2024 Election Discussion General

[Consept]

16 minutes ago, bambi said:

But this is everyone, you have to interpret this through the correct lens: the society and paradigm he grew up in.

There is no doubt about Trumps lack of integrity or selfishness, if thats your point. I agree he is way off the mark here

But beyond this issue (whcih affects pretty much all humans), he has natural affinity to the roles I mentioned.

No not exactly my point, my point t is let's even take Trumps name out of it. If say you had a business and someone came for one of the roles you mentioned, regardless of how charismatic they were, if you did research and found out that a lot of people they had previously worked with had been cheated by them or vowed never to work with them because of how they were treated. There is no way in hell you would hire them. It obviously wouldn't be smart to put someone in a position where they could rip you off as they have others. 

With Trump people have blinders on where they ignore his character even when it is pointed out by those who have been around him. Most humans do not rip off multiple people in their career. So the grace you give him, I guarantee you would not give in your real life, no one would, if that was the case ex-cons would have no problem getting employment, but they have an extremely tough time even if they're reformed

[Raze]

I think Kamala could have won if she did this:

- run on progressive economic proposals like paid family leave, raising the minimum wage, and healthcare reform. These are popular and will help with voters concerned about the economy because many just mean their own economic well-being. I believe 70 percent of republicans support paid family leave, imagine if every speech began with how republicans blocked it but she will pass it. 

- run on starting a male health office in government and male scholarships, this could get back some alienated young male voters who feel democrats don’t care about them 

- at least pretend to be more critical of Israel, she could even basically lie, but it was just dumb to cheerlead everything Biden did and act like a douche to Arabs and far lefties, they are a minority but they can have an impact in swing states. Even George Bush knew this and despite suppprting them unconditionally would sometimes critique them publicly.  

- do not campaign with Cheney or never trump republicans, they don’t represent the republicans base and make her look like she’ll be more of the same 

- do not run on abortion and how bad a person Trump is, whoever has an issue with this is already on her side and she’s just wasting time. It was 90 percent of her campaign when it should have been 10 percent.

Edited 15 hours ago by Raze

[QandC]

4 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You have like 10 incorrect assumptions about my perspective. I have not simply "reduced" anything to anything. They're called "key points". 

Why do you think marketing works? Isn't it often the case that consumers don't need the product but they were manipulated into buying it? 

I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but this is how low-consciousness works. When you can't discern the truth of the marketing tactics, you are who they are designed for. They don't work well on people who can see through them. What I'm saying is, the masses cannot see through them. Go ahead and deny this to make your world more comfortable. 

We're talking about the same people who sweep Jan 6 under the rug. How can they do that? By not being able to tell truth from falsehood. They were told by Tucker Carlson Jan 6 was a peaceful protest. They cannot tell what is true and what isn't. Go ahead and deny this. 

Your unwillingness to acknowledge this truth points to a worldview that needs the masses to not be blind, or either a mind that itself, cannot discern what is true.

First off, just because someone questions or pushes back doesn’t mean they’re ignoring “the truth” or need a “more comfortable” worldview. Assuming that anyone who doesn’t see things exactly your way is low-consciousness or unable to discern truth is just... well, low-consciousness. It’s like calling someone blind because they don’t wear your exact prescription glasses.

As for marketing, sure, it can manipulate people into buying stuff they don’t need, that’s not a revelation. But reducing every consumer choice to blind manipulation isn’t the full story. People buy things for all kinds of reasons: convenience, interest, personal taste, or even necessity. Plenttty of consumers see through cheap marketing ploys, and that doesn’t make them “high-consciousness”—it just makes them aware.

And bringing in Jan 6 and Tucker Carlson as evidence of mass blindness? It’s a bit of a leap. People have different takes on Jan 6 for a range of reasons: political beliefs, values, or sometimes just misinformation. That doesn’t mean they can’t tell truth from lies in general; it means they interpret that event differently.

 

[mojsterr]

4 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

Broo

I'm quite concerned about elon. Elon has a publically stated purpose to destroy "woke"

Isn't this a good thing?

[Talinn]

@Raze I think you're underestimating the severely broken education system and the terrible effect Musk is exerting through his X platform. Maybe she would have had a better chance. But with all the noise and the breakdown in political dialogue, it just boils more cleanly down to a sheer test of consciousness especially since she had such limited time.

[Raze]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What has Trump been offering?

You are okay with a fascist but Kamala is too hard to swallow?

Kamala offered a normal competent administration. If that isn't sexy enough for you, then tough. Fascism it is.

Democrats can’t just blackmail voters every cycle with “we will do what we want and don’t give a shit about you but you have to vote for me because my opponent is nuts hahaha”.

The only shocking part is this somehow worked in 2020. 
 

you have to energize voters, if they don’t like you many will just fail to show up because they don’t care to schedule it, and less will donate and campaign for you.

[QandC]

 

2 minutes ago, mojsterr said:

Isn't this a good thing?

It is. It's f*cking brilliant. 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Talinn said:

@Raze I think you're underestimating the severely broken education system and the terrible effect Musk is exerting through his X platform. Maybe she would have had a better chance. But with all the noise and the breakdown in political dialogue, it just boils more cleanly down to a sheer test of consciousness especially since she had such limited time.

People who graduated college are more likely to vote dem.
 

If democrats had pushed Bernie Sanders free public college proposal from back in 2015 they’d be in a way better position now. We’d have rising college grads instead of declining college grads.

Also X has lost a lot of users from before Elon took over 

[bambi]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

No not exactly my point, my point t is let's even take Trumps name out of it. If say you had a business and someone came for one of the roles you mentioned, regardless of how charismatic they were, if you did research and found out that a lot of people they had previously worked with had been cheated by them or vowed never to work with them because of how they were treated. There is no way in hell you would hire them. It obviously wouldn't be smart to put someone in a position where they could rip you off as they have others. 

With Trump people have blinders on where they ignore his character even when it is pointed out by those who have been around him. Most humans do not rip off multiple people in their career. So the grace you give him, I guarantee you would not give in your real life, no one would, if that was the case ex-cons would have no problem getting employment, but they have an extremely tough time even if they're reformed

No, I fully understood your original point. And I dont fully agree. Many people including Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bill Gates have tons and tons of bad references and disgruntled people behind them. 

Many of my friends in business are no different then Trump. Theyre just high risk, they will succeed but you are likely to get burnt by them at some point.

Its also one sided, you are factoring in the negative references, but not the positive ones. Its just more complex then the picture you are painting. Ben Horowitz wrote 'The hard thigns about hard things' a business book, and it goes over this type of dynamics. Its all about risk, high risk people high reward, low risk people low reward. 

Your view is slightly myopic to me, many people have and do invest into Trump despite his obvious character flaws

[Phil King]

Joe Rogan, the nelk boys, and adin ross were thanked at the victory speech. We live in an idiocracy

[Raze]

Joe Rogan was another mistake.

How dumb were democrats to say no to the most popular podcast in the world.

Rogan is extremely non combative and agrees with whoever he last spoke to most of the time.

Kamala should have studied Rogans positions and gone on with Tim Waltz and spent the whole time focusing on where she agrees with Rogan and where Trump goes against it.

Rogan may have endorsed her or at least not endorsed trump and she would get tens of millions of views from a audience of mostly and men who is least exposed to her.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

OFFICIAL ELECTION UPDATE:

GOP is currently winning with 200 seats in the House of Representatives, 218 are needed for a majority.

Democrats are trailing by 181 seats.

GOP has already secured the Senate, with a 52 out of 100 seat majority, meaning they will not need the help of the Vice President to cast a tie breaking vote. 

6 Senate races are really close and yet to be called.

Edited 15 hours ago by Husseinisdoingfine

[abundance]

Not good at all people. We're in really big trouble. Trump basically has a mandate for fascism. 

[Nemra]

18 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Kamala was selected as a black woman to contrast with Biden (DEI) and then handed the democratic ticket.

So, if they selected a white man, that wouldn't that have been a DEI hire?

21 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Trump beat a bunch of candidates in an open primary.

I was talking about Trump vs. Clinton. Do you know what happened?

[Consept]

1 minute ago, bambi said:

No, I fully understood your original point. And I dont fully agree. Many people including Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bill Gates have tons and tons of bad references and disgruntled people behind them. 

Many of my friends in business are no different then Trump. Theyre just high risk, they will succeed but you are likely to get burnt by them at some point.

Its also one sided, you are factoring in the negative references, but not the positive ones. Its just more complex then the picture you are painting. Ben Horowitz wrote 'The hard thigns about hard things' a business book, and it goes over this type of dynamics. Its all about risk, high risk people high reward, low risk people low reward. 

Your view is slightly myopic to me, many people have and do invest into Trump despite his obvious character flaws

Its not necessarily about character flaws, purely from a business perspective he hasnt just had negative references hes had countless instances of conning and defrauding people and in a lot of cases been sued successfully for it. High reward is a myth as well because you have a much higher chance of losing than gaining with him, look into Trump University or Trump steaks or pretty much any business hes run. He has had some success with property which are basically capital businesses. 

But i think its dishonest to say that you would employ someone with such a sketchy record, I just dont think that happens in the real world. Even if you have 2 or 3 stars for a restaurant or uber driver, your pretty much dead in the water or if it goes around that youre hard to work with in the film industry youre done regardless of the high risk, high reward youre talking about. For whatever reason people treat Trump differently which youre trying to present as normal but it doesnt tack on to anyones reality. 

[Joshe]

9 minutes ago, QandC said:

First off, just because someone questions or pushes back doesn’t mean they’re ignoring “the truth” or need a “more comfortable” worldview. Assuming that anyone who doesn’t see things exactly your way is low-consciousness or unable to discern truth is just... well, low-consciousness. It’s like calling someone blind because they don’t wear your exact prescription glasses.

As for marketing, sure, it can manipulate people into buying stuff they don’t need, that’s not a revelation. But reducing every consumer choice to blind manipulation isn’t the full story. People buy things for all kinds of reasons: convenience, interest, personal taste, or even necessity. Plenttty of consumers see through cheap marketing ploys, and that doesn’t make them “high-consciousness”—it just makes them aware.

And bringing in Jan 6 and Tucker Carlson as evidence of mass blindness? It’s a bit of a leap. People have different takes on Jan 6 for a range of reasons: political beliefs, values, or sometimes just misinformation. That doesn’t mean they can’t tell truth from lies in general; it means they interpret that event differently.

Jesus. You have a PHD??? 

Why do you assume I have reduced consumer choice to blind manipulation? Do you realize I'd have to be an absolute idiot to think this? Does it not occur to you that I'm using this as a clear example of how the masses are easily and routinely manipulated? 

People have different takes on Jan 6 for a variety of reasons???? Ohhh, thanks for filling me in on that, I didn't know.

And what you call "interpreting", I call discerning and making sense of things, which is precisely what I'm talking about. Those who look at Jan 6 and can't see the truth of what occurred, the root of that is low consciousness, which is no fucking reduction because consciousness, even low, is incredibly complex... you get it? 

It's not about people agreeing with ME. It's about people agreeing with the truth. What Trump is, is not a matter of opinion. He actually is something, and if you can't discern it or if you think he's not what he actually is, then you have deviated from the truth, and that deviation mostly manifests from low-consciousness. 

You assume too much. Good day sir. 

[Bobby_2021]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Kamala offered a normal competent administration.

Why did she failed to run a proper competent campaign?

[hundreth]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

So, if they selected a white man, that wouldn't that have been a DEI hire?

Precisely. It was obvious she had not done anything to separate her from the rest of the pack except for being black and a woman. In fact, she was sixth place before dropping out:

Quote

Support for Harris in national polls peaked at 15 percent after her breakout debate performance in June, when she clashed with former Vice President Joe Biden on busing.

But it has been declining ever since, hitting a low of about 3 percent on Dec. 2, according to a Real Clear Politics average. That put her in sixth place, behind former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

https://rollcall.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race/

Quote

I was talking about Trump vs. Clinton. Do you know what happened?

Please enlighten us.

[Applegarden8]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What has Trump been offering?

You are okay with a fascist but Kamala is too hard to swallow?

Kamala offered a normal competent administration. If that isn't sexy enough for you, then tough. Fascism it is.

I live in Latvia. Trump is a GG for me. Hope I survive next 4 years and not get bombed by Russia, guys.

[Joel3102]

Lmao I’m devastated over the result and I’m not even American. What are you guys doing!!