2024 Election Discussion General

[zurew]

1 minute ago, zazen said:

Do someone have to spell things out every time they share something? I didn't realize there was a revolving door between the FDA and pharma to that degree

If you share extremely loaded tweets from accounts that has a history to them and who obviously try to push a certain agenda, yes, if you don't agree with that -  then you usually spell out that you don't approve of the incredibly obvious subtext thats behind a given article or tweet.

Again if I would share from leftist account  that the current election was stolen without anything more added to it - then the obvious implication would be that I somewhat approve of the underlying conclusion thats shared there. 

Again its not just raw info shared there, they are highly processed and loaded tweets where they try to make an underlying point and where they hardcore try to push you how to interpret those facts.

[zazen]

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

I know your position on the I/P conflict and I know you have a lot of issues with Israel thats why it was weird to see that you were trying to argue in favor of Trump in the context of the I/P issue. I know that you don't necessarily need to approve of all the things Trump plans to do, but again you specifically tried to make a case for Trump being better for the I/P issue, which doesn't make any sense to me if you have issues with Israel.

Whats your response to the fact that he tried to overthrow the government on jan6 and that he still denies the results of the 2020 election. How much weight those two things have for you?

I can’t know and haven’t made a conclusive verdict on whether he’ll be good or bad for I/P. Like I said, it’s a chance on change people are making, not a guarantee. The fact he has people around him calling for no neocon warhawks is good to see. The fact he’s more decisive and can hopefully conclude the situation rather than let it prolong torturously for the Palestinians is also good. Hopefully he wouldn’t give carte Blanche to Bibi to ethnically cleanse the land as that would reflect bad on him - and he cares about his own image being tarnished.

I think it’s a stretch to say he tried to overthrow the government, as much as it is a stretch when the right calls Kamala a communist. His rhetoric definitely stoked protests, just as a the current rhetoric is stoking protests against Trump. Overthrowing a government, in a country where your allowed to be armed - should entail going armed to overthrow it? Most people weren’t armed to the teeth and told to storm the capitol, as far as I know. The Democratic system was for sure stressed, but it wasn’t wrecked and we can’t equate it to a full on coup done with intent. It seemed to be more like a disorganised protest that spiraled out of control.

Insurrections usually involve organized groups with weapons, planning, and a clear objective to dismantle or replace a governing authority. January 6th was violent and disruptive, but didn’t have the coordination or widespread use of arms that define an armed insurrection. Hyperbolic language is being used by both sides and it’s so polarising.

It’s wrong of him to deny the 2020 result for sure.

Edited November 11 by zazen

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

he tried to overthrow the government on jan6 and that he still denies the results of the 2020 election.

I don't think he believes that it was rigged, as he and his allies were the ones who attempted to conspire.

[ryandesreu]

16 hours ago, The Chosen One said:

 

Is there a way that this would apply to people being allowed to spread misinformation on the actualized forum without being banned? @Leo Gura

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Official Election Update

 

Here's the Status of the House of Representatives so far.

218 seats are need for a majority.

GOP: 214 seats

DEM: 203 seats

10 races are yet to be called.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Most people weren’t armed to the teeth and told to storm the capitol, as far as I know. The Democratic system was for sure stressed, but it wasn’t wrecked and we can’t equate it to a full on coup done with intent. It seemed to be more like a disorganised protest that spiraled out of control

What were they protesting there? Why were they there? - they were there because they thought the election was stolen. it wasn't just a random protest done that day  to protest a random thing.

I don't see whats the relevance of bringing up whether the system was wrecked or not. An attempted coup doesn't necessitate that it will be successful , just like attempted murder suddenly doesn't become less than attempted murder, just because it wasnt successful.

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Insurrections usually involve organized groups with weapons, planning, and a clear objective to dismantle or replace a governing authority. January 6th was violent and disruptive, but didn’t have the coordination or widespread use of arms that define an armed insurrection. Hyperbolic language is being used by both sides and it’s so polarising.

I dont know how many people had weapons on them, but all of the other parts were in place that you listed there.

What was the hyperbole in Trump statements ?

Given the context of all the talks of Trump even before the election, he said multiple times that they will try to steal the election. Then on jan 6 he stated multiple times that the election was stolen and he also said that "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution". He also said that we need to take back our country. Which one is the hyperbole there ? There is 0 hyperbole there and the context couldn't be more clear why the people were there and what they tried to protest against - they were trying to stop the certification of the vote. Then after that  the rioters who were flooding the capitol were shouting "hang Mike Pence" multiple times. 

"Assault on our democracy" - surely just hyperbolic given all the context.

 

And I guess in your view, the fake electors plot was also just a little coincidence and it wasn't in any way intentional at all.

 

I don't know in what world this was not an attempt to overthrow the government.  This is also part of the reason why its extremely frustrating to see some of you guys pretend and both sides things all the time about everything. When you try to pretend that calling Kamala a communist is just as valid and holds the same amount factual ground as calling Trump a fascist given all the facts that we know about Trump.  

And then you are labeled as having TDS, but those people will never ever engage with any of these facts around Trump. There is a reason why 0 substantial argument was made so far for Trump's case. What we have seen here is mostly hopes that his Team will do something , but other than those hopes there was 0 case made why Trump is better.

Edited November 11 by zurew

[Nemra]

 

Edited November 11 by Nemra

[hundreth]

18 hours ago, zazen said:

I wrote more in depth before which I’ll share separately but heres just for you bro. It’s a tough one as I’m not for Trump - I’m politically and ideologically homeless. But if I had to pick I’d bet on Trumps team - not Trump.

It doesn’t mean I agree with everything about the guy - far from it. The same mainstream machine that lies about Israel lies about Trump - I’m not saying he’ll be good for Palestine but the current administration is not engaged enough at all to conclude it, but rather overlook and excuse it. Perhaps Trump is more decisive and can make a deal as he did with the Abraham accords, this time involving Palestinian aspirations as the key Arab players involved have said thats a prerequisite. Maybe that’s better than a prolonged situations of a shit show we have now - Kamala can’t even podcast for 3 hours and we expect her to broker peace amongst wolves?

Sometimes real positive change comes wrapped in a package that the mainstream gatekeepers have trained us to reject. Sometimes the "wrong" people end up doing the right things, even if for their own reasons. The establishments propagandists want us so afraid of being associated with the "bad tribe" that we reject any challenge to their power, no matter how legitimate. The real question isn't whether there will be self-serving elements in any new power structure - there always are. The question is whether the public gets served to a good enough extent in conjunction with the elites, compared to the current status quo where they feel they don’t.

A lot of people this time aren’t necessarily voting for Trump (except for die hard fans) as much as they are voting for his team and / or against the Democrats and what they have become / stand for. Just because someone votes one way or another, doesn’t mean they stand for everything the party does or with everyone in it. It’s an overall assessment on which side you align most with, aligning on wanting some of the same things but not all of the same things - which explains why supposedly different people come together in that party.

Trumps first term appeal was because he was blunt, called out the disaster of wars and to end them (which he didn’t really), spoke to and for the nation rather than a transnational elite that have interests beyond their own nation. He’s a smooth talker who’s a master of self-promotion, posing as an outsider when he’s an insider - but just because you’re inside the club, doesn’t mean you obey the rules. He uses the establishments tools but rejects its rule in terms of how to speak or act. The establishment will say they’re defending their allies and interests in Syria, he’ll just bluntly say we’re taking the oil.

He isn’t easily controllable, nor is he wise - but he has street smarts to deal with nonsense. If he has a council of wiser people around him to direct and rein him in, he’s the perfect vessel to spearhead change. He’s good at leadership, but not a good leader. Read that again, it’s key. This is why this time around with who he has around, ex-Dems and independents who are politically homeless are re-aligning and aligning with what they see as a chance on change, though not a guarantee.

In general, the Dems are the institutional elite whilst the Republicans are made up of individual elites. Different factions of the elite, what Chris Hedges calls the civil war of the elites. Now if the status quo isn’t working, and hasn’t been for long enough causing populism to rise across much of the world - is change more likely to come through institutions and a establishment representing a neoliberal world order - held back by inertia, weighed down by a sprawling bureaucracy and maintained through ideological capture. Or individuals who have the will, charisma and now the perceived competence to make changes. It’s the machine vs the mavericks and misfits.

A lot of Trumpers have excessively high expectations for what will happen, they may be disappointed but we’ll see. There are much larger cycles of economics and geopolitics that no candidate or party can undo - we move through cycles like waves - but that doesn’t mean we can’t tweak how that wave is surfed upon for the better or the worse.

Appreciate the in depth response.  I’m also politically and ideologically homeless.

Here's how I see it:

- All the concerns you listed regarding the left are true.

- The main issue with Trump isn't that he has "some self serving" elements. He is the far extreme of self serving. This is someone who incited Jan 6th, asked a governor for votes, wanted his VP not to certify the election. If he could, he would.

- The arguments used to rationalize this center around "well, we have institutions that held him back from doing it, so who cares." Well, ok, he wasn't able to overthrow the government. He literally tried to push the boundary about as far as you possibly could, and that's where the walls of democracy pushed back. Now understand, this is the leader of the free world. What you've seen in terms of his authoritarian aspirations and corruption are only the tip of the iceberg. It's hard to imagine the number of shady dealings and corrupt actions happening behind the scenes. Trump will be selling this country out at every chance he gets for his personal gain.

- Speaking of selling us out, the economy and our future. Trump will be pushing for low interest rates, low corporate taxes which will drive up inflation and the national debt. He will roll back safety measures, tap into oil reserves, and as another poster here wrote he will take a loan out on our nation just to make himself look good. This will screw future generations, and we will feel the brunt of it as well.

- Ok, you're voting for his team. But be aware, Trump's teams have always been revolving doors. What exactly is his team? It's whoever he hasn't already crossed and burned bridges with. Over 40 high ranking officials from his last administration have left for various reasons and now speak of him as the piece of shit that he is. How many of "his team" will be there by the end of his term? 

- And of his team, we're replacing incompetent officials with straight up wackos. RFK jr. for example. Sure, the FDA has many issues and corruptions. Now we replace them with RFK who doesn't believe AIDS is called by HIV. That's who will be in charge of the health of our nation. Much like everything, we're replacing a flawed administration and leadership with false prophets. Trump is exactly the same. You don't replace something flawed with something completely broken.

- Trump's strongest quality is his foreign policy, just being able to interact with foreign leaders. This isn't because he's some kind of cunning strategist. He's unpredictable. Yes, behaving like a frothing crazy person will make others fear you, but I wouldn't say this is a prescription for a good life. It might be a very small improvement in the short term given the wars happening around the world.

- I am pro Israel, but I will be honest. Trump will do nothing for the Palestinians. if you understand Trump, then you know he has no principles. The reason he supports Israel is because it serves him. Right now supporting Israel given the current administration means further pushing the Palestinian cause into the ground. This should be obvious. The Palestinians will suffer during his administration, and likely retaliate once he leaves, creating another vicious cycle like the one we've seen. It's the classic Trump move, do something that feels good in the short term, and leave the problems to the next generation. 

In summary, Trump is the McDonalds of politicians. Might as well call him McDonald. Everything he does is for short term satisfaction. Low interest rates, tapping into oil reserves, lower corporate taxes, fucking over the Palestinians, denying climate change etc etc. 

Edited November 11 by hundreth

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

10 races are yet to be called.

435 - 214 - 203 = 18

Unless there's something I'm missing. 

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Then on jan 6 he stated multiple times that the election was stolen and he also said that "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution".

When Pence refused to participate in the coup, Trump told him that he was "too honest". 

I guess this piece of evidence is just one of dozens that also doesn't point to exactly what it seems to point to. 

Time to grow up and stop rejecting reality guys. Let your fantasies die.

[Lyubov]

Guys, AOC asked for dems who split their vote to explain why. could show signs where Dem party needs to evolve. The party should really focus on rebuilding itself.

Edited November 11 by Lyubov

[Nemra]

NBC News: Stephen Miller expected to be named Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy

Miller, a staunch hardliner on immigration policy, worked in the White House during Trump’s first term in office.

Edited November 11 by Nemra

[Schizophonia]

Why the level of american politic seems so low ?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Why the level of american politic seems so low ?

What is so low about it? 

[Schizophonia]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

What is so low about it? 

There is each time only two candidates who in fine almost have the sames ideas.

Trump is the most depraved but hillary, biden and kamala seemed crap too.

Where i am there is a strong socialist/marxist left and even if i am not agree with some of their ideas they are very cultivated people, there is a strong left-wing intellectual avant-garde dnd they actually have electoral weight.

No idea for the right.

[Jodistrict]

Did the manosphere help Trump get elected? 

 

 

[Nemra]

I have found a progressive UK news magazine called "The New Statesman".

They have a YouTube channel where they provide analysis on UK and international politics.

I like the calm, self-assured style.

 

[What Am I]

Sam Harris gave his analysis. He seems to fall heavily on the side I was talking about before, where he sees it as an opportunity for the left to self-reflect on where their own mistakes may have occurred. In my opinion, that's a wise method for regrouping.

@Joshe grabbing your attention on this one. Sam makes my case way better than I was able. What he's saying is what I was trying to convey. It's so interesting though, because in the second half he goes on to make all your points, lol.

 

Edited November 11 by What Am I

[zazen]

@hundreth

Great list of points and angles I hadn’t seen it from before. Love the “McDonald of politics” comment 😂 and the paradigm of a flawed system is better than a broken one. That’s the issue, everyone’s speculating without certainty on how things will go with him. It seems enough people have had enough of the status quo and system stooges to take a chance on a disruptor coming in.

For the record, I’m in UK and didn’t vote, though I have family/friends all over the US and UK’s fate is heavily tied to the US.

With the economy it’s a tough balance between production (growing the pie) vs distribution (sharing it). Excessive regulation can drive up costs only the big fish can afford to hurdle, which crushes SME’s and shrinks the middle class. Regulation and agencies intend to oversee and prevent harms + corruption but can end up creating a regulatory moat that prevents competition, can be corrupted, and harms smaller fish. Excessively high taxes with little in return to show for it in services and safety de-incentivise productivity drying up the states funds that are promised to be used efficiently for the good of the people. Republicans think the solution is deregulation and lower taxes.

But the issue with deregulating and lowering taxing too much is that though it may incentivise production - in a freer market the big fish end up dominating the little fish and create inequalities, let alone the harm of their goods and services which have less oversight with smaller agencies slapping on few regulations. The irony going over most Trump supporters heads is that they think cutting regulations which will spur productivity = lower costs = lower inflation. Yet, Trumps tariff plan (which I think he will weaponise rather than actually impose) is basically regulating international trade which will result in inflation via the increased costs being passed to the American consumer. So much for posturing as de-regulators when they will regulate even more via tariffs.

Both the left and right of economics end up creating inequality in different ways unless a balance is struck. Which is why just like you - I’m not ideological about it ie being capitalist  / socialist / communist. 

It sucks we have the candidate we do in the West and are made to pick the lesser of two evils continuously. I posted below much earlier in this thread regarding Democracy.

On 21/10/2024 at 9:12 PM, zazen said:

We get to vote on socio-cultural issues but don’t get a democratic vote on security / corporatism - or anything that can affect the core power structure which benefits a few at the expense of the many.

There is an overarching apparatus of elite control that goes unchallenged. Trump postures as fighting this establishment except that he just wants to reshuffle it with his own. It’s elite musical chairs.

Whether you have a technocratic, globalist elite or an oligarchic nationalist elite - both are part of a system that prioritizes wealth extraction, control, and consolidation of power at the expense of the public. One parasitic group comes waving the rainbow flag, the other comes waving the nationalist one.

Both factions will control levers of the state to maintain the status quo, and the battle between them is more about which version of elite control prevails than about dismantling or diminishing that control altogether.

Republicans overestimate Trump’s ability or willingness to challenge the system in any meaningful way, while Democrats naively believe that their version of elite control will serve the public good. In reality, both sides are caught up in different forms of exploitation that ultimately benefit the ruling class at the expense of everyone else.

 

Edited November 11 by zazen

[Nemra]

38 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Did the manosphere help Trump get elected? 

 

🥴

Who would want to trust a government with emotionally repressed and less available guys?