2024 Election Discussion General

[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 15 hours ago by Joshe

[Jodistrict]

4 minutes ago, hundreth said:

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?

RFK left the democratic party because their primary process was rigged and he couldn't get a fair chance to compete.  All he wanted was a chance to compete and he would have stayed.  

[QandC]

@hundreth The democrats (the party, not the voters) are a bunch of nepotist-incest-zombies. And I'm saying that with respect.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by QandC

[QandC]

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

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

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). 

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. 

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. 

Why do you assume I'm pursuing your idea of spirituality? Why do assume I don't think everyone's journey is valid? And if that false assumption were true, 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. 

 

Still, you are talking about Truth, but you never define what it is. Because you can't. No one can, except for direct experience. So yeah, everything is consciousness. Trump winning this election is also consciousness. I just see life and everything that's happening in the world as a movie, honestly. Its such a relief. I never have to engage in anything again because its not me writing this, I'm just simply watching. So I'm excited to see what the movie has in stall for us now that he is POTUS - let's enjoy the fun-ness of it all

Also, morality and consciousness are not interconnected.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by QandC

[Consept]

26 minutes ago, bambi said:

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

I mean its not complicated to say most people would not work with a conman if they know that persons a conman, but if you dont get it, you dont get it 

[Tony19]

I was watching the movie "The Killing Fields" the other day about the Cambodian genocide. It gives a great insight to Pol Pots ideology. "Year Zero" they called it.  A forceful rejection of thought, intellect, and thus rationality. Like a twisted, ideological form of authoritarian Buddhism forced upon the population. Basically, the collective mind has a tendency to reset itself to 'first learned behavior' if it feels under threat or feels that something is very wrong. (in this case probably US bombing and spread of Vietnam War into its lands)  This reset, and subsequent genocide is an attempt to 'cleanse' itself of the 'wrongness'.

It got me thinking of how it applies to us now. Trump is basically the collective's reset button. To the voter the best, most attractive thing about Trump, I believe, is that nothing about him makes any sense, least of all, how he's able to make it this far without offering any material benefit to the electorate.  He's the antithesis to rationality that our logic worshipping society subconsciously craves, but doesn't know how to get anywhere else.  

[zurew]

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

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. But research doesn’t fully support this. Studies show that many Trump 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 want a link for this. Also whats the response to my link that demonstrates my claim?

Also I never claimed that its always about lack of information that was just one of  my claims.

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

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.

None of this disproves my claim that they are conspiratorial thinkers. They can be conspiratorial thinkers while having other motivations than their conpiratorial beliefs when it comes to voting.

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

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.

First I would want a source and second the idea that average people can hold complex views doesn't say much. What we are concerned with is specifically political beliefs and given those beleifs how nuanced people are (even if I grant you, people having complex views ,whatever that means)

But regardless, that whole paragraph that you wrote there even taken for granted just proves my point about people being irrational. The fact that people hold contradictory views tells you that they don't think deeply and reflect on their positions. Besides all this ,you seemingly have no response to the evidence I provided to my cluster claim, whats the response to that?

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

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. 

Whats the link for this and how do you think this disproves the evidence I brought about them having low awareness of Trump's indictments?

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

And finally, to make you finally shut up, 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

I already responded to value claim, where I granted that some people don't give a fuck about democracy. That doesn't address any of the issues though.

Having the perception that a given cadidate will be good for a given set of values is different from making an in depth analysis and then given that analysis choosing which candidate will provide better for that value - because thats your implicit claim that voters are not just high info voters but they analyze things in depth and thats why they choose their candidate.

Surely you don't want to concede now, that most voters (even under the context of choosing for their selfish values), that they dont do an in depth analysis and that they are reliant on just their intuitions and their uneducated guess about who will provide better or who will satisfy their value(s)  better.

31 minutes ago, QandC said:

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.

Would want a source for this and a specific number for "what many voters" exactly means there. 

Also the emphasis again is on the "they see him as aligned with their values" which not equivalent to saying that its rational for them to think that he will provide them the things they value or care about.

Edited 15 hours ago by zurew

[Jodistrict]

I hope Trump delivers on his promise and ends the Ukraine war and kicks all the necons out of power.  

[Raze]

Just now, Jodistrict said:

 kicks all the necons out of power.  

He already backtracked on this so probably not going to happen. 

[bambi]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

I mean its not complicated to say most people would not work with a conman if they know that persons a conman, but if you dont get it, you dont get it 

No none of your reasoning or points hold in reality, but for some reason you are ignoring this. Trumps companies emlpoy circsa 24,000 people. So your statements just arent correct.

You just dont have the relevant life experience or experience in commerce to understand the realities of life. Most people will sacrifice morality and integirty if they percieve they can gain commercially and protect their survival, thats why people work for and with Trump, despite the bad references.

The point I think you were trying to make that 'you wouldnt work for Trump so why would you have him as your president' is simply not accurate, as Ive concisely explained above. It lacks nuance and accuracy of reality.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Really good analysis:

 

[QandC]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

I want a link for this. Also whats the response to my link that demonstrates my claim?

Also I never claimed that its always about lack of information that was just one of  my claims.

None of this disproves my claim that they are conspiratorial thinkers. They can be conspiratorial thinkers while having other motivations than their conpiratorial beliefs when it comes to voting.

First I would want a source and second the idea that average people can hold complex views doesn't say much. What we are concerned with is specifically political beliefs and given those beleifs how nuanced people are (even if I grant you, people having complex views ,whatever that means)

But regardless, that whole paragraph that you wrote there even taken for granted just proves my point about people being irrational. The fact that people hold contradictory views tells you that they don't think deeply and reflect on their positions. Besides all this ,you seemingly have no response to the evidence I provided to my cluster claim, whats the response to that?

Whats the link for this and how do you think this disproves the evidence I brought about them having low awareness of Trump's indictments?

I already responded to value claim, where I granted that some people don't give a fuck about democracy. That doesn't address any of the issues though.

Having the perception that a given cadidate will be good for a given set of values is different from making an in depth analysis and then given that analysis choosing which candidate will provide better for that value - because thats your implicit claim that voters are not just high info voters but they analyze things in depth and thats why they choose their candidate.

Surely you don't want to concede now, that most voters (even under the context of choosing for their selfish values), that they dont do an in depth analysis and that they are reliant on just their intuitions and their uneducated guess about who will provide better or who will satisfy their value(s)  better.

Would want a source for this and a specific number for "what many voters" exactly means there. 

Also the emphasis again is on the "they see him as aligned with their values" which not equivalent to saying that its rational for them to think that he will provide them the things they value or care about.

Here you go:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12394

https://www.jstor.org/stable/586314

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx

People ARE starting to question things, that's why things are changing. 

I can send you all the studies you want. It's what I live for. Also, thanks for keeping this debate going, it arouses me like crazy.

See, people this is the problem... You cant even have a decent conversaaation with diz guuuy--oooh!

Edited 15 hours ago by QandC

[Consept]

1 minute ago, bambi said:

No none of your reasoning or points hold in reality, but for some reason you are ignoring this. Trumps companies emlpoy circsa 24,000 people. So your statements just arent correct.

You just dont have the relevant life experience or experience in commerce to understand the realities of life. Most people will sacrifice morality and integirty if they percieve they can gain commercially and protect their survival, thats why people work for and with Trump, despite the bad references.

The point I think you were trying to make that 'you wouldnt work for Trump so why would you have him as your president' is simply not accurate, as Ive concisely explained above. It lacks nuance and accuracy of reality.

Well further than that i would say character should be important to be a leader of a country. Im not talking about the odd infraction that everyone makes, I'm talking about outright fraud, sexual harassment etc. If you want to say that the standards for character of president of America are low enough or that the positives outweigh the negatives and that Trump is valid then fair enough we have a difference of opinion on that. 

I still don't believe you would employ even a plumber with bad references which include fraud but I don't know maybe you're just smarter than me 

 

[Joshe]

8 minutes ago, QandC said:

let's enjoy the fun-ness of it all

And there it is. Just like I said elsewhere. The phenomenon of seemingly intelligent people finding their way to Trump can mostly be chalked up to emotion. They like the way he makes them feel. Isn't it exciting that there might be some chaos? Fun times!!!! 

[bambi]

Just now, Consept said:

Well further than that i would say character should be important to be a leader of a country. Im not talking about the odd infraction that everyone makes, I'm talking about outright fraud, sexual harassment etc. If you want to say that the standards for character of president of America are low enough or that the positives outweigh the negatives and that Trump is valid then fair enough we have a difference of opinion on that. 

I still don't believe you would employ even a plumber with bad references which include fraud but I don't know maybe you're just smarter than me 

 

To your first point I fully agree, leaders in an ideal world would have the most integirty and be salf-sacrfiicing. Leadership is a position of service and high responsibility, yet should be a priviledge. Being able to serve and help huge numbers of people with integrous leadership is a very rewarding position if done properly.

To your second point, I agree in an ideal world youd only do business with people with advanced integrity and honesty. But this isnt the reality, people do business with those they percieve they can make the most money for the most part. This is evolving and getting better as integrity is seen to be more and more of a neccasary virtue.

Like I said previously I think both the VP have much more integrity and honesty then the presidential candidates. I understand you want to single Trump out as a dishonest conman, but this just is an oversimplificaiton of the situation to me, and isn't a massively useful lens to view the situaiton from

[Joshe]

I'm predicting North Korea will send their troops home on Jan 6 or Jan 20-21 and that the only reason they went was to make Americans think Trump solved a problem when they go back home.

[QandC]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

And there it is. Just like I said elsewhere. The phenomenon of seemingly intelligent people finding their way to Trump can mostly be chalked up to emotion. They like the way he makes them feel. Isn't it exciting that there might be some chaos? Fun times!!!! 

It's not about how Trump makes me feel. He doesn't even exist apart from being shapes and colors of consciousness in my experience. I jump from beliefs and views and povs without hesitation because it's what makes life interesting. Try spending just one day as a full-blown Trump supporter. Really try it, and let me know how it feels. I believe the only way you can understand another perspective is by becoming it.

That's why most of my posts are very incongruent, and it's not a bug it's a feature. What do you think this whole thing is? It's about waking up to all BS and have a great cosmic laugh about it. Or idk... maybe I've done too many psychedelics and need to ground myself. 

I once became a book while on a Salvia trip and I realized what being a book is like. And let me tell you, being an actual book is as true of a perspective as anything. Book is life. Book is love. Book is awakening.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by QandC

[Consept]

6 minutes ago, bambi said:

To your first point I fully agree, leaders in an ideal world would have the most integirty and be salf-sacrfiicing. Leadership is a position of service and high responsibility, yet should be a priviledge. Being able to serve and help huge numbers of people with integrous leadership is a very rewarding position if done properly.

To your second point, I agree in an ideal world youd only do business with people with advanced integrity and honesty. But this isnt the reality, people do business with those they percieve they can make the most money for the most part. This is evolving and getting better as integrity is seen to be more and more of a neccasary virtue.

Like I said previously I think both the VP have much more integrity and honesty then the presidential candidates. I understand you want to single Trump out as a dishonest conman, but this just is an oversimplificaiton of the situation to me, and isn't a massively useful lens to view the situaiton from

Do any of the other candidates have 60 lawsuits with 100s of complainants about not getting paid? Or sexual assault civil cases or 100s of reports of people that hes cheated. If you can show me other candidates being sued successfully as many times as him then I would have to agree they all have similar integrity, honesty but if you can then obviously he should be singled out because hes provably worse. This is through his career btw not just since he became president. I dont get why you are so defensive of him, this is all in court record, Harris was a prosecutor she was on the other side of the table, how can you say theyre close to the same level. Im not even a big Harris fan but its very clear. 

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Jacob Morres said:

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

This is what I’m saying. The autopsy report for the Harris campaign is in understanding those numbers. So many people abandoned post. Why? 

[Joshe]

10 minutes ago, QandC said:

It's not about how Trump makes me feel. He doesn't even exist apart from being shapes and colors of consciousness in my experience. I jump from beliefs and views and povs without hesitation because it's what makes life interesting. Try spending just one day as a full-blown Trump supporter. Really try it, and let me know how it feels. I believe the only way you can understand another perspective is by becoming it.

That's why most of my posts are very incongruent, and it's not a bug it's a feature. What do you think this whole thing is? It's about waking up to all BS and have a great cosmic laugh about it. Or idk... maybe I've done too many psychedelics and need to ground myself. 

Too haphazard an approach for my taste. I understand people via the ability to see from their perspective, but I place value judgements on perspectives based on that which is good. There is such a thing as toxic/malignant perspectives.

I choose to care about things being healthy rather than throw my hands in the air at the absurdity of it all and embracing apathy and hedonism in response to not knowing what to care about. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Joshe