2024 Election Discussion General

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

Man, there's a lot I can say about it, but I don't really think this forum is the right place. The answers involve straight up conspiracy theories that are epic in scope and would seem incredibly far out to the average member. I don't think anything good would come from explaining it. Leo has worked hard to maintain an environment free of this kind of stuff, and I don't mind respecting that and leaving it at the door.

I only brought it up again to justify that other comment I made about the institutions being potentially even more dangerous than Trump. If your mind isn't prone to the type of paranoia which breeds conspiracy theories, then you'll probably be mentally healthier for it. Maybe just pretend I didn't mention it, lol. I'll be more careful in the future about crossing that line.

If anyone is really curious to know, the concepts are easy enough to find and have been recorded throughout history. The idea of a shadowy, illuminated ultra-elite which spans time is not an original creation of my own.

I'm not against conspiratorial thinking. I do it often. It's just that most of the theories fail when you check their logic. I don't have knee-jerk reactions to them but as soon as I come to an aspect that can easily be tore down, it's usually game over. Take Flat Earth for example. I could listen to and follow someone's elaborate theories but when I ask the question "Are all photos of Earth from space created to deceive us, with every nation that's ventured into space and taken images collaborating in a conspiracy to keep us fooled?" At that moment, the flat earth theory is dead. 

I have a theory in the making of my own.

It's hard for you to to justify voting for this:

• Trump cherry-picks specific phrases that Hitler used
• He joked about being a dictator 
• He largely ran on retribution and fear-mongering that we're being invaded by 'vermin" who are "poisoning the blood of our country"
• He's said he wants to rewrite parts of the constitution
• He uses violent rhetoric that paints pictures of his opponents being shot in the face by 9 rifles and on several other occasions eluded to his political opponents being murdered
• He says CNN, NBC, ABC, and any outlet that doesn't carry water for him should not be allowed to operate
• He's the most documented liar in history
• He's the most polarizing figure in US history 

So you find a sneaky way to satisfy an emotional bias with something that can't be proven or disproven. You've told yourself there's a hidden force of evil, likely far more evil than Trump, and is aligned with the establishment, which means it is in collusion with the Dems, and Trump is the only real option. 

Yeah, I gotta say, if my theory is accurate about your theory, it's epic. 😂

Edited November 12 by Joshe

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

How long until Trump and Elon clash?

I mean they both profit a lot from each other so maybe they can make it work for a while. But seemingly at some point their egos will have to clash.

This is pure speculation but I think this Trump tweet has Elon's name on it. 

"This is not acceptable" isn't really language Trump uses, but Elon uses it a good bit. The whole thing is different from Trump's language. They tried to use caps to make it look like him. 

He might just be letting others take control to a large degree. If that's the case, I don't suspect they'll clash. If it's not the case, I think Elon will be smart enough to not fuck up his investment by getting into a petty feud with him. 

Edited November 12 by Joshe

[What Am I]

3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

So you find a sneaky way to justify it with something that can't be proven or disproven. You've told yourself there's a hidden force of evil, likely far more evil than Trump, and is aligned with the establishment, which means it is in collusion with the Dems, and Trump is the only real option. 

Yeah, I gotta say, if my theory is accurate about your theory, it's epic. 😂

It's fair that you would think of something like that, because you're not entirely wrong in guessing there's a part of me that naturally leans in the direction of the current right's worldview, and you've been perceptive enough to notice bits and pieces of my enthusiasm leaking out. But I promise you, this other part of my life involving spirituality is very much the motivator for everything I think and do. It's been my entire world for decades, long before politics was even a factor, and it's all I really care about. I'm not pretending when I say that this Matrix-like reality is what I believe is actually happening.

Here's a quick question. How convinced are you about UFOs and everything that goes along with their supposed existence? Depending on your answer, I may be able to bridge the gap a little between our different ways of viewing the world.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

How long until Trump and Elon clash?

I mean they both profit a lot from each other so maybe they can make it work for a while. But seemingly at some point their egos will have to clash.

I've been thinking about this as well.

They may have a mutual benefit, quid pro quo relationship for a while. But I wouldn't be surprised if Trump throws him under the bus at some point. That's just Trump's pattern of behavior. 

[Joshe]

25 minutes ago, What Am I said:

It's fair that you would think of something like that, because you're not entirely wrong in guessing there's a part of me that naturally leans in the direction of the current right's worldview, and you've been perceptive enough to notice bits and pieces of my enthusiasm leaking out. But I promise you, this other part of my life involving spirituality is very much the motivator for everything I think and do. It's been my entire world for decades, long before politics was even a factor, and it's all I really care about. I'm not pretending when I say that this Matrix-like reality is what I believe is actually happening.

I don't doubt your sincerity one bit. I think you come in good faith. 

25 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Here's a quick question. How convinced are you about UFOs and everything that goes along with their supposed existence? Depending on your answer, I may be able to bridge the gap a little between our different ways of viewing the world.

I think their existence is almost certain due to the sheer size of the universe. It seems absurd to think there's no intelligent life out there. 

That said, there are big problems with them reaching earth or even wanting to come here. An alien civilization would have to survive long enough to figure out how to travel through wormholes or something else to traverse the distances required to reach us. Most civilizations would likely be hit by a big rock and killed off before they reach that point. For ones that exist long enough, they probably learn to travel around their own solar systems and galaxies. I'm not sure if wormholes and such are even possible, so I can't really go beyond this point. 

If a civilization advanced technologically to the point they could travel through wormholes or whatever, it's very likely their only motive for coming to earth would be for exploration or science or something like that, not material gain or to fuck us over. Also, if they were that advanced, they would not make a mistake and crash their ship or any bullshit like that. 

That's about where I'm at on it. I could go on and on about what I think is likely but I think that is the gist. 

Edited November 12 by Joshe

[Raze]

Kamala spent six figures on the call her daddy interview which didn’t even get a million views, and rejected free interviews with Theo von, lex fridman, and Joe rogan which trump did and got 70 million+ views…

[Buck Edwards]

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

Kamala spent six figures on the call her daddy interview which didn’t even get a million views, and rejected free interviews with Theo von, lex fridman, and Joe rogan which trump did and got 70 million+ views…

Trump would have won even if Kamala did those interviews. They would have found something else to make fun of her. 

[The Chosen One]

 

[Raze]

 

[What Am I]

44 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I don't doubt your sincerity one bit. I think you come in good faith.

Much appreciated, the feeling is certainly mutual.

44 minutes ago, Joshe said:

That's about where I'm at on it. I could go on and on about what I think is likely but I think that is the gist.

Ah, ok, well shoot. I was hoping you'd seen enough circumstantial evidence to be a believer in UFOs on earth, in which case I was going to appeal to the degree of conspiracy that'd have to be involved in keeping that hidden. I was then going to link it over to spirituality and try to demonstrate how it's not such a stretch to imagine another massive revelation being withheld from the general public. But I'm pretty much foiled if you're not a believer in the idea we're already being visited.

Honestly, it's probably for the best that your thinking is so grounded. This stuff gets wacky, and people who get into it can be wackier still. Even though I believe most of it with every ounce of my being, I can see the benefits of avoiding this style of thinking which has the potential to allow one to fool themselves. Either way, it's best to keep it off the forum, and I intend to follow those rules (mostly).

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

Ah, ok, well shoot. I was hoping you'd seen enough circumstantial evidence to be a believer in UFOs on earth, in which case I was going to appeal to the degree of conspiracy that'd have to be involved in keeping that hidden. I was then going to link it over to spirituality and try to demonstrate how it's not such a stretch to imagine another massive revelation being withheld from the general public. But I'm pretty much foiled if you're not a believer in the idea we're already being visited.

I'm open to new information and it's an interesting idea. Why not create a post on it or just message me. Dude, we talk about channeling Bashar on this forum. No one should have a problem with your ideas as far as I'm concerned, especially when they're held by someone who is serious about questioning reality. Most conspiracy nuts don't care about logic and they just like it for the excitement. You don't seem like that as far as I can tell, so far. lol. 

[What Am I]

16 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I'm open to new information and it's an interesting idea. Why not create a post on it or just message me. Dude, we talk about channeling Bashar on this forum. No one should have a problem with your ideas as far as I'm concerned, especially when they're held by someone who is serious about questioning reality. Most conspiracy nuts don't care about logic and they just like it for the excitement. You don't seem like that as far as I can tell, so far. lol. 

lol, good point, it's true that there is some wild stuff on the forum. I'll keep that in mind. Also, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I do try my best to be fact-based and logical, which can be a fine line to walk while also believing in some fantastical stuff.

Edited November 12 by What Am I

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

lol, good point, it's true that there is some wild stuff on the forum. I'll keep that in mind. Also, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I do try my best to be fact-based and logical, which can be a fine line to walk while also believing in some fantastical stuff.

Alright, well, feel free to share the info any time if you want to. I'm not as rigid in my thinking as it might seem. I'm willing to reevaluate and adjust my position based on new data. 

[TheEnigma]

On 11/6/2024 at 10:20 PM, Leo Gura said:

All of Republicans and MAGA are pure neoliberalism. They haven't invented anything new. There's not even anything they need to protect against because they are all neoliberals.

I would personally be careful with saying words like "all". In my experience, there are all kinds of opinions out there, and it might be counterproductive to try to lump everyone into a single boat. I think this argument applies to both sides. I tend to lean liberal rather than conservative, but I would still not want to be lumped into a single boat with every liberal out there. For example, I am from Canada, I imagine most Canadian liberal-leaning people want tighter gun control, but I think Canadian gun control is fine, and doesn't need to be strengthened or loosened. (Note: the US is a completely different story). This comic explains my point pretty well. https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 So yeah, I would personally try not to focus on the craziest people out there, especially the ones on "the other side". And I would certainly not accuse everyone on that side of being as crazy as the craziest people on that side. 

 

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2013-04-07

[zazen]

14 hours ago, Joshe said:

You're right, it is easy to identify. These are facts: 

• Trump cherry-picks specific phrases that Hitler used
• He joked about being a dictator 
• He largely ran on retribution and fear-mongering that we're being invaded by 'vermin" who are "poisoning the blood of our country"
• He's said he wants to rewrite parts of the constitution
• He uses violent rhetoric that paints pictures of his opponents being shot in the face by 9 rifles and on several other occasions eluded to his political opponents being murdered
• He says CNN, NBC, ABC, and any outlet that doesn't carry water for him should not be allowed to operate

I'll just stop there. If you hear all that and think the word "authoritarian" doesn't apply, no one should listen to you because you're being dishonest. 

Man do both parties really suck. All the above is rhetoric, not action. Using authoritarian rhetoric to rally, polarise and energise your party during campaigns to get past the finish line doesn't necessarily translate to authoritarian rule. From his first term he didn't do a facist takeover for example, but their are concerns he will this time - again, hypothetical. But no doubt it is authoritarian rhetoric, it is dangerous, and he incited Jan 6th, although he didn't conduct a strategic top down organised coup. Its valid to bring up concerns about election integrity with voter ID (which Cali banned) but to go about it in the way he did was invalid. Legitimate grievances or concerns gone about in illegitimate ways.

I just think the left should be wary of how their own side and a bipartisan establishment already exists in ways that can be deemed authoritarian. We could make points that could point to Kamala also being a danger when she mentions mandatory gun buybacks , the word mandatory immediately rings alarm bells, or by seeing her track record of being excessively punitive on crimes such as marijuana, opposing efforts against juvenile sentencing which keeps juveniles in adult prisons rather than juvenile facilities, school truancy, and a murky history of defending the death penalty.

Their are things that the Democrats have done or presided over which can loosely be deemed authoritarian, un-democratic or a form of inverse totalitarianism as coined by Chris Hedges. The silencing of or suppression of dissent (lawfare against political opponents undermining democratic plurality), clamp down of protests (notably Occupy Wall Street where tear gas and rubber bullets were used), expansion of surveillance and government overreach (prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage act and tech censorship/collusion), extrajudicial killings, overuse of executive powers to by pass congressional approval (Obamas clean power plan), militarisation of the police and authorisation of the many wars. Screw both parties.

Edited November 12 by zazen

[Raze]

https://musaalgharbi.substack.com/p/a-graveyard-of-bad-election-narratives?triedRedirect=true

[Nemra]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Its valid to bring up concerns about election integrity with voter ID (which Cali banned) but to go about it in the way he did was invalid. Legitimate grievances or concerns gone about in illegitimate ways.

It wasn't just invalid; he straight up wanted to overturn the election based on lies.

It's amazing how you view that as not a big deal but then talk down on Kamala's character.

Wikipedia article: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Edited November 12 by Nemra

[Terell Kirby]

13 hours ago, Raze said:

Kamala spent six figures on the call her daddy interview which didn’t even get a million views, and rejected free interviews with Theo von, lex fridman, and Joe rogan which trump did and got 70 million+ views…

I don’t think an interview on any of these platforms would have made much of a difference. Kamala is not a candidate that appeals to right wing masculinity. It’s like requesting a trans person to interview on an anti trans podcasts in hopes it will sway an anti trans audience.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Club in Beirut, Lebanon celebrating Trump's win in the elections

https://www.reddit.com/r/lebanon/comments/1gp1vt1/club_in_beirut_celebrating_trumps_win_in_the/

Edited November 12 by Husseinisdoingfine

[hundreth]

8 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

I don’t think an interview on any of these platforms would have made much of a difference. Kamala is not a candidate that appeals to right wing masculinity. It’s like requesting a trans person to interview on an anti trans podcasts in hopes it will sway an anti trans audience.

It's true. All of these events immediately leading up to the election are meaningless. What if Kamala did interviews, what if Kamala this, what if Kamala that. 

Kamala was never going to win. She never earned her primary. The election was over when Joe Biden didn't step down in early 24. Kamala wasn't going to win an open primary.

There might be an alternate universe where someone else does. Maybe it would have been Gavin Newsom, but he would have lost as well. 

If the dems came out with someone fresh, it might have worked.