Kamala-Trump Debate

[Joshe]

@What Am I I'm simply speculating on what I think is most likely going on, and if it's true, it is detrimental to my desired outcome. To what degree, I can't say, but I suspect it will be highly effective and if the race is as close as many people think, it is concerning. 

The overzealous immigration should be looked at, as it's obviously causing problems, but when the house is on fire, you don't go and replace the smoke detector batteries... you put the fire out. You can maintain the smoke alarms after the fire is out. Some problems are more manageable than others. Another Trump term could wind us up in a problem far worse than solving for immigration. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[What Am I]

2 minutes ago, Joshe said:

@What Am I I'm simply speculating on what I think is most likely going on, and if it's true, it is detrimental to my desired outcome. To what degree, I can't say, but I suspect it will be highly effective and if the race is as close as many people think, it is concerning.

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

4 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The overzealous immigration should be looked at, as it's obviously causing problems, but when the house is on fire, you don't go and swap out the smoke detector batteries... you put the fire out. You can maintain the smoke alarms after the fire is out. Some problems are more manageable than others. Another Trump term could wind us up in a problem far worse than solving for immigration.

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

[Fearey]

13 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

If you consider that he committed the gravest of treason when he tried to overturn a democratically held election, maybe it's not so immoral after all to wish for his death. For all we know he might've been put on death row if he didn't receive immunity from the supreme court.

[El Zapato]

@Fearey Well, if we want to look at recent developments from a little different perspective, I would not hesitate to say the Orange one has demonic coverage.  It will play out... For Lews Therin:  The Wheel Weaves what the Wheel Wills...  

Edited September 16, 2024 by El Zapato

[Joshe]

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's a fine line to walk imo. It's a purposeful hiding of the truth to put yourself in an advantageous position. I don't think it's that many steps removed from hoping Trump gets assassinated, as both can be considered immoral acts, depending on the context.

I can see how you'd think my approach is morally reprehensible, e.g., not the way people should be, but I see your approach as suboptimal. I prefer your approach, but stakes are currently too high to forgo strategic intervention. 

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

You could be right, but it's up to each informed voter to decide. The temptation will always be there to "help" the voter make the "right" decision, but when pushed too far, that's a betrayal of the democracy you're hoping to maintain.

I don't believe each voter is sufficiently informed or developed enough to avoid potential catastrophe. When the stakes are low, sure, let the people fuck around, but when the life of the system is in danger, I'm okay with the people being manipulated for their own benefit. You can call that fucked up but I call it caring about the system they comprise. Ideally, people would be intelligent enough to discern for themselves what is right, but they simply aren't. There should be no question that someone who tried to steal the 2020 election is disqualified from consideration for the 2024 election... but that's not the case... is it? If it were the case, I'd probably favor your approach. 

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Not trying to come at you aggressively, just pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm not really that informed on the issue. How did 20k Haitian immigrants even end up in this small town?

I don't perceive it as aggressive. I appreciate the feedback! I'm not super informed either.

"How" isn't as important to me as "why". The why justifies/informs the how. If you want to know who is to blame, you can't trace that back the way I assume you think you can. I assume you think you can directly trace it back to Democrats, but it's not that simple. When you see people in dire straights and you can afford to help them, you might open your doors to them, and years later, they cause problems you didn't foresee or don't know how to handle. Many right-leaning people like to point the finger and call the Dems stupid pieces of shit because they wanted to help people—and themselves too—but this positionality exists within a very narrow perspective. Much bigger problems exist atm.

It's currently possible that an absolute lunatic could take over our government. We can deal with immigration once the very structure of the system is safe. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[What Am I]

7 minutes ago, Fearey said:

If you consider that he committed the gravest of treason when he tried to overturn a democratically held election, maybe it's not so immoral after all to wish for his death. For all we know he might've been put on death row if he didn't receive immunity from the supreme court.

I do appreciate you being honest about your opinion. I imagine there's many who wish they could extrajudicially end the life of Trump, but they're just not saying it out loud for any number of reasons. I think it's quite shortsighted though, and doesn't take into account what would happen after. Not to mention, I still believe it'd be immoral when performed in this way.

[What Am I]

2 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I can see how you'd think my approach is morally reprehensible, e.g., not the way people should be, but I see your approach as suboptimal. I prefer your approach, but stakes are currently too high to forgo strategic intervention. 

Don't you think that was the same justification going through the mind of the bizarre fella who recently shot at Trump? And MAGA will say the left have struck such fear into their followers, they'd be willing to break the rules and stop him at all costs. Kind of hard to argue it when that sounds like what you're saying lol. When taken to the extreme, couldn't that line of reasoning justify all manner of atrocities?

I won't push back too much though, as it sounds like we agree this isn't the ideal behavior. Just a difference of opinion on what's currently justified.

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

"How" isn't as important to me as "why". The why justifies/informs the how. If you want to know who is to blame, you can't trace that back the way I assume you think you can. I assume you think you can directly trace it back to Democrats, but it's not that simple. When you see people in dire straights and you can afford to help them, you might open your doors to them, and years later, they cause problems you didn't foresee or don't know how to handle. Many right-leaning people like to point the finger and call the Dems stupid pieces of shit because they wanted to help people—and themselves too—but this positionality exists within a very narrow perspective. Much bigger problems exist atm.

I'm just wondering about this particular case. Like, who signed off on a town of 60k receiving an influx of 20k? Did they really all need to go to this single small location? Seems like an issue that anyone could have predicted.

[Joshe]

29 minutes ago, What Am I said:

When taken to the extreme, couldn't that line of reasoning justify all manner of atrocities?

Yes. I would put a bullet in baby Hitler's brain if given the chance. 100%. And I would likely advocate for the same to someone who did the same to an innocent baby. I'm unapologetically against what I perceive as detrimental to good, aka (evil), and have not yet figured out if it's always or usually best to turn the other cheek. The wise ones say this, but I can't see it yet.

29 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I'm just wondering about this particular case. Like, who signed off on a town of 60k receiving an influx of 20k? Did they really all need to go to this single small location? Seems like an issue that anyone could have predicted.

Springfield Ohio is a Republican town, in a Republican county, in a Republican state. My guess is the Republicans signed off on it.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[El Zapato]

@What Am I Even Jesus metaphorically maintained there is a limit to turning cheeks.  We all realize the butt will turn red after enough slapping.  I think it was Kant who believed that one could watch one kill another without any sense of responsibility to intervene.  I disagree, there is a point of practicality where the rubber hits the road and as human beings, we have to react.

[What Am I]

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yes. I would put a bullet in baby Hitler's brain if given the chance. 100%. And I would likely advocate for the same to someone who did the same to an innocent baby. I'm unapologetically against what I perceive as detrimental to good, aka (evil), and have not yet figured out if it's always or usually best to turn the other cheek. The wise ones say this, but I can't see it yet.

That's an interesting one. So you're saying you'd be in favor of killing baby Hitler, as well as baby Hitler's killer for killing a baby? I do like that lol. A certain poetic justice that completes itself and closes the circle.

Yeah, the wisdom you're talking about is a tricky thing. It seems to involve a doing away of all polarity, including good and evil, and actions just flow from the absolute. I can't claim to grasp it either, and I've only had glimpses. We'll get there, brother!

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Springfield Ohio is a Republican town, in a Republican county, in a Republican state. My guess is the Republicans signed off on it.

I think titles like Republican and Democrat can be a little misleading these days. I've seen Leo and Destiny (and others) use the more accurate labels of establishment and anti-establishment. If I were to guess, it'd be an establishment figure who made a call such as this. But I admit, I don't actually know.

And I swear, I wasn't asking as a gotcha lol. I was actually curious if it was known who in particular made it, because it's such a goofy decision.

[What Am I]

6 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

@What Am I Even Jesus metaphorically maintained there is a limit to turning cheeks.  We all realize the butt will turn red after enough slapping.  I think it was Kant who believed that one could watch one kill another without any sense of responsibility to intervene.  I disagree, there is a point of practicality where the rubber hits the road and as human beings, we have to react.

Sure, you're probably not wrong. But it's in that moment where you decide to react that you've now taken on an incredible responsibility. If your discernment wasn't clear, you could wind up discovering that you've actually become the villain in the story.

I'm just stating this as a general concept, not necessarily tied to the scenario involving Trump.

[mattm33]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

I don't believe each voter is sufficiently informed or developed enough to avoid potential catastrophe. When the stakes are low, sure, let the people fuck around, but when the life of the system is in danger, I'm okay with the people being manipulated for their own benefit. You can call that fucked up but I call it caring about the system they comprise. Ideally, people would be intelligent enough to discern for themselves what is right, but they simply aren't.

This kind of thinking must be how the fox news anchors are able to sleep at night. I heard something similar from JD Vance. He probably thinks he knows what's best for everyone as well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jd-vance-haitians-if-i-have-to-create-stories-1235102572/

 

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

That's an interesting one. So you're saying you'd be in favor of killing baby Hitler, as well as baby Hitler's killer for killing a baby? I do like that lol. A certain poetic justice that completes itself and closes the circle.

That is a really interesting idea, but unfortunately, I'm not that creative. lol. I flubbed my words. It's not important though because it led to this new idea for us. 😆

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

And I swear, I wasn't asking as a gotcha lol. I was actually curious if it was known who in particular made it, because it's such a goofy decision.

I'm not sure. AFAIK, if immigrants come here legally, they can go wherever they want. It makes sense they'd wind up in smallish towns with low rent prices if jobs are there. Manufacturing plants often spring up where land is cheap, so if immigrants find a honey hole of cheap land + lots of jobs, bingo, call the fam. Seems that's what happened. The local politicians had incentive to let them come and once the problems started cropping up, they realized there was no good mechanism in place to curb population growth, so what are they going to do? It's against federal law for states to reject immigrants that are here legally, AFAIK. That's my best guess as to what happened. I don't think there was a single person or a single group who decided to increase the population by adding 1/3 Haitians. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[What Am I]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'm not sure. AFAIK, if immigrants come here legally, they can go wherever they want. It makes sense they'd wind up in smallish towns with low rent prices if jobs are there. Manufacturing plants often spring up where land is cheap, so if immigrants find a honey hole of cheap land + lots of jobs, bingo, call the fam. Seems that's what happened. The local politicians had incentive to let them come and once the problems started cropping up, they realized there was no good mechanism in place to curb population growth, so what are they going to do? It's against federal law for states to reject immigrants that are here legally, AFAIK. That's my best guess as to what happened. I don't think there was a single person or a single group who decided to increase the population by adding 1/3 Haitians. 

Pretty fair guess, that makes sense.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, mattm33 said:

This kind of thinking must be how the fox news anchors are able to sleep at night. I heard something similar from JD Vance. He probably thinks he knows what's best for everyone as well.

Yes, this problem doesn't escape me. This way of thinking is common on the right. They (the ideological right, not JD) think they are stamping out evil. 

Everyone thinks they know best of how things ought to be ran. The problem is, have you seen how stupid people are? The only way to know what is best is to care about what is best, so much that you devote many years of your life to understanding what is best. If someone does that in earnest and tries to be right, for goodness sake, not their own, and if they have been successful, their ideas of what is good should carry more weight than some power hungry dumbasses who only care about themselves. 

I doubt you would disagree with that position.

BTW, thanks for the article. It gives more weight to my hypothesis. Vance implies he made up stories to get eyeballs on Springfield. Didn't see them admitting it but makes sense. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[Joshe]

[Joshe]

He was a bit late but Kyle got there. He thought Trump was shooting from the hip with the Haitian cats but now thinks it was intentional. He believes it was a stupid move, and it might be, but I wouldn’t discount primal fear just yet. There might even be a new viral immigration story on the horizon. 

 

[LoseYourvelf]

I love Trump 

[ted73104]

1 hour ago, LoseYourvelf said:

I love Trump 

Could you explain why you love Trump? Curious about your thoughts and feelings about him.

[LoseYourvelf]

14 minutes ago, ted73104 said:

Could you explain why you love Trump? Curious about your thoughts and feelings about him.

Trustworthy, relatable, loving. Type deal