.  Robert Kennedy would have easily won that argument based on facts and discussing what is actually occurring.     

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

What do you think about the fact that only about 25% of Americans are stuck in some kind of right-wing echo chamber?

My thoughts are that it makes sense. Most people don't have the same kinds of grievances and worries. So they aren't attracted to these spaces.

Edited September 14 by Emerald

[Hardkill]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

My thoughts are that it makes sense. Most people don't have the same kinds of grievances and worries. So they aren't attracted to these space.

Yeah, so if that's the case, then that begs the question as to how our fractured media environment country has caused our country to become more divided than ever before.

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, so if that's the case, then that begs the question as to how our fractured media environment country has caused our country to become more divided than ever before.

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of subtler prejudice to be exploited in the general population... even for those who aren't drawn to these right wing echo chambers.

And veiled scare-mongering about immigration can work for Republican politicians to get more votes from the general populace as long as the anti-immigrant sentiment it isn't too blatant.

The thing is, most people genuinely don't like to think about themselves as racist or xenophobic, even if they are to some degree.

So, if there's a Republican politician who's couching their anti-immigration sentiment from a non-hatred based rationale... this won't scare off normies who happen to have unconscious biases against immigrants.

And they will feel comfortable voting for that politician because "They're not racist, they're just concerned about the cartels." Or "They're not xenophobic. It's just that every functioning country needs a strong border. Otherwise immigrants will take jobs from Americans, and we won't have enough resources."

And the normie Republican voter with unconscious biases against immigrants and some genuine practical concerns about immigration will feel comfortable voting for this kind of politician that couches their anti-immigrant sentiment in dog-whistles and less extreme rationales.

But if a politician is clear and blatant about the xenophobia and racism like they are in right-wing echo chambers (which is what Trump mistakenly parroted in the debate), it will scare normie Republicans and Centrists off who have milder, less-conscious biases.

They particularly don't like blatant racists and xenophobes because it holds a mirror up to their own Shadows.

Probably only about 25% of people (probably less) actually resonate with intensely blatantly racist/xenophobic perspectives... and only people with that level of neurosis and grievance are in right-wing echo chambers.

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of subtler prejudice to be exploited in the general population... even for those who aren't drawn to these right wing echo chambers.

And veiled scare-mongering about immigration can work for Republican politicians to get more votes from the general populace as long as the anti-immigrant sentiment it isn't too blatant.

The thing is, most people genuinely don't like to think about themselves as racist or xenophobic, even if they are to some degree.

So, if there's a Republican politician who's couching their anti-immigration sentiment from a non-hatred based rationale... this won't scare off normies who happen to have unconscious biases against immigrants.

And they will feel comfortable voting for that politician because "They're not racist, they're just concerned about the cartels." Or "They're not xenophobic. It's just that every functioning country needs a strong border. Otherwise immigrants will take jobs from Americans, and we won't have enough resources."

And the normie Republican voter with unconscious biases against immigrants and some genuine practical concerns about immigration will feel comfortable voting for this kind of politician that couches their anti-immigrant sentiment in dog-whistles and less extreme rationales.

But if a politician is clear and blatant about the xenophobia and racism like they are in right-wing echo chambers (which is what Trump mistakenly parroted in the debate), it will scare normie Republicans and Centrists off who have milder, less-conscious biases.

They particularly don't like blatant racists and xenophobes because it holds a mirror up to their own Shadows.

Probably only about 25% of people (probably less) actually resonate with intensely blatantly racist/xenophobic perspectives... and only people with that level of neurosis and grievance are in right-wing echo chambers.

How to separate or distinguish a xenophobic from someone who has a genuine concern about mass immigration affecting jobs and changing demographics? 

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

How to separate or distinguish a xenophobic from someone who has a genuine concern about mass immigration affecting jobs and changing demographics? 

One distinguishing characteristic (though this doesn't totally negate the possibility of prejudice) is if someone has genuinely lost their job or is dealing with employment issues due to the influx of immigrants... or if they have friends and family members who have.

Like if a person is a landscaper working in a border state, and they are forced to lower their prices significantly to compete with undocumented immigrants whose precarious standing within the country puts them in a position where they're working for a much lower wage than industry standard. 

It makes sense that people who are directly impacted in a negative way by illegal immigration would care about the issue. That said, most undocumented immigrants are taking menial jobs that Americans don't want.

And what will indicate that this person isn't operating from a place of prejudice is that they place the blame where it belongs... which is with the system itself... and to some extent with the people who hire undocumented workers for exploitative wages.

But if someone is placing the blame where it really belongs, it's with those who maintain the system... the government in combination with private industry. 

If they didn't want immigrants here, they wouldn't be here. But we require illegal immigrants to come into the country to work as a cheap labor force so that the economy keeps running... and so that private industry can save money on wages.

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But we require illegal immigrants to come into the country to work as a cheap labor force so that the economy keeps running... and so that private industry can save money on wages.

Isn't it a form of exploitation to want to make immigrants work at cheap Labor rates just for the sake of economy. I think the immigrants should deserve the same labor rates as the native work force. 

[Jodistrict]

The question is how much are the undocumented workers being subsidized by the government?  An American local can’t compete with a subsidized undocumented worker.  He wouldn’t be able to survive.  This is profitable for the factory owner (who may be a democrat or a republican).  There is also the issue of corruption.  Where is the money coming from and where is it going.  My guess is that RFK would have focused on this area since he has a long verified history of being pro worker and pro union.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I think you're reading intelligent strategy into what is a knee-jerk emotional response on the part of Donald Trump when Kamala baited him about his rallies.

Trump is clearly in a lot of right wing echo chambers as those are the contexts that are the most sycophantic to him. And he has a fragile ego, and so he tends to surround himself in echo chambers full of yes-men.

And he also has tended more and more over the years to gravitate towards far-right online spaces, which has caused him to not have his finger on the pulse of normie America.

And he tends to put a lot of stock into the perspectives that arise in these far-right online spaces because those are the most validating voices to him.

So, when he brought up the "immigrants are eating your dogs" thing, it's because he exists in right wing echo chambers where the fake-news story of the week was about Haitian immigrants eating cats and geese. 

And because that was the story of the week in that echo-chamber, and he has lost sight of the fact that he's in an echo-chamber because of the near-ubiquitous validation he gets. And he has convinced himself that normies are just as tuned in to the stories around immigrants eating pets. 

But of course, he doesn't really care about this. He didn't even get the fake news story right because he said it was dogs that immigrants were eating. He's just trying to throw red meat to the electorate... because he assumes that most of the electorate is keyed into this story of immigrants eating pets.

He just doesn't realized that it's unhinged Facebook grandpa behavior because he has to believe that EVERYONE adores him. And so, the echo chambers where people adore him, get seen as EVERYONE in his eyes for the sake of bolstering and maintaining his ego.

Maybe. My confidence has lowered a bit. I know there are some leaps in here but humor me and try this on:

I saw an MSNBC reporter on the ground in Springfield and they said there was no evidence of cat-eating, but there is a real problem with immigrants. Then, I realized, oh shit, if the average person just looks at this to see if the cat thing is true, the immigration angle would become much more effective. Before seeing that, most normies probably couldn't name one city they knew for sure that had immigrant problems. Now they can. 

Then I thought: How can he get cameras into a good old American city overrun by immigrants? If he simply tells them to go there and look, no one would listen, but if he made some absurd claims, they would. Especially if he doubled down on it. If he just mentioned it in passing, it might not get much attention, so MAKE SURE you say it very loud and drive the point home. If you go back and watch that clip, something seemed off about it. 

Also, 1.5 days before, Elon Musk, JD Vance, and other high profile peeps were sharing it. It was debunked by the time the debate happened. I find it hard to believe his campaign didn't know that and understand how crazy it seemed. 

Pretend this is all true for a second and ask yourself, if tens of millions of normies find out about Springfield's immigrant problem, could that significantly impact the vote? Now... what's the #1 line of attack the Rs have? Immigration. 

I'm not sure if it would be a good move or not, but it seems like it could be. No?

If Springfield becomes a talking point from here on out for them, that will confirm it for me.

Edited September 14 by Joshe

[Emerald]

37 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Isn't it a form of exploitation to want to make immigrants work at cheap Labor rates just for the sake of economy. I think the immigrants should deserve the same labor rates as the native work force. 

It definitely is exploitative. The American economy as it stands requires exploitation for it to continue running because of the way that the system is set up. 

And if you look to all the ways that America worsens the economies of other nations (through various pieces of legislation and through regime change wars) this enables America to ensure an influx of immigrants to work as a cheap labor force... and to get foreign workers in foreign nations to work for pennies on the dollar.

That's the back lobby of Capitalism.... which requires exploitation of immigrants, foreign workers, and working class Americans to run as it does.

That's why it's wiser to look to the issues with the system as opposed to blaming immigrants.

But those who benefit the most from the system (the owners of private industries) are counting divide and conquer tactics to exploit the prejudice of working class Americans against immigrants and foreigners... as this prevents them from unifying and organizing together to challenge the powers that be and strike for better wages. 

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Emerald said:

It definitely is exploitative. The American economy as it stands requires exploitation for it to continue running because of the way that the system is set up. 

And if you look to all the ways that America worsens the economies of other nations (through various pieces of legislation and through regime change wars) this enables America to ensure an influx of immigrants to work as a cheap labor force... and to get foreign workers in foreign nations to work for pennies on the dollar.

That's the back lobby of Capitalism.... which requires exploitation of immigrants, foreign workers, and working class Americans to run as it does.

That's why it's wiser to look to the issues with the system as opposed to blaming immigrants.

But those who benefit the most from the system (the owners of private industries) are counting divide and conquer tactics to exploit the prejudice of working class Americans against immigrants and foreigners... as this prevents them from unifying and organizing together to challenge the powers that be and strike for better wages. 

Totally. 

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'm not sure if it would be a good move or not, but it seems like it could be. No?

If Springfield becomes a talking point from here on out for them, that will confirm it for me.

I'm very certain it wasn't calculated because he said it in a frenzy after Kamala triggered him about his rallies. So, he was floudering to bring the topic back to immigration... which is what his strongest polling issue is.

But because he was really upset because of the quip about his rallies, he ended up in an uncontrolled rant where he was throwing all the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.... and took it completely off the rails.

But even all of that was calculated, it wasn't a good move.

And that's because most people will rightly view that talking point as too fringy and crazy.

And even if they do see some big undeniable issue with immigration in Springfield (which doesn't seem evident to me), it could cause people to look the other way because normies want to be normal... and will avoid things that are fringy. 

And in the hypothetical situation where there's some undeniably huge issue with immigration in Springfield (which again, doesn't seem evident to me), people might go into denial about it to avoid sounding like Donald Trump did during the debate.

Either way, it makes him seem unhinged, silly, and gullible... and isn't a good move. 

And then he said for his source that "I heard it on television" which gave him the vibe of a senile Fox News grandpa. And that isn't a good look either.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

The question is how much are the undocumented workers being subsidized by the government?  An American local can’t compete with a subsidized undocumented worker.  He wouldn’t be able to survive.  This is profitable for the factory owner (who may be a democrat or a republican).  There is also the issue of corruption.  Where is the money coming from and where is it going.  My guess is that RFK would have focused on this area since he has a long verified history of being pro worker and pro union.

What do you mean by subsidized?

As someone who has known many people who are/were undocumented, they aren't eligible to receive government benefits. The only exception is for children who are undocumented being able to go to school.

And trust me... no undocumented immigrant wants to be on the radar of the government. That's why the immigrant crime rate is lower than that for natural born citizens.

Immigrants (especially undocumented ones) want to lay as low as possible. So, they would be very unlikely to apply for such things, even if they were theoretically eligible to. 

Edited September 14 by Emerald

[Jodistrict]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

What do you mean by subsidized?

As someone who has known many people who are/were undocumented, they aren't eligible to receive government benefits. The only exception is for children who are undocumented being able to go to school.

And trust me... no undocumented immigrant wants to be on the radar of the government. That's why the immigrant crime rate is lower than that for natural born citizens.

Immigrants (especially undocumented ones) want to lay as low as possible. So, they would be very unlikely to apply for such things, even if they were theoretically eligible too. 

According to some reports I have read, the immigrants are being flown there by the government and are given subsidies.   How else do they get there? And if that is not true can you provide me with a real article written by an investigative journalist that actually explains the situation and what is happening.  Keep in mind that conspiracy theorists fill in the vacuum provided by lack of real information.  

I have some limited direct experience of Haitians.  Several years ago a group of Haitian workers were kicked out of Brazil for some reason and they all showed up in Tijuana to apply for asylum in the United States.  Many of them ended up settling in Mexico.  They were well dressed and all using smartphones.  They were workers who had skills and obviously weren't the type who would eat somebody's pets.   I wonder exactly who the Hatians are in Springfield and if they are of the same class.  

Edited September 14 by Jodistrict