2024 Election Discussion General

[whh2222]

3 hours ago, Ramu said:

I disagree that one must vote for Harris in order to understand what this work is all about.  I can be wide awake and still disagree with the "woke" crowd.  I'm against DEI, but I'm for a meritocracy.  The US has sovereign borders that are there for a reason.  Give me a break Leo.

dems drafted an immigration bill but the right shut it down so they could take credit and not the left 

[Null Simplex]

On 11/6/2024 at 8:05 PM, Inliytened1 said:

Look I'm not saying become a Trump die heart.  But let's look at the better of two evils.  Today.  neither of these two leaders are going to advance our society any further.  We are hundreds of years from that.  Right now we have to put food on the table and make sure we have money at the end of the month.   Let's make sure we go with the better of the two within the context of what we are dealing with.

What specifically will Trump do that Kamala wouldn’t do (or vice-versa) that you think will “put food on the table and make sure we have money at the end of the month”?  What exactly is “the context we are dealing with”?

Edited November 13 by Null Simplex

[Jodistrict]

1 hour ago, Null Simplex said:

What specifically will Trump do that Kamala wouldn’t do (or vice-versa) that you think will “put food on the table and make sure we have money at the end of the month”?  What exactly is “the context we are dealing with”?

Trump wants to end the Ukraine war, whereas the current democrats are committed to hostility with Russia.  If he could pull this off and reestablish relations with Russia, it could contribute to world prosperty and strengthen the dollar which would bring down inflation.

[ryandesreu]

39 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Trump wants to end the Ukraine war, whereas the current democrats are committed to hostility with Russia.  If he could pull this off and reestablish relations with Russia, it could contribute to world prosperty and strengthen the dollar which would bring down inflation.

The idea that Democrats are "committed to hostility" with Russia is an oversimplification.

Edited November 13 by ryandesreu

[Null Simplex]

@Jodistrict But inflation is already at normal levels.  Do you mean specifically that you want deflation so that prices fall to pre-pandemic levels?  In addition, do you think global inflation is due exclusively to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions being placed on Russia? 

Edited November 14 by Null Simplex

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Null Simplex said:

But inflation is already at normal levels.  Do you mean specifically that you want deflation so that prices fall to pre-pandemic levels?  In addition, do you think global inflation is due exclusively to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions being placed on Russia? 

They didn't logic and reason their way into their position, so you can't logic and reason them out of it. There is no convincing them the Devil that's about to take full control is orders of magnitude more evil than they ever could imagine the Dems were, but they'll find out soon enough. 

Trump just appointed a Fox News host to Secretary of Defense, which reigns over the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force, and he's planning on appointing Marjorie Taylor Green's besty, Matt Gaetz, to Attorney General, which reigns over the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and others.

The U.S is about to witness flagrant and unprecedented corruption. Their house of cards will collapse soon. 

[Joshe]

Neuroscientist explains the mechanics of why logic doesn't work on them:

Essentially, their negative emotions were exploited.

Narratives were designed to alleviate their negative emotions but for the narratives to work, they have to be made part of their identity, and in return, they get some comfort. Once they become part of their identity, they cannot easily dispense with them, even in the face of irrefutable truth. 

ChatGPT:

People who adopt strong anti-establishment views often experience a complex interaction of identity, emotion, and cognition, which can explain why they remain resistant to changing their beliefs even when confronted with facts. Here are some aspects of how this plays out, particularly among those who are highly intelligent and capable of understanding the logic but still resist it:

1. Anti-Establishment as Identity: Many people with anti-establishment beliefs don’t just hold these views passively—they form a core part of their identity around resisting "the system." This stance often appeals to a sense of personal agency, autonomy, and critical thinking. When someone identifies as anti-establishment, they may see themselves as enlightened or as seeing “the truth” that others cannot, which reinforces their self-image as independent-minded and intelligent. Changing their views could feel like abandoning an important part of who they are and conceding to the establishment forces they distrust.
2. Defensive Rationalization: Intelligent people often have strong reasoning abilities that can work both ways—they can use their intelligence to support and defend their beliefs rather than challenge them. This phenomenon, known as “motivated reasoning,” enables people to find justifications for their beliefs, even if those beliefs are flawed or irrational. By rationalizing or reinterpreting facts, they can protect their anti-establishment identity without admitting they’re wrong.
3. Social and Community Reinforcement: Anti-establishment communities often form tight-knit groups that reinforce each other’s views. Being part of such a group can provide a powerful sense of belonging, and deviating from the group can feel like a betrayal. Admitting a mistake or changing a belief within these groups risks isolation or ostracism, which further discourages updating their thinking.
4. Psychological Benefits of Counter-Identity: There’s often a satisfaction in seeing oneself as a “truth-teller” or “outsider,” especially when mainstream narratives are seen as corrupt or manipulative. Holding anti-establishment beliefs can provide a counter-identity that boosts self-worth and distinguishes a person from the majority, reinforcing a sense of intellectual or moral superiority.
5. Emotional Attachment to Beliefs: Anti-establishment views can provide a clear outlet for frustration or distrust of authority, allowing people to direct their grievances toward specific figures or institutions. In some cases, these beliefs are adopted not just for logical reasons but as a means to cope with feelings of alienation, disenfranchisement, or loss of control over larger forces in society. Even if someone acknowledges a logical flaw, the emotional connection to their beliefs may override this acknowledgment because giving up these beliefs would mean losing an important psychological anchor.
6. Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance: Acknowledging that their logic is flawed could trigger significant cognitive dissonance, especially if they’ve invested a lot of time and energy in promoting or defending their views. For intelligent individuals, cognitive dissonance can feel even more intense because they are aware of the implications of admitting they’re wrong. Rather than confront the discomfort, they may employ selective acceptance—acknowledging a correct logical argument but refusing to incorporate it into their worldview to avoid the discomfort that would come with re-evaluating deeply held beliefs.
7. Loss Aversion and Investment Fallacy: The more time and energy one has put into anti-establishment beliefs, the harder it becomes to let them go. This investment fallacy (often referred to as “sunk cost fallacy”) leads people to avoid accepting new facts that might invalidate their views, as it would mean admitting their previous efforts and sacrifices were misguided. This phenomenon, combined with loss aversion, where the pain of losing a belief is stronger than the potential gain of adopting a new one, keeps them holding on tightly to their anti-establishment stance.

In summary, highly intelligent anti-establishment thinkers can recognize flaws in their logic but choose not to integrate that knowledge into their belief system. Their identity, emotional needs, and social environment create a form of resistance that logic alone can’t overcome. For some, the anti-establishment stance provides such psychological, social, and emotional rewards that it becomes too valuable to relinquish, even if it means selectively ignoring or rationalizing away facts.

It all comes down to clinging to emotions. Ta da!!! 

Edited November 14 by Joshe

[PurpleTree]

 

[Nemra]

AP News: Bill on school bathroom use by transgender students clears Ohio Legislature and heads to governor

[zazen]

18 hours ago, Joshe said:

Fair point. We'll have to meet in the middle though. You know there are many who loathe minorities and LGBTQ for their very existence.

I had a friend who didn't mind black people so long as they didn't act "ratchet" and speak in ebonics and act like n*. He thought that because he only hated those types, he wasn't actually racist. 😂

Do you know people whose face morphs into disgust at the sight of LGBTQ and how quick white people are to do jokes about "n*" when no one is around? I know many and I've seen it my entire life. Go hang out with a bunch of rural white folk around a bonfire and watch how many jokes are made and watch them all laugh.

Did you know that every MLK Jr. day, search for "n*gger jokes" increases by 30%?

@zazen How do you fit this into your thinking: 

IDK if you live under a rock or what, but many people are strongly motivated by hatred of minorities and LGBTQ. 

Those people who you think are pure in heart are pissed about more than rent, groceries, and the notion that minorities are being put above them. Minorities were hated with a passion long before society even acknowledged them as human, but I guess now they just hate them because they're getting preferential treatment... got it. 

No way to wiggle out of this one. 

Nothing to weasle out of. I'm aware of the extreme elements within the party which I've shared in the below post. Most people are aware of the racists and the crazies on the right but look past them due to alignment on whats important to get resolved - secure borders, personal safety and finances. Cultural issues like LGBT only really get the people going once they started exposing it to children - the kids are the red line for most people. It's the same for the left, moderate Dems look past the extreme elements within their party as long as the party's mainstream platform aligns with their priorities,

The not so funny part of this is that the Democrats may very well be better off for the working class but they get their messaging wrong. Whilst people are drowning in economic anxiety looking for a rope to escape it, the Dems busy themselves in identity politics and performative gestures. The Republicans just come along and say 'your life sucks' 'we're gonna fix it' - even if they rope their coming with is a snake. When people are drowning economically, socially and spiritually - a lot of them won't stop to check the political credentials of the person throwing the rope, or the racists who are also reaching for that same rope.

On some level people intuitively feel that only individuals can bring change, rather than institutions and establishment candidates.  They sense it's futile to expect change from those whose power depends on things staying essentially the same. So they turn to those who at least promise to break the rules, even if they're not sure what will replace them.

 

21 hours ago, zazen said:

People are conflicted siding with the Republicans due to Trump being flawed and divisive, and the extreme elements of his support base. People are caught between wanting populism yet fearing it or what it could turn into, between rejecting establishment and being wary of who's promising to renew it but who will only ruin it in reckless abandon.

Populism is about handing power down, not up. But the question is in who catches the torch - a leader who'll bring light or darkness.

 

On 11/12/2024 at 10:49 AM, zazen said:

Some quotes from his substack two months ago if Trump was to win: https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/trump-and-the-tempests-of-hate

Charles offers 6 principles for the next administration: 

1. Reframe divisive issues in terms of compassion  

2. Generously acknowledge the views of all sides

3. Find the transcendent centre

4. Focus on systems not individuals

5. Amnesty not vengeance, redemption not punishment 

6. Stand consistently for peace 

''Ultimately, we seek not a revolution against the system, but a revolution of the system.''

''One might ask, why not offer these six principles to Kamala Harris as well as Donald Trump? Of course, I recommend them to anybody. However, an Establishment candidate can apply them only in facsimile, otherwise she will not remain part of the Establishment. She can campaign in the name of compassion, extending it to favored groups, unaware of what dominant narratives conceal as they maintain and advance a global system of enormous injustice and suffering. The six principles unravel those narratives. Their practice transforms us into agents of a revolution of and not against the system. And we quiet the tempest of hate that threatens to tear society apart.''

Perhaps this is whats driving people towards the Republicans - the fact that everyone feels we need change and that an entrenched establishment are unable to change because well, their established. Only individuals outside the fold can, or those within it but willing to not play by the rules. Of course this poses a danger however.

 

[Ramu]

@whh2222 yes but before that and after that attempted legislation they were coming in droves.  Giving them a court date to come back in two years (after entering illegally) for an asylum hearing of which only 25% will be accepted.   No one has confidence in the dems and its not just media influence either.  Theres a right way to immigrate and a wrong way.  Illegal is illegal, and because of their choices theyll wind up deported.  We have sovereign borders like everyone else.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Nothing to weasel out of. I'm aware of the extreme elements within the party

You just did try to weasel out of it. Nazi flags and full-throated support for Putin and Hitler are the extremes and the fringe, but hate for non-whites and LGBTQ is the norm, not extreme.

I was born in America and been here my whole life. 38/yr old white male whose lived in several different states, never been on the left, have known and hung around many people. I'm just telling you the way it is. It's not bias. I don't care about left-wing ideology. This is just reality. 

There actually is a lot of truth to the left's talk of racism and hatred of LGBTQ. You might even say those normal elements you like to call extreme, are what drives most of them to the left to begin with. They don't go over to the left out of political ideology, but rather, they go opposite of that which hates them. 

Edited November 14 by Joshe

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

You just did try to weasel out of it. Nazi flags and full-throated support for Putin and Hitler are the extremes and the fringe, but hate for non-whites and LGBTQ is the norm, not extreme.

I was born in America and been here my whole life. 38/yr old white male whose lived in several different states, never been on the left, have known and hung around many people. I'm just telling you the way it is. It's not bias. I don't care about left-wing ideology. This is just reality. 

There actually is a lot of truth to the left's talk of racism and hatred of LGBTQ. You might even say those normal elements you like to call extreme, are what drives most of them to the left to begin with. They don't go over to the left out of political ideology, but rather, they go opposite of that which hates them. 

There are some stats to back you up here, so according to a gallup poll 33% of people believe gay or lesbian relations are morally wrong - https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Also looking at pew research data amongst republicans state to state, it looks like around 50% if not a majority of republicans think that being gay should be discouraged. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/views-about-homosexuality/by/state/among/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/

To say that this is only an issue on the extreme side of the party is false, this is a pretty middle of the road take for a republican. So it really wouldn't be a stretch to say some would've voted on the dems stance on lgbtq which is basically acceptance of it. 

[Nemra]

Parallels between Trump and Hitler:

 

Edited November 14 by Nemra

[whh2222]

5 hours ago, Ramu said:

@whh2222 yes but before that and after that attempted legislation they were coming in droves.  Giving them a court date to come back in two years (after entering illegally) for an asylum hearing of which only 25% will be accepted.   No one has confidence in the dems and its not just media influence either.  Theres a right way to immigrate and a wrong way.  Illegal is illegal, and because of their choices theyll wind up deported.  We have sovereign borders like everyone else.

You lack reading comprehension. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

[Joshe]

3 hours ago, Consept said:

There are some stats to back you up here, so according to a gallup poll 33% of people believe gay or lesbian relations are morally wrong - https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

Also looking at pew research data amongst republicans state to state, it looks like around 50% if not a majority of republicans think that being gay should be discouraged. https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/views-about-homosexuality/by/state/among/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/

To say that this is only an issue on the extreme side of the party is false, this is a pretty middle of the road take for a republican. So it really wouldn't be a stretch to say some would've voted on the dems stance on lgbtq which is basically acceptance of it. 

Thanks! Yeah, and just think how many people lied on the poll. The actual numbers are much higher.  The book "Everybody Lies" discusses at length why polls questioning morality can't be relied upon due to social desirability bias.

Social desirability bias: The tendency of individuals to answer questions or behave in a way they believe will be viewed favorably by others, often aligning with societal norms or expectations. This bias typically leads people to over-report positive behaviors or beliefs (like voting, exercising, or charitable giving) and under-report or deny negative or stigmatized behaviors and opinions (such as prejudice, substance use, or unpopular political views).

If you could be a fly on the wall and visit 100 conservative American homes while they're watching Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy, when a male contestant says "I have my husband in the audience", I'd wager 90% of them would react with disgust. I've seen this my whole life with my own two eyes from many people in different states.

A very sweet old Christian woman used to babysit us and she'd say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!". She probably didn't hate them because she was so nice, but she was one of the rare ones. Most of them do hate them. The same people are usually racist as well. 

Edited November 14 by Joshe

[Nemra]

A lawyer's thoughts about what's gonna happen:

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

"Super high-IQ small government revolutionaries."

 

This is real.

https://x.com/america/status/1857086443279061385

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1857076831104434289

 

But hold on, it gets worse. Skip to the 1.00 minute mark, where he talks about selecting half of bureaucrats who's social security numbers end in a certain sequence, and then randomly firing 50% of all bureaucrats.

 

Edited November 14 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Yimpa]

If Trump always lies & he legitimately won the election & claimed victory, does that mean Trump is lying?

*gasps*