2024 Election Discussion General

[Husseinisdoingfine]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But people are ignorant.

They don't think about real causes.

They don't know the underlying reasons or factors. 

they react to things like animals. 

Government of the retarded, by the retarded, for the retarded.

 

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Why did she failed to run a proper competent campaign?

She did run a competent campaign.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

15 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

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.

GOP just picked up a seat, they now have a 201 seat majority.

[QandC]

13 minutes ago, Joshe said:

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. 

When did I say I have a Phd.? Wtf.

Alright, let’s bring this into a deeper perspective. When you talk about “Truth” as if it’s this fixed entity that only a select few can access, it sounds more like ego dressed up as insight. Truth—spiritual Truth, at least—goes beyond opinions and labels. It’s not something we dictate or box in based on who sees things our way. In fact, the moment we start claiming exclusive rights to Truth, we’re veering off into arrogance, not enlightenment.

Seeing others as “low consciousness” or “blind” because they don’t share your perspective is missing the point of what Truth actually is. Real Truth isn’t about deciding who’s awake and who’s asleep—it’s about recognizing that we’re all moving through different levels of awareness. Everyone’s on their own path, influenced by their experiences, beliefs, and journeys. So, when people have a different understanding of something like Jan 6, it’s not always because they’re blind; sometimes, they’re simply looking through a different lens shaped by their own  path.

If you truly believe in higher consciousness, then you’d understand that Truth doesn’t create separation. It invites compassion and patience. It’s not about proving who’s closer to it; it’s about connecting to it in a way that brings clarity, empathy, and unity, not division. A spiritual approach to Truth isn’t about dismissing others for “not seeing it”—it’s about trusting that everyone’s journey is valid, even if it doesn’t align with your own. So shape up, sir. You don't need a Phd to do that. Just sit and watch

 

Edited November 6 by QandC

[Zega]

I'm disappointed in my state of CA. We were almost 50% red this year, voted no on raising minimum wage, no to ending forced slave labor in prisons, and in my district there's a good chance of the sitting republican who is a landlord and clearly corrupt winning again- despite a huge campaign against him this year. 

I guess we need things to fail catastrophically under republican control before people wake the fuck up. I was expecting things to be bad but I was unprepared for just how awful this election turned out.

My biggest takeaway is that money in politics remains a huge issue. Between Bezos having control of WA Post and refusing to endorse Kamala, the mess that is Joe Rogan and his influence on young men, and Elon fucking Musk there is far too much influence money plays in politics. I know that's nothing new but this is disheartening. 

Sorry to sound pessimistic but it always seems to be 1 step forward and 10 steps back. 

[QandC]

1 minute ago, Zega said:

I'm disappointed in my state of CA. We were almost 50% red this year, voted no on raising minimum wage, no to ending forced slave labor in prisons, and in my district there's a good chance of the sitting republican who is a landlord and clearly corrupt winning again- despite a huge campaign against him this year. 

I guess we need things to fail catastrophically under republican control before people wake the fuck up. I was expecting things to be bad but I was unprepared for just how awful this election turned out.

My biggest takeaway is that money in politics remains a huge issue. Between Bezos having control of WA Post and refusing to endorse Kamala, the mess that is Joe Rogan and his influence on young men, and Elon fucking Musk there is far too much influence money plays in politics. I know that's nothing new but this is disheartening. 

Sorry to sound pessimistic but it always seems to be 1 step forward and 10 steps back. 

Hasn't things already failed? Look at the fckn world. Its a disgrace.....

 

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Please enlighten us.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

[Consept]

10 minutes ago, bambi said:

Its not dishonest, one of my best friend is the exact same as Trump, and I had a busines and lost $500k and 99% of my mental health with him. So I am speaking from personal experience. In fact there are several cases like this in my career. So far the most talented highest potential highest reward people I have worked with come with serious risk.

Infact it seems to me that the drive to be hyper succesful and take high risks is borne out of trauma and pain, so its uncommon to get one without the other.

I agree with you that Trump lacks integrity, honesty and is self-serving to a blatant degree, but I disagree with you regarding how many people would work with him despite this obvious flaws

Theres a difference between working with someone who is highly ambitious and is trying to make money but flies to close to the sun and loses sometimes. That persons intention is to make money they just have high risk and high reward as you say. The difference with Trump is hes actually fleecing you, hes selling you something that not worth anything but convincing you its worth something. Its not about high risk, high reward hes just conning you, this is what people say about him and this is what he gets sued for when he chooses to not pay you for services for example. 

This article talks about 60 lawsuits against him for not paying bills of carpenters or workmen, it covers 100s of people who Trump decided not to pay. 

"Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages." 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

In most cases these are not high risk, high reward situations, theyre just normal working persons situations. What I'm saying is if you were going to work for someone that promised to pay you for carpentry lets say and you saw that they were being sued by 100s of people for not paying people like you, there is absolutely no way youd work with that person. 

People as corrupt and greedy as him might do it because they think they can get something from him, but normal people and normal people would not work with him.  

[josemar]

https://x.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/1854201271214846027

 

 

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, QandC said:

They look at what affects their lives, the values they resonate with, or the ways they feel their communities have been ignored. This isn’t some mystical theory—it’s called nuance, something you seem to think voters don’t have.

To be clear, because we are going with the assumption that voters know about all the facts about Trump (since according to you they are not low info voters)  lets get some things straight here -  you are making an implicit claim about those voters , namely they don't give a fuck about democracy   combined with the fact they are willing to vote for a guy with a historical record like this:

• Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee
• Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case
• Government and classified documents case
• Election obstruction case
• Georgia election interference case
• Class action lawsuit for fraud
• New York State's civil fraud case
• E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits

Now lets start with this -  Given those handful of facts - I think its much worse to assume that people are informed about all of that and they still choose to vote for him rather than assuming them not being informed about all these things) , + in my view its worse to assume about these people that they don't care or value democracy at all, but lets grant all of that.

Now given all of that - you need to make a case for why given whatever  values these people care about, its rational for them to vote for Trump over Kamala.

48 minutes ago, QandC said:

You want tangible evidence? Look at studies on why people vote, any behavioral psychologist can tell you that people are complex. Here's one for example: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/journal/16/161128a/jdm161128a.html

Which one of my claim does this disprove exactly? I claimed that voters in general are low info voters (they don't know about facts) and I also claimed that people generally have a cluster of beliefs (they don't have nuanced positions on things and from a few of their beliefs one can reliably predict other beliefs they have on things). Neither  is disproved by your link there.

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

But fine, let's play your game: what "facts" are you bringing to the table about how these voters are low-info? You’ve done nothing but parrot the same tired assumption without backing it up. You’re dismissing a whole segment of people because it’s easier than trying to understand their motivations. Voting isn’t a matter of “high info” or “low info.” It’s way more complicated than that, and if you’re gonna sit here and reduce it to people being “blinded by conspiratorial thinking,” then you’re proving my point more than you’re challenging it

I have evidence to support my claim about them being conspiratorial thinkers and to support my claim them having a cluster of beliefs.

Quote

https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/qanon-conspiracy-theory

Although just one in 10 adults who self-identify as center-right have a favorable view of QAnon, a survey conducted by Citizen Data found that 62 percent of conservatives believe in at least one core conspiracy theory born from the movement. 

More than half of the respondents also erroneously believe Donald Trump to be the winner of the 2020 election. Those who endorse the "Big Lie," compared to those who reject it, were nearly three times as likely to have a favorable view of QAnon (16 percent versus 6 percent) and half as likely to have an unfavorable view (29 percent versus 61 percent).

A significant number of conservatives also accepted as true conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic and the Covid-19 vaccine:

• 16 percent said they believe vaccines contained tracking chips.
• 23 percent said they believe the coronavirus pandemic is a hoax.
• 24 percent said they believe the government is covering up a link between Covid-19 and autism.

For the low info voting claim:

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/12/campaign-moment/

A recent poll really drove this home for me. It came from Yahoo News and YouGov, and it asked people a series of basic questions about what’s happening in politics right now.

Among those questions? “As far as you know, which of the following things has Donald Trump been indicted for?”

Only about half of Americans agreed Trump had been indicted for the subjects of his three remaining indictments. Just 55 percent agreed he had been indicted for taking highly classified documents and obstructing efforts to return them. And just less than half agreed Trump had been indicted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, as he has both federally and in Georgia.

Many said they weren’t sure, but 16 to 21 percent said affirmatively that Trump had not been indicted for these things — these things that he has, in fact, been indicted for.

• 1 in 5 voters in the Yahoo/YouGov survey said either that they didn’t know about Trump’s Manhattan verdict, that Trump was not guilty or that the trial was ongoing. That includes 2 out of every 5 registered voters under the age of 30.
• A majority of independents have said they’ve heard only “a little” or “nothing at all” about Trump’s classified-documents indictment, according to Marquette University Law School polling.
• Just 1 in 5 voters in a May Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were familiar with Trump having said that purported voter fraud in the 2020 election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
• Republicans, especially, will often tell pollsters things about Donald Trump and his legal problems that are simply wrong.
• Voters also believe strikingly wrong things about the economy, including a majority believing we’re in a recession and half thinking unemployment is at a 50-year high. (Unemployment has actually been at 4 percent or below for its longest stretch in those 50 years.)

[Jacob Morres]

Dems didn't turn out. 15m less dems voted in 2020 

Edited November 6 by Jacob Morres

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's because most media was acting like Biden was useless and got nothing done. This is what years of anti-mainstream media bashwashing leads to. People end up hating the mainstrean and elect even worse alternatives, not better alternatives.

When you bash the mainstream what you get in practice is not better but worse.

So, how do we stay optimistic about the future going forward?

Is there any way that anyone can fix the problems of the anti-mainstream media before it truly becomes too late for our country?

Edited November 6 by Hardkill

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Kamala offered a normal competent administration.

If only that was what voters were looking for. US democracy has eaten itself from its own tail. I sure hope we get it restored.

[QandC]

@zurew Jesus christ........... U're assuming that most Trump voters are unaware of his legal issues or controversies, suggesting they’d make different choices if they knew better. Buyt research doesn’t fully support this. Studies show that many T-voters do know about these issues; they just interpret them differently or prioritize other concerns over these controversies. For instance, check out the 2021- Pew Research study which found that many Republican voters were well aware of the investigations and allegations against Trump, but they saw these as either exaggerated or politically motivated. This means it’s not always about a lack of information but rather about how that information is viewed and valued. I mean come on, Leo has TONS of videos on this topic. 

When it comes to conspiratorial thinking the assumption that most conservative voters are driven by conspiracy theories oversimplifies things. A study in 2022 found that while belief in conspiracy theories exists across the political spectrum, it doesn’t define most voters’ motivations. In fact, conspiracy beliefs often fluctuate and aren’t fixed, and they can sometimes serve as expressions of distrust rather than actual belief (here's the link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168017746554.

The idea that voters lack “nuance” in their beliefs, essentially that they’re simple-minded, also doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny. Political psychology reserch reveals that people can hold complex and sometimes contradictory views. For example, people may support climate initiatives while also favoring industries tied to fossil fuels. Simplifying beliefs into clusters doesn’t reflect the mixed and multifaceted way many people think about politics.

The poll you mentioned showing low awareness of Trump’s indictments tells only part of the story. Research on political awareness ACTUALLY shows that while political knowledge varies, engaged voters tend to know quite a bit, even if they interpret events through a partisan lens. Misinterpretations or selective beliefs about Trump’s indictments, for example, don’t necessarily stem from “low information”; they’re often shaped by distrust in media or the sources reporting these stories. 

And finally,, the assumption that only low-info voters or conspiracy theorists would support Trump overlooks another key factor: values. For some, his stance on issues like immigration, economic policy, and conservative judicial appointments outweighs his controversies. Political behavior studies, including a 2018 paper from the Journal of Politics, have found that people often vote based on perceived self-interest or alignment with their values rather than solely on a candidate’s legal or moral record. U can see it here:: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9495-z

So, while there are definitely people who lack accurate information or fall for conspiracy theories, it’s too simplistic to say that’s the main reason people support Trump. Many voters are aware of his record but continue to support him because they see him as aligned with their values or distrust the institutions leveling accusations against him. This isn’t about blindness to “truth”—it’s about how people weigh what matters to them.

I thought people on this forum were smart enough to understand that

Edited November 6 by QandC

[bambi]

15 minutes ago, Consept said:

Theres a difference between working with someone who is highly ambitious and is trying to make money but flies to close to the sun and loses sometimes. That persons intention is to make money they just have high risk and high reward as you say. The difference with Trump is hes actually fleecing you, hes selling you something that not worth anything but convincing you its worth something. Its not about high risk, high reward hes just conning you, this is what people say about him and this is what he gets sued for when he chooses to not pay you for services for example. 

This article talks about 60 lawsuits against him for not paying bills of carpenters or workmen, it covers 100s of people who Trump decided not to pay. 

"Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages." 

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

In most cases these are not high risk, high reward situations, theyre just normal working persons situations. What I'm saying is if you were going to work for someone that promised to pay you for carpentry lets say and you saw that they were being sued by 100s of people for not paying people like you, there is absolutely no way youd work with that person. 

People as corrupt and greedy as him might do it because they think they can get something from him, but normal people and normal people would not work with him.  

Im confused, you have the data, many people do work for Trump, his companies employee thousands of people. Im struggling to get your core point here

[Thought Art]

1 hour ago, hundreth said:

Trump beat a bunch of candidates in an open primary.

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

Is that actually true though? She has a solid career an is very capable person.

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Is that actually true though? She has a solid career an is very capable person.

How do you think that we can stay optimistic for the future?

Do you think that we can find a way to fight back for normalcy and progress for our country in this dark time?

[hundreth]

2 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Is that actually true though? She has a solid career an is very capable person.

It's obviously true to anyone who isn't drinking leftist kool aid. I pointed out how she was 6th place in the primaries with only 3% of the vote when she was picked ahead of many better running mates.

Given the party's history of choosing running mates based on "food groups" a la Hilary Clinton, why should they get any benefit of the doubt?

[bambi]

1 hour 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.

Have you ever considered you are deeply biased here and not offering a balanced view? For example

Claude sonnet 1.5 

"Based on a careful analysis, while Trump has displayed some authoritarian tendencies and used rhetoric that overlaps with fascist characteristics, calling him a "fascist" would be an oversimplification. His actions and behavior are better described as authoritarian populism - concerning for democracy, but distinct from historical fascism which involved systematic state control, organized paramilitaries, and complete dismantling of democratic institutions. While Trump challenged democratic norms, he ultimately operated within and left office through constitutional processes."

GPT4o

"Based on his actions and rhetoric, Donald Trump does not fully meet the traditional definition of a fascist, though he exhibits authoritarian and nationalist traits. He aligns more closely with right-wing populism, marked by challenges to democratic norms, a strong cult of personality, and confrontational tactics against opposition, rather than the full structural control and repression typical of fascism."

[Joshe]

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

When did I say I have a Phd.? Wtf.

My bad. I must have mixed you up with someone else. 

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

Alright, let’s bring this into a deeper perspective. When you talk about “Truth” as if it’s this fixed entity that only a select few can access, it sounds more like ego dressed up as insight. Truth—spiritual Truth, at least—goes beyond opinions and labels. It’s not something we dictate or box in based on who sees things our way. In fact, the moment we start claiming exclusive rights to Truth, we’re veering off into arrogance, not enlightenment.

Here's a truth that has been derived from from observation and analysis, not insight. Heroine is bad for you.

The average person can see this truth easily but when things are more complex, the truth of a situation isn't always easy to discern. I'm not claiming exclusive rights to the Truth (this is another one of your assumptions). I'm claiming to know what is true of a thing and when that thing is complex, people who lack sufficient consciousness can easily get lost and tricked into believing things that aren't true, as is the case with Jan 6. There is what it is in actual reality and then there's what people want it to be. I don't care what they want it to be. I only care what it actually is. To want it to be something other than what it is, I associate with low-consciousness, because, sorry, that's where it stems from. You can play on the surface with all your relativity, but I prefer identifying root causes of that which is detrimental (falsehood). 

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

Seeing others as “low consciousness” or “blind” because they don’t share your perspective is missing the point of what Truth actually is. Real Truth isn’t about deciding who’s awake and who’s asleep—it’s about recognizing that we’re all moving through different levels of awareness. Everyone’s on their own path, influenced by their experiences, beliefs, and journeys. So, when people have a different understanding of something like Jan 6, it’s not always because they’re blind; sometimes, they’re simply looking through a different lens shaped by their own  path.

Of course we're all moving through different levels of awareness and everyone is on their own path but again, "my perspective" is not important. The truth is what's important. If we arrive at a falsehood, I advocate for correction, as opposed to sweeping ignorance under the rug with the broom of relativity. 

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

If you truly believe in higher consciousness, then you’d understand that Truth doesn’t create separation. It invites compassion and patience. It’s not about proving who’s closer to it;

Consciousness is real, not a belief, and within it, there are distinctions. Again, you're assuming I have a superiority complex and I want to be better than others. Right after that assumption, there's more. 

54 minutes ago, QandC said:

A spiritual approach to Truth isn’t about dismissing others for “not seeing it”—it’s about trusting that everyone’s journey is valid, even if it doesn’t align with your own. So shape up, sir. You don't need a Phd to do that. Just sit and watch

Why do you assume I'm pursuing your idea of spirituality? Why do assume I don't think everyone's journey is valid? And to address another assumption nested into that one, why would you assume I arrived at it because they don't align with me? 

I appreciate you taking the time but I can't spend all day swatting down these fallacies. 

 

Edited November 6 by Joshe