Something Completely Different

SCD has a couple of threads that look at the 2024 primaries, but that leaves an awful lot of American politics unexamined, or at least uncommented on.

What's going on, nationwide and historically in American politics? From where I sit (in a different country, consuming CNN news) the picture isn't good.

One place to start is with the GOP turning into a Trump cult.

Another place to start would be with the erosion of women's healthcare rights now that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned.

Another starting point might be the consistent tampering with the electoral process state by state on the ground: from voter suppression measures to fake electors and allegations of voter fraud.

When I was about 14, the dad of a friend of mine told us, "When people stop being polite to each other, that's the end of civilization." He fell for the temptation of labelling something as a turning point: "this is where the slippery slope begins" but to be frank, it's tempting to do the same with American democracy: What was the tell-tale sign that caused it to go from "shining beacon on a hill" to the 2020 ranking I found on a German website: "deficient democracy", 36th runner-up in the world democracy stakes?

Furthur points on that decline are surely the recent book-banning progs, underway chiefly in Florida I believe, and last item I can think of at the moment, the corruption of the Supreme Court, both in terms of individual judges' conduct and the controversy around recent judge selections.

I always like a post with some images, so here is a graphic:-

 (https://preview.redd.it/public-confidence-in-the-supreme-court-hits-historic-low-v0-7slao3u49s891.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5c8f4c907121bc349edb6a865ab71e940259060e)

And here's a GOP cult member crying on tv: is he crying out of sympathy for the plight of his guru, or is he crying because he knows that his public self-abasement is destroying his reputation forever?

I have various thoughts about the current state of the USA, but to be honest I also feel like they're unwarranted and probably unwanted. As an outsider, what do I know? How valuable are my opinions? They're probably only good for annoying people.

But in very broad strokes, the US to me seems like the post-truth society where anyone can claim anything and large swaths of the population no longer know what's fact or what's fiction. You always get some of that, but it seems rampant in the US.

If people don't know what's real, they might not know what's important and how to best use their political power, even if it's just a vote.

I generally think that society's goal should be to better the life quality of its people in the long run and some of the legislation happening in the US seems counter to that.

^ Thanks for responding to my OP, which hasn't generated the kind of discussion that I thought it might.

Quote from: Guybrush on Jul 28, 2023, 05:34 PMI have various thoughts about the current state of the USA, but to be honest I also feel like they're unwarranted and probably unwanted. As an outsider, what do I know? How valuable are my opinions? They're probably only good for annoying people.

Yeah, I imagine there's a lot of truth in what you say, so from now on I'm going to try cutting back on critical observations about the politics of a country I have little personal experience of.

Lisna, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps "democracy" just doesn't really work long-term in societies where nobody can agree on anything?

Europe as a whole is already well on their way to that place.  For example, Sweden and other countries are rolling back gender-affirming hormone therapy for minors in a big way despite championing it before.  And that's a pretty big deal since Sweden was the first country in the world to authorise legal gender transition in the early 70s.  Yet you think conservative America is somehow out of step with global trends as some kind of outlier?  It isn't.

Here in the U.S., you get slandered for merely suggesting that maybe lockdowns weren't always a good idea or that maybe that Covid-19 actually did come from a lab.  People were even banned over these discussions on social media.  It's McCarthyism with a different coat of paint, and this particular look from Reason at the Rand Paul vs Fauci situation in Congress is a good illustration of my next point here.


Here's the thing about America. While there is a lack of nuance from extreme right-wing people on the issues they care about,  I would say it is an even bigger problem when supposedly more educated left-wing people aren't scrutinized and follow the same playbook...because many of the Bill Nyes and Steven Colberts in their safe blue bubbles do a better job than their red-wing adversaries at disguising and obfuscating their biases and blind spots....and as a result, they don't get called out on it nearly enough.  You can be on the "right side" of history and say all the "right things" on Twitter and still be part of the problem.

Your average liberal voter is supposed to be more educated, but if they are I haven't seen any evidence of it in a long time. They're happy to hear about how "the GOP is a cult111", yet Biden still sells all the same weapons as Trump did to the same autocrats in all the same places that violate human rights and mismanaged the border in ways Trump could only dream of, coupled with the worst inflation I've seen in my lifetime.  Biden doesn't even have the balls to assassinate Putin but he's happy to waste my taxes to fund Zelensky's eventual "retirement" fund for the next 10 years. 

The lack of accountability is rather galling, and people should expect better from the supposedly "better" Party in this country. Fauci knew 100% that money went to Wuhan on his watch and he avoided accountability in every way that he could.  We say Trump should be held to account for things he said and did, but we don't even do that with people like Dr. Fauci, Hillary Clinton over the emails and funding that dossier, Eric Swallwell over that Chinese spy incident...the list goes on.  It is a fact that if I did what any of these people did, I'd be in jail right now.

You want another part of the big picture? Observe that most major media here and abroad don't scrutinize the Biden Administration with even a fraction of the fervor they did with Trump's, which demonstrates that they haven't really learned anything from the past. Every questionable thing that Biden or Kamala Harris say is just written off as "gaffes" and they just move on. They whine about polarization and then proceed to conduct themselves in a way that will simply accelerate it during the next election cycle.

Your commentary on voting rights doesn't really gel with the reality of the process - gerrymandering is a problem in blue states, not just red ones. Read up on it. People in power like to keep that power wherever they are. Blue states push back against voter ID, red states say it's important.  Then both sides go to work to "redistricting" to dilute their respective oppositions. Again, ground up observations from someone who has lived here for 30+ years and looking at what both "sides" say about the issue.

Lastly, I would say your comment about the Supreme Court is based on too much CNN. Look at their ruling of Allen v. Milligan just a little while ago.  You have both John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, two major Conservative justices, siding with their liberal peers on a major voting rights decision.  Yeah they rolled back Roe v. Wade, but people have predicted it being rolled back for years at some point because it's constitutionality was questionable to begin with. There was never some kind of universal consensus about it, and speculation of Roe v. Wade getting overturned was a political boogeyman that goes back to the late 70s.

America needs real options if "democracy" is going to have a future, cause both parties have shown repeatedly that they will embrace authoritarian action at the expense of regular people.  We need legitimate alternatives ASAP lol.

That's a long response with a lot of info, Nimbly! I'll try to comment on most of your ideas, ok?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jul 29, 2023, 07:00 PMLisna, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps "democracy" just doesn't really work long-term in societies where nobody can agree on anything?

Europe as a whole is already well on their way to that place.  For example, Sweden and other countries are rolling back gender-affirming hormone therapy for minors in a big way despite championing it before.  And that's a pretty big deal since Sweden was the first country in the world to authorise legal gender transition in the early 70s.  Yet you think conservative America is somehow out of step with global trends as some kind of outlier? It isn't.

Democracy has been around a long time, although it's taken various knocks recently, in places like Israel for example, I think it'll be around for a long time to come. The "post-truth" era with voters believing different facts is worrying, but let's remember: democracy is designed to accomodate differences of opinion - that's one of its fundamental characteristics. In Europe, democracy is still more widespread than it was in the 1930s, but perhaps the better answer is that Europe consists of 45 separate independent countries, so it's unwise to make a one-sentence prediction about where it's heading.
In bold: I'm not aware of either thinking or saying that.

QuoteHere in the U.S., you get slandered for merely suggesting that maybe lockdowns weren't always a good idea or that maybe that Covid-19 actually did come from a lab.  People were even banned over these discussions on social media.  It's McCarthyism with a different coat of paint, and this particular look from Reason at the Rand Paul vs Fauci situation in Congress is a good illustration of my next point here.

Here's the thing about America. While there is a lack of nuance from extreme right-wing people on the issues they care about,  I would say it is an even bigger problem when supposedly more educated left-wing people aren't scrutinized and follow the same playbook...because many of the Bill Nyes and Steven Colberts in their safe blue bubbles do a better job than their red-wing adversaries at disguising and obfuscating their biases and blind spots....and as a result, they don't get called out on it nearly enough.  You can be on the "right side" of history and say all the "right things" on Twitter and still be part of the problem.

Sorry, but I didn't fully follow the long discussion of Fauci's sins. Is the bottom line that dangerous research was funded on Fauci's watch and that he then lied about it? Sure that's not good, but I don't think it helped that Trump so undermined his authority on covid-prevention tips, and the expertise of the CDC, at a time when misinformation was literally costing lives. If Fauci is now found to've done something terrible, then he should be called to account.

QuoteYour average liberal voter is supposed to be more educated, but if they are I haven't seen any evidence of it in a long time. They're happy to hear about how "the GOP is a cult111", yet Biden still sells all the same weapons as Trump did to the same autocrats in all the same places that violate human rights and mismanaged the border in ways Trump could only dream of, coupled with the worst inflation I've seen in my lifetime.  Biden doesn't even have the balls to assassinate Putin but he's happy to waste my taxes to fund Zelensky's eventual "retirement" fund for the next 10 years. 

You've thrown several issues together here, I think. The idea that the GOP and Trump voters have turned Trump into a cult figure is distinct from comparing the the policies of Biden and Trump imo.
AFAIK, no President has ever come up with happy solution to the Southern border problems. I think Biden's try to be more humane - why else is the GOP constantly accusing Biden of leaving the borders open? I remember reading once:"the Mexico/US border is the longest land border in the world where the First World meets the Third World" That's an uncomfortable geographical fact that no-one wants on their doorstep. It's also the kind of problem that other countries, with lesser border problems, can't solve either. :(

US inflation: high but going down. Causes, afaik: post-pandemic probs, war in Ukraine, OPEC cranking up price of oil, US crops failing because of droughts. What happens is that any incoming President gets dealt a hand, and hopefully does the best he can with it. Poor old Trump was dealt a pandemic, which was a once-in-a-lifetime challenge for all world leaders.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/04/27/multimedia/g-0-promo/g-0-promo-videoSixteenByNine3000.png)

QuoteThe lack of accountability is rather galling, and people should expect better from the supposedly "better" Party in this country. Fauci knew 100% that money went to Wuhan on his watch and he avoided accountability in every way that he could.  We say Trump should be held to account for things he said and did, but we don't even do that with people like Dr. Fauci, Hillary Clinton over the emails and funding that dossier, Eric Swallwell over that Chinese spy incident...the list goes on.  It is a fact that if I did what any of these people did, I'd be in jail right now.

Yeah, lack of accountability is, exactly as you say, "galling". I don't know about all the issues, except the one in bold: wasn't she extensively investigated, co-operated with long interviews with the DOJ and ultimately found to show "no evidence of criminal intent"? Why then should she be in jail? 

QuoteYou want another part of the big picture? Observe that most major media here and abroad don't scrutinize the Biden Administration with even a fraction of the fervor they did with Trump's, which demonstrates that they haven't really learned anything from the past. Every questionable thing that Biden or Kamala Harris say is just written off as "gaffes" and they just move on. They whine about polarization and then proceed to conduct themselves in a way that will simply accelerate it during the next election cycle.

I must admit that I don't know how the media arranges its stories and investigations, so I can't comment on any bias in their investigative fervour. What I've always assumed is that they go for the most scandallous stories they can find - which leads me to think that the Trump admin was more scandal-ridden than Sleepy Joe's. Where is the tape of Biden extorting Zelenski before he hands over weapons that have already been allocated to him by Congress? Where is the pic of Biden gaslighting the US about a hurricane trajectory by altering a map with a Sharpie, like a 10-year-old cheating at Show And Tell? Biden really bumbles as a speaker, but he doesn't come out with outrageous comments the way Trump did in office, and after a while, Biden's off-topic mumbling just doesn't have the same news impact.

QuoteYour commentary on voting rights doesn't really gel with the reality of the process - gerrymandering is a problem in blue states, not just red ones. Read up on it. People in power like to keep that power wherever they are. Blue states push back against voter ID, red states say it's important.  Then both sides go to work to "redistricting" to dilute their respective oppositions. Again, ground up observations from someone who has lived here for 30+ years and looking at what both "sides" say about the issue.

That's a fair enough comment, Nimbly. I'm sure you know more about this issue than me.

QuoteLastly, I would say your comment about the Supreme Court is based on too much CNN. Look at their ruling of Allen v. Milligan just a little while ago.  You have both John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, two major Conservative justices, siding with their liberal peers on a major voting rights decision.  Yeah they rolled back Roe v. Wade, but people have predicted it being rolled back for years at some point because it's constitutionality was questionable to begin with. There was never some kind of universal consensus about it, and speculation of Roe v. Wade getting overturned was a political boogeyman that goes back to the late 70s.

 :laughing: I can't deny the comment in bold either.

None the less, even given that the present Supreme Court can make some pro-Liberal decisions, a number of justices misled the Senate during their confirmation hearings, with talk of Roe V. Wade being "settled precedent". Now they seem to be suggesting that no precedent is settled: that every previous decision can be revisited and chucked out. Plus all the ethics scandal around Clarence Thomas and others: it's not just me and CNN, it's the majority of the American people that have lost confidence in SCOTUS: 75%, in fact, like my graph showed. 

I appreciate your in-depth responses.  My comment on Hillary Clinton was to point out that people go to prison even if someone's intent was all well and good.  She was let off the hook by Comey for reasons that make no sense other than the fact she's in a protected political class. If I had done what she did, I'd be in jail.  And more that likely, Trump would be in jail already too as a private citizen because intent matters less when you have a precedent. The point is, we'd all be better off and people would have more confidence in the justice system as far as how it applies to politicians of all stripes.

Also, Biden basically did extort Ukraine before and supposedly even financially benefitted from it.  That's part of the current Hunter Biden investigations going on right now.

Quote from: Guybrush on Jul 28, 2023, 05:34 PMI have various thoughts about the current state of the USA, but to be honest I also feel like they're unwarranted and probably unwanted. As an outsider, what do I know? How valuable are my opinions? They're probably only good for annoying people.

But in very broad strokes, the US to me seems like the post-truth society where anyone can claim anything and large swaths of the population no longer know what's fact or what's fiction. You always get some of that, but it seems rampant in the US.

If people don't know what's real, they might not know what's important and how to best use their political power, even if it's just a vote.

I generally think that society's goal should be to better the life quality of its people in the long run and some of the legislation happening in the US seems counter to that.

is that honestly different over there? Genuine question

Because yes in the US, in my opinion, most common working people who have any sort of political ideology tend to be all over the place in terms of conspiracy theories and disinformation that is largely distributed online. It didn't used to be like this. There were always conspiracy theories but they used to have radio shows and pass out pamphlets and shit like that.  It was never as mainstream back then when most people turned to cable news, which was controlled by a handful of corporations and had a much narrower overton window.

But the internet allows for much more niche content so that nowadays if there's enough people who believe something, that creates an opportunity for someone to make that their bread and butter. Since it is such an online phenomenon i would've thought you guys would have a similar dynamic over there.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 30, 2023, 10:03 PMis that honestly different over there? Genuine question

Because yes in the US, in my opinion, most common working people who have any sort of political ideology tend to be all over the place in terms of conspiracy theories and disinformation that is largely distributed online. It didn't used to be like this. There were always conspiracy theories but they used to have radio shows and pass out pamphlets and shit like that.  It was never as mainstream back then when most people turned to cable news, which was controlled by a handful of corporations and had a much narrower overton window.

But the internet allows for much more niche content so that nowadays if there's enough people who believe something, that creates an opportunity for someone to make that their bread and butter. Since it is such an online phenomenon i would've thought you guys would have a similar dynamic over there.

Maybe a little more, but the conspiracy nut is still rare here. I don't see it seriously disrupting f.ex. support for action against climate change or any other issues that I can think of.

Things are different here though, like the winning party won't have enough support in Parliament on its own and so has to cooperate with other parties, which there is a number of, and so has to find common ground with others. It's much less like political warfare.

We also trust our government and our politicians, leaders and even rich people seem a lot more relatable. They're just people pretty much like myself. How would they weave conspiracies? Norway's too small for that.

Media is also less political and we have our state media which is the news outlet I turn to the most. They're tasked with reporting in a politically unbiased way.

There's just less conflict here and and fewer reasons for conspiracy theories to gain widespread support.

So if you talk to the average gas station clerk or shit shoveler in Norway and you ask them if 9/11 was an inside job what would they say?

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 31, 2023, 04:14 AMSo if you talk to the average gas station clerk or shit shoveler in Norway and you ask them if 9/11 was an inside job what would they say?

I know a lot of shit shovelers, but I've only ever met one person in Norway who said he believed 9/11 was an inside job and he's obviously insane. Like, you look at him and think this guy could benefit from medication and some time inside an institution.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 31, 2023, 04:14 AMSo if you talk to the average gas station clerk or shit shoveler in Norway and you ask them if 9/11 was an inside job what would they say?

In France (the real one) they would be at least as sympathetic to the CIA did 9/11 theory as anywhere in the US. Maybe even to the Mossad did 9/11 one. But overall people in Europe are palpably more sane and overwhelmingly less paranoid than Americans.

Quote from: Guybrush on Jul 31, 2023, 07:44 AMI know a lot of shit shovelers, but I've only ever met one person in Norway who said he believed 9/11 was an inside job and he's obviously insane. Like, you look at him and think this guy could benefit from medication and some time inside an institution.

that's really bizarre to me lol.  I honestly have a hard time believing that.  Around here if you don't think it's an inside job people look at you like you're a complete govt shill. Maybe living in the post 9-11 world contributed to our paranoia.  Along with the memory of JFK having his brains blown out in front of everybody and the various theories that spawned over the years.

Quote from: jadis on Jul 31, 2023, 12:14 PMIn France (the real one) they would be at least as sympathetic to the CIA did 9/11 theory as anywhere in the US. Maybe even to the Mossad did 9/11 one. But overall people in Europe are palpably more sane and overwhelmingly less paranoid than Americans.

what about Canada?

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 31, 2023, 05:44 PMwhat about Canada?

Resembling the US more and more it seems. I haven't lived there for any serious length of time since 2017 and even while I have it was only in Montreal so what do I know. But if feels like the pandemic sent many people over the edge.

How about israel?

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 31, 2023, 06:52 PMHow about israel?

I find that on the whole Israelis are pretty grounded. It's a tiny country with many immediate security threats and that already means that people have a different relationship with reality to someone living in huge and sprawling countries where there are no real everyday external threats. Even though it's heavily americanized in many ways the people's mentality is really, really different.

I think the average Israeli is likely to be pissed off about many things, including the country's international perception, the never ending political crisis and so on. But I don't see them take the extra step to something like qanon or whatever.

It's not so much that they consciously know that conspiracy theories tend to be antisemitic as they just don't think in that way. Including the most aggressively racist ones.

Arabs is a different story though from what I can tell

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 31, 2023, 05:44 PMwhat about Canada?

Well with this guy as Prime Minister you'd think it would be worse than the U.S.

(https://www.sickchirpse.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/tru.jpg)

People who obsessively hate JT are so humorless

(https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/justin-trudeau-28.jpg)

(https://i.redd.it/cvd0in86cefb1.jpg)

My man knows loves to dress up and have wholesome fun of the kind we're no longer capable of. It was one of the few times a dumb and cosseted rich kid did a blackface with zero hate in his heart and conservatives had to pretend they were outraged by it
 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEyTFmHUYAAJnBL.jpg)

(https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/photogallery/201802/Collage2_IT_1519209539132.jpg?VersionId=S3k22kDjuCDLLgVjUD6g7OgILcsCMbVI&size=686:*)

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2804505.1457133293!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_1020/image.jpg)

Quote from: SGR on Aug 01, 2023, 03:56 PM(https://i.redd.it/cvd0in86cefb1.jpg)

I love this so much. The richest guy in the world who can get anything he wants but what he really wants is to receive recognition for being witty. i.e. the one thing money can't buy and he'll never be

If he really wanted recognition, he wouldn't troll people the way he does.  I think he's more interested in shaking up the snowglobe every day and seeing how it all settles out.  People who care about being "witty" project a different sort of image across their social media and other avenues.

Only if you decide that "recognition" means positive feedback

He desperately tries to be a funny and edgy troll who "triggers" some people while making others laugh. And he succeeds, among reddit autists or a subset of tech bros. Outside of that niche, his Twitter presence is sad and cringeworthy

He doesn't really bother me but his fascination with the letter X is weird. There was no need to change Twitter's name. Also I notice a load more spam and advertising on there since he started running it.

Seems like a bit of a 'look at me' type but he doesn't wind me up as much as he appears to wind up other people.

The only part that bothers me is that he continues to fail upwards only white males can pull that off.

He cheeses me off because he's a transphobe to the max who behaves like a 2006-era 4chan edgelord a third his age and uses "free speech" the way said edgelords used "it's just a joke bro" to justify posting the most racist garbage you've ever heard in your life.

And yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with him existing if he didn't have billions of dollars and an extremely widely used website that has become his own personal far right propaganda playground.

Guess we should split this off into a new Elon Musk thread? Anyway,

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvX0AagNjJE/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 02, 2023, 08:06 PMThe only part that bothers me is that he continues to fail upwards only white males can pull that off.

Lol what does that even mean.  He sold a successful company back in the late 90's and used financial leverage he gained from that to get into founding PayPal, which was a pretty smart bet.  You could make the argument that he's had a lot of luck, but his trajectory isn't any different from anyone else who had a few good wins early. You think white people are the only ones who have followed this blueprint?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 03, 2023, 06:19 PMLol what does that even mean.  He sold a successful company back in the late 90's and used financial leverage he gained from that to get into founding PayPal, which was a pretty smart bet.  You could make the argument that he's had a lot of luck, but his trajectory isn't any different from anyone else who had a few good wins early. You think white people are the only ones who have followed this blueprint?

What it means to fail upwards is how he makes stupid decisions and still continues to be "successful". I guess when your family owns blood diamond mines and gives you a small loan of a million dollars to start whatever project you want it hits differently.

No not only white people have followed the blueprint of nepotism but you can't argue that a large percentage of people that benefit this way are white.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 04, 2023, 02:14 AMWhat it means to fail upwards is how he makes stupid decisions and still continues to be "successful". I guess when your family owns blood diamond mines and gives you a small loan of a million dollars to start whatever project you want it hits differently.

No not only white people have followed the blueprint of nepotism but you can't argue that a large percentage of people that benefit this way are white.

He dropped out of Stanford after like two days and then started a company with his brother from money they raised via angel investors they met in and around the region. He was Zuckerberg 1.0 without the movie.

Two things. White people in mostly white-majority countries have had the most time to acquire wealth.  If you look at any country with one demographic outnumbering the others and look at their millionaires and billionaires, you are most likely going to find that said rich person is most likely a member of whatever the largest demographic is.  Stupid people "failing upward" come in all stripes and colors - look at most of the lottery winners in the U.S. and how quickly they go broke.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 04, 2023, 03:15 AMHe dropped out of Stanford after like two days and then started a company with his brother from money they raised via angel investors they met in and around the region. He was Zuckerberg 1.0 without the movie.

Two things. White people in mostly white-majority countries have had the most time to acquire wealth.  If you look at any country with one demographic outnumbering the others and look at their millionaires and billionaires, you are most likely going to find that said rich person is most likely a member of whatever the largest demographic is.  Stupid people "failing upward" come in all stripes and colors - look at most of the lottery winners in the U.S. and how quickly they go broke.

Everything you said still backs up my point.

Windfall winners are different from nepo babies. Having a father that owns an emerald mine in South Africa is most definitely beneficial. He can claim all he wants that he never got money from his father but I highly doubt that.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Aug 04, 2023, 05:12 AMEverything you said still backs up my point.

Windfall winners are different from nepo babies. Having a father that owns an emerald mine in South Africa is most definitely beneficial. He can claim all he wants that he never got money from his father but I highly doubt that.

They don't seem to get along, but who knows.  He probably wouldn't have gotten into Stanford without him.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Aug 02, 2023, 07:07 PMHe doesn't really bother me but his fascination with the letter X is weird. There was no need to change Twitter's name. Also I notice a load more spam and advertising on there since he started running it.

Seems like a bit of a 'look at me' type but he doesn't wind me up as much as he appears to wind up other people.

changing twitters name is like changing xerox name.  It's one of the most recognized brands in the world.  Very bizarre decision.

I don't care for musk at all, he really is unlikable and attention seeking but it's also become so trendy to hate on him that you almost want to stay neutral. 

I hope the Zuckerberg fight happens. Mini Mark is gonna tear that ass up.

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 07, 2023, 07:18 PMchanging twitters name is like changing xerox name.  It's one of the most recognized brands in the world.  Very bizarre decision.

I don't care for musk at all, he really is unlikable and attention seeking but it's also become so trendy to hate on him that you almost want to stay neutral. 

I hope the Zuckerberg fight happens. Mini Mark is gonna tear that ass up.

I hope someone actually gets hurt, preferably Zuckerberg. Sick of these stupid YouTube and celebrity fights where fuck all happens. I want a legit knockout at the bare minimum.

I hope so too. But my money is on Zuckerberg. Unless he let's Elon get a hold of him.  But fuck do i know, i don't watch ufc. I watch videos of fights in burger King.  It's much more entertaining to me when the participants don't know how to fight. 

I do think that when we live in a society where the richest men in the world are challenging eachother to fist fights, if that's not a sign of civilizational decline i dunno what is. And so i want the fight to happen just for the sheer absurdity it represents.  It feels appropriate.

I'd prefer a duel to the death with swords or pistols like the wealthy nobility and upper classes used to do.

And sell tickets to the event and make it a pay-per-view show for those who are unable to attend in person.

Quote from: Jwb on Aug 07, 2023, 08:02 PMI hope so too. But my money is on Zuckerberg. Unless he let's Elon get a hold of him.  But fuck do i know, i don't watch ufc. I watch videos of fights in burger King.  It's much more entertaining to me when the participants don't know how to fight. 

I do think that when we live in a society where the richest men in the world are challenging eachother to fist fights, if that's not a sign of civilizational decline i dunno what is. And so i want the fight to happen just for the sheer absurdity it represents.  It feels appropriate.

Zuckerberg is currently the favorite in betting odds, and rightly so. Though he is smaller and lighter, he's trained in jiu-jitsu and is in much better shape than Musk.

That said, Musk is taller and heavier and he's been training recently as well - I bet he'll be in better shape if this fight actually happens - but age is not on his side. I read he's got a bad back and he might be getting surgery before the fight happens.

The funniest outcome would be that the fight actually happens, Bruce Buffer is there to introduce the Zuck/Musk, Joe Rogan is there as a fight commentator, Trump makes an appearance in the crowd (but gets arrested and indicted again mid fight), and Elon Musk somehow wins. Total and complete absurdity.

Also, how long before we replace stodgy old boring presidential debates with presidential cage fights? Trump/Biden Presidential Cage Fights would do serious numbers. Couple of geriatrics in the fight of their political life - I wanna see some American exceptionalism! The current speaker of the house could be the ring girl, so just get Pelosi in a bikini, give her some signs, and send her out between rounds.

(https://media.tenor.com/Lqf7r6FZti8AAAAd/popcorn-watching-tv.gif)

Edit: My bad, it's Kevin McCarthy who will be wearing the bikini.

Trump would smash Biden to bits without even trying tbf.

Biden could even fall over on his ring walk and AOC would have to throw the towel in during the first round.

Putin would be P4P World Champion.

Putin vs Zelenskyy for undisputed.

Reading this discussion, this video is the only thing I can think of.

Mitch McConnell appears to freeze when asked about re-election



Second time in the past four weeks.

Anyways, good luck with getting your criminal buffoon to face justice. It would be nice to see that the US criminal justice system has some integrity.

Quote from: Guybrush on Aug 31, 2023, 11:45 AMAnyways, good luck with getting your criminal buffoon to face justice. It would be nice to see that the US criminal justice system has some integrity.

American politics is overloaded with criminals and buffoons and combinations of the two.

I'm not optimistic about many of them getting what they actually deserve within the American justice system. Especially the higher up on the political ladder those criminals and buffoons are.

If we actually wanted to lock up the criminals that have gotten the U.S. to this point of polarization, where nobody trusts anything, then almost all of them in both parties would have a mugshot at this point.

Here, a politician has to walk the fucking straight and narrow or they get shot right down. Figuratively speaking.

Capitol physician says McConnell "medically clear" to continue with schedule after second freezing episode (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-freezes-health-update-capitol-physician/)

:laughing:

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 31, 2023, 02:30 PMIf we actually wanted to lock up the criminals that have gotten the U.S. to this point of polarization, where nobody trusts anything, then almost all of them in both parties would have a mugshot at this point.

But the difference you see, is that the Democrats didn't stage an insurrection after the 2016 election by illegally trespassing in a federal building without firearms. You see, had the insurrectionists stayed in the Capitol Building for much longer, the government would've had no choice but to hand over the nuclear codes.

Quote from: SGR on Sep 01, 2023, 03:31 AMBut the difference you see, is that the Democrats didn't stage an insurrection after the 2016 election by illegally trespassing in a federal building without firearms. You see, had the insurrectionists stayed in the Capitol Building for much longer, the government would've had no choice but to hand over the nuclear codes.

Of course.  And don't forget that the QAnon Shaman was literally hours away from taking over Nancy Pelosi's office and putting his feet up on her desk, which of course would have been the worst thing to happen since 9/11.

That whole debacle was an embarrassment. That's what it looked like from here, certainly.

No doubt some of the perpetrators had very malicious intents too.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Aug 31, 2023, 10:30 PMCapitol physician says McConnell "medically clear" to continue with schedule after second freezing episode (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-freezes-health-update-capitol-physician/)

:laughing:

This Physician needs his license revoked. He shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine anymore.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Sep 03, 2023, 10:04 AMThis Physician needs his license revoked. He shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine anymore.

Yeah. I'm thinking he's compromised in some way.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Aug 31, 2023, 02:30 PMIf we actually wanted to lock up the criminals that have gotten the U.S. to this point of polarization, where nobody trusts anything, then almost all of them in both parties would have a mugshot at this point.

oh look guys it's an enlightened centrist.  You must be someone who thinks for himself and not just a fence sitter who is terrified to pick a side. 🙄

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 03, 2023, 10:23 PMoh look guys it's an enlightened centrist.  You must be someone who thinks for himself and not just a fence sitter who is terrified to pick a side. 🙄

Which side would make you whine the most if I picked it?  :laughing:

I'm happy to help you set up any strawman you want, but there is a certain irony that you'd say something like that over a video of Democrats questioning democracy for two decades.

I didn't watch your video because I don't care. Every time Trump gets in hot water we have his fans coming out trying to run defense with "What about the democrats??" Since they have no excuse for Trump's actual behavior.  They just want to pivot the attention away from his actions whenever they fall under the microscope.


As for who you should pick, you could pick the Republicans since you clearly lean more towards their side.  I would definitely respect an actual MAGA head more than a phony centrist. 

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 03, 2023, 11:21 PMI didn't watch your video because I don't care.

You could pick the Republicans since you clearly lean more towards their side.  I would definitely respect an actual MAGA head more than a phony centrist.

Case in point. You run defense for neoliberalism all you want.  Take a little responsibility and stop whining when Republicans take notes.

Yes, the case in point is that Trump tried to overturn the last election and your response is a fuckin youtube compilation of Democrats saying stuff. 

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 03, 2023, 11:30 PMYes, the case in point is that Trump tried to overthrow the last election and your response is a fuckin youtube compilation of Democrats saying stuff. 

January 6th is the natural culmination of two decades of neoliberals undercutting faith in the electoral process since Bush. Who do you think taught the Republicans how to do that?  They're late to the party and even when they do protest an election they didn't like, they still failed anyway.  And all that being said, none of you actually care about democracy so again - your protestations are funny.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 03, 2023, 11:33 PMJanuary 6th is the natural culmination of two decades of neoliberals undercutting faith in the electoral process since Bush. Who do you think taught the Republicans how to do that?  They're late to the party.

No it isn't.  It happened specifically under Trump for a reason,  because it takes someone with his type of disposition to convince people to do that in the first place.

Notice you are still trying to desperately avoid the topic by immediately pivoting  back to the democrats.  What do you think about Trump's actions specifically?

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 03, 2023, 11:36 PMNo it isn't.  It happened specifically under Trump for a reason,  because it takes someone with his type of disposition to convince people to do that in the first place.

Notice you are still trying to desperately avoid the topic by immediately pivoting  back to the democrats.  What do you think about Trump's actions specifically?

I think he's a greedy neoliberal who co-opted the Republican Party and won because Clinton was incompetent.  I think any argument about January 6th doesn't work because Trump told people to protest peacefully.  You'd have a better case blaming Maxine Waters for the BLM riots. He didn't have an actual path to undercutting the electoral process (all he did was make phone calls and complain to officials in Georgia). Trump and his various legal debacles are a convenient distraction from the current administration and their inability to do anything about the inflation that's killing what is left of the middle class's buying power.  Despite everything they say, they want him to be the Republican nominee because they're sure that a Biden-Trump rematch will result in the former's re-election.

I think you are the one who is desperate.  Guess what? Trump could go to jail tomorrow and everything still sucks.  We're going to know one way or the other by next year.

I don't think he is going to jail.  I didn't ask if he had plausible deniability. Do you think he was trying to steal the election? Regardless of what can be proved in court.

I think if he could have undercut Biden and stolen the election in some way, he would have done it before January 6th. I don't think someone trying to steal an election would tell people to go peacefully protest and then scurry away to hide in the Oval Office.

This goes back to an argument I had with someone a few years ago.  Trump is either a moment-to-moment buffoon or a 4D chessmaster.  Saying he had some kind of master plan to steal an election that he coordinated is essentially admitting that Trump is actually some kind of political mastermind instead of what most people would say he actually is - a guy who doesn't read and doesn't plan and has zero critical thinking skills.

Why can't you just say no? Lol. 

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 03, 2023, 11:47 PMI think if he could have undercut Biden and stolen the election in some way, he would have done it before January 6th. I don't think someone trying to steal an election would tell people to go peacefully protest and then scurry away to hide in the Oval Office.

You don't think the president would build plausible deniability into his coup attempt? He would just be out in the open about it? That seems very naive.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 03, 2023, 11:51 PMYou don't think the president would build plausible deniability into his coup attempt? He would just be out in the open about it? That seems very naive.

He called Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man" and incited nuclear war over Twitter and I can't think of a single instance during his four years as President where he demonstrated anything resembling subtlety.  Is it really that hard to accept that he's just an idiot?  I apply this same thought process toward Biden - that Afghanistan withdrawal was terrible because he's just an idiot.  I don't think his intent was to do a bad job just because that happened to be the outcome.

A part of me would like him to go to jail over January 6th though.  Because that opens the floodgates in the future for more politicians across the spectrum to go to jail over spreading nonsense publicly about elections.  We need to go back to a time when both parties didn't question elections that they lost just because they lost them.

I don't buy that he's so dumb he doesn't understand that if he is telling people to march on the capitol and make their voices heard to stop the certification of the votes,  that adding "march peacefully" could give him some plausible deniability if things go bad.  He might seem dumb in certain ways but he's not that much of an idiot,  and regardless he was surrounded by people telling him not to pursue it,  including his VP. Instead of accepting the writing on the wall he just turned on Pence as well. In terms of a president who is trying to be dictator I really can't think of a better example in this country.

Here's another question for you to tell me where your head is actually at.  Did Biden actually win in 2020 or was the election stolen?

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 12:15 AMI don't buy that he's so dumb he doesn't understand that if he is telling people to march on the capitol and make their voices heard to stop the certification of the votes,  that adding "march peacefully" could give him some plausible deniability if things go bad.  He might seem dumb in certain ways but he's not that much of an idiot,  and regardless he was surrounded by people telling him not to pursue it,  including his VP. Instead of accepting the writing on the wall he just turned on Pence as well. In terms of a president who is trying to be dictator I really can't think of a better example in this country.

He didn't add "march peacefully" though.  It showed up pretty early in his speech.  That's why Jack Smith's indictments don't blame him for the riot and focus instead on the "fake electors" angle for most of the counts.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 12:25 AMHere's another question for you to tell me where your head is actually at.  Did Biden actually win in 2020 or was the election stolen?

Biden definitely won.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 03, 2023, 11:57 PMA part of me would like him to go to jail over January 6th though.  Because that opens the floodgates in the future for more politicians across the spectrum to go to jail over spreading nonsense publicly about elections.  We need to go back to a time when both parties didn't question elections that they lost just because they lost them.

I mean he's being indicted for a bunch of shit. Not just January 6th. Seems to just be a flagrant criminal from what I can tell.

But I agree in a sense the precedent we set is important.  But to be clear you are allowed to spread nonsense about the elections afterwards.  You just can't actually try to overturn the results.  And 2020 was the only time that happened.  Gore and Clinton both conceded after excercising whatever legal avenues at their disposal.  That's the way it is supposed to work.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 12:30 AMHe didn't add "march peacefully" though.  It showed up pretty early in his speech.  That's why Jack Smith's indictments don't blame him for the riot and focus instead on the "fake electors" angle for most of the counts.

I understand that and I'm saying it was intentional.  To give him cover. 

QuoteBiden definitely won.

who would you vote for if it were down to Biden and Trump?

I'm not voting if its a rematch between Trump and Biden in 2024.  I voted for Biden in 2020.

So you have no preference between the two at all?

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 01:20 AMSo you have no preference between the two at all?

They're both too old and complete disappointments for different reasons.  And every viable poll that's out there demonstrates I'm not alone in that opinion.

CNN - Why Biden and Trump need each other in order to win in 2024 (https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/03/politics/polls-trump-biden-what-matters/index.html)

I don't disagree with that statement,  yet I obviously do have a preference.  To me it is mind boggling to be even remotely invested in politics in this day and age and not have a clear preference between the two.  I understand that sentiment completely when it comes from your average apathetic normie, but not when it comes from someone who clearly follows politics closely.

Say what you will about Biden but it's clear as day that if he loses in 24 he will leave peacefully without any sort of coup attempts.  It's not at all clear that Trump would do the same.  If anything,  a lot of us are just waiting to see what bullshit he tries to pull off this election of it doesn't go his way.  It isn't at all clear how he will react.

And it wasn't out of the blue that he tried to steal the last election.  I sat there and watched him campaign for a year while dropping hints that the election would be rigged. That the mail in ballots would be fraudulent.  Etc etc. 

We all watched the debates with Biden and Trump where the moderator asked Trump if he would tell the Proud boys to stand down on election day,  and Trump said they should stand back and stand by.  Keeping things purposely ambiguous.  A level of nuance you seem to think he's incapable of.

So there was a long preamble to the actual events of Jan 6 where Trump laid the ground work for claiming the election was stolen so he could try his coup attempt.  It was his backup plan from the get go to contest the election and try to stay in power some way.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 03:57 AMI don't disagree with that statement,  yet I obviously do have a preference.  To me it is mind boggling to be even remotely invested in politics in this day and age and not have a clear preference between the two.  I understand that sentiment completely when it comes from your average apathetic normie, but not when it comes from someone who clearly follows politics closely.

I follow politics but for the most part I don't see politics as the primary driver of society in this era.  Money, technology and science are the great forces that are driving change, shifting the status quo quietly in various ways.  The sudden leaps with AI in particular, at least in my opinion, have much more immediate consequences than anything a politician will do over the next ten years.  And very soon you'll see stuff like Langchain become the foundation for AI's ability to interact with & manipulate the real world in ways people aren't even thinking about. 

But the thing is,nobody is keeping their eye on the ball.  I see it coming like a freight train, and anyone who isn't on the money-making side with AI is going to get left behind or essentially erased unless you have a job that can't be replaced by it.

As entertaining as politics are, a lot of people are going to wake up over the next few years and not recognize the ground they are standing on.  The government isn't going to be able to regulate it.  It'll be like Snow Crash with less inflation.

I think you have quite a few cherry-picked inaccuracies in this post, Nimbly:-

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 03, 2023, 11:42 PMI think he's a greedy neoliberal who co-opted the Republican Party and won because Clinton was incompetent.

In a complete break with the historical policy of the FBI to keep quiet about investigations, James Comey undercut Clinton by declaring, just days before the 2020 election, that they were investigating her.

Quote.... because Trump told people to protest peacefully.

Perhaps he did at one point, but he also said, "Be there: will be wild" and "Fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore"

Quote(all he did was make phone calls and complain to officials in Georgia).

Actually, with the way conspiracy law works, he's in trouble not just for what he did, but for what his "criminal enterprise " did too:-

QuoteThe indictment says the defendants "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favour of Trump".

The former president is accused of felony counts including:

Racketeering
Solicitation of violation of oath by public officer
Conspiracy to impersonate a public officer
Conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree
False statements and writings and filing false documents
The indictment refers to the defendants as a "criminal organisation", accusing them of other crimes including influencing witnesses, computer trespass, theft and perjury.

The most serious charge, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico) Act, is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.

The act - designed to help take down organised criminal syndicates like the mafia - helps prosecutors connect the dots between underlings who broke laws and those who gave them orders.
source: BBC

QuoteI don't think someone trying to steal an election would tell people to go peacefully protest and then scurry away to hide in the Oval Office.

According to Cassidy Hutchinson and others, he went back to the White House under protest, being physically restrained at one point. And from the WH, Trump tweeted "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done". He knew the rioters were already in the Capitol, but was "pouring gasoline on the flames" from the Oval Office.

I'm not sure why you are consistently playing down what Trump was up to.

Nothing I posted was inaccurate. I give fair consideration then make a determination.  You are free to disagree, but-

1. Clinton shot herself in the foot with all that email stuff and then supposedly trying to shred evidence or w/e.  You can't complain about Comey and yet be in the same camp that says "Well, Trump was bad to fire him for doing his job". See the problem?

2. There's been a ton of talk about those indictments and the applicability of RICO with Trump (both in favor of him and not-so-much), so not sure why you would bother posting all that when we were discussing January 6th in a larger context of the Democrats (and Republicans to a lesser extent during the 2nd Obama term) undermining faith in elections for years before he even came down the escalator. 

3. Nobody is playing down anything - but it is incredibly difficult to prove intent.  As jwb said earlier, the chances of him going to jail are pretty slim and there are wrinkles in all of the cases against him.  Same thing with all the talk about the 14th Amendment. As they like to say - "I'll believe it when I see it". 

This is Big Picture American Politics, no?  Nothing happens in a vacuum as far as political developments go, and Donald Trump is perhaps the most fascinating example of this in the last few decades.  He's like the American Id personified, a creature that shed his disingenuous neoliberal skin in favor of a disingenuous moralistic conservative veneer.  He is bizarre in a way that suits the times we live in.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 05:12 AMI follow politics but for the most part I don't see politics as the primary driver of society in this era.  Money, technology and science are the great forces that are driving change, shifting the status quo quietly in various ways.  The sudden leaps with AI in particular, at least in my opinion, have much more immediate consequences than anything a politician will do over the next ten years.  And very soon you'll see stuff like Langchain become the foundation for AI's ability to interact with & manipulate the real world in ways people aren't even thinking about. 

But the thing is,nobody is keeping their eye on the ball.  I see it coming like a freight train, and anyone who isn't on the money-making side with AI is going to get left behind or essentially erased unless you have a job that can't be replaced by it.

As entertaining as politics are, a lot of people are going to wake up over the next few years and not recognize the ground they are standing on.  The government isn't going to be able to regulate it.  It'll be like Snow Crash with less inflation.

really bro? And here I was actually curious to hear what you would say in response to my previous post.  And your answer is just politics doesn't matter anyway cause next year they're going to start rolling out skynet?

Even if it is all one big fake play put on by the Illuminati, you could have tried harder than that, my friend.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 05:48 AMNothing I posted was inaccurate. I give fair consideration then make a determination.  You are free to disagree, but-

1. Clinton shot herself in the foot with all that email stuff and then supposedly trying to shred evidence or w/e.  You can't complain about Comey and yet be in the same camp that says "Well, Trump was bad to fire him for doing his job". See the problem?

2. There's been a ton of talk about those indictments and the applicability of RICO with Trump (both in favor of him and not-so-much), so not sure why you would bother posting all that when we were discussing January 6th in a larger context of the Democrats (and Republicans to a lesser extent during the 2nd Obama term) undermining faith in elections for years before he even came down the escalator. 

3. Nobody is playing down anything - but it is incredibly difficult to prove intent.  As jwb said earlier, the chances of him going to jail are pretty slim and there are wrinkles in all of the cases against him.  Same thing with all the talk about the 14th Amendment. As they like to say - "I'll believe it when I see it". 

This is Big Picture American Politics, no?  Nothing happens in a vacuum as far as political developments go, and Donald Trump is perhaps the most fascinating example of this in the last few decades.  He's like the American Id personified, a creature that shed his disingenuous neoliberal skin in favor of a disingenuous moralistic conservative veneer.  He is bizarre in a way that suits the times we live in.

I do think it's not particularly unlikely he could get convicted of something,  I just don't see them actually sending him to prison.  Probably a nice house arrest situation at Mar-A-Lago if anything. Or maybe at the white house.

^ Yeah, house arrest is the one I'm expecting. There's quite a few precedents for that for former leaders in other countries too.

Thanks for responding, Nimbly. I applaud the "giving fair consideration then making a determination", which is how I like to think most of us here form our political opinions.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 05:48 AM1. Clinton shot herself in the foot with all that email stuff and then supposedly trying to shred evidence or w/e.  You can't complain about Comey and yet be in the same camp that says "Well, Trump was bad to fire him for doing his job". See the problem?

^ This was a point I didn't really follow, not being familiar with the camp you mention or the debate about Comey's firing.

Quote2. There's been a ton of talk about those indictments and the applicability of RICO with Trump (both in favor of him and not-so-much), so not sure why you would bother posting all that when we were discussing January 6th in a larger context of the Democrats (and Republicans to a lesser extent during the 2nd Obama term) undermining faith in elections for years before he even came down the escalator.

^ I suppose I was pushing back against an equivalence that's being made between talk of unfair elections (Democrats+ Republicans) and active subversion and tampering (Republicans).
In bold: copy+paste. It was really no bother, Nimbly. You're welcome ;)

Quote3. Nobody is playing down anything - but it is incredibly difficult to prove intent.  As jwb said earlier, the chances of him going to jail are pretty slim and there are wrinkles in all of the cases against him.  Same thing with all the talk about the 14th Amendment. As they like to say - "I'll believe it when I see it". 

^ Yep, I've noticed those wrinkles too, so I guess it's a case of waiting for the courts to decide. Although (just as with the election) Trump and his  followers are laying the groundwork to cry "Foul" if any decision goes against him.

TB completely H, I still think you are downplaying Trump's actions, just as I am probably highlighting or over-focusing on them. Surely that's why we are taking different positions or interpretations ?

That's because people who have an intense personal dislike for Trump tend to fixate on him as the cause of our problems instead of being a symptom of other issues.  You are seeing this effect in reverse with a lot conservatives, Biden-Derangement Syndrome, over gas prices and the fact that inflation is really really bad.

One of the reasons why I tend to take centrist positions is because I recognize how both parties have enabled him in various ways - his 2016 win itself was basically a kneejerk reaction to most of the same problems we have right now.  Go watch some of the interviews younger Trump gave on political stuff - similar to today, but with more of a Clintonian spin. Oprah essentially told him to run for President back in the early 90's and he said no, but I sometimes think we would have been better off if he had tried back then and lost.

Jwb and I differ on what Trump really "means" I think in the greater context of politics.  I see him as an inevitable outcome in a country that has grown disillusioned with both Reagan's conservativism and Clinton / Obama styled neoliberalism.  We got here because people way smarter than Trump failed and because both parties have grown less and less tolerant of each other with every passing election cycle.

Going back to Trump himself for a bit - If he had been more careful with his words and reined in his bad habits, he probably could have run as an establishment Democrat, but I think Obama roasting him at that White House correspondents dinner pushed him into a different trajectory and put the idea in his head that he could run as a Republican and capitalize on his personal grievances.  His loss to Biden shows there's a limit to grievance-based politics with independents though.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 06:43 AMreally bro? And here I was actually curious to hear what you would say in response to my previous post.  And your answer is just politics doesn't matter anyway cause next year they're going to start rolling out skynet?

Even if it is all one big fake play put on by the Illuminati, you could have tried harder than that, my friend.

I didn't have to try.  I'm building an AI startup right now so I'm hyperaware of what is going on in that universe from all the different players with way more money than me.  Some of the near-future capabilities are cool to me as a business tech geek, but I am concerned about a few things because LLMs are outpacing the capability of society to grapple with what they will become. The only reason people don't see it right now is they are convinced "Skynet" is like 10 years away from being able to do anything in the real world, and that's simply not the case.

If anything, I find politics to be a fun distraction from all that.  You two might find this a little doom n' gloom, but a good case in point as far as reading material goes.

Vanity Far - How Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, and Andreessen—Four Billionaire Techno-Oligarchs—Are Creating an Alternate, Autocratic Reality (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/musk-thiel-zuckerberg-andreessen-alternate-autocratic-reality)

sorry to barge into the discussion but you talk like an AI imitation of a corporate tech bro. good lord.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Sep 04, 2023, 03:37 PMsorry to barge into the discussion but you talk like an AI imitation of a corporate tech bro. good lord.

Or maybe you just suck at reading.

speaking unaesthetically is not nuance, dude

Quote from: Marie Monday on Sep 04, 2023, 03:47 PMspeaking unaesthetically is not nuance, dude

Lol lay it out then oh special one.

special one? what?

Quote from: Marie Monday on Sep 04, 2023, 04:18 PMspecial one? what?

I'm inviting you to participate in the discussion. good lord.

nope bye

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 03:05 PMI didn't have to try.  I'm building an AI startup right now so I'm hyperaware of what is going on in that universe from all the different players with way more money than me.  Some of the near-future capabilities are cool to me as a business tech geek, but I am concerned about a few things because LLMs are outpacing the capability of society to grapple with what they will become. The only reason people don't see it right now is they are convinced "Skynet" is like 10 years away from being able to do anything in the real world, and that's simply not the case.

If anything, I find politics to be a fun distraction from all that.  You two might find this a little doom n' gloom, but a good case in point as far as reading material goes.

Vanity Far - How Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, and Andreessen—Four Billionaire Techno-Oligarchs—Are Creating an Alternate, Autocratic Reality (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/musk-thiel-zuckerberg-andreessen-alternate-autocratic-reality)

it's not that I find it too doom and gloom.  I'm the number one proponent of the robot apocalypse on this site/MB and always have been.  I'm waiting for the day when they actually take over and all the futurists realize they aren't going to be invited to the party after all.  It's going to be robots only my friend. That's my prophecy that I stole from a Jaan Tallin speech in 2012 or so called the intelligence stairway, and I've been repeating it ever since I watched that fateful youtube lecture.   I'm actually probably one of the few people on here who won't completely roll their eyes at the idea of AI apocalypse.

But that's besides the point.  You could have invoked AI apocalypse at any point earlier in the conversation to render the entire conversation meaningless. So it's really a cheap dodge to me.  You waited till I wrote a fuckin essay of the distinction between Trump and Biden and then your response to that is yeah but AI... I don't know if you are trolling or what at this point. That was literally the hardest pivot I've ever seen.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 02:59 PMThat's because people who have an intense personal dislike for Trump tend to fixate on him as the cause of our problems instead of being a symptom of other issues.  You are seeing this effect in reverse with a lot conservatives, Biden-Derangement Syndrome, over gas prices and the fact that inflation is really really bad.

One of the reasons why I tend to take centrist positions is because I recognize how both parties have enabled him in various ways - his 2016 win itself was basically a kneejerk reaction to most of the same problems we have right now.  Go watch some of the interviews younger Trump gave on political stuff - similar to today, but with more of a Clintonian spin. Oprah essentially told him to run for President back in the early 90's and he said no, but I sometimes think we would have been better off if he had tried back then and lost.

Jwb and I differ on what Trump really "means" I think in the greater context of politics.  I see him as an inevitable outcome in a country that has grown disillusioned with both Reagan's conservativism and Clinton / Obama styled neoliberalism.  We got here because people way smarter than Trump failed and because both parties have grown less and less tolerant of each other with every passing election cycle.

Going back to Trump himself for a bit - If he had been more careful with his words and reined in his bad habits, he probably could have run as an establishment Democrat, but I think Obama roasting him at that White House correspondents dinner pushed him into a different trajectory and put the idea in his head that he could run as a Republican and capitalize on his personal grievances.  His loss to Biden shows there's a limit to grievance-based politics with independents though.

we don't disagree on what Trump means,  based on your generic description.

You might not be aware of this but I was a Trump supporter in 2016. I don't look at the guy and not understand the initial appeal he had for so many. But initially i was unsure of his intentions or how he would actually rule.  I even naively thought it was possible he would do a hard pivot to the center once he was in power. But he never did that.  He basically just went in and tried to do exactly what he said he was going to do.

What we disagree about is not where the demand for someone like Trump came from... we can both agree that the conditions for someone like Trump to get in was the frustration that people felt towards both of the parties at the time.  We just seem to disagree about Trump as a person.  I think he was trying to steal the election and you think what.... he was actually just wanting some of his people to go down and hold signs while Biden becomes president? I just feel like we're watching different movies.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 07:33 PMit's not that I find it too doom and gloom.  I'm the number one proponent of the robot apocalypse on this site/MB and always have been.  I'm waiting for the day when they actually take over and all the futurists realize they aren't going to be invited to the party after all.  It's going to be robots only my friend. That's my prophecy that I stole from a Jaan Tallin speech in 2012 or so called the intelligence stairway, and I've been repeating it ever since I watched that fateful youtube lecture.   I'm actually probably one of the few people on here who won't completely roll their eyes at the idea of AI apocalypse.

But that's besides the point.  You could have invoked AI apocalypse at any point earlier in the conversation to render the entire conversation meaningless. So it's really a cheap dodge to me.  You waited till I wrote a fuckin essay of the distinction between Trump and Biden and then your response to that is yeah but AI... I don't know if you are trolling or what at this point. That was literally the hardest pivot I've ever seen.

I didn't pivot.  I've never been that personally invested in political outcomes.  You asked how someone who followed politics closely could not have the same POV you did so I just elaborated on it.  I've talked about these subjects before on other threads. Even back on MB they called me a tech bro essentially for the sin of actually talking from personal experience.  Imagine that.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 08:09 PMwe don't disagree on what Trump means,  based on your generic description.

You might not be aware of this but I was a Trump supporter in 2016. I don't look at the guy and not understand the initial appeal he had for so many. But initially i was unsure of his intentions or how he would actually rule.  I even naively thought it was possible he would do a hard pivot to the center once he was in power. But he never did that.  He basically just went in and tried to do exactly what he said he was going to do.

What we disagree about is not where the demand for someone like Trump came from... we can both agree that the conditions for someone like Trump to get in was the frustration that people felt towards both of the parties at the time.  We just seem to disagree about Trump as a person.  I think he was trying to steal the election and you think what.... he was actually just wanting some of his people to go down and hold signs while Biden becomes president? I just feel like we're watching different movies.

Based on everything we actually know, it doesn't really seem like Trump had a clear plan for anything.  It looks more like he was just fuming and fumbling around and hoping someone would indulge him, similar to the "perfect call" to Ukraine.  Which is funny because nobody went to jail for essentially pulling the a similar kind of shenanigans with Shokin a few years before that. 

From a personality analysis standpoint - I think Trump would have stolen the election if someone gave him a clear path to it and mapped it out. That actual path never really materialized, otherwise you'd have all the major governing bodies of every state invoking the 14th amendment on his ass for the upcoming cycle.

To me, it matters less what people want or say and more about what they actually do in practice.  I don't think Trump did enough of the latter to showcase that he "really" thought he could steal an election.  He heard what he wanted to hear from Eastman and Giuliani and thought he could contest the results.  He also made assumptions about Pence that clearly were not true.

I mean yes if someone gave him the path to steal the election he obviously would have done it. He had no clear path, and everyone around him told him so,  yet he still tried anyway.  There's no contradiction there.  He tried and failed.

And yes he had expectations for Pence that Pence didn't fulfill.  What were those expectations again,  from your pov?

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 04, 2023, 09:40 PMI mean yes if someone gave him the path to steal the election he obviously would have done it. He had no clear path, and everyone around him told him so,  yet he still tried anyway.  There's no contradiction there.  He tried and failed.

And yes he had expectations for Pence that Pence didn't fulfill.  What were those expectations again,  from your pov?

He thought the Vice-President had powers that allowed him to somehow put an election on standstill before the ratification while they re-counted all the votes or some other nonsense. But there's no way anything like that could have ever happened because most of his court cases failed. 

Trump's only legitimate defense (kinda) is that he genuinely believed that Pence had powers as VP that would let him pause the certification to prove the fraud claims that Trump thought were dismissed unfairly by the courts.  And Trump is so gullible and dumb and prone to affirmation bias that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.  But if he does make that case, then he could still lose in court because ignorance doesn't excuse it.

A question for you. Do you think that it makes a difference if Trump goes to jail or not?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 02:59 PMThat's because people who have an intense personal dislike for Trump tend to fixate on him as the cause of our problems instead of being a symptom of other issues.  You are seeing this effect in reverse with a lot conservatives, Biden-Derangement Syndrome, over gas prices and the fact that inflation is really really bad.

Yep, that's true. Some passionate haters on both sides are focussed on Biden and Trump in a way that's pretty unhealthy. Although on MB I was told, with some justification, that I had "a hate boner" for Trump, these days I try to be more egalitarian and spread my hatred more evenly across the Republican party.

QuoteJwb and I differ on what Trump really "means" I think in the greater context of politics.  I see him as an inevitable outcome in a country that has grown disillusioned with both Reagan's conservativism and Clinton / Obama styled neoliberalism.  We got here because people way smarter than Trump failed and because both parties have grown less and less tolerant of each other with every passing election cycle.

^ I think we got here because the Republican party have abandoned the traditional responsablilities of government and any time there's a conflict between Trump + the law, or Trump+ the constitution, they go with Trump. For example,  They wouldn't vote against him when he was impeached for the Ukraine call.

Also, at state and local level the Republicans are blocking or dismantling the processes of normal governance: McConnel refusing to seat a Supreme Court judge, waiting til his party could chose one; Tupperville blocking military appointments; Kevin McCarthy keeping George Santos in office, DeSantis doing I can't quite remember what in Florida, etc etc. None of that is the way normal governance was conducted, afaik. 
I'd agree that the parties are becoming less tolerant of each other, but I'd lay the blame for that squarely at the door of the Republicans' bad-faith manoeuvres - and that includes their extreme Bad Loserism, which means that every process in which they lose is attacked as a witch-hunt and, where possible, becomes the subject of yet another laughable Gym Jordan "oversight investigation". 

I think you should take a closer look at the Clinton era and 2000 election.  A lot of what you are talking about isn't something that just materialized in the Obama era or even more recently.

Every administration since FDR has pushed the boundaries of what was considered "acceptable" in various ways (sometimes small, sometimes big), especially the 12 year period that comprises the Bush and Obama terms. Remember Operation Fast & Furious with Obama's AG, Eric Holder and what he did? That definitely wasn't the "normal process" of governance in action.

The problem is people have short-term memory and tend to not learn from history if they weren't aware of it to begin with, which is the case for the quietly expanding boundaries of federal power since the late 90's.  Social media has also destroyed a lot of what we think about as far as "proper" decorum goes across society.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Sep 05, 2023, 12:23 AMI'd lay the blame for that squarely at the door of the Republicans' bad-faith manoeuvres - and that includes their extreme Bad Loserism, which means that every process in which they lose is attacked as a witch-hunt and, where possible, becomes the subject of yet another laughable Gym Jordan "oversight investigation". 

So what do you call the fake Christopher Steele penned dossier on Trump, the endless investigations that had little to show for them and constant harping by major Democrats all across the country from 2016 to 2020 that Trump was an illegitimate President despite the fact that there was nonexistent voter fraud?  I'm sure the Republicans took a lot of notes throughout these various occurrences because, as you so kindly pointed out, they aren't exactly the most creative people.  But they are very good at observing Democrats and then doubling down on what they learn when they get a swing at power.

I hope Trump goes to jail, because it would send a message that nobody is ever above the law.  But the idea that somehow Republican "bad faith" measures is the main reason how we got here, as opposed to 30+ years of bad actors in both parties, is most definitely not an accurate take and you are just paving the way for someone even worse than Trump in the future.  Both parties should not be questioning elections, investigating eachother and treating eachother like mortal enemies.  If people don't learn, then Trump's left-wing or right-wing successor might be able to subvert democracy in a far more effective fashion because they'll play into the polarization with more finesse and know how to exploit it. 

Don't believe me? Look at how RFK Jr. has built his campaign off of both vaccine-skeptical Dems and Independents, plus even getting some Republicans on board with him against Biden.  He might not be the guy who will ultimately do what I'm talking about, but somebody eventually will.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 04, 2023, 09:48 PMHe thought the Vice-President had powers that allowed him to somehow put an election on standstill before the ratification while they re-counted all the votes or some other nonsense. But there's no way anything like that could have ever happened because most of his court cases failed. 

Trump's only legitimate defense (kinda) is that he genuinely believed that Pence had powers as VP that would let him pause the certification to prove the fraud claims that Trump thought were dismissed unfairly by the courts.  And Trump is so gullible and dumb and prone to affirmation bias that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.  But if he does make that case, then he could still lose in court because ignorance doesn't excuse it.

A question for you. Do you think that it makes a difference if Trump goes to jail or not?

That's not a defense to me.  He was told plainly by Pence and others that he didn't have the authority to do so.  He just chose to ignore that because he was dead set on trying to overturn the results. And like I told you, he was literally showing his hand during the campaign by claiming it was going to be rigged and that the mail in ballots would be fraudulent and all that nonsense long before the election even happened. Because the pandemic was crushing his chance at reelection and he knew it.  He could not have been less subtle about it in a lot of ways without just outright saying what his plans were.  The perpetual benefit of the doubt you seem to extend to him has to be the complete inverse of TDS. It's  pretty infantilizing.

And yeah I do think it matters if he goes to jail,  given he is running for President. But even if he doesn't go to jail you absolutely have to at least indict him just for the sheer sake of having even the facade of still having some sort of rule of law politically. 

But I will say one thing... if this dude literally beats 91 or whatever cases and doesn't get a single conviction that is going to be a serious optical L for the democrats.  It already looks like they are going after him to a lot of outside observers. That will only cement that legacy.  Though I will say personally it seems to me he's earned all the heat.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 05, 2023, 04:09 AMThe perpetual benefit of the doubt you seem to extend to him has to be the complete inverse of TDS. It's  pretty infantilizing.

I dunno, I just find it difficult to believe a guy who doesn't even read books and apparently eats nothing but fast food is capable of overturning the neoliberal capitalist nightmare engine we call democracy when he's hated so much by so many different people.  And what was he going to tell people in November 2020 if he happened to win? That his own victory was a rigged election? He was playing a pretty dangerous game if he really thought that far ahead.

Wild times we live in either way.  Nobody a decade ago could have imagined some of this stuff.

I mean so far he wasn't capable.  So once again  that doesn't contradict him trying to do so,  the incompetence angle that is.  And while I can agree to an extent his actions display a level of incompetence, I don't think he's quite as stupid as you seem to think he is.  He's perfectly capable of hedging his bets in advance,  and if you will recall he actually made similar proclamations in 16. About how the elections were going to be rigged against him.  When asked if he would respect the results he would respond that he would respect them if he won. But that time he did win.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 05, 2023, 06:29 AMI mean so far he wasn't capable.  So once again  that doesn't contradict him trying to do so,  the incompetence angle that is.  And while I can agree to an extent his actions display a level of incompetence, I don't think he's quite as stupid as you seem to think he is.  He's perfectly capable of hedging his bets in advance,  and if you will recall he actually made similar proclamations in 16. About how the elections were going to be rigged against him.  When asked if he would respect the results he would respond that he would respect them if he won. But that time he did win.

I remember what he said in 2016.  I also remember reading "leaked" conversations from people (I think it was from CNN) on his campaign team saying that he actually didn't want to be President back then and was extremely surprised when he subsequently won. If that's actually true, it would explain a lot.

Trump complains about his mugshot and the rigged election, and then immediately shifts to selling his mugshot merch:

"Here it is if you wanna go out and get it, you can go out and get it. Have fun with it! But people do like it, I must say."  :laughing:

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 05, 2023, 02:01 AMI think you should take a closer look at the Clinton era and 2000 election.  A lot of what you are talking about isn't something that just materialized in the Obama era or even more recently.

Every administration since FDR has pushed the boundaries of what was considered "acceptable" in various ways (sometimes small, sometimes big), especially the 12 year period that comprises the Bush and Obama terms. Remember Operation Fast & Furious with Obama's AG, Eric Holder and what he did? That definitely wasn't the "normal process" of governance in action.

The problem is people have short-term memory and tend to not learn from history if they weren't aware of it to begin with, which is the case for the quietly expanding boundaries of federal power since the late 90's.  Social media has also destroyed a lot of what we think about as far as "proper" decorum goes across society.

Yep, I would learn more if I went deeper into that era of US history, where you clearly have the advantage over me, in terms of knowledge. But then, history by its nature is always in the rear-view mirror: details become less important, then forgotten as the here and now demand our attention.

QuoteSo what do you call the fake Christopher Steele penned dossier on Trump, the endless investigations that had little to show for them and constant harping by major Democrats all across the country from 2016 to 2020 that Trump was an illegitimate President despite the fact that there was nonexistent voter fraud?

^ This comment discourages me from trawling through history in search of the Dem evil doings that you claim are there. For instance, you are rather mis-describing the Steele dossier, which was not entirely fake, and was about Trump campaign/Russia more than about Trump himself:

Several key allegations made in June 2016 were later corroborated by the January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,[3][4] namely that Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton;[3][5] that he personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's campaign and to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"; that he ordered cyberattacks on both parties;[3] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian agents.[6]

That's from wikipedia, and their article makes it clear that the Steele dossier is a mixed bag of substantiated and unsubstantiated. Isn't it disingenious of you to ignore the former and label it as the later?
Then the next criticism you aim at the Dems "endless investigations that had little to show" surely applies more to the Republicans. Without checking, this is what I have on my scorecard of investigations:

Wins for the Democrats:
Russia investigation: Flynn pleads guilty, Manaforte goes to prison
Campaign Finance Violations: Cohen goes to prison, Trump is the "unindicted co-conspirator"
Ukraine phone call: President impeached
Mueller Report: multiple indictments, multiple "obstruction of justice" charges that were not advanced because of the whole "can't indict the President" rule
Four current investigations/cases: a total of 91 charges against Trump now pending, plus multiple allies indicted

Losses for the Republicans:
TEN Benghazi investigations: rather muddy results, but here's wiki's take-away line: "none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations [of cover up/lying]."
Hillary Email investigation: "no criminal intent"
Durham Report: approx 1 failed indictment, that was chucked out by courts
Gym Jordan's busy committees: "But so far, these investigations seem to be flopping. They don't seem to be sticking in the public consciousness. They haven't uncovered page one news about Hunter Biden's laptop, or about the origins of Covid-19, or about a supposed government conspiracy to silence conservatives on Twitter." That was from March of this year, so feel free to updated me on his successes since then.

(My apologies for any errors of fact in the above list: I have done it from memory alone, except for the quotes, which are the result of well over 5 mins of research.)

QuoteI'm sure the Republicans took a lot of notes throughout these various occurrences because, as you so kindly pointed out, they aren't exactly the most creative people.  But they are very good at observing Democrats and then doubling down on what they learn when they get a swing at power.

^ I wonder who "you" is ? I didn't point out anything about creativity.

It isn't disingenuous.  The Steele dossier was utilized as an excuse to set off a ton of different questionable investigations before a shred of information in it was verified.  Republicans have way more hard evidence right now to investigate Biden than the Feds had when they spun up Crossfire Hurricane. Furthermore, that dossier was paid for by people who had a bone to pick with Trump to begin with. 

There's hard evidence out that that Joe was involved with Hunter and his uncle's influence peddling during his time as VP.  20 different LLCs involved in sheltering payments to Hunter from various sources.  And why does Joe have all these different email aliases? That's pretty weird. 

Furthermore, nothing you listed about the Democrats is a win because the Republicans got what they really wanted out of Trump's term - domination of the Supreme Court and hundreds of new judges appointed in courts across the U.S. with way more conservative views.  Trump and his endless controversial existence proved to be the answer to their prayers for the only thing that really mattered, and I'm sure they got a good laugh out of it.

The only wins the Democrats have is that Biden won 2020, followed by their narrow Senate wins in the midterms...but Trump and Biden are literally neck & neck in most major polls as of right now precisely because Biden has done an arguably worse job than Trump did at managing the economy and ongoing Covid-19 policy.

Politico - Biden and Trump in a dead heat in hypothetical 2024 rematch, poll finds (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/01/biden-trump-2024-poll-00109161)


Seriously, has Biden actually done anything notable with the latter other than getting the vaccines that the Trump administration made out to the public? We didn't need a Democratic president specifically for that.  If Trump had gotten re-elected he would have pushed the vaccines out and bragged about how great they were.  Makes one wonder if any of the anti-vax stuff would have materialized in that alternate timeline...

The truth is that the average American household has even less buying power now than they did when Biden took office over two years ago, and from my perspective that's a way bigger problem than Trump bungling a global pandemic that would have found a way to spread here in the U.S. regardless of what policies were or were not in place. 

(And no, I don't need any strawman comments about anything Trump said during the pandemic about getting UV light inside the body or that he downplayed the pandemic - all of that stuff is just optics and not relevant to what the U.S. federally actually acted upon as time went on)

Just for reference here, governors Cuomo and Newsom are good cases in points here of how things can get out of control despite doing all the "right" things.  It's true that Trump is an idiot and extremely flawed....but Biden is supposed to be the "adult" on this playground and the one with decades of experience.  So what's his excuse for where we are right now? Whatever it is, it couldn't be good.

He talks about job numbers and Bidenomics but none of it really matters if the average American's buying power isn't better than it was under Trump, and Biden has miserably failed in that department.  He's living proof that maybe we need to rethink our current democratic process in a big way, especially since guys like Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders were squashed despite their popularity in favor of Biden.

If I were in the Dems' shoes, I'd put Biden out to pasture and let Gavin Newsom or Cornel West step up and make the case against Republicans.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 05, 2023, 07:57 PMIt isn't disingenuous.  The Steele dossier was utilized as an excuse to set off a ton of different questionable investigations before a shred of information in it was verified.  Republicans have way more hard evidence right now to investigate Biden than the Feds had when they spun up Crossfire Hurricane. Furthermore, that dossier was paid for by people who had a bone to pick with Trump to begin with.

^ But none of that makes it fake,which was the point I was contesting. 

QuoteThere's hard evidence out that that Joe was involved with Hunter and his uncle's influence peddling during his time as VP.  20 different LLCs involved in sheltering payments to Hunter from various sources.  And why does Joe have all these different email aliases? That's pretty weird. 

^ Yep, we hear so much about "hard evidence" from Gym Jordan, R Giuliani, Trump, Kari Lake, et al. but somehow it never materializes when it's time to shut up or put up in the courts ....and "pretty weird" is not evidence of criminality, afaik.

QuoteFurthermore, nothing you listed about the Democrats is a win because the Republicans got what they really wanted out of Trump's term - domination of the Supreme Court and hundreds of new judges appointed in courts across the U.S. with way more conservative views.

^ I could've titled my lists better, but I was mainly refuting your contention about the Dems "...  the endless investigations that had little to show for them ..." . Your argument now  that none of them are wins because of the Supreme Court isn't very strong, imo. I might as well say the Republicans have no wins because Biden is Pres, not Trump.

The economy: we've talked about this before, I'm sure. It changes over time, and although it's important to voters, it isn't a very accurate way to assess the conduct of different Presidents imo.

Yes, the most recent neck-and-neck poll is alarming, but things will no doubt change between now and election day. As for Biden being too old, I'm happy to agree with you. I think he should see out his term (health permitting) and pass on the batton.

On the contrary - the dossier was ultimately discredited because the main Russian source that Christopher Steele used, Igor Danchenko, was arrested for lying to the FBI.  Steele also presented everything in the dossier as irrefutable evidence, only to later say that "not everything in here was true" when pressed.

You can say the ends justify the means because Russia liked Trump over Clinton, but inferring that it's okay to make things up in order to create a reason to go after anyone, no matter who it is, is fundamentally wrong and it sets a pretty terrible precedent.  At least in the case of the Bidens there's Hunter's laptop and an email audit trail and some interesting implications from Devon Archer's testimony.  If the Republicans don't come up with something meaty within the next year, then I'd say that's a pretty big fail and deserves mockery.

That being said, your lists didn't really seem like much of a refutation of anything I mentioned. The ultimate purpose of all of those Democrat-led investigations was to get Trump thrown out of office prematurely and/or prove he was illegitimately elected, outcomes that did not occur. Your definition of a fail seems to equate to "well the Republicans didn't get X out of Y" (like Benghazi) when it the general consensus here in the U.S. is that the Democrats wasted four years in their various investigations with very little to show for it, with the Mueller Report in particular becoming a point of mockery even by CNN and MSNBC for its lack of payoff despite the massive buildup.

GOP ad war hits $100 million as early-state campaign to stop Trump intensifies (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gop-ad-war-hits-100-million-early-state-campaign-stop-trump-intensifie-rcna102537)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 06, 2023, 06:23 AMOn the contrary - the dossier was ultimately discredited because the main Russian source that Christopher Steele used, Igor Danchenko, was arrested for lying to the FBI.  Steele also presented everything in the dossier as irrefutable evidence, only to later say that "not everything in here was true" when pressed.

^ Like I said before, the Steele Report was a mixed-bag, flawed report, but according to wiki it did contain some later-substantiated info.

QuoteYou can say the ends justify the means because Russia liked Trump over Clinton, but inferring that it's okay to make things up in order to create a reason to go after anyone, no matter who it is, is fundamentally wrong and it sets a pretty terrible precedent.

I wouldn't say the end justifies the means, Nimbly: that's a real rocky road to go down. I wonder if we agree on this fundamental sequence of investigation: allegation-investigation-confirmation/refutation of allegation. Weren't there enough allegations in the air at the time of the Steele Report to warrant an investigation? Here's a simple example, plus an excuse to inject a little music into our discussion:-
A guy in the UK telephoned the police to say that he'd witnessed a murder. The police followed up immediately, went to the house in question and found Blood On The Floor:-
Two of Britain's nastiest child-murderers were caught based on one guy's allegation, which, when he made the call, was unsubstantiated. That's how investigations start, isn't it?

QuoteThe ultimate purpose of all of those Democrat-led investigations was to get Trump thrown out of office prematurely and/or prove he was illegitimately elected, outcomes that did not occur.

^ That sounds to me like an interesting corrollary to the idea that the investigations were, as you say "Democrat-led". To me, they were justice-led, the idea being that people who break the law are held accountable in hopes of deterring the next lawbreakers to come along. In that sense, many of the "Dem" investigations could be called successes.

QuoteYour definition of a fail seems to equate to "well the Republicans didn't get X out of Y" (like Benghazi) when it the general consensus here in the U.S. is that the Democrats wasted four years in their various investigations with very little to show for it, with the Mueller Report in particular becoming a point of mockery even by CNN and MSNBC for its lack of payoff despite the massive buildup.

Yep, the Mueller Report was a real wet firework because: (i) Mueller was too much the old-school decent guy, with his, "I would've if I couldn't, so I haven't but I could've" conclusion and (ii) Billy Barr completely mis-represented the conclusion of the report, but got lots of media attention away from the damning Mueller verdict that Trump had obstructed justice.

I suppose the people who are actually losing are the American tax-payers, whose money is funding so many investigations. I have no facts or figures on that. Perhaps the Mueller investigation was over-long, but wasn't it hampered by non-co-operation of historic proportions, with subpeonas being ignored - or was that a different one ? Anyway, my point is that money has probably been wasted all around - like Durham and Billy Barr going to Italy, and let's mention the number again, TEN investigations into Benghazi.

....which is why a tally of investigations/ results could be of some value: it suggests which party is initiating investgations that start from a shrewed assessment of allegations, and lead to actual indictments. And which party is initiating investigations that uncover no crimes because there wasn't a crime to start with? To me, the answers are: question one: the Dems, and question two: the Republicans.

Justice led? How so? They justified the initial Carter Page wiretap that set off Crossfire Hurricane with the dossier that Steele lied about.  Which again, goes back to my earlier point. They would have never done that with Romney even if Obama's team had done some kind of oppo research accusing his family's company of having ties to Russia or China.  The FBI would have normally said "we're going to need something extremely substantial to justify a full blown investigation".

I'm 100% certain that the Democrats would have wasted my money to investigate Trump throughout his whole presidency whether he did anything wrong or not, and that whole mindset is not "justice led" as you so claim.  Schumer, Pelosi and all their friends were mad that their party had lost the 2016 election to an orange womanizing bozo who seemed poised to reverse a lethargic neoliberal global agenda.  He didn't turn out to be the middle class savior people were hoping for obviously, but speaking as someone who pays his taxes and sits squarely in the middle class, I can say with confidence he was better for my own bottom line than Obama-era policy was.  And sometimes that's enough for most people.

All that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

On another note, I'm still waiting for the 50 million dollar investigation into China's attempts to meddle in the midterms, but I know it isn't going to happen.  The fact that the media didn't make much of a big deal about it just confirms what I already thought - nobody cares about election interference if Trump's name isn't somewhere in the story.

2024 is gonna be a shitshow because we're now in a place where two nursing home dwellers are apparently the only viable POTUS choices according to our managerial class political overlords, which just goes to show you that neither party has any real imagination or governance goals.  We're polarized to the point of no return.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 07, 2023, 05:09 AMAll that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

We as a country, whether Democrat or Republican or neither, can't know for sure the legitimacy of our election results. It's not completely auditable, nor is it completely transparent.

Again, I have to take issue with some of the ideas that you're presenting, Nimbly9:-

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 07, 2023, 05:09 AMJustice led? How so? They justified the initial Carter Page wiretap that set off Crossfire Hurricane with the dossier that Steele lied about.  Which again, goes back to my earlier point. They would have never done that with Romney even if Obama's team had done some kind of oppo research accusing his family's company of having ties to Russia or China.  The FBI would have normally said "we're going to need something extremely substantial to justify a full blown investigation".

^ Then why was this the conclusion of the Durham report?

Wikipedia:

QuoteDurham's report stated that the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law," though the report did not "recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out." Prominent national security attorney Brad Moss characterized Durham's conclusions as "a 'be more careful next time' report."...
The report largely repeated information that had been previously known, with no new significant revelations of FBI misconduct in its Crossfire Hurricane investigation...The investigation cost more than $6.5 million. In his transmittal letter to the attorney general, Durham thanked Garland for "permitting our inquiry to proceed independently."

New York Times (Jan 23):-

QuoteBut after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham's work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.[2]

When you talk about life in the USA being better under Trump than under a Dem president, I'm happy to accept your expertise and personal experience, Nimbly.

QuoteAll that taken into consideration, is it really any wonder why something like January 6th might happen from the other side after four years of watching people like Clinton get up on TV and call him illegitimate with no actual proof of votes being changed or any actual problems in our election process?

Apparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand. And Hillary wasn't the only one who spread "conspiracy theories" about the 2016 election either  So if anyone wants to make the argument as to why Trump thought he could "possibly" hold on to power in some way and subvert democratic norms, all the Democrats need to do is look in the mirror for the answer. 

When the supposedly "better" U.S. political party spends half a decade telling people that U.S. elections are easily influenced and/or fraudulent, a boomerang effect is pretty much an inevitability when the chips are down during the next election season.  Republicans were more than happy to hear from Trump that the "next" election was going to be rigged because they were already used to hearing similar language for years from politicians they didn't like.  Trump didn't even have to work that hard - his Democratic opponents had paved the way for blatant mistrust in the election process even before Covid-19 hit.

^ This is an argument that, imo, does a dis-service to the Republican party. Are you really say that the GOP are so weak (or even uncreative ;)) that they just follow the Dem example?! This idea is also negated by the facts: the GOP didn't follow the Dem example, which, from Al Gore onwards, has been to grumble, but then concede for the good of the unity of the American people. Instead, Trump and plenty of GOPers haven't conceded; they clogged up the court system with 60 cases, all rejected, alleging fraud that wasn't there, then they put in motion some complex scheme of fake electors, and, cheered on by Trump, Josh Hawley and others, stormed the Capital.
Those were all Republican ideas, as are the occasional calls for civil war. I think it's a pretty distorted view to say "We copied the Dems."

QuoteApparently American democracy is so frail that Russia can completely destroy it with 40k in Facebook ads, and even somehow magically change votes with the wave of a wand.

^ Actually, democracy is quite frail and relies a lot on a good-faith commitment to the democratic ideal. In plenty of countries, there has been an insidious, non-violent slide away from democracy: Turkey, I think, being a recent example. That's why people were alarmed by Trump's famous "Russia if you're listening..." remark. It's not a good idea to invite foreign interference into your own elections, especially as Russia are past masters at hacking, making fake accounts, etc. They don't "change votes with the wave of a wand". (Perhaps you were thinking of Sydney Powell and Hugo Chavez when you wrote that.) Instead, Russia advanced biased dis-information, and it's prob impossible to measure what effect they had on votes, but surely, any foreign interference should be discouraged, so as to better preserve the integrity of the US election process.   

Durham proved that the FBI had deviated extensively from their normal conduct, which most mainstream media outlets say is not important (but it is). I would have told Durham that he didn't need 4 years to figure all that out, but I wouldn't cite that one as a completely pointless investigation when the ultimate point of it was to show that the FBI needed to reform their operational processes so that they don't operate like that again in the future.

I doubt Barr ever expected Durham to come up with anything that would somehow showcase illegality beyond what was already suspected from the FBI.  The investigation rehashed some things people knew and exposed other things that people didn't know.  From another article on it cited by Axios and also the National Review:

QuoteBut while mainstream media outlets have generally painted Durham's investigation as a long, winding dead-end, his efforts have not been fruitless. He established collaboration between Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the government's law-enforcement-and-intelligence apparatus to frame Trump as a Russian agent.

In the Danchenko trial, Durham established that the FBI knowingly submitted sworn applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that falsely claimed that information obtained from Cristopher Steele, a former British spy, had been verified. The FBI was also aware that Steele compiled the dossier as opposition research for the Clinton campaign, and improperly briefed him on the Trump-Russia investigation.

Durham also provided evidence that the FBI knew Sussman was representing the Democratic National Committee when he provided the bureau with skewed data that he claimed showed Trump had established a communication backchannel with the Kremlin; Sussman had claimed that he wasn't representing anyone when he provided the data. Durham also showed that FBI leaders had concealed from agents that Sussman was the source of the data.

The  suggests possible reforms to the bureau that Durham believes will prevent future abuses. One such reform would involve the appointment of a special official whose sole task would be to challenge "the steps taken" in high-profile political investigations that "pose partisan risk" to ensure all relevant procedures are followed.

Your assertions about the Republicans "not copying Dems" is incorrect - look at what Maxine Waters said during the high profile Derek Chauvin trial for example. 

And as far as Al Gore goes....he made extensive attempts at the time to challenge the 2000 election results and did a little more than "grumble" about it as you so put it.  He even said at one point he wasn't going to concede.  The country was way less polarized back then, it was pre-9/11, no pandemics, and social media did not exist...which is why something like Jan 6th didn't happen back then (but it could have under different circumstances).

Lastly, people had plenty of reason to think there would be issues with the 2020 election - all the major states pushed changes to how people could vote and other things because of Covid-19.  There was indeed reason to believe that so many large scale changes in a short time with minimal real oversight would result in problems, and thankfully it appears that while some fraud happened, it wasn't enough to shift the results in any state. 

Trump took advantage of this to further himself, but he was only able to do so because Democrats started the trend of questioning elections.  And that, my friend, is the root of this entire problem.

I know you don't agree with this, but you don't get what we got from Trump without a tremendous amount of groundwork over many many years (preparing the soil so to speak), as that 12 minute video SGR shared showcases. This is Big Picture American Politics, no? That's the big picture to me as far as why we are currently here as opposed to somewhere else where elections aren't so polarized.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 07, 2023, 06:48 PMDurham proved that the FBI had deviated extensively from their normal conduct, which most mainstream media outlets say is not important (but it is). I would have told Durham that he didn't need 4 years to figure all that out, but I wouldn't cite that one as a completely pointless investigation when the ultimate point of it was to show that the FBI needed to reform their operational processes so that they don't operate like that again in the future.

^ So why was his conclusion, as I quoted earlier:-

QuoteDurham's report stated that the DOJ and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law," though the report did not "recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out."

If it's impossible to agree on something as concrete as a report's conclusion, there's really no hope of reaching agreement on something as sweeping as the history of dirty tricks in American politics. Even if the Dems could have behaved better, I think it's a lopsided view that they have been leading the way in, for instance, undermining election integrity. Even regarding the specific case you mention:

QuoteAnd as far as Al Gore goes....he made extensive attempts at the time to challenge the 2000 election results and did a little more than "grumble" about it as you so put it.  He even said at one point he wasn't going to concede. 

How is "made extensive attempts" and "even said at one point" remotely a precursor to what occurred after the 2020 election?!
You don't mention that Gore's extensive attempts were well within the boundaries of the law, which undercuts any notion of a comparison with the antics of Trump's "clown car coup" allies.

QuoteLastly, people had plenty of reason to think there would be issues with the 2020 election - all the major states pushed changes to how people could vote and other things because of Covid-19.  There was indeed reason to believe that so many large scale changes in a short time with minimal real oversight would result in problems, and thankfully it appears that while some fraud happened, it wasn't enough to shift the results in any state.

^ I can more or less agree with this. In short, covid's effect on the elections was a bit like the great Year 2K panic. Do you remember that? Every computer system in the world was about to crash - but in the end, the guys who knew what they were doing, did actually know what they were doing - and so it was with the 2020 election administrators, although after the event they were harrassed, threatened and pushed aside to let Ninja weirdos conduct repeated self-defeating audits. 

QuoteTrump took advantage of this to further himself, but he was only able to do so because Democrats started the trend of questioning elections.  And that, my friend, is the root of this entire problem.

I know you don't agree with this, but you don't get what we got from Trump without a tremendous amount of groundwork over many many years (preparing the soil so to speak), as that 12 minute video SGR shared showcases. This is Big Picture American Politics, no? That's the big picture to me as far as why we are currently here as opposed to somewhere else where elections aren't so polarized.

^ On the face of it, SGR's video, does look like there was a lot of contesting of the 2016 election from the Dems, but it largely remained in the realm of rhetoric - and also (if I'm remembering the context right, some of the "illegitimate" jabs were about the fact that Trump didn't win the popular vote). So, yeah, some ill-advised talk, but I'm still failing to see how some comments from the Dems are the cause of all the election mayhem that the Republicans have indulged in, and it strikes me as odd that, in reviewing the history of dirty tricks, you don't mention Nixon or Mister Dirty Tricks himself, Roger Stone, who was mentor to Nixon and Trump both.

Nixon never called elections illegitimate under any circumstance that I'm aware of, so using him as any kind of example here doesn't make sense and doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Saying what Gore did was "well within the boundaries of the law" is beside the point.  It doesn't matter if it was legal or not if it has contributed foundationally the problems I mentioned.  The road to hell is paved with all kinds of good intentions and ethically dubious-but still legal actions. Re-read what SGR and myself said very carefully.  If you actually believe that the Democrats are the "adults" in the American political system, you should want to hold them to a higher standard.

A lot of your responses kinda come come off to me as "well so what if they denied elections and did all that stuff? Orange man bad!".  But Orange Man Bad-isms only gets you so far when the titular Bad Orange Man is a symptom of deeper dysfunctions. He's the Big Shiny Object in the room distracting you from real problems that can only be solved through actual reform. He wouldn't have even been elected in a normal democracy, no? 

Even in the absolute best case scenario, throwing him in jail doesn't undo the 20+ years of damage that neoliberals like Clinton and Gore and Obama have done, but they are going to pretend that it will and make a big spectacle out of it.  But next time when a smarter Trump-inspired creature comes along, that creature is going to win because nobody has learned anything in the meantime. 

Republicans are also ultimately wasting their time going after Biden too, truth be told.  People elected Biden knowing he was a more palatable liar than Trump - no amount of investigations are going to change anyone's vote in 2024.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Sep 08, 2023, 03:21 AMIf it's impossible to agree on something as concrete as a report's conclusion, there's really no hope of reaching agreement on something as sweeping as the history of dirty tricks in American politics. Even if the Dems could have behaved better, I think it's a lopsided view that they have been leading the way in, for instance, undermining election integrity. Even regarding the specific case you mention:

We aren't talking about the "dirty tricks" of American politics.  That's a long ass list that's way outside the scope of this conversation.  All Durham's work showcased was that there were some serious problems in what the FBI did, and those problems were clearly documented despite their protestations leading up to the publishing of the report, which makes sense as it was originally set off in order to dive deeper into the roots of Crossfire Hurricane.  Directly from Durhams's report FYI:

QuoteOur investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Nor was Steele able to produce corroboration for any of the reported allegations, even after being offered $1 million or more by the FBI for such corroboration

Furthermore, the FBI ultimately ended up agreeing that what happened was wrong after the media circus around the report died down, as noted here from FBI General Counsel Jason Jones:

Quote"All senior executives overseeing the Crossfire Hurricane investigation have left the FBI as the result of termination, resignation or retirement,"

Short of essentially dismantling the FBI, what kind of reform solves the kind of issues that Durham dove into? That's not normal FBI protocol and it needed to be exposed to the light of day regardless of what kind of legal outcome awaited it.  As I said earlier, I don't think he needed 4 years to make that case (the scope of his investigation, IMO, got too wide ranging), but it needed to be spelled out or else the FBI would just continue to claim that they never did anything wrong and that they are above accountability of any kind.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 08, 2023, 03:47 AMNixon never called elections illegitimate under any circumstance that I'm aware of, so using him as any kind of example here doesn't make sense and doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.

^ Yes, you are right. In fact, I regreted mentioning Nixon shortly after I posted that comment. He's not relevant to what we're discussing.
As for your other points, I'll probably address them later in the day when I get a bit of free time, ok?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Sep 08, 2023, 02:53 PM^ Yes, you are right. In fact, I regreted mentioning Nixon shortly after I posted that comment. He's not relevant to what we're discussing.
As for your other points, I'll probably address them later in the day when I get a bit of free time, ok?

Take your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them. :)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 08, 2023, 05:33 PMTake your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them. :)

I wanna commend you both on your civil debate,m and knowledge of American politics 🙂 I do enjoy reading your posts.

I'm much too ignorant on the subject of current US politics myself to really debate it on a deeper level. Politics often either bore or frustrate me. Sadly, watching the US from the outside has been somewhat frustrating, especially since Trump was elected (though not solely because of him). There seems to be so much conflict in American society. It must be tiring and taxing to many of you.

Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT how to reduce conflict in American society and although it doesn't get too far into specifics, it gave me a decent (imo) answer:

Quote from: ChatGPTReducing conflict in society is a complex challenge, but several steps can be taken in the United States to promote greater social cohesion:

1. **Promote Dialogue and Understanding:** Encourage open, respectful, and inclusive dialogue among diverse communities to foster better understanding and empathy.

2. **Education:** Invest in inclusive education that teaches critical thinking, empathy, and cultural competence to promote tolerance and reduce ignorance.

3. **Media Literacy:** Teach media literacy to help individuals distinguish between reliable and biased sources, reducing the spread of misinformation.

4. **Civic Engagement:** Encourage citizens to engage in local and national politics, fostering a sense of ownership and participation in decision-making.

5. **Community Building:** Support community-building initiatives, such as local events, volunteerism, and neighborhood programs, to strengthen social bonds.

6. **Police Reform:** Advocate for police reform to rebuild trust between law enforcement and marginalized communities, emphasizing community policing and accountability.

7. **Mental Health Services:** Improve access to mental health services to address underlying issues that may contribute to conflict.

8. **Economic Opportunity:** Address economic inequality through policies that promote equitable access to resources and opportunities.

9. **Legal Reforms:** Evaluate and reform the criminal justice system to ensure fairness and reduce disparities.

10. **Promote Diversity and Inclusion:** Encourage diversity and inclusion in workplaces and institutions, which can lead to more equitable and harmonious societies.

11. **Conflict Resolution Programs:** Develop and promote conflict resolution programs at various levels of society, from schools to workplaces.

12. **Leadership:** Elected officials and community leaders should set a tone of civility and cooperation, modeling behavior for the public.

13. **Media Responsibility:** Encourage responsible journalism that prioritizes factual reporting and balanced perspectives.

14. **National Healing Initiatives:** Consider national initiatives that promote healing, reconciliation, and the acknowledgment of historical injustices.

15. **Legal Protections:** Strengthen laws against hate crimes and discrimination to protect vulnerable communities.

It's important to note that reducing societal conflict is an ongoing process that requires the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and institutions. Collaboration, empathy, and a commitment to justice and equity are key principles in this endeavor.

AOC's constituents slam her claim inflation is propaganda (https://nypost.com/2023/09/10/aocs-constituents-slam-her-claim-inflation-is-propaganda-is-she-crazy/)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 08, 2023, 05:33 PMTake your time. Debates are fun and I always learn something new from them. :)

Quote from: Guybrush on Sep 09, 2023, 08:27 AMI wanna commend you both on your civil debate,m and knowledge of American politics 🙂 I do enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks, Nimbly and Guybrush! It's good to know that what sometimes feels like ranting from a foreigner is not entirely frowned upon. :)

That ChatGPT quote was very interesting: it's alarming just how good AI English sounds. That's why I haven't looked into our AI thread yet - I'm too scared by what I might find there. :(

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 08, 2023, 03:47 AMSaying what Gore did was "well within the boundaries of the law" is beside the point.  It doesn't matter if it was legal or not if it has contributed foundationally the problems I mentioned.  The road to hell is paved with all kinds of good intentions and ethically dubious-but still legal actions.

If the topic is either election tampering, or disputing election results, or rejecting the peaceful transition of power, I would've thought that distinguishing between what is inside or outside the law was very much on point. I don't remember the details, but I remember that the Bush/Gore result was labelled as "too close to call" by most commentators for weeks. All that "hanging chad" recounting was afaik, conducted in an orderly fashion by non-partisan professionals, and Gore accepted the court-delivered result. Far from being "ethically dubious" it was a show-case of how legal remedies are in place to resolve election doubts. Pretty much the opposite of the Republican position in 2020: declare fraud before the results are in, get rejected by 60 courts for lack of evidence, then cheat with fake electors, bully election officials into changing results and as a last resort, take the fight to the streets/Capitol. That's a big wobbly edifice of misconduct to be blaming on a few remarks from the Dems.

QuoteIf you actually believe that the Democrats are the "adults" in the American political system, you should want to hold them to a higher standard.

^ I think there is a flaw in your logic, though I can't pin-point it exactly. I think all politicians should be held to the same standard: you seem to be angling for the idea that the Republicans don't have to be the "adults". 

QuoteA lot of your responses kinda come come off to me as "well so what if they denied elections and did all that stuff? Orange man bad!".  But Orange Man Bad-isms only gets you so far when the titular Bad Orange Man is a symptom of deeper dysfunctions. He's the Big Shiny Object in the room distracting you from real problems that can only be solved through actual reform. He wouldn't have even been elected in a normal democracy, no? 

I was disappointed that you think my responses are just a knee-jerk reaction :( To say that Trump is the Big Shiny Object is a curious perspective on someone who has dominated US politics for a long time, and is still the front-runner for GOP Pres candidate. He has had a Presidential term and given his name to Trumpism. Even if you want to go "big  picture" on US democracy, I think he's more than a distraction, because if anyone talks about "actual reform", they're likely to run into people opposing reform: by and large, but not exclusively, they're likely to run into Republicans, aren't they? And many of those Republicans are supporters, apologists, enablers for Trump.

QuoteEven in the absolute best case scenario, throwing him in jail doesn't undo the 20+ years of damage that neoliberals like Clinton and Gore and Obama have done, but they are going to pretend that it will and make a big spectacle out of it.  But next time when a smarter Trump-inspired creature comes along, that creature is going to win because nobody has learned anything in the meantime.

Yep, understandably the media will make a big spectacle of it. It's a US history first, to have an ex-Pres/and likely-to-be Pres candidate, fighting a total of 91 indictments. I hope by "they" you're not, once again, trying to blame the Dems.
In bold: I wouldn't agree with this sentence at all. How do you know "that creature" is going to win? How do you know that "nobody will learn anything"? My guess is that, depending how things go in court, a lot of political actors are going to realise that there can be consequences for illegal machinations. Finally, bit of a cheap shot, but didn't you say that Trump was just a distraction ? Why mention him here then? 

QuoteRepublicans are also ultimately wasting their time going after Biden too, truth be told.  People elected Biden knowing he was a more palatable liar than Trump - no amount of investigations are going to change anyone's vote in 2024.

Probably true. In fact this is something often commented on in the kind of political news that I consume: that re-litigating and investigating the past may not appeal to voters. Still, I'm not about to let on to Kari Lake, Gym Jordan, etc.: I'll leave that honour to you, Nimbly ! Send them some of our posts, ok? 

You end with some more comments about the Durham Report, but tbh, I feel like we've done with that particular topic. I've read your interpretation, you've read mine and I'm not inclined to go over it all again, if that's ok by you.

The fact Gore questioned the election process to the extent that he did is a clear precursor to what we are dealing with today...but I've already made my case about it.  You and I aren't seeing eye to eye on that topic, so I'm moving on from it.

Trump is a distraction because even if he goes to jail, the damage has already been done. They're talking about disqualifying him even being on the ballot in a lot of states utilizing the 14th Amendment...but the time to put him on trial and make an example out of him was 2 and a half years ago, not now.

But all that aside, the way has already been paved for someone else to learn from his failures...and they will do "better" at flaunting norms and hiding misconduct.  That's why I brought up RFK Jr, a candidate on the other side of the aisle who also defies a lot of political norms and is an "outsider" like Trump.  He's a Democrat who says all the right things to liberal audiences about the environment and many other issues, but essentially believes that vaccines cause autism and is also a massive conspiracy theorist.  And according to polls, over 20% of Democrats preferred him to Biden, and that number is probably undercounted if you really dug into the data.

The point is that even if you want to be ultra optimistic about it, your still looking at a significant chunk of both Democrats and independents who'd support an RFk Jr. in the general election if he was the only option.  To me, the fact he's a presence at all tells me that there are major underlying problems with the Dem Party but get a fraction of the scrutiny that Republicans receive.  And when people don't pay attention...well, you know the rest.  Them's the breaks.

QuoteI was disappointed that you think my responses are just a knee-jerk reaction :( To say that Trump is the Big Shiny Object is a curious perspective on someone who has dominated US politics for a long time, and is still the front-runner for GOP Pres candidate. He has had a Presidential term and given his name to Trumpism. Even if you want to go "big  picture" on US democracy, I think he's more than a distraction, because if anyone talks about "actual reform", they're likely to run into people opposing reform: by and large, but not exclusively, they're likely to run into Republicans, aren't they? And many of those Republicans are supporters, apologists, enablers for Trump.

Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election at 83 years old.  People like Feinstein and Mitch McConnell stands up at a podium and do not seem to know who they are or where they're at.   Both parties oppose reform that would involve instituting actual term limits and limiting the amount of weaseling that goes behind the scenes. In order to have real reform, you'd need to start by putting an actual leash on these politicians but we don't really do that here.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Blasts DNC's 'Rigged Process,' Slams Biden In New Forbes Interview

I don't see what Gore actually did wrong.  That election result in Florida was an absolute mess.  He would have been an idiot to just concede at that point.  But the Supreme court effectively ruled on Dec 12th and he conceded on the 13th. I see absolutely no problem with that.  If that's what had happened with Trump,  we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

As for Clinton,  she also conceded but she was also a sore loser who was willing to blame everything from sexism to Russian interference for her loss, rather than accept what an unlikable reptilian slogan-bot she actually is. And there were other democrats willing to extend her that coverage as well.

Is that bad for democracy? Sure.  Is it anywhere even remotely in the ball park of Jan 6th? Not at all. She never actually leveraged that to try to seize power. That is the critical difference. 

Like this is the point I think your both sides rhetoric clearly misses: you can absolutely say you think the election was stolen and the president is illegitimate. Or you can spend 2 years saying the president is illegitimate because he was actually born in another country.  Which is how Trump launched his political career. These things are clearly cynical attempts at misinforming voters to scare them into voting a certain way.  But they aren't outside the bounds of the way our system actually works.  They aren't just technically legal.  There is no way to clamp down on that sort of thing without clamping down on free speech.

Even if you want to say it adds to the polarization which leads to things like Jan 6th, you can't treat these individuals like children without autonomy. The existence of inflammatory rhetoric on the other side doesn't justify a coup attempt. If that is the kind of escalating force we are going to apply then what should the dem response to Jan 6th be? Maybe they should gather up a bunch of green haired weirdos and go storm the capital with guns this time? And just start executing politicians right? I mean if they did so obviously it would be Trump's fault for laying the ground work and not their fault for actually picking up guns and trying to take over the country, right?

Think Things Are Bad Now? Just Wait, Says Chris Hedges

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 11, 2023, 06:38 PMMaybe they should gather up a bunch of green haired weirdos and go storm the capital with guns this time? And just start executing politicians right? I mean if they did so obviously it would be Trump's fault for laying the ground work and not their fault for actually picking up guns and trying to take over the country, right?

If such a thing did actually happen, you can bet your mama's britches that Trump would certainly be blamed in that particular case.

I'm not saying I have a wonderful answer to the problem that is our country's polarizations - I'm just saying that it started way earlier than Trump and even before the advent of social media.  I personally think it was wrong for Gore to say he wasn't going to concede when there was no actual proof that the results were actually wrong.  I know the whole story and it didn't need to go to the Supreme Court.  If social media had existed back then and things had been a little bit different, there's no telling what kind of rioting would have occurred.  The only reason things weren't worse back then is because everyone and their grandma couldn't get onto the digital public square and tell their people to march on the capitol to protest the Supreme Court on December 8th or w/e date you want to dream up.  It was a simpler time.

That's all you got? The libs would blame Trump? Who gives a fuck. The point is he's responsible for what he did and Clinton is responsible for what she did.  And if Biden leads the green haired rebellion in 24 then he'll be responsible for that. That's how it works. You endlessly infantilize Trump and his followers yet hold the democrats inadvertently responsible for Trump's actions.  And that's centrism? What am I missing here?

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 11, 2023, 09:47 PMThat's all you got? The libs would blame Trump? Who gives a fuck. The point is he's responsible for what he did and Clinton is responsible for what she did.  And if Biden leads the green haired rebellion in 24 then he'll be responsible for that. That's how it works. You endlessly infantilize Trump and his followers yet hold the democrats inadvertently responsible for Trump's actions.  And that's centrism? What am I missing here?

I'm saying if the Dems did blame him after they rioted, I'd totally get it cause history is always written by the victors.

Also, if you really want to be technical about it, Democrats actually are more than inadvertedly responsible.  Trump literally wouldn't have run and won if Obama hadn't tried to make an example out of him at the WH correspondents dinner.  And Clinton would have won if she had shown anything but utter disdain for both poor and middle class America.  Some people even speculate today that Bernie could have won both 2016 and 2020 (since he would have definitely run for re-election).

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 11, 2023, 09:37 PMIf such a thing did actually happen, you can bet your mama's britches that Trump would certainly be blamed in that particular case.

I'm not saying I have a wonderful answer to the problem that is our country's polarizations - I'm just saying that it started way earlier than Trump and even before the advent of social media.  I personally think it was wrong for Gore to say he wasn't going to concede when there was no actual proof that the results were actually wrong.  I know the whole story and it didn't need to go to the Supreme Court.  If social media had existed back then and things had been a little bit different, there's no telling what kind of rioting would have occurred.  The only reason things weren't worse back then is because everyone and their grandma couldn't get onto the digital public square and tell their people to march on the capitol to protest the Supreme Court on December 8th or w/e date you want to dream up.  It was a simpler time.

what are you talking about? They were doing recounts which is why he retracted his concession. It wasn't clear he actually lost.  The margins were in the literally hundreds of votes.  He had every reason to try to get a recount. And when his legal options ran out,  he conceded.  That's exactly how it is supposed to work.  You're sitting here pearl clutching about someone legitimately contesting an election result while simultaneously running cover for a guy who literally tried to steal the election.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 11, 2023, 09:57 PMwhat are you talking about? They were doing recounts which is why he retracted his concession. It wasn't clear he actually lost.  The margins were in the literally hundreds of votes.  He had every reason to try to get a recount. And when his legal options ran out,  he conceded.  That's exactly how it is supposed to work.  You're sitting here pearl clutching about someone legitimately contesting an election result while simultaneously running cover for a guy who literally tried to steal the election.

I thought we already established that Trump had no way to actually steal an election? Him yelling on social media for months about rigged elections and then riling people up is well within the bounds of free speech, no?  Clinton published a book whining about how bad and illegitimate he was - is that future election interference?

The best case you can make against Trump is the fake electors scheme thing, so if that's their boat I'd tell them to keep rowing in it.  It's literally their best shot besides the 14th Amendment argument.

If that's what you thought we established then I would say you are not comprehending much of what I am saying, my friend.


We established that he didn't succeed at stealing the election. I laid out why I thought he did at the very least try to do so in a lengthy post and you responded to me with a tangent about AI. So yeah.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 11, 2023, 10:06 PMIf that's what you thought we established then I would say you are not comprehending much of what I am saying, my friend.


We established that he didn't succeed at stealing the election. I laid out why I thought he did at the very least try to do so in a lengthy post and you responded to me with a tangent about AI. So yeah.

Lol we talked about it in multiple posts after that.

I've consistently said I thought he tried to steal the election.

Well as far as Gore goes, I was curious so I asked an AI what critics thought about it at the time. 

Quotecritics argue that Gore's decision to retract his concession prolonged the uncertainty and exacerbated divisions in the country. They contend that he should have accepted the initial results and respected the democratic process, even if he had concerns about the accuracy of the vote count.

So there ya go.  And you know what? We've had trouble with every modern election cycle since then.  Although they didn't get a lot of traction at the time, there were people who tried to contest Obama's 2012 win too. Will all this kinda stuff go away once Trump goes to jail? One can only hope.

Bruh really? Critics being the Republicans lol.  What do you honestly think Bush or anyone else would have done in the same position? That seems like such a reach for you to appeal to an AI saying "exacerbated divisions." I don't even disagree that it did, but so does every fuckin political controversy ever.

Honestly I don't know how long you've been in this country or if you remember being around in this era but in the aftermath of the gore vs bush thing,  after the election happened,  everyone moved the fuck on shortly afterwards. And then 9/11 happened and for a short period we were more united than ever.  Eventually the war in Iraq is what lead to the unpopularity of Bush on the left.  Far more so than the election which democrats did occasionally trot out as a talking point but it was far from the main grievances people had against the Bush administration

And tbh people were even more animated over Obama and then even more animated over Trump.  But there are a lot of reasons for that.  Virtually every relevant political force has been pushing things that way, it's not even restricted to people not trusting the elections.  They don't trust anything.  Facts are no longer that relevant.  Online propaganda from every direction has people swamped with more legit information and more misinformation than they can ever hope to sift through.  So that's a big part of why I think our institutions are falling apart.  We underestimated the extent to which they relied on a corporate media structure with the kind of  establishment Overton window that makes washington comfortable.  The internet has destroyed that stability.

Quote from: Jwb on Sep 11, 2023, 10:39 PMBruh really? Critics being the Republicans lol.  What do you honestly think Bush or anyone else would have done in the same position? That seems like such a reach for you to appeal to an AI saying "exacerbated divisions." I don't even disagree that it did, but so does every fuckin political controversy ever.

Honestly I don't know how long you've been in this country or if you remember being around in this era but in the aftermath of the gore vs bush thing,  after the election happened,  everyone moved the fuck on shortly afterwards. And then 9/11 happened and for a short period we were more united than ever.  Eventually the war in Iraq is what lead to the unpopularity of Bush on the left.  Far more so than the election which democrats did occasionally trot out as a talking point but it was far from the main grievances people had against the Bush administration

And tbh people were even more animated over Obama and then even more animated over Trump.  But there are a lot of reasons for that.  Virtually every relevant political force has been pushing things that way, it's not even restricted to people not trusting the elections.  They don't trust anything.  Facts are no longer that relevant.  Online propaganda from every direction has people swamped with more legit information and more misinformation than they can ever hope to sift through.  So that's a big part of why I think our institutions are falling apart.  We underestimated the extent to which they relied on a corporate media structure with the kind of  establishment Overton window that makes washington comfortable.  The internet has destroyed that stability.

I don't disagree with any of that. Question is, what is it going to take to rebuild people's trust in institutions? Taxing the rich and redistributing that wealth to Americans is something that comes up a lot, but that's just a big Band-Aid.

I don't have an answer to that question. In my mind there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.  But that could be a lack of imagination on my part.  But I think we are headed to a dark place.

Armed man arrested at RFK Jr. campaign event in Los Angeles (https://abcnews.go.com/US/armed-man-arrested-rfk-jr-campaign-event-los/story?id=103245782)

QuoteAn armed man accused of impersonating a U.S. Marshal was taken into custody at a Robert Kennedy Jr. campaign event in Los Angeles on Friday afternoon, according to the Los Angeles Police Department.

Adrian Paul Aispuro, 44, was identified Saturday as the suspect, according to booking details reviewed by ABC News. Aispuro is currently being held in Los Angeles on $35,000 bail for a felony charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

According to a statement issued Saturday afternoon from Kennedy's campaign, a private security team interacted with Aispuro ahead of Friday evening's speech after Aispuro insisted that he was a part of the candidate's security detail and asked to be taken to Kennedy "immediately."

"The security imposter, who was wearing sunglasses, appeared to have laid his plans in advance, as he was carrying what appeared to be a U.S. Marshal badge on a lanyard and beltclip federal ID," the campaign said. "The Kennedy campaign is seeking additional information from law enforcement authorities."

Lol and they wonder why he's conspiracy-oriented. I'd probably look at the world a little differently too if crazies like that were constantly trying to kill me.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Sep 17, 2023, 03:22 PMLol and they wonder why he's conspiracy-oriented. I'd probably look at the world a little differently too if crazies like that were constantly trying to kill me.

Same here.

QuoteIn July, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and a bipartisan committee rejected a request from Kennedy for Secret Service protection following an unusually early request from Kennedy's campaign. Kennedy said at the time that his request "included a 67-page report...detailing unique and well-established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats."

Kennedy, whose father and uncle were both assassinated, raised the issue of a Secret Service detail again in his statement on Friday night, claiming he was the "first presidential candidate in history" to be denied protection upon request.

"Major presidential candidates" do receive Secret Service protection during the primaries but there are a number of requirements that candidates must meet, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Once such requirements are met, the secretary of Homeland Security consults with an advisory committee and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee -- usually from the Secret Service -- and determines if a candidate is eligible for Secret Service protection.

If any candidate for the 2024 Presidential race is deserving of Secret Service protection (besides Biden and Trump) it's Kennedy. Just based on his family history.

The Biden administration tried to censor this Stanford doctor, but he won in court (https://nypost.com/2023/09/20/how-dr-jay-bhattacharya-beat-biden-administration-censorship/)

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul's migrant U-turn: Video reveals how Democrat welcomed asylum seekers 'with open arms' in 2021 - but TODAY she tells them: 'Go somewhere else' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12545385/kathy-hochul-migrants-new-york.html)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Sep 23, 2023, 04:37 PMNY Gov. Kathy Hochul's migrant U-turn: Video reveals how Democrat welcomed asylum seekers 'with open arms' in 2021 - but TODAY she tells them: 'Go somewhere else' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12545385/kathy-hochul-migrants-new-york.html)

I don't see the problem with what she said. For going on almost two years NYC has taken them in without help from the federal government and they are hitting logical limits when it comes to housing them within NYC and NY is a huge state but all the other counties are red and xenophobic so they don't want any migrants coming up state.

BAM! Matt Gaetz Ends McCarthy!

Mike Lindell admits he is 'broke' as MyPillow attorneys say he owes them 'millions' in unpaid fees for defending him in election defamation lawsuits (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12600311/Mike-Lindell-broke-MyPillow-lawsuit-defamation.html)

When the phone doesn't ring, you'll know it's Trump.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Oct 06, 2023, 07:31 PMMike Lindell admits he is 'broke' as MyPillow attorneys say he owes them 'millions' in unpaid fees for defending him in election defamation lawsuits (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12600311/Mike-Lindell-broke-MyPillow-lawsuit-defamation.html)

When the phone doesn't ring, you'll know it's Trump.

How is he broke? I bought two of his pillows for the lulz this year.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 06, 2023, 07:58 PMHow is he broke? I bought two of his pillows for the lulz this year.

I'm cynical enough to think he's trying to protect some of his personal assets by claiming to be broke and stiffing his lawyers. Probably figures he's going to lose the lawsuit against him. I'll bet he's got a few million hidden away somewhere.

Are the pillows any good? (Asking for a friend.)  ;D

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Oct 06, 2023, 08:14 PMI'm cynical enough to think he's trying to protect some of his personal assets by claiming to be broke and stiffing his lawyers. Probably figures he's going to lose the lawsuit against him. I'll bet he's got a few million hidden away somewhere.

Are the pillows any good? (Asking for a friend.)  ;D

That sounds about right and also they are surprisingly very good. Get the 2.0 if you are thinking about it. I bought one of the older ones I saw from a discount store Ocean State Job Lot but wanted to try the 2.0 one and it's night and day difference.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 06, 2023, 11:35 PMThat sounds about right and also they are surprisingly very good. Get the 2.0 if you are thinking about it. I bought one of the older ones I saw from a discount store Ocean State Job Lot but wanted to try the 2.0 one and it's night and day difference.

Thanks for the info. I'm actually in need of a new pillow. Maybe I'll be able to pick one up at a fire sale price now that he's "broke."

"Loving it" - Reaction To Matt Gaetz Influencing The Removal of Speaker McCarthy

I'm not getting involved in any of this (way over my head) but I would just like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the three of you - Nimbly, Lisna and JWB - for providing both an interesting and entertaining way of diverting my thoughts from the darker, sadder channels they've been stuck in over the last month. You all argued your cases well and with a lot of either research or information you already had, and while I would argue with some points on this or that, all put very well and a joy to read.

Well done guys! You kind of cheered me up, but at the very least distracted me from my troubles for a while.
TH

Quote from: Trollheart on Oct 09, 2023, 10:06 PMI'm not getting involved in any of this (way over my head) but I would just like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the three of you - Nimbly, Lisna and JWB - for providing both an interesting and entertaining way of diverting my thoughts from the darker, sadder channels they've been stuck in over the last month. You all argued your cases well and with a lot of either research or information you already had, and while I would argue with some points on this or that, all put very well and a joy to read.

Well done guys! You kind of cheered me up, but at the very least distracted me from my troubles for a while.
TH

That's really kind of you to say so Trollheart. :love: 
I'm very pleased to hear that our debates entertained you for a while - and if you read the whole 10-page thread, you should now consider yourself up-to-date with American politics: perhaps not all the facts, but you now have at your disposal all the bigotries that each side holds against the other - and that after all is essence of political debate ;)

So speaking of Big Picture American Politics, we've had some Americans die in Israel with the attack by Hamas - what's the likelihood this escalates to more American involvement (possibly against Iran)? How does our current involvement in the Ukraine war impact our involvement here, if at all? How might this affect Biden or Trump's chances in the general election?

These are my personal big picture guesses to your questions, SGR. They're based on my feeling that this flare-up of a long-running conflict is not going to spawn another Six Day War scenario, with Israel and other countries in open conflict. I suspect that it'll remain a two-dog fight while it lasts, but with the same grinding "proxy-war" dynamic that every conflict seems to turn into these days.

The US involvement will increase slightly, helping Israel with more words, perhaps money, but probably not much else imo.

I suppose Ukraine and Israel will start competing for US attention, though Israel is pretty good at looking after itself these days, afaik. I imagine that Israel will be looking for moral support, while Ukraine will still be asking for funding, so in that sense they won't be competing for the same thing.

How will it effect Biden or Trump in the election? My guess is that ultimately, it won't be by much. I think Americans will have other things on their minds, come election day, than one item of foreign policy that's happening now, but will probably be forgotten by election day. 

RFK Jr. announced his independent 2024 run today. Gonna shake things up in a very interesting way.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Oct 10, 2023, 03:58 AMRFK Jr. announced his independent 2024 run today. Gonna shake things up in a very interesting way.

An interesting question is who will he siphon more votes from, Trump or Biden?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Oct 10, 2023, 03:22 AMThese are my personal big picture guesses to your questions, SGR. They're based on my feeling that this flare-up of a long-running conflict is not going to spawn another Six Day War scenario, with Israel and other countries in open conflict. I suspect that it'll remain a two-dog fight while it lasts, but with the same grinding "proxy-war" dynamic that every conflict seems to turn into these days.

The US involvement will increase slightly, helping Israel with more words, perhaps money, but probably not much else imo.

I suppose Ukraine and Israel will start competing for US attention, though Israel is pretty good at looking after itself these days, afaik. I imagine that Israel will be looking for moral support, while Ukraine will still be asking for funding, so in that sense they won't be competing for the same thing.

How will it effect Biden or Trump in the election? My guess is that ultimately, it won't be by much. I think Americans will have other things on their minds, come election day, than one item of foreign policy that's happening now, but will probably be forgotten by election day. 

Interesting thoughts Lisna - I haven't settled in my mind how I think it will play out, but it sounds like you mostly have. How long do you think this Israeli conflict will drag out? I remember thinking that the Ukraine conflict would be over in a matter of months at most but was proven completely wrong. I'm assuming you don't think it will drag that long if you don't think it'll affect the general elections in the US.

The Ukraine conflict has gone on for longer than expected because people expected Russia to have a relatively quick conventional war victory which would then be followed by a potentially extended occupation,  similar to what we saw in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States.


Instead they have simply failed to take over the country even in the conventional sense, so it seems the initial projections either over estimated Russian military power or underestimated the potency of a Ukrainian resistance being supplemented with western resources and funding.  Or possibly both.


With regard to Israel,  they aren't being invaded by a former superpower.  They've been invaded by the terrorists thar have risen to power in a region which Israel has been systemically oppressing for the sake of national security.  It's not even a question whether Israel can defend themselves against Hamas.

If it did somehow escalate into direct conflict between Israel and Iran then sure, we would be talking about a very different scenario.  But I don't think that seems likely.  Israel is going to likely just try to purge Hamas from Gaza. I've already heard the proposed idea is to somehow put the PLO back in power.

Quote from: Jwb on Oct 10, 2023, 06:33 AMThe Ukraine conflict has gone on for longer than expected because people expected Russia to have a relatively quick conventional war victory which would then be followed by a potentially extended occupation,  similar to what we saw in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States.


Instead they have simply failed to take over the country even in the conventional sense, so it seems the initial projections either over estimated Russian military power or underestimated the potency of a Ukrainian resistance being supplemented with western resources and funding.  Or possibly both.


With regard to Israel,  they aren't being invaded by a former superpower.  They've been invaded by the terrorists thar have risen to power in a region which Israel has been systemically oppressing for the sake of national security.  It's not even a question whether Israel can defend themselves against Hamas.

If it did somehow escalate into direct conflict between Israel and Iran then sure, we would be talking about a very different scenario.  But I don't think that seems likely.  Israel is going to likely just try to purge Hamas from Gaza. I've already heard the proposed idea is to somehow put the PLO back in power.

wrong!!  not American.  wrong thread.  change thread.

Quote from: SGR on Oct 10, 2023, 04:33 AMInteresting thoughts Lisna - I haven't settled in my mind how I think it will play out, but it sounds like you mostly have. How long do you think this Israeli conflict will drag out? I remember thinking that the Ukraine conflict would be over in a matter of months at most but was proven completely wrong. I'm assuming you don't think it will drag that long if you don't think it'll affect the general elections in the US.

Thanks, SGR. It was your questions that prompted me to work out my thoughts, so thanks for that too. Mind you, I could easily be proved wrong as well, which is why my post is slathered with supposes, imos, I thinks and maybes.

As for duration, my guess is that Israel is going to stomp on Gaza both hard and fast, so today's violence will be over way before the US election.  Biden has made clear which side he's on (=Israel), but how about Trump ? Has he given an opinion yet? His admin did Israel a solid in moving, what was it? The capital, the embassy to Jerusalem. Does that mean that the GOP will be taking the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Biden ?!  :yikes:

More likely scenario, imo:  Hostage negotiation stuff will go on for a long time, and at each stage the GOP will be accusing Biden of doing too much/too little, too fast/too slow, etc. That's the luck of being the opposition party: lots of chances to criticize without having to reveal that your own approach is no better.

This might sound heartless, but why are we supposed to care about Isreal and Palenstine conflict this time? I'm not picking a side and posting a little square on social media to say I support one side or the other. They have been in conflict with each other for decades now? What's different?

Is it the amount of people that have died in one attack?

I heard a random comment with someone saying that this is Isreal's 9/11 and I rolled my eyes so hard at that but are they accurate? I don't know I haven't done a deep dive into this situation at all.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 12, 2023, 02:42 PMI heard a random comment with someone saying that this is Isreal's 9/11 and I rolled my eyes so hard at that but are they accurate? I don't know I haven't done a deep dive into this situation at all.

It might be 'Israel's 9/11' in the sense that this widely publicized and very blatant terror attack will give Israel the international blessing or support (at least for a time) to 'take care of business' in the region, so to speak, whereas before, if they tried the same approach, they'd be met with a very large amount of scrutiny and criticism.

Per the 'why are we supposed to care' thing - I suppose it's because Israel is an important geopolitical ally of ours in the middle east (a region full of our enemies), much more so of an ally than Ukraine is (who happens to be at war with a big geopolitical rival of ours, Russia). But to your point, Muslims and Jews have been at war with each other for time immemorial. But this event, in scale, dwarfs the usual sporadic stories of a bomb going off that killed 5 people (which would probably be a headline for a day, if it was lucky).

It's hard to believe that Mossad, one of the premiere intelligence agencies of the world, was not wise to the plans of Hamas though.

Quote from: SGR on Oct 12, 2023, 04:17 PMIt might be 'Israel's 9/11' in the sense that this widely publicized and very blatant terror attack will give Israel the international blessing or support (at least for a time) to 'take care of business' in the region, so to speak, whereas before, if they tried the same approach, they'd be met with a very large amount of scrutiny and criticism.

Per the 'why are we supposed to care' thing - I suppose it's because Israel is an important geopolitical ally of ours in the middle east (a region full of our enemies), much more so of an ally than Ukraine is (who happens to be at war with a big geopolitical rival of ours, Russia). But to your point, Muslims and Jews have been at war with each other for time immemorial. But this event, in scale, dwarfs the usual sporadic stories of a bomb going off that killed 5 people (which would probably be a headline for a day, if it was lucky).

It's hard to believe that Mossad, one of the premiere intelligence agencies of the world, was not wise to the plans of Hamas though.

Supposedly, Hamas might have taken some Americans hostage during the attack, so that complicates things for the U.S. government and the U.S. military involvement.

Yep, we are all the time confronted with death going on somewhere in the world, so DJ, and Roger Waters, pose a valid question:

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 12, 2023, 02:42 PMThis might sound heartless, but why are we supposed to care about Isreal and Palenstine conflict this time? I'm not picking a side and posting a little square on social media to say I support one side or the other. They have been in conflict with each other for decades now? What's different?

Is it the amount of people that have died in one attack?

I heard a random comment with someone saying that this is Isreal's 9/11 and I rolled my eyes so hard at that but are they accurate? I don't know I haven't done a deep dive into this situation at all.

Yes the scale of the attack.

Also yes there are far too many armchair activists sticking their noses into this conflict and supporting their 'side' more vigorously than I support my football team. Share your condolences and sympathies fine but stop attacking the other side when you live in London. This is for the people there to sort out.

Its a joke.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Oct 12, 2023, 09:47 PMYes the scale of the attack.

Also yes there are far too many armchair activists sticking their noses into this conflict and supporting their 'side' more vigorously than I support my football team. Share your condolences and sympathies fine but stop attacking the other side when you live in London. This is for the people there to sort out.

Its a joke.

The sporting-event/team-support mentality towards this in the U.S. is about as wretched as it gets.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Oct 12, 2023, 02:42 PMThis might sound heartless, but why are we supposed to care about Isreal and Palenstine conflict this time? I'm not picking a side and posting a little square on social media to say I support one side or the other. They have been in conflict with each other for decades now? What's different?

Is it the amount of people that have died in one attack?

I heard a random comment with someone saying that this is Isreal's 9/11 and I rolled my eyes so hard at that but are they accurate? I don't know I haven't done a deep dive into this situation at all.

the last death toll I heard was around 1200 for the israeli side. Considering these are people largely being slaughtered one by one by roving militants, yeah I would say the psychological impact of this attack is on par with 9/11 from an Israeli perspective.  It's not even just a high death count,  it's the personal and brutal nature of it. Combined with the long standing hostility between the two sides.

Also, people in Israel have historically been able to at least have confidence in the capability of their military apparatus to defend them from precisely this sort of thing.  But the unprecedented success of this attack blows a massive hole in that confidence and almost certainly will result in an overkill response from Israel. We've already seen the beginning of that with the current siege.

Donald Trump gets gag order in election meddling case (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67127780?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Oct 12, 2023, 10:33 PMThe sporting-event/team-support mentality towards this in the U.S. is about as wretched as it gets.

In Israel, Biden says it appears "the other team" is to blame for Gaza hospital explosion (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-israel-denial-hospital-explosion-gaza/)

Lol...you can always count on Biden to fall flat on his face. But I have some sympathy here because any discussion about Israel and Palestine is a loser. If you side with Palestine you get called a terrorist sympathizer, a colonizer and/or a racist antisemite (among other things), and if you side with Israel you are a colonizer and also a racist / Islamophobe or some kind of fascist.

And if you need even more proof that we'll never get a nuanced discussion about it as far as society goes, look at how even liberal colleges are cracking down on students and professors saying anti-Israel things.

I feel awful because I'm so politically ignorant to this, and to a lot of stuff happening outside the US.

I feel like people have the idea that I'm obligated to say something due to me being raised Jewish, but I stopped practicing literally 20 years ago. I just have to admit that I'm uneducated on all this stuff. I try to do research and all I can find on the net is each side saying how atrocious and horrible the other side is, and I just don't know what to think.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Oct 18, 2023, 01:29 PMIn Israel, Biden says it appears "the other team" is to blame for Gaza hospital explosion (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-israel-denial-hospital-explosion-gaza/)

I saw that.

Our PM has also said "we want you to win" to Netanyahu.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67151404

Horrific things going on and he's coming out with shit like that.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Oct 19, 2023, 07:23 PMI saw that.

Our PM has also said "we want you to win" to Netanyahu.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67151404

Horrific things going on and he's coming out with shit like that.

Biden is definitely not a wartime president.

Biden isn't fit to be any sort of president.

He is too confused, old and decrepit for this.

I saw him on the news earlier and he looked like a corpse. He looks almost as dead as Prince Phillip did before he died and he was 99!

I know Donald Trump is old as well but he is in miles better shape than Sleepy Joe.

Quote from: Mrs. Waffles on Oct 18, 2023, 03:48 PMI feel awful because I'm so politically ignorant to this, and to a lot of stuff happening outside the US.

I feel like people have the idea that I'm obligated to say something due to me being raised Jewish, but I stopped practicing literally 20 years ago. I just have to admit that I'm uneducated on all this stuff. I try to do research and all I can find on the net is each side saying how atrocious and horrible the other side is, and I just don't know what to think.

The reality of the conflict is horribly convoluted with a long history of many conflicts breaking out in that area. Noone can keep track of everything that's happened.

I think these are the broad strokes:

• Jews have a religiously rooted idea of a homeland and many (the Zionist movement) wanted to establish this in the Israel area for a long time, from the late 19th century I believe. Jews have been migrating to the Israel area for a long time.
• At the time of Imperialism up until just after the second World War, Palestine was occupied by the British who found it too troublesome to hold, in part due to Jewish rebellion
• The British announced they would leave the area come some date in 1948. A significant Jewish population prepped to create the Jewish homeland (Israel) while neighbouring Arab nations also prepared to grab some of this land
• After the British moved out, there was an armed conflict. At the end of it, sorta, you had the new nation of Israel and Egypt had occupied the Gaza strip.
• About a decade later, after warring a bit more (Israeli-arab war), Israel expanded borders and took control of the Gaza strip and the west bank populated mostly by Palestinian Arabs.
• Attempts at peace treaties etc. haven't quite worked and there are now walls and checkpoints separating Arab populations in Gaza / west bank from the Jewish population.
  

So I think the deal is you have Jews and Arabs who don't get along. Arabs feel Jews inserted themselves, displacing Arabs or taking their land by force. Sympathy after WWII significantly supported / enabled this. The Arab populations of Gaza/west bank have been oppressed and have had their land etc. taken away, creating fertile grounds for the growth of Hamas, roughly and generally described as Palestinian terrorists.

It's not a conflict where one side is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong. Opinion here is generally that Israel is wrong to oppress Palestinians and has a hand in creating Hamas/rebellion to their own treatment. At the same time, people generally condemn Hamas attacks that target civilians. I also think Hamas probably don't speak for all Arabs living in Gaza/West Bank and are probably making life dangerous for many Arabs who would rather try to live peacefully.

That's roughly what I think is going on? I'm expecting @Nimbly9 might correct me and give a better summary of what's actually happening.

^ You've done a great job of summarising thousands of years of history and conflict, Guybrush.

I'd just like to add my five cents to emphasize just how badly that whole region was treated by the Brits during and after WW I: we were so keen to find allies in our fight against Germany (and their ally, Turkey) that we enlisted the help of both Arabs and Jews. The Arabs fought dramatically under Lawrence of Arabia, pushed the Turks out of Palestine, and of course expected to get their country back as a result. At the same time, other Brits were promising the Jews that they'd get a homeland of their own, also in Palestine.

The "quick fix" solution was for Britain to divide up the country between the two conflicting claimants ( in The Balfour Declaration, 1922). It was a monstrous piece of Anglo-centric arrogance, given that it wasn't their country to divide up, and the Palestinians weren't consulted - although I think the US and the French gave it their stamp of approval too.

The result has been an endless conflict ever since, with both sides having good claims to the same territory, and making it a moral quagmire for outside observers like me, who are inclined to look for simple good guy/bad guy issues.

The Zionist movement was started by Theodor Herzl. He wasn't motivated by religion but by European anti semitism in the late 19th century.  He thought the jews would never be safe unless they had their own country. He died in 1904, so he never lived to see either the climax of European antisemitism in the holocaust,  or the subsequent creation of the Jewish state in former Palestine. Thus he is considered the father of zionism  and the "visionary of the state." Almost a prophetic type of figure, keeping with Jewish tradition in at least one sense.

It is true that since the creation of Isreal there are many religious (and non religious) jews who flocked to Israel and there are religious versions of zionism that are often even more right wing and ambitious in terms of land.  And also that if you just look at the Hebrew Bible, the entire thing is about the relationship between God and the people of Abraham, who he delivers into the promised land from which they are later scattered. 

Jewish history for the last couple thousand years has been in exile. They've been cast out of Israel/Judah multiple times by different regional empires, most recently by the Romans in 70 AD. But previous periods of exile such as the exile of Judah to Babylon had a decisive impact on Jewish tradition as well and is when some of the texts from the Hebrew bible were being written.

Anyway,  the fact that they settled on Palestine as the location is clearly tied to the fact that there is that history there and that sort of ancient cultural and even religious connection to that land,  but also as you guys mentioned the fact that the British happened to control that specific plot of land at the time and were notably sympathetic to the zionist movement.  So I do think the initial fuck up is on England.

It's also true that there wasn't a Palestinian state really,  historically.  This was just land that was inhabited relatively sparsely  by an Arab population that was mostly rural and had been subjects of various empires previously.  But the idea of nationalism and statehood in the way we understand it is also a fairly recent phenomenon historically,  especially in certain regions. So at the very least there were Arabs living in Palestine at the time who wanted a state, even if they didn't have one.  But then there were jews who were moving there in droves who wanted the same thing.  Imagine how you would respond if you had a tiny region that was under imperial rule based on some world War you had nothing to do with,  and now your population was being completely replaced with refugees from another world War/genocide that you had nothing to do with.  It's understandable to me why at the time they figured this is my country, and these people are invaders. Even if you didn't have a formal nation state.

But the fact is that Israel is there now and they aren't going anywhere.  Any reasonable solution has to acknowledge that whether you think the creation of the state was right or not,  the people who are there now have been born there for at least a few generations.  They're not invaders or colonists any more than we are in this country.  So at this point, any solution has to involve both people being able to peacefully coexist somehow.

That being said,  Israel has most of the leverage. Most of the power. Thus most the responsibility. I can sit here and condemn Hamas all day long but they're a terrorist group that feeds off the scraps Israel throws to it every time they do another series of strikes that inevitably radicalizes a new round of recruits. And up until recently Netanyahu thought Hamas being in charge in Gaza was a blessing to their regime because they would never be recognized internationally.  They're actually not nearly as worried about Hamas rockets as they are about the prospect of actually having to absorb millions of Arab Muslims into their voting ranks. They're thoroughly concerned with maintaining a Jewish state above all else.  In keeping with the zionist tradition.

MyPillow's Mike Lindell is peddling an election machine 'security' device. But voting officials aren't biting (https://abcnews.go.com/US/election-officials-push-back-security-device-distributed-mike/story?id=104541850)

Poll: Trump DESTROYING Biden – Dems Freaking Out!

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Nov 08, 2023, 08:45 PM

Poll: Trump DESTROYING Biden – Dems Freaking Out!

David Axelrod coming out and basically signalling that Biden should step down I think is a big indicator that movers and shakers in the Dem party might actually make a change. But if so, to who?

Quote from: SGR on Nov 08, 2023, 11:18 PMDavid Axelrod coming out and basically signalling that Biden should step down I think is a big indicator that movers and shakers in the Dem party might actually make a change. But if so, to who?

Your guess is probably as good as mine at this point but the only person I've noticed who looks like he's positioning himself for a possible run at replacing Biden is Gavin Newsom.

Amazing.

Jan. 6 rioter dubbed "QAnon Shaman" plans to run for U.S. Congress (https://www.axios.com/2023/11/12/jan-6-rioter-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-congress)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 13, 2023, 06:53 PMAmazing.

Jan. 6 rioter dubbed "QAnon Shaman" plans to run for U.S. Congress (https://www.axios.com/2023/11/12/jan-6-rioter-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-congress)

yeah I saw that. Good luck to him pfft. He should still be behind bars as far as I'm concerned.

Colbert is a bit of a hypocrite (remember when his crew trespassed at the capitol lol), but that was kinda funny.

^ I'm glad you liked Mindy's Colbert clip, Nimbly. I think S Colbert is the funniest of the late-night standup commentators, and in this monologue he makes a worrying point about Big Picture American Politics: that the GOP are still backing a deeply anti-democratic guy, swallowing his dangerous ideas along with their KoolAid.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 16, 2023, 04:24 PM^ I'm glad you liked Mindy's Colbert clip, Nimbly. I think S Colbert is the funniest of the late-night standup commentators, and in this monologue he makes a worrying point about Big Picture American Politics: that the GOP are still backing a deeply anti-democratic guy, swallowing his dangerous ideas along with their KoolAid.

He's just another entitled clown like Bill Maher who looks down on anyone who isn't rich and neoliberal, which is probably why he loves Gavin Newsom and Justin "Blackface" Trudeau (the latter being an actual fascist). I'd love to see how fast Colbert can talk out of the other side of his mouth if Trump ever started freezing bank accounts of protesters he disagreed with in his 2nd term.  If he does something like that I'll be the first to put him up there on Mount Faschmore with Kim Jong Un and the previously mentioned Trudeau. :laughing:

Latest Polls for 2024 Presidential Election (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Nov 17, 2023, 04:25 PMLatest Polls for 2024 Presidential Election (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/)

"Listen Jack, I'm leading in 8 of those 10 polls!"

(https://media.tenor.com/LoZlpBdGi2AAAAAC/joe-biden-cmon-man.gif)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 17, 2023, 06:25 AMHe's just another entitled clown like Bill Maher who looks down on anyone who isn't rich and neoliberal, which is probably why he loves Gavin Newsom and Justin "Blackface" Trudeau (the latter being an actual fascist).

Well, the guy is a celebrity comedian,  so if you want to turn his job description into an insult, "entitled clown" is a pretty good way to go. To be honest, I don't ask much of my clowns apart from a bit of amusement. How about that other entitled clown who died recently, Matthew Perry ? Did he look down on anyone who isn't rich too - or perhaps you didn't care enough to investigate, in which case, you've reached my position on S Colbert.

QuoteI'd love to see how fast Colbert can talk out of the other side of his mouth if Trump ever started freezing bank accounts of protesters he disagreed with in his 2nd term.  If he does something like that I'll be the first to put him up there on Mount Faschmore with Kim Jong Un and the previously mentioned Trudeau. :laughing:

Gotta say that it's kind of worrying to me that you should normalise outrageous, autocratic policies ( "started freezing bank accounts of protesters he disagreed with"), then turn them into wish fantasies or a joke of some kind. TBH I don't really understand what you're suggesting with "Mount Faschmore" though I liked that little play on words.

I think you missed the stories about Trudeau and the truckers based on your second paragraph back when all that was going on, but that's fine.  The point is, we already know what modern day fascism looks like because it has already come to pass.  If Trump gets elected, we're just catching up with Canada lol.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 17, 2023, 06:35 PMWell, the guy is a celebrity comedian,  so if you want to turn his job description into an insult, "entitled clown" is a pretty good way to go. To be honest, I don't ask much of my clowns apart from a bit of amusement. How about that other entitled clown who died recently, Matthew Perry ? Did he look down on anyone who isn't rich too - or perhaps you didn't care enough to investigate, in which case, you've reached my position on S Colbert.

Well, Matthew Perry wasn't getting up on TV every night telling me I'm a bad person for not like Biden or Trudeau and then frantically pointing over at Trump as an excuse to never explore a world beyond the neoliberal status quo.  But that's all Colbert and the rest of his late night friends have been doing for the last 10+ years in some form or fashion.  They're the funhouse mirror flipside of Greg Gutfeld with better commercial breaks and Ivy League degrees.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 17, 2023, 07:14 PMIf Trump gets elected, we're just catching up with Canada lol.

Canadian Parliament gives WWII Nazi standing ovation


No Canada!

^ I'm at work right now so I can't play that clip, but I notice the title "Canada Blunder", suggesting, iirc, that it was an unintentional error.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 17, 2023, 07:14 PMI think you missed the stories about Trudeau and the truckers based on your second paragraph back when all that was going on, but that's fine.  The point is, we already know what modern day fascism looks like because it has already come to pass.  If Trump gets elected, we're just catching up with Canada lol.

Yes, plenty of countries all over the world where you can see modern-day fascism at work.
Actually, Nimbly, I'm not sure that "we're just catching up with" fascism is something to lol about.

Perhaps you and Psy-Fi would like to open a thread about "Canada: fascist or not?" as you seem quite interested in the topic.

QuoteWell, Matthew Perry wasn't getting up on TV every night telling me I'm a bad person for not like Biden or Trudeau and then frantically pointing over at Trump as an excuse to never explore a world beyond the neoliberal status quo.  But that's all Colbert and the rest of his late night friends have been doing for the last 10+ years in some form or fashion.  They're the funhouse mirror flipside of Greg Gutfeld with better commercial breaks and Ivy League degrees.

There's a long and healthy tradition of people laughing at politicians, powerful and pompous people. Shakespeare used to do it. To me, having people like that around is a sign of a tolerant society in which people can express their views without fear, without being banned, without being imprisoned, without having their bank accounts frozen. What I don't hear from Colbert is any suggestion that we should use intimidation or outright violence against people we disagree with. That's a line that Trump has crossed.

If you have a remote control, Nimbly, you must know how to stop Colbert "getting up on tv every night and telling me" stuff you don't agree with. You say he is "frantically pointing over at Trump", but I say Trump invites derision because of his public utterances, which deserve to be deflated because they are often not true and sometimes carry alarming messages about citizen-on-citizen violence.
I think that a known fraudster, the sorest election-loser in US history, and a man convicted of sexual abuse, who gets up on stage and declares with a straight face, "I am your justice...I am your retribution" deserves all the ridicule he gets.

By all means tell me something about the "unexplored world beyond the neoliberal status quo" which you assume I'm ignorant of: perhaps I am.

Frankly I couldn't care less whether or not Trump fits the definition of fascism; that's just a label, and one that ceases to be useful if arguing over its definition distracts from the actual problems.

But one indisputable reality is that Trump has proposed nationwide all-ages bans on transgender healthcare and continued the hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric against us that his party has been using to relentlessly scapegoat and scaremonger for the past couple years. His Supreme Court appointments led directly to the catastrophic erosion of women's rights to bodily autonomy by way of ending Roe.

I do not care what Trudeau may have done that is supposedly worse, miss me with the whataboutism. Just because a politician in another country is also bad does not make Trump any less of a villain. Being so lenient on Trump and dismissive of all the harm he has caused and will cause makes you come off as both callous and irresponsible.

It isn't whataboutism.  It's not a justification.  I'm merely pointing out that there are plenty of pro-democracy people in power, both here and abroad, who already have no problems being fascist when they want to be.  The goalposts keep moving and nobody pays enough attention because the cost of living keeps going up and your average voter is going to blame whoever is currently in power when the time comes to cast their vote. 

Trump wouldn't be able to thrive in these polls in swing states that basically forsook him in the past unless there was some legitimate deep seated rage going on regarding how the mostly Democrat-led government has been approaching the country's problems.  One or two polls can be misleading, but Biden is losing to Trump in almost all of them across tons of different constituencies.

I think you two should take a harder look at why Trump is leading in all the major polls less than a year out from the next big election in a country that already had 4 years of him. Lotta people in those swing states still blame him for Covid-19 tanking the economy before....yet he's leading Biden.  He's up with demographics like Hispanics and even black men and women.  That's the reality. 

It's all (unfortunately) extraordinary because Trump is one of the most well known people on planet Earth at this point.  Everyone is aware of practically every little thing he says and does, as well as everything he's said and done in the past. Everyone has an opinion of him of some kind. So if he ends up winning in an election cycle like this one, America probably deserves him.  If people actually believed in democracy and really wanted to give the middle finger to fascism, they'd vote for a 3rd party candidate of some kind instead of this constant life-or-death swing between different sides of the corporate uniparty. 

A better question at this point would be something like  "what could Biden do to turn things around?" He's just surrounded by yes men who tell him he doesn't need to campaign seriously, and they seem to take voters for granted.  I personally think that's a recipe for disaster for an incumbent, but maybe that's just me.

Ya'll should just hope RFK Jr. pulls an upset, cause things aren't looking too good no matter how ya slice it.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 18, 2023, 03:18 AMTrump wouldn't be able to thrive in these polls in swing states that basically forsook him in the past unless there was some legitimate deep seated rage going on regarding how the mostly Democrat-led government has been approaching the country's problems.  One or two polls can be misleading, but Biden is losing to Trump in almost all of them across tons of different constituencies.

I think you two should take a harder look at why Trump is leading in all the major polls less than a year out from the next big election in a country that already had 4 years of him. Lotta people in those swing states still blame him for Covid-19 tanking the economy before....yet he's leading Biden.  He's up with demographics like Hispanics and even black men and women.  That's the reality.

^ Yep, I think about these poll results that keep rolling in, and I'm very disappointed that Trump remains so popular. I don't accept, though, that your bolded explanation is an accurate or only reason for the poll results we are seeing. Instead of "legitimate deep-seated rage", here are some alternative explanations:-

i) Trump is a master at stirring up a sense of grievance, and he makes people feel angry about things that aren't real. Here's a few things Trump wants us to be mad about: an election that he lost, wind turbines that cause cancer, an "open Southern border", (which of course is not open, it's just more porous than many would like), media, and prosecutors, who are "the enemy of the people", and most recently , "communists, marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin...". Some people buy into that rhetoric and feel the rage, without it necessarily being legitimate.
 
ii) Biden has many shortcomings as a figurehead and orator,(see the "Primary Biden" thread), so I can understand that people are slow to tick the Biden box in a poll.

iii) as enablers-in-chief, the GOP has consistently set the stage for abandoning conventional moral positions when it comes to Trump. They send a message to poll-takers: don't worry, he may have been impeached, he's guilty of insurrection and is currently being charged with 91 offenses, but he's still our guy, so he can be your guy too. 

Third party candidate or no, I'm hoping it'll all come good in the end, as it sometimes does, in refutation of the poll predictions. With a year to go, plenty can change as Trump continues to be dragged through the courts, and who knows, perhaps some voters will notice the rather invisible powers of Biden: that, for example, he listens to fact-based advice from a rational and scandal-free support team - largely unnoticed, but so different from Trump's "best people". (Remember John Kelly, Bill Barr and all the people in between who ran screaming from the White House, and turned out not to have been "best people" after all? Great theatre, great drama, but not great governance.)   
Also, by election day, voters may have come round to the idea that democracy is preferable to autocracy, and will remind themselves of something the majority of them (80%,I think) have already decided: that freedom of choice on abortion is better than having a bunch of old men and religious nut-jobs competing over who can push through the most restrictive ban.   

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 18, 2023, 03:18 AMA better question at this point would be something like  "what could Biden do to turn things around?" He's just surrounded by yes men who tell him he doesn't need to campaign seriously, and they seem to take voters for granted.  I personally think that's a recipe for disaster for an incumbent, but maybe that's just me.

^ Yep, despite what I just posted, I'd largely agree with this. Biden's campaign staff seem to be asleep at the wheel - far too complacent. It's understandable to me that perhaps Biden is focused on legislation and stuff, passes a bill and thinks, "that's a job well done", but unless he's got someone banging a drum, saying "look at this guy legislate!!" then voters aren't going to notice. Isn't that what happened with Obama and Obamacare? The Dems got the package together, then forgot to tour the country to tell everyone what a milestone improvement it was for so many Americans. 

A couple of other points.

1. Biden has never had a scandal-free support team. If you have followed any news at all over the last few years, there's been significant dysfunction.  The reason you don't remember the revolving cast is because the media isn't motivated enough to keep going back to these stories the same way they used to go after Trump.  The current government is better at narrative control and has a superior relationship with a larger share of media outlets than the Trump administration did.  For being savvy in that regard, I give the Biden administration some credit.  They're way better at information damage control than Trump ever was.  For example, If that debacle with Sam Brinton had happened during the Trump administration, you'd never had heard the end of it.

Biden was also smarter than Trump early on in regards to replacing most Trump-sympathetic officials in his first year or so. That in and of itself eliminates a lot of high profile firing problems that might show up later on closer to election season.

2. Trump is a master of going after weakness. In particular, he's good at cutting through the noise and pointing out "hey, we may be extreme to liberals but their side has extremes you don't like too".  And for some people that will always be a better argument to give the GOP another shot.  I personally don't find grievance-focused populism all that endearing, but clearly I'm not the target audience.

3. Whether you vote for Democrats or Republicans, when you vote for a party are endorsing the full spectrum of policy positions from that side of the aisle, even the extremes. Some abstract idea of preserving democracy doesn't cut mustard because most people are going to say "well democracy is great and all, but Newsweek says I'm $10,000 poorer this year because of inflation, so **** Biden." That's where all the polarization comes from, because most voters are somewhere in the middle but don't feel like either side "really" represents their own beliefs as the ideological gap continues to widen.  Prior to Obama and Trump, that gap didn't seem as insurmountably wide.

4. If you really want Biden to have the best chance of winning, you shouldn't want anything to happen to Trump.  These same polls that show Biden being neck and neck show him losing by much larger margins to someone like Nikki Haley, and my guess is RFK Jr. would get an even larger slice of the pie if Trump dropped out as well.  As you said, a lot can happen in a year - its probably in Biden's best interest to be campaigning against the devil he knows as opposed the ones he doesn't (who could clearly kick his ass if the election was held today).

The American people are functionally  retarded. The reason Trump is doing better in the polls, IMO, is because of this fact.  When he was in the news constantly because he was president,  people grew sick of him and voted in Biden largely as a "referendum" against Trump.  Biden largely stayed out of the spotlight for that election. 

That's obviously not going to be as effective with Biden as the incumbent.  The incumbent has to stand on their own track record,  not just attack the opposition. I happen to think it's not even close in that regard.  Regardless of which guy you like more,  Biden has done a much more effective job pushing his agenda through than Trump or even Obama.  But that isn't the perception.  The perception is that he's a doddering old man.  And perception matters more than reality.


The reality is though,  regardless of how frustrating it is to watch this current state of affairs in the Democratic party,  with prominent voices starting to panic at the prospect that Biden can't win,  if I was a republican I might be even more frustrated. The fact that they are so cucked to Trump that they are going to give him a second chance at beating Biden,  after he lost to him as an incumbent,  is simply hilarious. 

Try to imagine for a second the prospect of the Democrats running Hillary against Trump for a second time in a row in 2020. Can you imagine how weak that would make them look? Now imagine that on top of that she had already served one term as president.  So even if she does win,  in 4 years you won't get the incumbent advantage.  It will just be back to the drawing board with an open primary.


Now a lot of people these days seem to either undermine or just completely ignore the incumbency advantage,  acting puzzled at the fact that the Democrats haven't pushed to primary Biden.  But there are obvious strategic incentives that both parties follow and that is why they avoid that sort of thing. Not out of some abstract dedication to norms or traditions, but as a sheer survival mechanism. 

Primarying your presidential incumbent is a great recipe for just kneecapping your candidate going in to the general election.  Believe it or not,  getting to avoid the shitslinging on your own side of the isle for the primary season is a big part of the reason why the incumbency advantage exists.

On the other side of the isle, there is no reason to stick with Trump other than the fact that the base genuinely supports him by leaps and bounds.  Which puts them in a real predicament, considering what a general liability he is and has been to the Republican party.

It's funny when I hear Vivek say that only an American first candidate can win and then in other talking points when he is attacking the broad from the RNC he will cite the consistent track record of losing the Republicans have done in the last 5 straight elections.  He doesn't seem to connect the dots that the Trump strategy has only worked once and for one guy, and that was Trump in 2016. Since then there is scant evidence of this movement translating to broader electoral success and more recently in 2022 it was specifically MAGA candidates who performed poorly.

Trump is an enigma and a cult of personality. He doesn't represent a coherent political ideology but rather a borderline messianic vision of only this one guy can save humanity from the forces of evil and the deep state.  That's why they haven't just latched on to the younger Indian version of Trump,  incase Vivek is still confused why "America first" voters don't just opt for him since he's younger,  more intelligent and articulate by leaps and bounds,  and parroting largely the same ideology. The reason is because they're not "America first" voters. They're Trump voters.  Period.

Also,  since as I mentioned the American people are functionally retarded,  they tend generally to oscillate between the two parties, generally on an 8 year basis given the incumbency advantage.  Obviously not a hard rule but a statistical trend.  So if somehow Biden does win this election,  likely 28 would swing back to the GOP. That's what i would expect. 

On the flip side, if the Republicans had a fresh candidate like say Vivek who managed to win in 24 against Biden,  he would be going in to 28 with the incumbency advantage.  Which would give them a decent shot at 8 years of GOP rule.

If you go with Trump and he wins, not only can he not run again in 28, but the well will be poisoned by another 4 years of Trump in office.  That will almost certainly put the Republicans at a disadvantage going in to 28. All of this without even mentioning any of his legal issues.

But ultimately it is up to the voters.  Dems picked Biden as the "safe" option against Trump, ignoring his optical shortcomings and insisting he was the only one who could beat Trump.  Now they're paying for that.  But the Trump situation is different.  His followers have almost a cult like loyalty that seems unbreakable.  The Dems picked Biden and now feel  stuck with him as a weak incumbent,  where as the Republicans can't ditch Trump because he has the loyalty of their voters.

^ That's an interesting look at how things stand, and I'd agree with most of what you say. Just as you invite us to look at some what-if situations, on this point, I'd like to put forward a fantasy of my own:

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 19, 2023, 08:57 PMPrimarying your presidential incumbent is a great recipe for just kneecapping your candidate going in to the general election.  Believe it or not,  getting to avoid the shitslinging on your own side of the isle for the primary season is a big part of the reason why the incumbency advantage exists.

Imagine for a moment that politics was amenable to good grace and common sense. In that case, Biden could pass on the baton to a younger candidate, who would run with the slogan of "Just like Biden, but more likely to still be alive in 2028". I don't know who that candidate would be, but running with the same cast of characters, the same storyline, and with Biden's blessing he/she would perhaps get a touch of "incumbancy advantage" in 2024, plus the whole weight of it 2028.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 19, 2023, 07:47 PM3. Whether you vote for Democrats or Republicans, when you vote for a party are endorsing the full spectrum of policy positions from that side of the aisle, even the extremes. Some abstract idea of preserving democracy doesn't cut mustard because most people are going to say "well democracy is great and all, but Newsweek says I'm $10,000 poorer this year because of inflation, so **** Biden." That's where all the polarization comes from, because most voters are somewhere in the middle but don't feel like either side "really" represents their own beliefs as the ideological gap continues to widen.  Prior to Obama and Trump, that gap didn't seem as insurmountably wide.

^ I thought I'd explore this theory, without necessarily subscribing to it, and found some stats for us in this article:-

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/economy-performed-under-president-since-120038478.html

LBJ 7 years in office: 4.4% inflation
Nixon 6 years ditto : 10.9%
Gerald Ford 4 years: 5.2%
Jimmy Carter 4 years: 11.8%
Reagan 8 years: 4.7%
George H.W. Bush 8 years: 3.3%
Clinton 8 years: 3.7%
G.W.Bush 8 years: 0.0% !!!
Obama 8 years: 2.5%
Trump 4 years: 1.4%
Biden 3 years and counting: 5.0%

So Biden is on the high side, although he has scored lower than average for Unemployment and poverty rates. Maybe the inflation rate will be a big driver on polling day, as you say, Nimbly, but it's still my hope that other issues will be in people's minds: that democracy thing, abortion, and not having a corrupt conman and self-declared autocrat running your country.   

That's not how it works,  in my mind. They would hold a primary.  Biden could have for instance voluntarily agreed at some point in time not to run for re-election, thus clearing the way for an open primary.  But to do something like that at this point in time is not only logistically unfeasible,  it's a clear sign of weakness.

So Biden could at best give his endorsement to one of the primary candidates, which might help them win the primary,  but I definitely don't think that they would by any means inherit the incumbency advantage in the general election merely by getting Biden's endorsement.  The incumbency advantage is structural in nature. By definition you sacrifice it by having a primary and selecting a new candidate.

A big problem is that anyone who is serious about running on the Dem side is just waiting for 28. If Biden had signaled early on that he was only in it for one term then maybe the Dems could have had a prospect ready to replace him.  But who in their right mind would waste their bid on running at this time?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 19, 2023, 07:47 PMA couple of other points.

1. Biden has never had a scandal-free support team. If you have followed any news at all over the last few years, there's been significant dysfunction.  The reason you don't remember the revolving cast is because the media isn't motivated enough to keep going back to these stories the same way they used to go after Trump.  The current government is better at narrative control and has a superior relationship with a larger share of media outlets than the Trump administration did.  For being savvy in that regard, I give the Biden administration some credit.  They're way better at information damage control than Trump ever was.  For example, If that debacle with Sam Brinton had happened during the Trump administration, you'd never had heard the end of it.

Biden was also smarter than Trump early on in regards to replacing most Trump-sympathetic officials in his first year or so. That in and of itself eliminates a lot of high profile firing problems that might show up later on closer to election season.

I think you're giving too much credit to Biden's PR team and their (according to you) superior relationship with media outlets. Do you seriously imagine that they can persuade Fox News to downplay scandals about employees quitting the Biden White House in disgrace or anger?!

(https://www.govexec.com/media/screen_shot_2023-01-26_at_1.24.51_pm_(1).png)

These are the stats that suggest why "revolving door" turnover at the Trump White House was newsworthy, and why it's not under Biden. Trump turnover was historically high and Biden's is not. Instead of fabricating the notion that the Sam Brinton scandal was somehow underplayed by the media, why not accept the far more probable scenario that it just wasn't in the same league as some of these high-profile staff changes:-


In 2018, Mattis wrote a scathing resignation letter. In an interview, he called Trump "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership."

Omarosa claimed she was fired because she knew too much about a possible audio recording of Trump saying a racial epithet. "Donald Trump, and his decisions and his behavior, was harming the country. I could no longer be a part of this madness," she wrote in her book.

Eleven Day Scaramucci: "For the last 3 years I have fully supported this President. Recently he has said things that divide the country in a way that is unacceptable. So I didn't pass the 100% litmus test. Eventually he turns on everyone and soon it will be you and then the entire country."

Just a couple of the fiery, scandalous staff changes that the media love. The reason we don't hear similar tales from inside the Biden White House is that those kinds of things just aren't happening.

I disagree on a few things here.

Firstly, your graph proves the points I was mentioning earlier - Biden doesn't thrive on drama and didn't have a ton of trial-and-error to that end during year 1.  But look at year 2 on both presidencies - Trump and Biden are neck and neck.  How do you explain that? Going by your train of thought, Trump should be way higher than Biden based on how he ran things. So I'd say all of that supports the points I already made. 

Secondly, Trump made a big show out of firing people whenever it occurred - he thrived on the drama it created.  Biden doesn't do that and the media are happy to go along with it because he doesn't get up on the podium and call them "fake news" every day.  If you honestly don't think that there's a very different "overall" attitude from all the non-Fox outlets in regards to how they covered Trump vs Biden, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 20, 2023, 03:56 PMI think you're giving too much credit to Biden's PR team and their (according to you) superior relationship with media outlets. Do you seriously imagine that they can persuade Fox News to downplay scandals about employees quitting the Biden White House in disgrace or anger?!

The cumulative viewership of all the other various news networks and liberal websites dwarfs the right-wing mediasphere significantly, and Fox and their various fixations (regardless of their merit or lack thereof) are constantly mocked and/or marginalized by every other outlet.  Fox doesn't downplay anything related to Biden they can find obviously, but they report stuff all the time that doesn't get picked up at all in any of the other major outlets.

Going back to Sam Brinton, for example - that story got a fraction of the amount of attention from other outlets than Fox gave it at the time Sam stole luggage for the 2nd or 3rd time.  If those incidents had happened under Trump's watch, they would be right up there with his firing of Comey or some of his other high profile turnovers and cited as an example of Trump putting "bad people" in charge of stuff that's critical to national security.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 20, 2023, 04:08 PMYour comment on Sam Brinton is honestly the kind of thing I'm talking about.  Your doing the exact same thing the media does. Because it didn't happen during the presidency of someone you already didn't like, it's not significant.

You take an observation (me doing the same as the media) but then ascribe to it a reason that may not be entirely true. Sure, I love to dish the dirt on Trump, but perhaps the reason the Sam Brinton scandal isn't bigger is just simply that it isn't that big a story. There doesn't need to be a media plot going on: they are just doing what they always do, promoting the most newsworthy stories they can find. If I accept their filtering process and focus on stories they have chosen, well, Guilty as charged.
Some stories just dissolve away because of lack of substance or far-reaching importance. Recently, for example, we haven't heard much about the House Oversight Committee's plan to impeach Biden: how is that working out? It's not in the news these days, so my guess is that again me and the media are in agreement: it's turning into a non-story. In this case, yet another pre-determined GOP conspiracy, which, as Rudy Guilliani admitted about election fraud, has no evidence to support it.

QuoteAlso, your graph proves my point in a way as well - Biden cleaned house more effectively than Trump did in his first year.

Did he though, Nimbly? I remember back at transition time, Biden was still talking hopefully about bipartisanship and actually was criticised for going soft on Trump admin staff and leaving them in place. If I had the time I would fact-check that too.

QuoteBut look at year 2 on both presidencies - Trump and Biden are neck and neck.  How do you explain that? Going by your logic, Trump should be way higher than Biden based on how he ran things. So I'd say all of that supports the points I already made.

There doesn't have to be an exact year-by-year correlation between the two admins to prove my point that Trump's turnover figures are historically high. Here's another graphic that makes the same point, though it doesn't have Biden's admin in it:-

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/15071.jpeg)

So what's your arguement, exactly? That almost alone of modern presidents, Trump didn't make a clean transitional sweep of his White House staff because he is such a big-hearted softy? Personally, I favour the explanation that the much-reported toxic atmosphere of the Trump White House was the reason for the high turnover.   

If we are going to be honest,  even if the media had tried to make a big deal out of the Sam Brinton thing if it happened under Trump's watch,  his administration had such a never ending list of bad headlines that it literally would not have made a blip.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that MSNBC spent the entire administration hyping up every potential scandal.  But that lead to information overload and a sense of boy who cried wolf,  which ultimately backfired.  But whether they exaggerated shit or not,  he gave them much more to work with than any other president in my lifetime.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 20, 2023, 05:12 PMfor example, we haven't heard much about the House Oversight Committee's plan to impeach Biden: how is that working out? It's not in the news these days, so my guess is that again me and the media are in agreement: it's turning into a non-story. In this case, yet another pre-determined GOP conspiracy, which, as Rudy Guilliani admitted about election fraud, has no evidence to support it.

Fox and a few others still covers that story pretty regularly as far as I know, since it is still ongoing despite White House attempts to stonewall on a few things. If you are that curious about it, I'm sure Google could tell you.

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 20, 2023, 08:51 PMIf we are going to be honest,  even if the media had tried to make a big deal out of the Sam Brinton thing if it happened under Trump's watch,  his administration had such a never ending list of bad headlines that it literally would not have made a blip.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that MSNBC spent the entire administration hyping up every potential scandal.  But that lead to information overload and a sense of boy who cried wolf,  which ultimately backfired.  But whether they exaggerated shit or not,  he gave them much more to work with than any other president in my lifetime.

If we're talking year 1, probably would get lumped in with the other drama like the 2 scoops of ice cream stuff.  Year 2 and 3? Would have been in the headlines a lot longer.  The coronavirus sucked up all of the media oxygen after 2019.

In any case, I'm expecting a fun election this time around if RFK Jr. ends up debating Thing 1 and Thing 2 on the big stage next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is no debate.

Sen. Joe Manchin doesn't commit to staying in Democratic Party as he weighs presidential run (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/politics/joe-manchin-democratic-party-2024/index.html)

Lmao. He's lost it.

Quote from: Jwb on Nov 20, 2023, 09:47 PMI wouldn't be surprised if there is no debate.

How do you think the Dems/DNC will justify that? Something like: "Biden will not debate with Trump because that would be giving legitimacy to an insurrectionist and an existential threat to our democracy", or some other horseshit?

^ Yep, that's one possibility, SGR. Here's another possible DNC announcement: "For security reasons, President Biden is unable to join Trump for the Presidential Debate taking place in Cell Block C tonight."
_______________________

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Nov 20, 2023, 09:01 PMFox and a few others still covers that story pretty regularly as far as I know, since it is still ongoing despite White House attempts to stonewall on a few things. If you are that curious about it, I'm sure Google could tell you.

LOL Thanks for the suggestion, Nimbly ! Do you think Google can also re-fund me the (too much) time I'm already spending in this thread? ;)
___________________

Yeah, I think Manchin has already had his 15 minutes of infamy. I don't think he's gonna make it to "Big Picture American Politics" again. Still, I suppose in his long retirement he can take solace like this, "Well, thanks to me and all the Republican senate members, we stopped Joe Biden from slowing down global warming. Scientists now say that it's happening even faster than previously predicted. WIN !"

________________________________________

It doesn't take an Orc Far Seer to divine that Manchin is a non-starter.  It'll be a three way orgy between Big T, Sleepy B and RFK.JR and everyone else will be a distant planetary body.

Quote from: SGR on Nov 20, 2023, 10:23 PMHow do you think the Dems/DNC will justify that? Something like: "Biden will not debate with Trump because that would be giving legitimacy to an insurrectionist and an existential threat to our democracy", or some other horseshit?

They'll come up with something.  No matter what they say though, it is going to come off as really pathetic and Biden's numbers will fall even more.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 21, 2023, 12:16 AMLOL Thanks for the suggestion, Nimbly ! Do you think Google can also re-fund me the (too much) time I'm already spending in this thread? ;)

Lol you'll have better luck with ChatGPT than Google for that one.  ;D

Quote from: SGR on Nov 20, 2023, 10:23 PMHow do you think the Dems/DNC will justify that? Something like: "Biden will not debate with Trump because that would be giving legitimacy to an insurrectionist and an existential threat to our democracy", or some other horseshit?

if neither side wants a debate it will be easy to justify. But if one side calls the other side out then yeah they would have to either debate or look weak.  I think Trump would love another chance to try to bully Biden,  but I also would have thought he would have wanted a chance to tear through his GOP rivals like Pence and DeSantis during the Republican debates.  But apparently they are avoiding that sort of outing. Might be seen as a liability,  given Trump's unpredictable nature and immense ability to incriminate himself.

Obviously I don't think Biden's people are exactly eager to trot him out for a debate either. So yeah.  If neither side pushes the issue then maybe they just won't have one or won't come to an agreement over one.  But I do think if either side decides to challenge the other,  then they will probably have to accept.

Cornel West's plan to grow his 'embryonic' campaign: 'Be like jazz and improvise' (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/cornel-wests-plan-grow-embryonic-campaign-jazz-improvise-rcna127193)

(https://i.imgur.com/mfaRzvV.jpg)
I won't be watching it live but will watch it tomorrow. Probably watch for the first 25 minutes or so but then my favorite daily crypto show starts at 930pm every day so I'll switch to that and watch the rest of the debate tomorrow or later tonight

Quote from: Mindy on Dec 01, 2023, 12:32 AM(https://i.imgur.com/mfaRzvV.jpg)
I won't be watching it live but will watch it tomorrow. Probably watch for the first 25 minutes or so but then my favorite daily crypto show starts at 930pm every day so I'll switch to that and watch the rest of the debate tomorrow or later tonight

Watching these two debate about who deserves to be president more is like watching the Jets and the Panthers debate about who deserves to be in the Super Bowl more.  :laughing:

I'm tuning in casually while doing some work, but Newsom is getting wrecked pretty hard. He makes DeSantis look downright charming in comparison.

Quote from: SGR on Dec 01, 2023, 01:41 AMWatching these two debate about who deserves to be president more is like watching the Jets and the Panthers debate about who deserves to be in the Super Bowl more.  :laughing:

That's the gist of it.

Sen. John Fetterman trolls Bob Menendez with social media video recorded by George Santos (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/john-fetterman-trolls-bob-menendez-george-santos-cameo-video-rcna128014)

Quote from: SGR on Dec 01, 2023, 01:41 AMWatching these two debate about who deserves to be president more is like watching the Jets and the Panthers debate about who deserves to be in the Super Bowl more.  :laughing:

Lol but which one is which?

Newsom has the entitlement of the preseason Jets. But then again DeSantis has the arrogance of a 40 year old QB still thinking he's got a shot of reclaiming glory 15 weeks in. 

Regardless I can't shake the feeling that DeSantis is just a Fred Armisen character.

Texas claims US State Department funds tech that censors conservative news (https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-claims-us-state-department-funds-tech-that-censors-conservative-news-2023-12-06/)

Those $5 million dollar per person reparations checks turn into a lump of coal just in time for Christmas.

Ho, ho, ho!

Feels like a lose-lose situation no matter what happens to Trump at this point.  Even if he goes to the big house, the Republican nominee (Haley, DeSantis, etc.) is going to take Biden to the cleaners in November.  And probably by bigger margins than what Trump would have done, seeing as RFK Jr. is going to end up pulling a chunk from Biden too, not just the Republican choice in all the states..

Biden's best hope was being able to run against Trump, so if he actually does get taken out of the picture then idk what they'll be able to campaign on.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 11, 2024, 03:24 AMFeels like a lose-lose situation no matter what happens to Trump at this point.  Even if he goes to the big house, the Republican nominee (Haley, DeSantis, etc.) is going to take Biden to the cleaners in November.  And probably by bigger margins than what Trump would have done, seeing as RFK Jr. is going to end up pulling a chunk from Biden too, not just the Republican choice in all the states..

Biden's best hope was being able to run against Trump, so if he actually does get taken out of the picture then idk what they'll be able to campaign on.

I'm just hoping it's either Haley or DeSantis vs Newsom.
Tired of Biden and I hate trump.

Reuters Poll shows Trump leading Biden 40% to 34% (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-dismayed-by-biden-trump-2024-rematch-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-01-25/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 26, 2024, 11:35 AMReuters Poll shows Trump leading Biden 40% to 34% (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-dismayed-by-biden-trump-2024-rematch-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-01-25/)

I like the subtitle on that article. The rematch that no one wants is so fucking accurate.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SR_23.02.06_ChangingFaceCongress_feature.jpg)

If u live in America, all these old white farts of men claim to represent your best interests.  People that have never even heard of Beyoncé and people that have never consumed a thought piece made past 1989 are making laws "in your best interest" but in reality will kill you with their bare hands if they get a large enough paycheck.

Quote from: tristan_geoff on Jan 27, 2024, 08:51 PM(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SR_23.02.06_ChangingFaceCongress_feature.jpg)

If u live in America, all these old white farts of men claim to represent your best interests.  People that have never even heard of Beyoncé and people that have never consumed a thought piece made past 1989 are making laws "in your best interest" but in reality will kill you with their bare hands if they get a large enough paycheck.

^ That seems like a pretty good "big picture" summary !
My apologies that this song has a pre-1989 date stamp, but I was reminded of a story that it was once sung at a protest outside the Capitol building:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 27, 2024, 11:49 PM^ That seems like a pretty good "big picture" summary !
My apologies that this song has a pre-1989 date stamp, but I was reminded of a story that it was once sung at a protest outside the Capitol building:

it says not available in my country :/

oops edit

The song is "Out Demons Out" by The Edgar Broughton Band: not the greatest song in the world, but your post about congressmen made me thinkof it

Quote from: tristan_geoff on Jan 27, 2024, 08:51 PM(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SR_23.02.06_ChangingFaceCongress_feature.jpg)

People that have never even heard of Beyoncé

To be fair to this bunch, I wish I hadn't heard of her either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 28, 2024, 03:38 AMTo be fair to this bunch, I wish I hadn't heard of her either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What?

I can understand if you said Doja Cat but Beyonce of all people.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 28, 2024, 07:02 AMWhat?

I can understand if you said Doja Cat but Beyonce of all people.

What's wrong with Doja? She's got some great tunes.

Quote from: SGR on Jan 28, 2024, 08:09 AMWhat's wrong with Doja? She's got some great tunes.

I don't fuck with Doja anymore. I used to like her stuff but I don't like her as a person. In the past she used to hang out in tinychat rooms catering to white supremacist frat boys and show them her feet and more recently she always shits on her fans then turn around and posts about how she wants them to buy tickets to her show. Doja Cat fans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 28, 2024, 09:59 AMI don't fuck with Doja anymore. I used to like her stuff but I don't like her as a person. In the past she used to hang out in tinychat rooms catering to white supremacist frat boys and show them her feet and more recently she always shits on her fans then turn around and posts about how she wants them to buy tickets to her show. Doja Cat fans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

WTF? For real?!?  :laughing:  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Jan 28, 2024, 08:53 PMWTF? For real?!?  :laughing:  :laughing:

QuoteOn May 22, videos alleging that Doja Cat participated in public chat rooms began to circulate on social media, particularly Twitter. People online claimed that Doja Cat was "talking to racists and laughing to their racist jokes" on video chatting platform Tinychat. One May 22 tweet claimed to show "footage of [Doja Cat] on a chat room with alt-right white supremacists only 6 days ago."

Source (https://www.businessinsider.com/doja-cat-racist-tinychat-song-lyrics-canceled-twitter-dojacatisoverparty-wearesorrydoja-2020-5)

Couldn't find the feet part specifically but google it and it comes up in connection with that specific timychat group.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Jan 28, 2024, 03:38 AMTo be fair to this bunch, I wish I hadn't heard of her either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 :laughing:

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert!

(https://boxden.com/smilies/Y7BlbK5.png)

U.S. retaliatory strikes start in Iraq and Syria in response to Jordan drone attack (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-retaliatory-strikes-start-iraq-syria-first-response-jordan-drone-at-rcna136928)

Biden reverses course, reinstates numerous Trump-era policies like Houthis, border wall and oil (https://nypost.com/2024/02/03/news/biden-quietly-reverts-back-to-many-trump-policies/)

US says strikes on Iran-linked sites in Iraq and Syria just 'the beginning' (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68200488?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 05, 2024, 01:19 AMUS says strikes on Iran-linked sites in Iraq and Syria just 'the beginning' (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68200488?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

Genocide Joe just getting started  :pimp:

"Hey hey, ho ho, genocide Joe has got to go!"

Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity, US court rules (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA)

If they feel the border bill can wait until the next election then it's obviously not a crisis

What is it with Biden and constantly lying to voters that he's talked with people who are already dead?

Who says he's lying?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 07, 2024, 01:25 AMWhat is it with Biden and constantly lying to voters that he's talked with people who are already dead?

Joe "Ouija" Biden.

^ I'm not convinced that the above posts are "Big Picture American Politics", especially in a week that includes:-

-Appeal court's unanimous ruling that US Presidents don't have immunity for crimes, as Trump laughably proposed

-SCOTUS to consider "probably the most important constitutional and political case in all of American history" (= can an insurrectionist be a Presidential candidate)

- Republicans block bipartisan bill that they spent 4 months negotiating, thus stopping $91 billion going towards improving border security. The new party policy being "let the immigrants and fentanyl flow, on the off-chance that our guy Trump can fix the prob some time in 2025" ( which seems highly unlikely to anyone who remembers the failure of the GOP to put an infrastructure bill together when they held the White House, Senate and House. It wasn't until the Biden presidency that an infrastructure bill was passed.)

- Republican's attempt to impeach Mayorkas (Sec of Homeland Security) without good cause is defeated in a House vote, highlighting the fact that Speaker Johnson is short on both morality and competence.

-RNC chairwomen is pushed out by Trump even though she gifted $50 million of donor's cash to cover his legal expenses 

With so much happening, why are you guys going with Biden's inconsequential memory glitch?

 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 08, 2024, 02:38 PM- Republicans block bipartisan bill that they spent 4 months negotiating, thus stopping $91 billion going towards improving border security. The new party policy being "let the immigrants and fentanyl flow, on the off-chance that our guy Trump can fix the prob some time in 2025" ( which seems highly unlikely to anyone who remembers the failure of the GOP to put an infrastructure bill together when they held the White House, Senate and House. It wasn't until the Biden presidency that an infrastructure bill was passed.)

I view the Democrat party line on this to be so disingenuous. How did the Democrats go from "there is no crisis at the border, everything's under control" to "This entire border crisis is the Republicans fault! Look at all this fentanyl coming through!". Late last year, the Biden admin was selling off unused parts that were intended for the border wall, instead of, y'know, actually using them.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-border-wall-material-auctions-new-wall-approval-1832711

That entire 'border bill' is a crock of shit, and the fact that some Republicans were on board with it should be a wake up call for conservative voters. There's nothing in the bill that would stop the practice of 'catch-and-release', and Biden's administration has been steadfastly trying to end the 'Remain in Mexico' policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remain_in_Mexico), which was effective in Trump's term, with some success. The bill would allow 5,000 illegal immigrants in a day before expulsion powers take effect (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/13/senate-border-deal-would-allow-5000-illegal-immigr/#:~:text=Senators%20afterward%20confirmed%20to%20The,population%20would%20be%20a%20nonstarter). That's nearly 2,000,000 illegal immigrants a year allowed. And the cherry on top? Illegal immigrants from non-contiguous countries (middle eastern countries, Russia, China, Somalia, etc) won't even be counted towards the limit of when expulsion powers take effect:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFqyaP-XYAAIe-r?format=jpg&name=medium)

How many illegal border crossings occurred in 2022? 2.2 million - a record at the time, only until 2023, where we had 2.5 million illegal border crossings.

This is not what fixing the border looks like. This is an attempt at an optical win for the Democrats (because they know that most of the public won't bother to read the details of the bill, so they'll just accept the lies they're fed from media pundits and late-night comedy hosts) in an election year, while the problem remains entirely unfixed (even if the bill was passed). So the attempt at framing this as: "Well, Biden tried to fix the border but the Republicans stopped him!" or "I guess it can't be too big of a crisis, because the Republicans wouldn't pass a bipartisan bill" is nonsense. This bill would have fixed nothing - and there's no reason to think that this isn't by design.

Quote from: Jwb on Feb 07, 2024, 01:31 AMWho says he's lying?

I think he should be given credit - at least he wasn't talking to Charles De Gaulle. Great politician, but I think he'd be a little out of touch with the current geopolitical climate. If Biden makes it to the debate stage, I hope Ronald Reagan goes easy on him.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 08, 2024, 02:38 PMWith so much happening, why are you guys going with Biden's inconsequential memory glitch?

Because Biden doesn't even remember how his own son died. Between that and talking to dead people, it ain't a pretty picture.  Trump gaffes but not like that so it isn't as newsworthy. 

As far as the RNC chairwoman goes, Vivek went after her during the debates and pointed out some unflattering stuff about the RNC under her watch.  Trump took notes most likely so that's why he's in favor of her going away.

Also, 110% consensus with SGR's points regarding the border bill.  Trojan horse.  People should actually read proposed legislation before lazily making statements like its some kind of win for the Democrats.  It isn't.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 08, 2024, 05:08 PMI view the Democrat party line on this to be so disingenuous. How did the Democrats go from "there is no crisis at the border, everything's under control" to "This entire border crisis is the Republicans fault! Look at all this fentanyl coming through!". Late last year, the Biden admin was selling off unused parts that were intended for the border wall, instead of, y'know, actually using them.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-border-wall-material-auctions-new-wall-approval-1832711

I think the new line of both parties on border issues are disingenious. Yes the Dems played down the problems at the border until now that they have produced a bipartisan bill, but how about the Republicans ? They've been demanding action on the border, excoriating the Dems for doing nothing, negotiating a bipartisan bill and then pulling the plug on it because Trump wants to make immigration a campaign issue.
That detail about Biden selling of spare border-wall parts was new to me, and I gotta say, it didn't upset me much. My understanding is that in many parts of the border, Trump's wall is more of a symbolic gesture than anything and that some of the weakest points of the border are really at under-staffed legit border crossing points - which, I believe - that bipartisan bill would have helped improve.

QuoteThat entire 'border bill' is a crock of shit, and the fact that some Republicans were on board with it should be a wake up call for conservative voters. There's nothing in the bill that would stop the practice of 'catch-and-release', and Biden's administration has been steadfastly trying to end the 'Remain in Mexico' policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remain_in_Mexico), which was effective in Trump's term, with some success. The bill would allow 5,000 illegal immigrants in a day before expulsion powers take effect (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/13/senate-border-deal-would-allow-5000-illegal-immigr/#:~:text=Senators%20afterward%20confirmed%20to%20The,population%20would%20be%20a%20nonstarter). That's nearly 2,000,000 illegal immigrants a year allowed. And the cherry on top? Illegal immigrants from non-contiguous countries (middle eastern countries, Russia, China, Somalia, etc) won't even be counted towards the limit of when expulsion powers take effect:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFqyaP-XYAAIe-r?format=jpg&name=medium)

How many illegal border crossings occurred in 2022? 2.2 million - a record at the time, only until 2023, where we had 2.5 million illegal border crossings.
This is not what fixing the border looks like. This is an attempt at an optical win for the Democrats (because they know that most of the public won't bother to read the details of the bill, so they'll just accept the lies they're fed from media pundits and late-night comedy hosts) in an election year, while the problem remains entirely unfixed (even if the bill was passed). So the attempt at framing this as: "Well, Biden tried to fix the border but the Republicans stopped him!" or "I guess it can't be too big of a crisis, because the Republicans wouldn't pass a bipartisan bill" is nonsense. This bill would have fixed nothing - and there's no reason to think that this isn't by design.

I don't have stats to quote back in return, SGR, but I did hear that many border guards were in favour of the bipartisan bill, and that it made a lot of concessions to Republican demands: more than any previous bill of its kind, apparently. Also there is the fact the Republicans shared in preparing and promoting it, all of which make me wonder about the sentences I put in bold above.

It's typical in democratic society that compromises and concessions are made by all to arrive at "the greatest good for the greatest number". That's how Congress could be working, passing a bill that went some way to fixing the border problem. Even if the proposed bill is inadequate in their eyes,   if they were genuinely concerned about resolving the border issues, they should take what's on offer now, then campaign on a call for "more to be done". That's how things generally progress, isn't it? Incrementally. It's the story of civil rights, women's equality, etc: one advance at a time, and given how near-impossible it is to pass any legislation in Congress these days, I think the Reps should've grabbed at something while they could. When do you imagine they'll get a better chance, exactly?

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 08, 2024, 08:15 PMBecause Biden doesn't even remember how his own son died. Between that and talking to dead people, it ain't a pretty picture.  Trump gaffes but not like that so it isn't as newsworthy. 

As far as the RNC chairwoman goes, Vivek went after her during the debates and pointed out some unflattering stuff about the RNC under her watch.  Trump took notes most likely so that's why he's in favor of her going away.

Also, 110% consensus with SGR's points regarding the border bill.  Trojan horse.  People should actually read proposed legislation before lazily making statements like its some kind of win for the Democrats.  It isn't.

^  :laughing: Dream on, Nimbly !! I'm going to stick to the tv pundits and late-night comedians if you don't mind.
As for the gaffes, I'm not sure how you can label one guy's as worse than the other, and neither of them are really "big picture" politics.
And about Vivek: ok, so Trump got his idea of booting out Ronna McDaniel from someone else. It's a given that Trump's ideas are secondhand - he couldn't even come up with a slogan himself, but just copied word for word R Reagan's "make America great again". If he runs on that in 2024, will it at least be modified to "Make America Great Again, Again" as presumably both Reagan and Trump have made it great once each already.

It's not like what Vivek was talking about wasn't obvious though.  McDaniel's leadership of the RNC has been pretty bad - just look at how the midterms went.

Anyway, going back to Biden's memory.  You think it isn't a big deal, but it actually is because it has literally factored into why they aren't prosecuting him over the classified documents case.  I couldn't make up optics this bad even if I wanted to.

NBC News - Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory' (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666)

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 09, 2024, 12:59 AMIt's not like what Vivek was talking about wasn't obvious though.  McDaniel's leadership of the RNC has been pretty bad - just look at how the midterms went.

Anyway, going back to Biden's memory.  You think it isn't a big deal, but it actually is because it has literally factored into why they aren't prosecuting him over the classified documents case.  I couldn't make up optics this bad even if I wanted to.

NBC News - Biden won't be charged in classified docs case; special counsel cites instances of 'poor memory' (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666)

Too cognitively impaired to be charged, but not too cognitively impaired to be president. Makes sense to me, what's your problem?  :laughing:

'A nightmare': Special counsel's assessment of Biden's mental fitness triggers Democratic panic (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-nightmare-special-counsels-assessment-bidens-mental-fitness-triggers-rcna137975)

QuoteThe Hur report strips away the defenses that Biden's press operation has used to protect him and raises fresh doubts about whether Biden is up to the rigors of the presidency, Democratic strategists said in interviews.

"This is beyond devastating," said another Democratic operative, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk candidly about Biden's shortcomings. "It confirms every doubt and concern that voters have. If the only reason they didn't charge him is because he's too old to be charged, then how can he be president of the United States?"

Asked if Hur's report changes the calculus for Democrats who expect Biden to be the party's nominee, this person said: "How the f--- does it not?"

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 08, 2024, 11:36 PMI think the new line of both parties on border issues are disingenious. Yes the Dems played down the problems at the border until now that they have produced a bipartisan bill, but how about the Republicans ? They've been demanding action on the border, excoriating the Dems for doing nothing, negotiating a bipartisan bill and then pulling the plug on it because Trump wants to make immigration a campaign issue.
That detail about Biden selling of spare border-wall parts was new to me, and I gotta say, it didn't upset me much. My understanding is that in many parts of the border, Trump's wall is more of a symbolic gesture than anything and that some of the weakest points of the border are really at under-staffed legit border crossing points - which, I believe - that bipartisan bill would have helped improve.

I don't have stats to quote back in return, SGR, but I did hear that many border guards were in favour of the bipartisan bill, and that it made a lot of concessions to Republican demands: more than any previous bill of its kind, apparently. Also there is the fact the Republicans shared in preparing and promoting it, all of which make me wonder about the sentences I put in bold above.

It's typical in democratic society that compromises and concessions are made by all to arrive at "the greatest good for the greatest number". That's how Congress could be working, passing a bill that went some way to fixing the border problem. Even if the proposed bill is inadequate in their eyes,  if they were genuinely concerned about resolving the border issues, they should take what's on offer now, then campaign on a call for "more to be done". That's how things generally progress, isn't it? Incrementally. It's the story of civil rights, women's equality, etc: one advance at a time, and given how near-impossible it is to pass any legislation in Congress these days, I think the Reps should've grabbed at something while they could. When do you imagine they'll get a better chance, exactly?

Again, I'll reiterate - once people (conservatives) on Twitter and other social media got a chance to dig into the leaks about what the bill contained, they were furiously against it. Whether they pulled the plug on it because Trump wants to make it a campaign issue or not, the crux of my argument remains that the bill was completely useless, and at best was a symbolic gesture by the Democrats to try to signal that they have any interest in improving the border problem. The Democrats (and Republicans) help write up a bill that will be completely useless in stopping the problems at the border, but shame on the Republicans for ultimately killing this useless bill.

To your point, many (maybe even most) Republicans are fucking useless - a bunch of Bush-school neocon RINOs supporting a bullshit border bill with the Democrats doesn't persuade me at all. I'm sure all those clowns would love Nikki Haley to become president. She'd be good for keeping the foreign wars going. And Mitch McConnell belongs in a retirement home (mincing words here).

And I respectfully disagree. You failed to mention that the passing of this bill was tied to about $90 billion in aid to Israel and Ukraine. So no, I don't want Republicans just bending the knee and taking what's 'on offer' in the pig trough from the Democrats. I understand making concessions and compromising when it's for the greater good, but this bill was a poison pill - completely useless in addressing the problems we have - and essentially legislatively green-stamping the problems we have now as the norm. It's about time the Republican party showed some balls and said: "No, you know what, fuck this bullshit bill and the tens of billions in foreign aid you want, if you're not giving us something that will actually help this crisis we have domestically, you can fuck off". I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead chooses to hold the border hostage over aid to foreign countries. And if we're being honest, it's more than likely that much of this foreign aid will be laundered to back to lobbyists and the like. That's why war is so popular. As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  ;)

^ Yep, I agree with you three in many ways: Biden is too old. I think I said that in the "Primary Biden" thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an alternative Dem candidate, and Biden also has this in his favour: he's not Trump, and his government seems to be more capable of governing: consistent good news on GDP,unemployment, etc.

Bad memory or not, surely the big distinction between the Biden docs and Trumps docs is the reaction of the two men: Biden = cooperate and return them immediately, Trump = delay, lie and conceal them.

I'm in the habit of criticising Trump's every move, I suppose, but I mainly mentioned Ronna McDaniels to illustrate that more is going on in US politics than Biden getting his dates and people mixed up. AFAIK Ronna McDaniels gutted the GOP coffers to help with Trump's legal bills, and now he's chucked her out. That's news - that in an election year someone new has to run the RNC when its cash balance is at a historic low.

@ SGR: I can't really answer your main point until I look more closely at what was in the border bill, and yes it was tied to aid to Ukraine - but wasn't that done by the Republicans ? Weren't they the ones who said "We're not voting for any foreign aid unless the border is addressed" ?!

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 09, 2024, 03:29 AM@ SGR: I can't really answer your main point until I look more closely at what was in the border bill, and yes it was tied to aid to Ukraine - but wasn't that done by the Republicans ? Weren't they the ones who said "We're not voting for any foreign aid unless the border is addressed" ?!

Yes, they were - and I agree with their decision to do so. But part of my point there is that Biden could improve the border situation with the stroke of his pen, but he appears to be using the border situation as leverage to get foreign aid for Israel and Ukraine.

If we have a domestic crisis, as it seems both parties now agree that we do, then Ukraine can go pound sand until we fix our domestic crisis.

Firstly, thanks for your extensive answers, SGR, which raise several "big picture" issues imo.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 09, 2024, 03:18 AMAgain, I'll reiterate - once people (conservatives) on Twitter and other social media got a chance to dig into the leaks about what the bill contained, they were furiously against it. Whether they pulled the plug on it because Trump wants to make it a campaign issue or not, the crux of my argument remains that the bill was completely useless, and at best was a symbolic gesture by the Democrats to try to signal that they have any interest in improving the border problem. The Democrats (and Republicans) help write up a bill that will be completely useless in stopping the problems at the border, but shame on the Republicans for ultimately killing this useless bill.

Sorry, still haven't read this bill, but perhaps our different views of it are because of this: it would have thrown a lot of money at the systems at the border, but prob more for making the border crossings more efficient and humane: a quicker system of processing asylum applications etc, which I suppose would not drastically cut down on overall immigration figures, which I think is your main concern. That would explain why there are such different opinions about the bill, from your "useless" to border patrol guys welcoming it. 

QuoteTo your point, many (maybe even most) Republicans are fucking useless - a bunch of Bush-school neocon RINOs supporting a bullshit border bill with the Democrats doesn't persuade me at all. I'm sure all those clowns would love Nikki Haley to become president. She'd be good for keeping the foreign wars going. And Mitch McConnell belongs in a retirement home (mincing words here).

I don't think anyone has talked much about the divisions in the GOP that you're refering to. What has happened to this party that at one time was more-or-less united?
My understanding is that the MAGA wing has grown out of Sarah Palin's Tea Party - now on steroids under Trump's accendency. This is the GOP that has declared that they have no fixed political position or campaign platform apart from what Trump says. Trump has many ideas that are outside conventional Republican policy, and with his talent for lying and mis-labelling things, his opponents in the GOP are called RINOs. In actual fact, I suspect that the RINOs are more like traditional Republicans, supporting things like law and order, bipartisan cooperation and US military involvement overseas. The GOP used to be labelled "hawks" after all. It's really the MAGA wing that are Republicans in name only, because they have adopted novel positions like cozying up to Putin and calling people convicted of violent crimes against police officers "hostages" and "political prisoners". Where is the GOP's traditional support for "the blue" today? With the faction mis-labled as RINOs,I believe.
That, at any rate is my take on what's going on in the GOP. 

QuoteAnd I respectfully disagree. You failed to mention that the passing of this bill was tied to about $90 billion in aid to Israel and Ukraine. So no, I don't want Republicans just bending the knee and taking what's 'on offer' in the pig trough from the Democrats. I understand making concessions and compromising when it's for the greater good, but this bill was a poison pill - completely useless in addressing the problems we have - and essentially legislatively green-stamping the problems we have now as the norm. It's about time the Republican party showed some balls and said: "No, you know what, fuck this bullshit bill and the tens of billions in foreign aid you want, if you're not giving us something that will actually help this crisis we have domestically, you can fuck off". I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead chooses to hold the border hostage over aid to foreign countries. And if we're being honest, it's more than likely that much of this foreign aid will be laundered to back to lobbyists and the like. That's why war is so popular. As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  ;)

Several of the things you say here, I'm not sufficiently well-informed to comment on. I do have a couple of questions though:-

"I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead..." If President Biden can address border problems with a stroke of his pen, why didn't Trump already address them with a stroke of his pen?

"As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  ;)"
Forgive my cynicism on this one, SGR, but when will the Republicans pass a border bill? After they've repealled and replaced Obamacare? After they've passed an infrastructure bill of their own. Oh,wait - they couldn't do either of those things even when they had Presidency, House and Senate. On recent showing, all the GOP can do is tie themselves in knots over faux-impeachments and squabbles about who their speaker should be. 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 09, 2024, 02:29 PMFirstly, thanks for your extensive answers, SGR, which raise several "big picture" issues imo.
Sorry, still haven't read this bill, but perhaps our different views of it are because of this: it would have thrown a lot of money at the systems at the border, but prob more for making the border crossings more efficient and humane: a quicker system of processing asylum applications etc, which I suppose would not drastically cut down on overall immigration figures, which I think is your main concern. That would explain why there are such different opinions about the bill, from your "useless" to border patrol guys welcoming it. 

I think if either you or I were border patrol, we'd probably welcome any additional funding we could get. So I suppose to that point, the bill may have ended up making the lives of individual border patrol officers a little easier (which is perhaps why there was support from some border patrol for it), but I don't think it would be effective at all in stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, and the accompanying drug trafficking (and even human trafficking) that comes with it. It is also possible that these border patrol agents who voiced support, like many of us, didn't know what was really in the bill at the time they voiced support.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 09, 2024, 02:29 PMI don't think anyone has talked much about the divisions in the GOP that you're refering to. What has happened to this party that at one time was more-or-less united?
My understanding is that the MAGA wing has grown out of Sarah Palin's Tea Party - now on steroids under Trump's accendency. This is the GOP that has declared that they have no fixed political position or campaign platform apart from what Trump says. Trump has many ideas that are outside conventional Republican policy, and with his talent for lying and mis-labelling things, his opponents in the GOP are called RINOs. In actual fact, I suspect that the RINOs are more like traditional Republicans, supporting things like law and order, bipartisan cooperation and US military involvement overseas. The GOP used to be labelled "hawks" after all. It's really the MAGA wing that are Republicans in name only, because they have adopted novel positions like cozying up to Putin and calling people convicted of violent crimes against police officers "hostages" and "political prisoners". Where is the GOP's traditional support for "the blue" today? With the faction mis-labled as RINOs,I believe.
That, at any rate is my take on what's going on in the GOP. 

This is an interesting discussion that, you're right, I don't think we've fully explored. I think there's definitely links between the Tea Party movement and Trump's movement (call it the 'MAGA movement', I guess) - certainly some cross pollination going on there. That being said, one of the principles of the Tea Party movement was fiscal conservatism and reduction of government (more libertarian, I guess). The MAGA movement in contrast seems to be more about a sense of isolationism - that we should disengage from foreign entanglements, rewrite trade agreements to make it more favorable to us, implement stronger border control, and put pressure on foreign government with economic protectionism. I think the Tea Party movement was more of a 'principles first' movement, where as the MAGA movement is more of an 'ends justify the means' movement. Many in that movement, for example, wouldn't care if the government expanded under Trump and the national debt continued to grow, as long as they got a strong economy and a strong border out of it. Per your analysis of the 'RINO' thing, it's in effect drawing a parallel between neoconservatives (Bush, Cheney, Romney, Haley) and and neoliberals like Obama and Biden. Different messages, but mostly the same results, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

The identity of a party is not static - if it were, the Democrats would still be the party of slaveholders and traitors that they were before the Civil War. Nixon's sourthern strategy changed the identity of the Republican party for example. Though you may find him detestable, Trump has also slowly changed the identity of the Republican party in a similar way. If we go back to 2016, Trump was able to appeal to blue-collar union member working joes in the Rust Belt, who would historically vote Democrat, while Hillary largely ignored the region while she was campaigning. I think if we were to take a deep dive into that election, and how Trump did what he did, we'd get a better sense of how his campaign platform appealed to such a large number of Americans, and how he was able to make Republicans soften on certain cultural issues that had become a cornerstone of Republican politics (LGBT issues, abortion). When I was growing up under Bush, Republicans were the moralizing party, always wagging their fingers at you with their bibles in tow - Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base. Will the Republican party continue in Trump's image after he's gone or revert back to their old ways? Not sure - but I doubt they're going to look the same after Trump's gone.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 09, 2024, 02:29 PMSeveral of the things you say here, I'm not sufficiently well-informed to comment on. I do have a couple of questions though:-

"I don't like that Biden has the ability to address some of these problems with a stroke of his pen, but he instead..." If President Biden can address border problems with a stroke of his pen, why didn't Trump already address them with a stroke of his pen?

Trump did make many improvements to the border with the stroke of a pen, 472 executive orders. (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/trump-472-executive-actions-immigration-during-presidency) Biden also, with a stroke of his pen, reversed many of these policy improvements (https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-reversing-trump-immigration-policies/6201520.html). This, combined with the messaging on immigration from the Democrats you'd imagine, has led to illegal border crossings absolutely ballooning under Biden - completely unprecedented, and most of the people crossing aren't even from Mexico.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20326/mexicans-non-mexcians-apprehended-at-southern-us-border/

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 09, 2024, 02:29 PM"As to when the Republicans get a better chance: after Trump gets re-elected.  ;)"
Forgive my cynicism on this one, SGR, but when will the Republicans pass a border bill? After they've repealled and replaced Obamacare? After they've passed an infrastructure bill of their own. Oh,wait - they couldn't do either of those things even when they had Presidency, House and Senate. On recent showing, all the GOP can do is tie themselves in knots over faux-impeachments and squabbles about who their speaker should be. 

That comment of mine was mostly jesting. Honestly, we shouldn't need a 'border bill'. We should be able to rely on our government to just enforce the law. But we know how that goes.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 09, 2024, 06:55 PMThis is an interesting discussion that, you're right, I don't think we've fully explored. I think there's definitely links between the Tea Party movement and Trump's movement (call it the 'MAGA movement', I guess) - certainly some cross pollination going on there. That being said, one of the principles of the Tea Party movement was fiscal conservatism and reduction of government (more libertarian, I guess). The MAGA movement in contrast seems to be more about a sense of isolationism - that we should disengage from foreign entanglements, rewrite trade agreements to make it more favorable to us, implement stronger border control, and put pressure on foreign government with economic protectionism. I think the Tea Party movement was more of a 'principles first' movement, where as the MAGA movement is more of an 'ends justify the means' movement. Many in that movement, for example, wouldn't care if the government expanded under Trump and the national debt continued to grow, as long as they got a strong economy and a strong border out of it. Per your analysis of the 'RINO' thing, it's in effect drawing a parallel between neoconservatives (Bush, Cheney, Romney, Haley) and and neoliberals like Obama and Biden. Different messages, but mostly the same results, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

The identity of a party is not static - if it were, the Democrats would still be the party of slaveholders and traitors that they were before the Civil War. Nixon's sourthern strategy changed the identity of the Republican party for example. Though you may find him detestable, Trump has also slowly changed the identity of the Republican party in a similar way. If we go back to 2016, Trump was able to appeal to blue-collar union member working joes in the Rust Belt, who would historically vote Democrat, while Hillary largely ignored the region while she was campaigning. I think if we were to take a deep dive into that election, and how Trump did what he did, we'd get a better sense of how his campaign platform appealed to such a large number of Americans, and how he was able to make Republicans soften on certain cultural issues that had become a cornerstone of Republican politics (LGBT issues, abortion). When I was growing up under Bush, Republicans were the moralizing party, always wagging their fingers at you with their bibles in tow - Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base. Will the Republican party continue in Trump's image after he's gone or revert back to their old ways? Not sure - but I doubt they're going to look the same after Trump's gone.

Thanks for your perspective on the changing GOP, and especially your reminder, in bold, that parties have the perfect right to change their political positions.

"Trump shows up and essentially shows the Republican party that they need to change, unclutch their pearls, and start changing their approach if they want to appeal to a wider base."
Not entirely the way I see the changing GOP. Trump is routinely reported as failing to expand his loyal MAGA base, and is surely alienating voters who want to see (i) women making their own choice on abortion or want to see (ii) election results respected. Both those ideas have been rejected by Trump, and thus the new GOP.

QuoteTrump did make many improvements to the border with the stroke of a pen, 472 executive orders. (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/trump-472-executive-actions-immigration-during-presidency) Biden also, with a stroke of his pen, reversed many of these policy improvements (https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-reversing-trump-immigration-policies/6201520.html). This, combined with the messaging on immigration from the Democrats you'd imagine, has led to illegal border crossings absolutely ballooning under Biden - completely unprecedented, and most of the people crossing aren't even from Mexico.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20326/mexicans-non-mexcians-apprehended-at-southern-us-border/

Well those stats are alarming and I can understand that most Americans are worried about the problem of mass immigration. I found both your links (Trump border policy and Biden border policy) very interesting. Although the border is constantly being referred to by politicians, I had not previously read much about the nitty-gritty of what is actually being implemented there, policy-wise, and you make a good point that the Dems are over-playing the idea that a bill in Congress is the only way to address border issues. Still, it has also been Republican congressmen who have emphasised that a Congressional solution is essential, until they decided that no, it's better to use the problem as a vote-catcher in the next election.
_________________

On a different topic, I hope your quest for buying a house is advancing ok SGR. I remember from personal experience that it can be a very stressful time: careful calculations about what you can afford, the difficulty of finding an acceptable apartment, then the weeks of waiting on lawyers/bankers, etc to give you the news that will change your life for years to come. Luckily for me it all came good in the end, and proved to be a great boost to my happiness and self-esteem. So I'm hoping for the best outcome for you as well.

Pharma CEOs grilled by senators over sky-high drug prices (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pharma-ceos-grilled-senators-sky-high-drug-prices-rcna137993)

QuotePrescription drug prices in the U.S. are notoriously higher than other countries, a stark discrepancy that Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called out.

The high prices mean people go without the medications, Sanders said.

"How many die as a result of that, how many suffer unnecessarily," he asked. "Nobody knows. But my guess is in the millions."

According to Sanders:

Bristol Myers Squibb charges an annual list price of about $7,100 for Eliquis in the U.S., compared to around $900 in Canada and about $650 in France.
   
J&J's Stelara is $79,000 in the U.S., but $16,000 in the United Kingdom.
   
Merck's Januvia is around $6,000 in the U.S. but $900 in Canada and $200 in France.

The CEOs defended the costs, saying those high prices are based on the "value" the medications give patients.

Trump $354 million fraud verdict includes New York business ban for 3 years (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-fraud-verdict-trump-organization-impact/)

A super PAC is helping RFK Jr. get on the ballot. Democrats say that's illegal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-super-pac-ballot-democrats-illegal-rcna139261)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 17, 2024, 01:23 PMA super PAC is helping RFK Jr. get on the ballot. Democrats say that's illegal. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-super-pac-ballot-democrats-illegal-rcna139261)

Yes! I hope the Super PAC gets RFK Jr. on the ballet so Trump can just stroll into office by splitting the Dem vote.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2024, 03:44 PMYes! I hope the Super PAC gets RFK Jr. on the ballet

Looking forward to seeing him in Swan Lake!

Quote from: Janszoon on Feb 17, 2024, 07:44 PMLooking forward to seeing him in Swan Lake!

 :laughing:

Trudeau is pretty sus.

Jeffrey Sachs Interview - A Big Military Power

INTERVIEW: Rand Paul Condemns "Reprehensible" Foreign Wars

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 24, 2024, 11:01 PM

INTERVIEW: Rand Paul Condemns "Reprehensible" Foreign Wars

It's great for Pelosi's stock portfolio though. If Biden gets re-elected, don't forget to buy up some Raytheon and Lockheed Martin stock.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 24, 2024, 11:09 PMIt's great for Pelosi's stock portfolio though. If Biden gets re-elected, don't forget to buy up some Raytheon and Lockheed Martin stock.

I already did when October 7th happen.

Also bought a few oil stocks too.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 25, 2024, 01:52 PMI already did when October 7th happen.

Also bought a few oil stocks too.

Some, even here, were saying that Hamas would be quickly crushed by Israel and I thought, even at the time, that the conflict would drag out and be a factor in the 2024 election. Here we are now, still sending billions to Israel.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 10:01 PMSome, even here, were saying that Hamas would be quickly crushed by Israel and I thought, even at the time, that the conflict would drag out and be a factor in the 2024 election. Here we are now, still sending billions to Israel.

The last two attempts to send aid has been held up by the Senate though so that's good but doubt that will last long especially with government shutdown looming again.

Victoria Nuland Gets DESPERATE for WAR FUNDING on CNN

MSNBC Says Rural Voters Are Destroying Democracy!

Bernie Sanders pushes bill to establish a four-day workweek (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/bernie-sanders-pushes-bill-establish-four-day-workweek-rcna143354)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 14, 2024, 09:28 PMBernie Sanders pushes bill to establish a four-day workweek (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/bernie-sanders-pushes-bill-establish-four-day-workweek-rcna143354)

Nice thought - but that'll go no where. Maybe once AI robots take all our jobs, it might gain traction.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 15, 2024, 03:31 AMNice thought - but that'll go no where. Maybe once AI robots take all our jobs, it might gain traction.

Yeah. I like the idea and I used to work a 4-day, 40 hour workweek for several years and loved it but I don't see a 4-day, 32 hour workweek ever becoming a national law.

Supreme Court to hear free speech case over government pressure on social media sites to remove content (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/)

Is Biden Done?

Grassley releases whistleblower documents, multi-agency probe into American cartel gunrunning (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartel-american-weapons-project-thor-whistleblower-chuck-grassley/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 20, 2024, 03:00 PM

Is Biden Done?

^ Have I missed something here? Despite the title, I'm not convinced that this is some major issue that is going to doom Biden.

What I heard was two podcasters speculating about the retirement of an official that I  for one have not previously heard of. I haven't found a reason for her retirement, and I'm not convinced that the podcasters have either, but they are very ready to accept the Russian spin on this piece of news:-

QuoteThe Russian foreign ministry immediately seized on the announcement, calling it an admission of failed U.S. policy toward Russia.

"They won't tell you the reason," spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. "But it is simple - the failure of the anti-Russian course of the Biden administration. Russophobia, proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main foreign policy concept of the United States, is dragging the Democrats to the bottom like a stone."

To me, this is the big picture for the USA's approach to the Ukraine: since the end of WWII, the US and NATO countries have worked in unison to block Russian expansionism. I think that position works to the benefit of Western Europe, the USA and the continuance of democratic systems of government. Putin is opposed to those things and should therefore be stopped. Sadly, Trump brought to the world stage an, at best, naive approach to foreign affairs, with his love letters with Kim Jung Un and his sycophantic attitude to Putin.

However the war in Ukraine develops, I have faith in the US voters, that they will see the wisdom of a party that opposes Russian interference, and will not vote for a party that embraces Russia's disinformation,etc, etc.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 23, 2024, 01:50 AMTo me, this is the big picture for the USA's approach to the Ukraine: since the end of WWII, the US and NATO countries have worked in unison to block Russian expansionism. I think that position works to the benefit of Western Europe, the USA and the continuance of democratic systems of government. Putin is opposed to those things and should therefore be stopped. Sadly, Trump brought to the world stage an, at best, naive approach to foreign affairs, with his love letters with Kim Jung Un and his sycophantic attitude to Putin.

However the war in Ukraine develops, I have faith in the US voters, that they will see the wisdom of a party that opposes Russian interference, and will not vote for a party that embraces Russia's disinformation,etc, etc.

Since this is 'Big Picture American Politics', I'll respectfully challenge some of what you've said here.

While it might be true that since the end of WW2, the US and NATO have opposed Russian expansionism, it is important to note that Russia then (the USSR) and Russia now are two very different nations, especially in terms of size. While it is true that by size, Russia is still the biggest country, their motivations and ideology are quite different from the USSR days, even if their ideology is still authoritarian and even if the motivations for their expansionism might be rooted in the same interests as it was during the USSR days. While the US government told its citizens it was preventing the expansion of Russia in the USSR days to 'stop the spread of communism', it now says to its citizens that its opposing the expansion of Russia (and sending billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars to do so) to 'protect democracy'. I think that explanation was over-simplified then and it remains so now.

I don't think Trump's 'love letters' to Kim Jong Un were necessarily a bad thing. Much of what he did with Kim was theatrics, and knowing that he's likely a narcissistic dictator, Trump played to his ego. I think it wasn't a bad thing for a US president to try a different approach with North Korea rather than the tried-and-true saber-rattling our government has done in the past. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kim and his government became more agreeable and willing to enter negotiations when the leader of the free world is speaking praise about the leader (giving NK international credibility). China is NK's primary benefactor, but we have stable relations with China - at least to a degree where we do all kinds of trade with each other and we're not constantly threatening to send missiles at each other. There's no reason to think that the US couldn't have some kind of stable relation with North Korea as well. Trump, being the first president to enter North Korea without so much as secret service protection accompanying him was a historic moment. Did it work out in the end? Not really. Does that mean that if Trump had won in 2020 and continued the same approach, it wouldn't have worked? Also no - it's all speculative. But I think if one approach has proven not to work (saber-rattling in this case), it's at least worth trying a different approach, and to be fair, it should be noted that Trump entered that stage of praise for Kim by first doing the most saber-rattling towards NK of probably any president since the end of the Korean War.

I'd extend all this to Trump's relationship with Putin. I don't think he was a Putin sycophant, though that's how the media likes to paint him. The reality is, it's more difficult to begin real negotiations with foreign leaders when the leader of your country is constantly deriding them as a 'dictator', a 'brute', a 'lawless leader who kills journalists' - of course, all of this is probably true about Putin, but if you want to have real negotiations with someone, especially a dictator, you don't publicly deride their reputation and integrity. Look at what FDR did with Stalin to go back to one of our previous discussions. I don't think most people, if we're being honest, think Trump behind closed doors isn't a hardball negotiator, even with a guy like Putin. The public perception is just different from what happens behind closed doors - for a more recent example, Obama's 'hot mic' moment with Medvedev (https://www.wsj.com/video/obama-medvedev-hot-mic-gaffe/5F7CF09D-CFD5-4805-A72C-3378D5F8371E) - the perception and characterization our leaders often paint of foreign countries and foreign leaders is a fiction designed to influence public domestic support/outcomes in one form or another. And the way our media characterizes how our government paints foreign leaders/countries can be either positive or negative depending on the political bias of the media outlet, but it almost never gets close to the truth.

All this said, I don't think the War in Ukraine has anything to do with 'protecting democracy' as our US government leaders like to say - this is the typical propaganda that placates the populace to support sending their dollars overseas and further entrenching themselves in national debt (we were supposed to be protecting and 'spreading' democracy in Iraq under George W. Bush too). Before Russia invaded, Ukraine was well known as one of the most politically corrupt countries in the region, and that probably won't change regardless of the outcome of this war. I think in reality, this war, like most wars, is a battle for resources. I think it's more likely that Russia and the US are fighting to decide who gets ownership of the gas station of Ukraine. Democracy be damned.

Thanks to everyone here for some really interesting and entertaining reading, and a lot of education on the state of US politics. SGR, if you did a podcast on this, I'd subscribe to it. As I said to you before, you are a really great writer, but not only that, you're polite, respectful and engaging with those with whom you don't necessarily agree, and you present your arguments not as a "haha! Gotcha! You don't know what you're talking about!" sort of thing, more as a "I respectfully disagree, and this is why." It's a very refreshing way to see a debate going, and I can imagine were this going on in MB there would be considerably more mud slung by those (not anyone participating here in this thread, I hasten to add) who know little but just want their voices heard, want to push buttons and cause friction.

Well done all!

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 24, 2024, 08:52 PMThanks to everyone here for some really interesting and entertaining reading, and a lot of education on the state of US politics. SGR, if you did a podcast on this, I'd subscribe to it. As I said to you before, you are a really great writer, but not only that, you're polite, respectful and engaging with those with whom you don't necessarily agree, and you present your arguments not as a "haha! Gotcha! You don't know what you're talking about!" sort of thing, more as a "I respectfully disagree, and this is why." It's a very refreshing way to see a debate going, and I can imagine were this going on in MB there would be considerably more mud slung by those (not anyone participating here in this thread, I hasten to add) who know little but just want their voices heard, want to push buttons and cause friction.

Well done all!

Thanks Trolls, as a great writer yourself, your praise means a lot!

I try not to view online arguments/debates/discussions as a zero sum game. I try to view them more as a learning experience. There may be things that my interlocutor knows that I don't know. There may be things I know that my interlocutor doesn't know. Either way, we're both better off after the conversation has been had. That's why free speech is one of the most valued constitutional rights to me as an American. And something I'm proud of as an American. Not every country has that, and I view exercising it as a privilege that many people around the world don't get. Free speech helps us suss out bad ideas, and get closer to the good ones.

@Lisnaholic has never been anything but respectful to me, which is why I feel so comfortable engaging him in conversation. I hope he feels the same way about me, even though we often have disagreements. To your point though, many on MB (we all know who) would not exercise the same grace or patience.

All this does make me rue the absence of @Rubber Soul though. Given that he's a history buff as well, his contributions and thoughts I found to be extremely valuable. I hope he's doing okay, given that we haven't heard from him in a while.

^ Thanks for spelling out the advantages of polite debate, SGR, and also for your kind words about me: yes, I feel that with you as well: that we can argue a point, but that any difference of opinion will be explored amicably.

Alas, tbh, I do not feel optimistic about Rubber Soul, whose last posts were about a serious medical issue. :(

I've also been wondering about Nimbly, who has always been a great debator on US politics but who hasn't posted in ages. I hope he's ok.

Also thanks for your long answer to my recent post here. I'm going to reply soon, I promise !

Quote from: SGR on Mar 23, 2024, 11:31 PMSince this is 'Big Picture American Politics', I'll respectfully challenge some of what you've said here.

While it might be true that since the end of WW2, the US and NATO have opposed Russian expansionism, it is important to note that Russia then (the USSR) and Russia now are two very different nations, especially in terms of size. While it is true that by size, Russia is still the biggest country, their motivations and ideology are quite different from the USSR days, even if their ideology is still authoritarian and even if the motivations for their expansionism might be rooted in the same interests as it was during the USSR days. While the US government told its citizens it was preventing the expansion of Russia in the USSR days to 'stop the spread of communism', it now says to its citizens that its opposing the expansion of Russia (and sending billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars to do so) to 'protect democracy'. I think that explanation was over-simplified then and it remains so now.

It's true that Russian expansionism has both changed, but also remains effectively similar. As you say, the US is once again sending billions of dollars to Europe: in another thread, you mentioned the lend-lease agreement that the US had with Russia when they were allied in the fight against Hitler, and I remember reading about the extraordinary generosity of the US's Marshall Plan and how it helped to rebuild post-war Europe.
I suppose one of the main arguments in favour of the US's financial support of Ukraine is the "domino" one: if Ukraine fell, who will fall next, and isn't it cheaper to stop Putin now ? 

QuoteI don't think Trump's 'love letters' to Kim Jong Un were necessarily a bad thing. Much of what he did with Kim was theatrics, and knowing that he's likely a narcissistic dictator, Trump played to his ego. I think it wasn't a bad thing for a US president to try a different approach with North Korea rather than the tried-and-true saber-rattling our government has done in the past. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kim and his government became more agreeable and willing to enter negotiations when the leader of the free world is speaking praise about the leader (giving NK international credibility). China is NK's primary benefactor, but we have stable relations with China - at least to a degree where we do all kinds of trade with each other and we're not constantly threatening to send missiles at each other. There's no reason to think that the US couldn't have some kind of stable relation with North Korea as well. Trump, being the first president to enter North Korea without so much as secret service protection accompanying him was a historic moment. Did it work out in the end? Not really. Does that mean that if Trump had won in 2020 and continued the same approach, it wouldn't have worked? Also no - it's all speculative. But I think if one approach has proven not to work (saber-rattling in this case), it's at least worth trying a different approach, and to be fair, it should be noted that Trump entered that stage of praise for Kim by first doing the most saber-rattling towards NK of probably any president since the end of the Korean War.

I'm not so sure about Trump's approach to NK, or which dicator was playing to which ego. Also, Trump's flip-flopping on Kim Jung Un made the US look inconsistent and frivolous, and while conceding a huge PR gift to Kim Jun Un, the US got nothing in return; oh, yeah, there was a promise made to Trump that KJU promptly reneged on two months later:

  https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_north-korea-tests-more-missiles-violating-pledge-trump/6174477.html

...then to save face for being duped, Trump had to become an apologist for KJU, saying, "oh that kind of missle test is fine by me, we are still buddies". You are right about long-term not much harm has been done by trying a different approach, but that's partly because, as you yourself suggest,SGR, Trump was booted out of office and Biden has returned to the traditional policy of not trusting the North Korean government.

QuoteI'd extend all this to Trump's relationship with Putin. I don't think he was a Putin sycophant, though that's how the media likes to paint him. The reality is, it's more difficult to begin real negotiations with foreign leaders when the leader of your country is constantly deriding them as a 'dictator', a 'brute', a 'lawless leader who kills journalists' - of course, all of this is probably true about Putin, but if you want to have real negotiations with someone, especially a dictator, you don't publicly deride their reputation and integrity. Look at what FDR did with Stalin to go back to one of our previous discussions. I don't think most people, if we're being honest, think Trump behind closed doors isn't a hardball negotiator, even with a guy like Putin. The public perception is just different from what happens behind closed doors - for a more recent example, Obama's 'hot mic' moment with Medvedev (https://www.wsj.com/video/obama-medvedev-hot-mic-gaffe/5F7CF09D-CFD5-4805-A72C-3378D5F8371E) - the perception and characterization our leaders often paint of foreign countries and foreign leaders is a fiction designed to influence public domestic support/outcomes in one form or another. And the way our media characterizes how our government paints foreign leaders/countries can be either positive or negative depending on the political bias of the media outlet, but it almost never gets close to the truth.

^ Absolutely right that we, the public, just get a simplified good guy/bad guy version of what goes on behind closed doors, so for us it's largely ill-informed guesswork about how world leaders are really negotiating.
The bit you wrote that I put in bold is for this reason: Trump at Helsinki, standing alongside Putin, publicly humiliated his own country by speaking in Putin's defense. That doesn't sound like the consequence of hardball negotiating on Trump's part; it sounds like total abdication to Putin and is just one of the reasons that rumours persist about why Putin has such a hold over Trump: is it because of Russia's election help? Is it some backroom real-estate financial dealings? Or is it the gloriously salacious rumour of a peepee tape? ;)
My guess is that Trump is probably a hardball negotiator on his home turf: swindling investors and not paying lawyers, but on the world stage he doesn't do his homework and is therefore hopelessly out of his depth.

QuoteAll this said, I don't think the War in Ukraine has anything to do with 'protecting democracy' as our US government leaders like to say - this is the typical propaganda that placates the populace to support sending their dollars overseas and further entrenching themselves in national debt (we were supposed to be protecting and 'spreading' democracy in Iraq under George W. Bush too). Before Russia invaded, Ukraine was well known as one of the most politically corrupt countries in the region, and that probably won't change regardless of the outcome of this war. I think in reality, this war, like most wars, is a battle for resources. I think it's more likely that Russia and the US are fighting to decide who gets ownership of the gas station of Ukraine. Democracy be damned.

Alas, you are right about people who have been taken in by the old "protecting democracy" line before, who are quite rightly wondering "Is it worth it this time?" I suppose my counter-argument would be like I mentioned earlier: that in the long run, it may be better to block Putin now rather than later, especially now that the NATO-Russsia border is longer: Putin steps over that and the US will have a moral obligation to join in the fight, just as NATO countries supported the US in the post-9/11 war against Al-Quaeda.

@Lisnaholic - thanks for the thoughtful response! I appreciate your engagement on the topics. I'll include my response below.  :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 12:48 AMIt's true that Russian expansionism has both changed, but also remains effectively similar. As you say, the US is once again sending billions of dollars to Europe: in another thread, you mentioned the lend-lease agreement that the US had with Russia when they were allied in the fight against Hitler, and I remember reading about the extraordinary generosity of the US's Marshall Plan and how it helped to rebuild post-war Europe.
I suppose one of the main arguments in favour of the US's financial support of Ukraine is the "domino" one: if Ukraine fell, who will fall next, and isn't it cheaper to stop Putin now ? 

I suppose I'd ask, given the suggestion, what makes you think the Russia of today should be considered with the same degree of alarm as America's cold-war era communist-centric 'domino theory'? Times are different than they were then - not only us (the USA) and Russia, but many other countries have access to nuclear weapons now. And let's look at the geography of Ukraine:

(https://media.defense.gov/2022/May/02/2002988295/-1/-1/0/220502-O-D0439-001.JPG)

Who would fall next, assuming Russia gained complete control of the country (which is unlikely)? Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, all members of NATO? You think Russia would risk all-out war to expand from Ukraine into NATO countries? And if not, what is the $75 billion dollars the US govt sending to Ukraine really achieving (besides enriching our defense contractors)? Regardless of political party control, I'd much rather use that money for either universal health care, or tightening up/fixing our border rather than spending it on a politically corrupt European country that 95% of Americans couldn't even identify on a map. I understand it's not necessarily an 'either/or' situation here, but there has to be some point at which we reach the monetary limit of what we're willing to send Ukraine. Once America reaches that limit, I think the war is going to end - because Ukraine's resources will have been spent/exhausted. At that time, that's when we should get Zelensky and Putin together, figure out who gets control of what, and call it a day.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 12:48 AMI'm not so sure about Trump's approach to NK, or which dicator was playing to which ego.

Comparing Trump to Kim as a 'dictator' is kinda disingenuous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply joking. :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 12:48 AMAlso, Trump's flip-flopping on Kim Jung Un made the US look inconsistent and frivolous, and while conceding a huge PR gift to Kim Jun Un, the US got nothing in return; oh, yeah, there was a promise made to Trump that KJU promptly reneged on two months later:

  https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_north-korea-tests-more-missiles-violating-pledge-trump/6174477.html

...then to save face for being duped, Trump had to become an apologist for KJU, saying, "oh that kind of missle test is fine by me, we are still buddies". You are right about long-term not much harm has been done by trying a different approach, but that's partly because, as you yourself suggest,SGR, Trump was booted out of office and Biden has returned to the traditional policy of not trusting the North Korean government.

I can see how the back and forth in optics could make the US look frivolous/inconsistent, won't argue that (though I would say that if the US was successful in making meaningful/long-lasting headway in negotiations, no one would care about that inconsistency). The bold is where I'd disagree - that's simply speculation. Not much harm has been done because Biden's in now and we're currently back to our normal routine of international disinterest and saber-rattling? Or I suppose - as you put it, simply not trusting them. The implication is that harm would have been done if Trump remained in office and continued to try and build rapport and negotiate with them - which is the speculative part - we just don't know.

I think to be fair, even at the height of Trump/Kim's 'buddy buddy' phase (which was more than likely just for optics), I doubt Trump or his admin "trusted" NK, so to say. It was, in a way, a test to see if we could have good-faith negotiations and follow-through with NK. In this trial run, I wouldn't say we have a definitive conclusion, but it certainly does appear that future negotiations (should they happen) between the US and NK won't be easy. When it comes to foreign policy, sometimes it takes more than just 4 years of an applied strategy to reach detente and begin productive negotiations and coordinations - just look at the historical relations between the U.S. and China. In all of our international relation-building, there's rocky phases, and certainly times when our prospective allies break their word to us. NK should be treated with suspicion and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt - I think Trump's 'trial run' of negotiations with them proved that, and that information will be useful to all future presidents. But that said, I don't think that means we shouldn't try again in the future. Future presidents, if they wanted to negotiate with NK, can now look to what Trump did as an example, and adjust our approach based on what Trump did right and what he did wrong.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 12:48 AMThe bit you wrote that I put in bold is for this reason: Trump at Helsinki, standing alongside Putin, publicly humiliated his own country by speaking in Putin's defense. That doesn't sound like the consequence of hardball negotiating on Trump's part; it sounds like total abdication to Putin and is just one of the reasons that rumours persist about why Putin has such a hold over Trump: is it because of Russia's election help? Is it some backroom real-estate financial dealings? Or is it the gloriously salacious rumour of a peepee tape? ;)
My guess is that Trump is probably a hardball negotiator on his home turf: swindling investors and not paying lawyers, but on the world stage he doesn't do his homework and is therefore hopelessly out of his depth.

I don't know what news sources you consume, or how deeply you pay attention to American politics as a Brit - I wouldn't blame you if you only lightly paid attention to it as an occasional entertaining sideshow - because honestly, with our dishonest media and politicians, it deserves only sideshow consideration most of the time - but I disagree with your assessment here. Trump didn't humiliate our country in this event, despite what the media said. This was about Trump believing Putin over his intelligence agencies that Russia didn't meddle/interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, after two years of constant media coverage and claims about Russian collusion and Trump being a Kremlin puppet, the big find was that evidence came out that there was some Russian bot farm operation on Facebook (that, to my recollection, was never tied to state actors) that posted lame US election memes that were never proven to have any real effect on the election or the voters.

If you don't know this already, most of our popular American news media companies are professional liars who receive their talking points from American intelligence agencies. They all get the same basic scripts which is why it all sounds so similar most of the time (and with enough media repeating the same lies over and over again, people will begin to believe it) - here's an example compilation of American news media reports about the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco:


When you consider how long this 'Russia Collusion' lie went on, I don't begrudge Trump at all from taking a swipe at the intelligence agencies. After all, these are the same people who fed us the 'Gulf of Tonkin' lie and the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' lie. They didn't suddenly become honest and virtuous when Trump got elected. (p.s. the 'peepee tape' was from the Steele dossier which was a fraud paid for by the Clinton campaign (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/12/09/watchdog_fbi_knew_pee_tape_unfounded_didnt_tell_trump_121551.html))

So no, he didn't 'humiliate our country' in my view - what he did do was spit in the face of his own intelligence agencies. The media though will frame it as though he 'humiliated his country', because the intelligence agencies feed our media the talking points. Trump is not the first president to pick fights with, and distrust his intelligence agencies. Famously, JFK described his desire to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds" after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/in-1974-call-to-abolish-cia-sanders-followed-in-footsteps-of-jfk-truman/). How'd that work out for him? It's no secret that the intelligence agencies in America, in many, many ways - are the ones running the show. And if you go against them, stand up to them, don't fall in line with their 'intel' or 'narratives', they will go after you. Chuck Schumer, in 2017 said it right in the open.

"You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you"



One addition - to further discredit the news media for you, or at least introduce some additional skepticism for you - have you heard of the Gell-Man Amnesia effect (https://loricism.fandom.com/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect)? - coined by a friend of Michale Crichton - food for thought:

QuoteBriefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 12:48 AMAlas, you are right about people who have been taken in by the old "protecting democracy" line before, who are quite rightly wondering "Is it worth it this time?" I suppose my counter-argument would be like I mentioned earlier: that in the long run, it may be better to block Putin now rather than later, especially now that the NATO-Russsia border is longer: Putin steps over that and the US will have a moral obligation to join in the fight, just as NATO countries supported the US in the post-9/11 war against Al-Quaeda.

As I said earlier, I don't think the 'domino effect' comes into play here - one big reason Putin did what he did in Ukraine is because NATO surrounds its borders. He probably foresaw that we'd try to pull them (Ukraine) into the fold eventually - and he wants a buffer state that he has control of between NATO and Russia. I don't think he'd ever dream of invading a NATO state, because while I do think he's a brute and a thug, I don't think he's stupid. He'd need to have a death wish to do that.

Thanks for your quick and detailed reply, SGR :thumb:

If it's ok, I'll just respond to the first points you raised for now:-

Quote from: SGR on Mar 29, 2024, 03:09 AMI suppose I'd ask, given the suggestion, what makes you think the Russia of today should be considered with the same degree of alarm as America's cold-war era USSR-centric 'domino theory'? Times are different than they were then - not only us (the USA) and Russia, but many other countries have access to nuclear weapons now. And let's look at the geography of Ukraine:

(https://media.defense.gov/2022/May/02/2002988295/-1/-1/0/220502-O-D0439-001.JPG)

Who would fall next, assuming Russia gained complete control of the country (which is unlikely)? Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, all members of NATO? You think Russia would risk all-out war to expand from Ukraine into NATO countries? And if not, what is the $75 billion dollars the US govt sending to Ukraine really achieving (besides enriching our defense contractors)? Regardless of political party control, I'd much rather use that money for either universal health care, or tightening up/fixing our border rather than spending it on a politically corrupt European country that 95% of Americans couldn't even identify on a map.

When I talked about the domino theory, I didn't mean to give the impression that Russia's advance would necessarily be of conventional troops rolling from Ukraine to the next adjacent country. I meant more the idea that if Putin succeeds in invading one sovereign European country, he may then look round for an opportunity to do it again. As to which one, there are clues in this article, reporting on Putin's speech justifying the Ukraine invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-speech-russia-empire-threat-ukraine-moscow

QuoteIt's long been known that Putin hankers for a lost age of Russian dominance over its neighbours. In his speech, Putin reached back furthur than the cold war to find his grievances. He clearly stated that the processes that lead to Russia's losing territory a century ago must be reversed.  He lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of "the territory of the former Russian Empire".
Putin's warped description of the way countries achieved their independence from Russian rule is aimed at Ukraine, but there is little in it that could not also be applied to Poland, Finland and the Baltic states.

Fair enough to ask why the US should worry about these plans, and luckily it's not my job to put a price tag to America's contribution, but I think it'd be good for them to stay strongly aligned with NATO, and definitely NOT take the Trump line of appeasing Putin at every opportunity.

You're right that Putin would surely think twice before invading a NATO country - but don't forget how much damage (economic/prestige/Russian lives lost) the Ukraine war is causing Russia, and yet Putin plods on with the all-too-familiar Russian steamroller approach to grind down opponents. For NATO, or NATO-adjacent countries, he also has at his disposal various clandestine destablizing techniques - like he used in Crimea, if I remember rightly, so that he can (im)plausably claim to enter part of a country to safeguard Russian citizens,etc. 

QuoteComparing Trump to Kim as a 'dictator' is simply disingenuous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply joking.

^ If anything that was more like a typo, I'm afraid: a word I wasn't paying much attention to while making a point about who was taking advantage of who. In retrospect, I should've put "head of state". My apologies.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 29, 2024, 03:35 PMThanks for your quick and detailed reply, SGR :thumb:

If it's ok, I'll just respond to the first points you raised for now:-

When I talked about the domino theory, I didn't mean to give the impression that Russia's advance would necessarily be of conventional troops rolling from Ukraine to the next adjacent country. I meant more the idea that if Putin succeeds in invading one sovereign European country, he may then look round for an opportunity to do it again. As to which one, there are clues in this article, reporting on Putin's speech justifying the Ukraine invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-speech-russia-empire-threat-ukraine-moscow
Fair enough to ask why the US should worry about these plans, and luckily it's not my job to put a price tag to America's contribution, but I think it'd be good for them to stay strongly aligned with NATO, and definitely NOT take the Trump line of appeasing Putin at every opportunity.

You're right that Putin would surely think twice before invading a NATO country - but don't forget how much damage (economic/prestige/Russian lives lost) the Ukraine war is causing Russia, and yet Putin plods on with the all-too-familiar Russian steamroller approach to grind down opponents. For NATO, or NATO-adjacent countries, he also has at his disposal various clandestine destablizing techniques - like he used in Crimea, if I remember rightly, so that he can (im)plausably claim to enter part of a country to safeguard Russian citizens,etc.

^ If anything that was more like a typo, I'm afraid: a word I wasn't paying much attention to while making a point about who was taking advantage of who. In retrospect, I should've put "head of state". My apologies.

Damn Lisna, didn't expect you to reply to me so quickly! - so I made some edits to my initial post now that it's morning and I'm less sleepy than I was when I wrote up the reply last night  :laughing:

When you've finished your full reply, I'll reply in turn with more detail - in principle, I'm not against the idea of sending aid and resources to assist Ukraine in fighting Russia - but my general fear at this point is, as exhibited in one quote from that article ("It may be too late to save Ukraine"), we may have reached the point of diminishing returns. And sending more billions to Ukraine may only delay the inevitable and be an exercise in the sunk-cost fallacy. I think we all know that America/NATO isn't going to send in troops, and as a result, Putin knows he can just push until we reach our limit (or I suppose, until he reaches his, but as you can see, he's willing to expend a lot more in reaching his limit than we are). The US might have thought that we could entrench Russia in a quagmire that drains their pocketbooks (which isn't a bad approach for a geopolitical enemy, if it works) and humiliate them like we did when the USSR invaded Afghanistan (we provided aid to Afghanistan, and armed/trained the Mujahideen, which kinda blew up in our faces, as Osama Bin Laden was among those we trained) - but it's certainly appearing like we're the ones getting our pocketbook drained and it doesn't appear to me that Russia will simply leave Ukraine like they left Afghanistan.

If Trump was in Biden's shoes when this all went down, I don't know that he'd simply appease Putin - I'm sure it wouldn't have gone down the same way though - perhaps Trump would've been more concilliatory to Russia - but perhaps that wouldn't have been a bad thing in the long run (again, all speculation) if we see that Putin ends up with the same territory he wanted (and maybe perhaps more) regardless, at the expense of tens of billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of lives fed to the meat grinder of war. Trump has threatened to leave NATO in the past, but I don't think he's serious about that - he's just using those threats as leverage to make EU/NATO countries pay more. And I don't really disagree with him. I think we all know that when it comes to the security benefits that NATO provides, it's not the USA reaping most of the benefits, given our geographical location - it's the countries in Europe, where most of our geopolitical enemies are situated closer to. For America, NATO provides influence/power. America gets to be the big brother to many little brothers, and if some thugs try to take our little brothers' lunch money, we're obligated to go and kick their ass. And in turn, our little brothers allow us to peddle our influence and interests overseas, and help us bully others if we choose to (like we did with Iraq). What's more valuable, the influence NATO provides America, or the security NATO provides other countries? I guess it all depends on which country you ask.

I haven't read the whole discussion properly but I take issue with what you say about the US sending aid. It feels like you shrug your shoulders too much about something as horrible as countries being invaded by a dictator. Imagine if you were in that position. It may be that the aid will be for nothing, but out of principle alone you cannot just sit and watch that happen without helping, in my opinion.
I agree that Europe should lean far less on the US for protection, but this is the kind of serious situation where it's necessary to rise above that, at least until the conflict is over. It reminds me of the lord of the rings scene where Rohan asks for Gondor's help (or the other way round, whatever) and the king starts whining BuT TheY diDnT HeLp uS ThAt oNe TiME...

Quote from: Marie Monday on Mar 29, 2024, 06:02 PMI haven't read the whole discussion properly but I take issue with what you say about the US sending aid. It feels like you shrug your shoulders too much about something as horrible as countries being invaded by a dictator. Imagine if you were in that position. It may be that the aid will be for nothing, but out of principle alone you cannot just sit and watch that happen without helping, in my opinion.
I agree that Europe should lean far less on the US for protection, but this is the kind of serious situation where it's necessary to rise above that, at least until the conflict is over. It reminds me of the lord of the rings scene where Rohan asks for Gondor's help (or the other way round, whatever) and the king starts whining BuT TheY diDnT HeLp uS ThAt oNe TiME...

War is obviously very complicated. I don't mean to downplay the horror of it all, or the horror the Ukranians feel and felt as Russia invaded them.

Like I mentioned in my last post, I'm not against sending aid to Ukraine in principle. Looking back at some of my posts, I phrased some things poorly in a way that may have given off the impression that I'm completely against all of the aid we've sent to Ukraine - my mistake, as that's not what I believe.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy of the US, and their invasion of the Ukraine is against our interests and our collective ethical standards. If we decided to completely abdicate our opportunity to help Ukraine and sat with our thumbs up our ass, Russia may have already taken over the entire country. So there's no question that the aid we've given will not be for nothing. But at what point will continued aid make no difference to the end result?

If Putin realizes there's no way he's going to be able to take total control of Ukraine with Russia's dwindling military strength, and the US/Ukraine realizes there's no way to take back from Russia everything that's been lost without ground troops from the US/NATO (which isn't going to happen, as it would risk escalating the conflict far beyond what we're willing to sacrafice), then it's time to send in the diplomats (instead of more billion dollar aid packages) to negotiate how we can end this. Are we at that point yet? Maybe. Maybe not. But I have a feeling we might be, and if we are, then any death past this point is for nothing.

This discussion reminds of that hilarious George Carlin bit :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Mar 29, 2024, 07:04 PMWar is obviously very complicated. I don't mean to downplay the horror of it all, or the horror the Ukranians feel and felt as Russia invaded them.

Like I mentioned in my last post, I'm not against sending aid to Ukraine in principle. Looking back at some of my posts, I phrased some things poorly in a way that may have given off the impression that I'm completely against all of the aid we've sent to Ukraine - my mistake, as that's not what I believe.

Russia is a geopolitical enemy of the US, and their invasion of the Ukraine is against our interests and our collective ethical standards. If we decided to completely abdicate our opportunity to help Ukraine and sat with our thumbs up our ass, Russia may have already taken over the entire country. So there's no question that the aid we've given will not be for nothing. But at what point will continued aid make no difference to the end result?

If Putin realizes there's no way he's going to be able to take total control of Ukraine with Russia's dwindling military strength, and the US/Ukraine realizes there's no way to take back from Russia everything that's been lost without ground troops from the US/NATO (which isn't going to happen, as it would risk escalating the conflict far beyond what we're willing to sacrafice), then it's time to send in the diplomats (instead of more billion dollar aid packages) to negotiate how we can end this. Are we at that point yet? Maybe. Maybe not. But I have a feeling we might be, and if we are, then any death past this point is for nothing.

This discussion reminds of that hilarious George Carlin bit :laughing:

I agree so much with your last paragraph. We have already sent so much aid, it's definitely past the point of trying different tactics.

Rand Paul Slams Deficit Spending, Dismisses Spending Bill As 'A Porkfest Of Epic Proportions'

Your comments on the Trump/KJU photo op:-

Quote from: SGR on Mar 29, 2024, 03:09 AMI can see how the back and forth in optics could make the US look frivolous/inconsistent, won't argue that (though I would say that if the US was successful in making meaningful/long-lasting headway in negotiations, no one would care about that inconsistency). The bold is where I'd disagree - that's simply speculation. Not much harm has been done because Biden's in now and we're currently back to our normal routine of international disinterest and saber-rattling? Or I suppose - as you put it, simply not trusting them. The implication is that harm would have been done if Trump remained in office and continued to try and build rapport and negotiate with them - which is the speculative part - we just don't know.

^ It's true of course that any "what if"s are just speculation, so perhaps I went too far if I presented those as facts.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 29, 2024, 08:42 PMI agree so much with your last paragraph. We have already sent so much aid, it's definitely past the point of trying different tactics.

Agreed. It's terrible what's happened, and my heart goes out to all the families of people who have died, but at some point, this war needs to end, and it will likely mean, at this point, negotiations and compromise.

I'd extend my skepticism of continued aid to Israel as well (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-signed-off-more-bombs-warplanes-israel-washington-post-reports-2024-03-29/), but for (obviously) totally different reasons from Ukraine (as they are very different situations). Again, I'm not against providing them monetary aid in principle. But I think that politically and vocally supporting our ally, Israel, is substantively different from giving them our money. Do we have to support everything with money? I guess I just get the feeling sometimes that it's always an automatic "we give you money". Why does it never seem to be: "Alright, we'll provide logistical support and share intelligence, and if you can't find the funds or can't continue without our financial support, let us know, and we'll see what we can do" - it always seems like when there's a problem, we're just throwing money at it (again, I'll stress, this situation is different from Ukraine). Just feels like we (America) are usually the ones stretching our budget and increasing our debt. Why can't Israel increase its own debt if it wants to continue waging their war on Hamas/Gaza? Me and you are both Americans, and neither of us had anything to do with what happened in Gaza, so why are you and I paying for it, when it seems to me like Israel could pay for it themselves?

Quote from: SGR on Mar 30, 2024, 08:10 PMAgreed. It's terrible what's happened, and my heart goes out to all the families of people who have died, but at some point, this war needs to end, and it will likely mean, at this point, negotiations and compromise.

Why can't Israel increase its own debt if it wants to continue waging their war on Hamas/Gaza? Me and you are both Americans, and neither of us had anything to do with what happened in Gaza, so why are you and I paying for it, when it seems to me like Israel could pay for it themselves?
 (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-signed-off-more-bombs-warplanes-israel-washington-post-reports-2024-03-29/)

Why can't other countries that claim they are allies pony up as well? Some of the other countries that are part of the UN.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 31, 2024, 03:17 AMWhy can't other countries that claim they are allies pony up as well? Some of the other countries that are part of the UN.

The UN is (also) giving money to Gaza.

"The United States has been a major donor, providing more than $5.2 billion through USAID since 1994.

The international community has sent billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip to provide relief to the more than 2 million Palestinians living there. From 2014 to 2020, U.N. agencies spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020 alone. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aid to Palestinians totaled over $40 billion between 1994 and 2020."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians

Edit:

Sorry, thought it was about Gaza aid. My bad.

Tucker STUNNED As Tulsi Gabbard Revels Who REALLY Runs America

I'm hoping either that's ironic or that the title and avatar belie the video's content

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 01, 2024, 07:55 PMI'm hoping either that's ironic or that the title and avatar belie the video's content

I'm hoping it's an April fools joke.

Hi, SGR ! There's not much action in the music threads this morning, so I thought I'd look at another of the many points you raised in your recent long post:-

Quote from: SGR on Mar 29, 2024, 03:09 AMI don't know what news sources you consume, or how deeply you pay attention to American politics as a Brit - I wouldn't blame you if you only lightly paid attention to it as an occasional entertaining sideshow - because honestly, with our dishonest media and politicians, it deserves only sideshow consideration most of the time - but I disagree with your assessment here. Trump didn't humiliate our country in this event, despite what the media said. This was about Trump believing Putin over his intelligence agencies that Russia didn't meddle/interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, after two years of constant media coverage and claims about Russian collusion and Trump being a Kremlin puppet, the big find was that evidence came out that there was some Russian bot farm operation on Facebook (that, to my recollection, was never tied to state actors) that posted lame US election memes that were never proven to have any real effect on the election or the voters.

If you don't know this already, most of our popular American news media companies are professional liars who receive their talking points from American intelligence agencies. They all get the same basic scripts which is why it all sounds so similar most of the time (and with enough media repeating the same lies over and over again, people will begin to believe it) - here's an example compilation of American news media reports about the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco:

I think you are making an unwarrented deduction from this YouTube clip, or, put another way, the clip doesn't illustrate the point you are making. Yes, I'm sure that official sources put out press statements all the time, but I imagine that journalists, where possible, balance the official line with any other evidence they have available. After all, fact-checking and investigative journalism are also fundamental elements of the media that you seem to be willfully ignoring.

Do you imagine that there was an official release about "the walls are closing in" that every journalist slavishly copied word for word ?! To me, what the clip shows is that if a cliche or metaphor fits, more than one journalist is going to come up with it, either independently or perhaps copying from another news broadcast, "ooh that's a good phrase: let's use that". That's what makes clichés popular; they give quick succinct summaries of situations.
Another phrase I repeatedly heard in American news stories was about Republican doubts after Roe vs Wade was overturned: "The GOP are like the dog that caught the car." Do you remember that one? Or perhaps it was mainly used by only one side in the great abortion debate.
Anyway, just because journalists are using the same metaphors, that doesn't justify the supposition that the metaphor was fed to the media by the American intelligence agencies. Also (in bold) you move from "basic script" to "the same lies" giving the impression that the basic script is by definition a lie. That's something I would dispute: some basic scripts (as you mention elsewhere) have been shown to be lies, but I imagine that many are not. 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 02, 2024, 04:16 PMHi, SGR ! There's not much action in the music threads this morning, so I thought I'd look at another of the many points you raised in your recent long post:-

I think you are making an unwarrented deduction from this YouTube clip, or, put another way, the clip doesn't illustrate the point you are making. Yes, I'm sure that official sources put out press statements all the time, but I imagine that journalists, where possible, balance the official line with any other evidence they have available. After all, fact-checking and investigative journalism are also fundamental elements of the media that you seem to be willfully ignoring.

Do you imagine that there was an official release about "the walls are closing in" that every journalist slavishly copied word for word ?! To me, what the clip shows is that if a cliche or metaphor fits, more than one journalist is going to come up with it, either independently or perhaps copying from another news broadcast, "ooh that's a good phrase: let's use that". That's what makes clichés popular; they give quick succinct summaries of situations.

Thanks for calling it a 'long post' instead of a 'long rant'. :laughing:

I will concede that you could make a case that the frequent use of "the walls are closing in" seen in that clip was perhaps just a strange coincedence, or a domino-effect of 'monkey-see, monkey-do' instead of a more centralized and coordinated influence effort. Here's another compilation that better demonstrates my point - and it also demonstrates that it's not just faux-news entertainment like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, but it can filter all the way down to local news stations as well:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 02, 2024, 04:16 PMAnother phrase I repeatedly heard in American news stories was about Republican doubts after Roe vs Wade was overturned: "The GOP are like the dog that caught the car." Do you remember that one? Or perhaps it was mainly used by only one side in the great abortion debate.
Anyway, just because journalists are using the same metaphors, that doesn't justify the supposition that the metaphor was fed to the media by the American intelligence agencies. Also (in bold) you move from "basic script" to "the same lies" giving the impression that the basic script is by definition a lie. That's something I would dispute: some basic scripts (as you mention elsewhere) have been shown to be lies, but I imagine that many are not. 

I did not explicitly remember the 'the dog that caught the car' metaphor, but upon Googling it, it appears you're right - it was a phrase that was used relentlessly. I think you make some important distinctions here that I'd like to expand upon with my own thoughts. I don't think everything the news media says is a lie. Sometimes what they say is true, other times what they say are half-truths (missing important context), and other times what they say are just outright lies. The problem then is that you, the viewer/consumer of the news have no real way to know how to identify between the truth and the lies. You might say, as you referenced in your post, well that's what the fact-checkers are for. But what happens if the fact-checkers are wrong? You may remember a famous recent example of the COVID-19 lab-leak theory that was initially 'debunked' and treated as a 'conspiracy theory' by fact-checkers and news outlets alike (https://www.newsweek.com/social-media-companies-fact-checkers-shrug-off-wuhan-lab-leak-embarrassment-1599207), and it remained that way, with Facebook even banning posts that implied it was man-made (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made), until all the smoke blew over and the fog of war was lifted. Now, whether or not it was man-made and came from a lab-leak is something that is no longer treated as a conspiracy, but a real possibility. I'm sure we all question why this happened - my pet theory is rather simple; too many powerful people in the corporate world and the government have big financial interests in China, and if the lab-leak idea was allowed to be broadcast fully, it would've pissed China off and built a shitload of resentment towards China from average Americans - and as a result, a lot of powerful people would've lost a lot of money. Even during COVID, there was talk of the need to decouple from China and not be so reliant on them (especially for things like prescription medication), but I don't hear that talk basically at all anymore. As with many awful things our government does, the truth comes out long after when very few people care anymore, and thus there's very little public outrage about it. As the famous quote goes: 'A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes'. Or, as Mark Twain put it: 'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.' So who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

If the news media was a personal friend of mine, I'd take anything they told me with a grain of salt - because they've proven to me that they can't be relied upon to consistently tell the truth - which means they're not credible. And I'm guessing many Americans feel the same way given the massive decline in trust of the media (https://www.axios.com/2023/10/24/americans-trust-in-media-plummets-to-historic-low-poll).

To bring it back to the CIA, if you'd concede that the CIA does have the ability to influence what our news media tells us, then it'd be very similar to what I said about the lies. I won't have a way to know, as the viewer, if what I'm hearing are the independent thoughts of a news reporter/news agency, or an echo of CIA-fed propaganda (we had plenty of that with Iraq and the WMDs). To your point, even though CIA-influenced media narratives might be true (or truthy), it doesn't make them any less propaganda. There'd be a very specific reason why the CIA wants a particular message broadcast. And the reason might even be a good one (broadcasting a correction to a false story spread by our geopolitical enemies to destablize us internally) - but it also might be a bad one (broadcasting the Chinese persecution of the Uyghurs to encourage Americans to go to war with China [hypothetical]). The stories and messages that are broadcast shape public opinion - and that's just a basic understanding of propaganda. And of course our government and intelligence agencies recognize its power, down to even the language that's used. It's why we have the understanding of the Fourth Estate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate).

Sometime during 2020, I stumbled upon the Event 201 workshop (https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise) which took place in 2019. Around this time I also read the 2010 Rockefeller pdf (https://archive.org/details/scenarios-for-the-future-of-technology-and-international-development-rockefeller-foundation-2010/page/n1/mode/2up) about global scenarios, and the "Lockstep" scenario seemed to ring a certain bell with regards covid. Not a big bell necessarily, as coincidences do happen, but a bell nonetheless.
In this dog eat dog (or human eat bat) world, it was certainly a rollercoaster experience trying to follow the media and work out what was going on.

SGR and Lisna, your discussion reminds me of the journalist Steve Connor, who passed away in 2017 due to illness. He worked 18 years as science editor of The Independent and was described as a giant of British science journalism, a warrior for truth, and "a dog with a bone" who delivered scoop after scoop with an absolute refusal to compromise his standards (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42243173). I do wonder how he would have reported on covid, had he been alive. Would this respected mainstream reporter have found himself in a compromised position, with all the knowledge he had acquired during his career?

Palestinian American doctor explains why he walked out of meeting with Biden and Harris (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thaer-ahmad-palestinian-american-doctor-biden-interview/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 04, 2024, 03:19 PMPalestinian American doctor explains why he walked out of meeting with Biden and Harris (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thaer-ahmad-palestinian-american-doctor-biden-interview/)

People are starting to hate Genocide Joe more than Trump lol.

(https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/43900000/Donald-Trump-dancing-us-republican-party-43959696-220-361.gif)

House Democrats pitch renaming federal prison after Trump in response to GOP airport proposal (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-trump-bill-rename-miami-prison/)

QuoteWashington — After a group of House Republicans proposed renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia after former President Donald Trump, a few of their Democratic colleagues responded by introducing their own bill that would bestow his name on a federal prison.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 04, 2024, 09:58 PMPeople are starting to hate Genocide Joe more than Trump lol.

(https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/43900000/Donald-Trump-dancing-us-republican-party-43959696-220-361.gif)

I currently do and I'm voting for Trump. Mostly because it doesn't matter in NY state. The states electoral votes will go to Biden anyways. I'm not in a swing state.

^ TBH I find that a puzzling choice, DJ.

Trump's company has been found guilty of extensive tax fraud in NY, which means he has robbed NY of millions in tax revenue, while at the same time leeching off NY's various grants:-

QuoteThe way Donald J. Trump tells it, his first solo project as a real estate developer, the conversion of a faded railroad hotel on 42nd Street into the sleek, 30-story Grand Hyatt, was a triumph from the very beginning.

The hotel, Mr. Trump bragged in "Trump: The Art of the Deal," his 1987 best seller, "was a hit from the first day. Gross operating profits now exceed $30 million a year."

But that book, and numerous interviews over the years, make little mention of a crucial factor in getting the hotel built: an extraordinary 40-year tax break that has cost New York City $360 million to date in forgiven, or uncollected, taxes, with four years still to run, on a property that cost only $120 million to build in 1980.

The project set the pattern for Mr. Trump's New York career: He used his father's, and, later, his own, extensive political connections, and relied on a huge amount of assistance from the government and taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, grants and incentives to benefit the 15 buildings at the core of his Manhattan real estate empire.

Since then, Mr. Trump has reaped at least $885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York, according to city tax, housing and finance records. The subsidies helped him lower his own costs and sell apartments at higher prices because of their reduced taxes.

Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has made clear over the course of his campaign how proud he is that "as a businessman I want to pay as little tax as possible."

While it is impossible to assess how much Mr. Trump pays in personal or corporate income taxes, because he has refused to release his tax returns, an examination of his record as a New York developer shows how aggressively he has fought to lower the taxes on his projects.

Mr. Trump successfully sued the administration of Mayor Edward I. Koch after being denied a tax break for Trump Tower, his signature building on Fifth Avenue. Two decades later, in a lawsuit that spanned the administrations of Mayors Rudolph W. Giuliani and Michael R. Bloomberg, he won a similar tax break for Trump World Tower, a building on First Avenue with some of the city's highest-priced condominiums in 2001.

The tax breaks for those two projects alone totaled $157 million.

The tax break at the 44-story Trump International Hotel and Tower at Columbus Circle came to $15.9 million.

No possible subsidy was left untapped. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Mr. Trump lined up a $150,000 grant for one of his buildings near ground zero, taking advantage of a program to help small businesses in the area recover, even though he had acknowledged on the day of the attacks that his building was undamaged.

"Donald Trump is probably worse than any other developer in his relentless pursuit of every single dime of taxpayer subsidies he can get his paws on," said Alicia Glen, Mayor Bill de Blasio's deputy mayor for housing and economic development, who first battled Mr. Trump when she worked in Mr. Giuliani's administration.

In seeking those subsidies, Mr. Trump is not that different from many other developers. But the level of subsidies he has received along with his doggedness in claiming them seem at odds with his rhetoric as an outsider candidate who boasts of his single-handed success and who has denounced what he calls the pay-to-play culture of politics and a "rigged" system of government.

Source: The New York Times

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 06, 2024, 06:32 AM^ TBH I find that a puzzling choice, DJ.

It's the same thing as throwing away my vote. Presidential votes don't matter in NY when it's always gonna lean democratic no matter what. I care more about the local smaller races. Assemblyman and Senate races.


People like to argue that the people upset with Joe Biden are just one issue voters and they are shouldn't be mad over one issue when he's supposedly done so much other good things. I can understand if this one issue was something smaller but I can't condone his unwavering support of Israel in the face of what they continue to do. He's taken 11 million dollars from Israel over his political career from PACs.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 06, 2024, 08:36 AMIt's the same thing as throwing away my vote. Presidential votes don't matter in NY when it's always gonna lean democratic no matter what. I care more about the local smaller races. Assemblyman and Senate races.


People like to argue that the people upset with Joe Biden are just one issue voters and they are shouldn't be mad over one issue when he's supposedly done so much other good things. I can understand if this one issue was something smaller but I can't condone his unwavering support of Israel in the face of what they continue to do. He's taken 11 million dollars from Israel over his political career from PACs.

What makes you think Trump would have done anything differently? I have zero doubt in my mind that if he gets elected he's going to continue to support the genocide.

And once again I implore anyone who thinks Biden is the worse option to please look into Project 2025.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 06, 2024, 08:36 AMIt's the same thing as throwing away my vote. Presidential votes don't matter in NY when it's always gonna lean democratic no matter what. I care more about the local smaller races. Assemblyman and Senate races.


People like to argue that the people upset with Joe Biden are just one issue voters and they are shouldn't be mad over one issue when he's supposedly done so much other good things. I can understand if this one issue was something smaller but I can't condone his unwavering support of Israel in the face of what they continue to do. He's taken 11 million dollars from Israel over his political career from PACs.

it's not so much the one-issue thing, as that voting for trump over biden over this specific one issue is hypocritical. Trump wouldn't handle it any better in Biden's position, and his attitude towards Ukraine, another place where horrible things are going on, is much worse than Biden's

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 06, 2024, 11:23 AMWhat makes you think Trump would have done anything differently? I have zero doubt in my mind that if he gets elected he's going to continue to support the genocide.

And once again I implore anyone who thinks Biden is the worse option to please look into Project 2025.

Trump is a bit of a wildcard when it comes to this specific issue. His attitude towards Ukraine aside. He wouldn't completely back the genocide publicly like Biden is basically doing.


He said this right in front of the dang problem 4 years ago. Saw him say something similar in a recent interview but I can't find the clip.

My vote for him doesn't even count though in NY state. It's just a throw away vote. I'm not voting for him because I think he's better than Biden. I'm just protesting against Biden because I don't like how hard he's supporting Israel right now. There is a local Senator that is getting the same hate for similar reasons and he's up for re election. He's not getting my vote either. He voted to censure Rashida Tlaib when she was voicing her concerns back in October.


It's too late for Biden. He fumbled the ball and allowed for Trump to slide in easily. In important swing states there are voting blocks that helped Biden just squeak past Trump and they are not going to be voting for Biden. So sadly whatever is in Project 2025 will be coming. I need to look it up but I bet it's bad.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 06, 2024, 12:07 PMTrump is a bit of a wildcard when it comes to this specific issue. His attitude towards Ukraine aside. He wouldn't completely back the genocide publicly like Biden is basically doing.

He said this right in front of the dang problem 4 years ago. Saw him say something similar in a recent interview but I can't find the clip.

My vote for him doesn't even count though in NY state. It's just a throw away vote. I'm not voting for him because I think he's better than Biden. I'm just protesting against Biden because I don't like how hard he's supporting Israel right now. There is a local Senator that is getting the same hate for similar reasons and he's up for re election. He's not getting my vote either. He voted to censure Rashida Tlaib when she was voicing her concerns back in October.


It's too late for Biden. He fumbled the ball and allowed for Trump to slide in easily. In important swing states there are voting blocks that helped Biden just squeak past Trump and they are not going to be voting for Biden. So sadly whatever is in Project 2025 will be coming. I need to look it up but I bet it's bad.

This is a slightly dated vid but it's pretty good overview.


And I'm not optimistic about Biden winning either. As people who stand to lose a lot under a second Trump term, the mister and I are making preparations as we speak. I'm actually meeting with my hormone doctor on Monday to ask what she might be able to do to help me continue my HRT in the event of a nationwide all-ages ban the likes of which has been propositioned by Trump.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 06, 2024, 12:37 PMThis is a slightly dated vid but it's pretty good overview.

And I'm not optimistic about Biden winning either. As people who stand to lose a lot under a second Trump term, the mister and I are making preparations as we speak. I'm actually meeting with my hormone doctor on Monday to ask what she might be able to do to help me continue my HRT in the event of a nationwide all-ages ban the likes of which has been propositioned by Trump.

I've never heard of an all ages ban. The thing they were upset about and constantly bringing up was underage treatments.

Which while I understand that sentiment, I'm against the government deciding what parents can allow for their own children.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 06, 2024, 03:28 PMI've never heard of an all ages ban. The thing they were upset about and constantly bringing up was underage treatments.

Which while I understand that sentiment, I'm against the government deciding what parents can allow for their own children.

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article277322158.html (https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article277322158.html)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 06, 2024, 12:07 PMTrump is a bit of a wildcard when it comes to this specific issue. His attitude towards Ukraine aside. He wouldn't completely back the genocide publicly like Biden is basically doing.

He said this right in front of the dang problem 4 years ago. Saw him say something similar in a recent interview but I can't find the clip.

My vote for him doesn't even count though in NY state. It's just a throw away vote. I'm not voting for him because I think he's better than Biden. I'm just protesting against Biden because I don't like how hard he's supporting Israel right now. There is a local Senator that is getting the same hate for similar reasons and he's up for re election. He's not getting my vote either. He voted to censure Rashida Tlaib when she was voicing her concerns back in October.


It's too late for Biden. He fumbled the ball and allowed for Trump to slide in easily. In important swing states there are voting blocks that helped Biden just squeak past Trump and they are not going to be voting for Biden. So sadly whatever is in Project 2025 will be coming. I need to look it up but I bet it's bad.

yeah no if you want to protest Biden that's good but there are many better ways of doing that than voting trump. Also I wouldn't call trump's policy about these things wild card; he just doesn't give a shit about human rights and is very ready to support atrocities if is suits him. That's unambiguous and all you need to know

I think one of the biggest parts in trump's success is the fact that he has somehow managed to present himself as human and relatable in a way that Hilary or Biden haven't. Like they're sneaky despicable politicians pulling hidden strings and exerting their power in a way thats detached from humanity, but he pretends that while he might be bad, at least he's upfront and bad in the way your asshole neighbour could be. It's the same reason why in many stories, the character we find most hateful is not necessarily the one that does the worst things, either because they come across as excessively cold and inhuman or petty and despicable (or both). In the case of trump, it's a ruse and falling for it is foolish

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 04, 2024, 09:58 PMPeople are starting to hate Genocide Joe more than Trump lol.

^ Actually, according to recent polls, things are going in the opposite direction: Trump used to have a noticable lead over Biden in election match-up polls, but he has recently been closing the gap. This article is from The Economist, which is a well-respected publication in the UK:-

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-biden-polls

If you open this link, the second graph has a neat vertical date-line that you can play with.

My prediction is that this upward trend for Biden will continue between now and the election for these reasons:
 
- Biden has been slow to respond to international condemnation and I sympathise with DJ mentioning Biden's "unwavering support of Israel". I think that his support is showing signs of wavering already and that he will listen to people like Nancy Pelosi:

 

QuoteFormer US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined House Democrat calls to halt US arms sales to Israel, citing the recent strike against aid workers and the spiraling humanitarian situation.

In a letter to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Pelosi and dozens of other congressional Democrats expressed their "shared concern and outrage" over the Israeli airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers.

"In light of this incident, we strongly urge you to reconsider your recent decision to authorize the transfer of a new arms package to Israel, and to withhold this and any future offensive arms transfers until a full investigation into the airstrike is completed," it reads.

- starting April 15, the USA will for weeks be seeing Defendant Trump, forced to attend his own trial, which will surely turn off many voters. Although it's glibly called "the hush money case", it's about more that Trump being a naughty boy with Stormy Daniels:

Quote"This case reveals Trump as having essentially the same purpose as Richard Nixon in Watergate, hiding the truth through fraud and bribery in order to influence the outcome of a presidential election" 

- thanks to Lexi and others, more people will become aware of what a Trump win could really do (Project 2025)

- Trump, ever more desperate, will be cranking up his vermin/animal/ rhetoric, etc, which may finally ring an alarm bell with Christians if they bother to dip into their "God Bless America" bibles looking for anything in the New Testament about de-humanizing your fellow man.

- the extent of the underlying ground-swell of disgust about the Republican stance on abortion may not show in the Trump/Biden polls, but it has been there at the poll booth for every election where voters get to choose if they want a bunch of old Republican men deciding women's reproductive rights. I suspect that those voters will be turning out for Biden on election day too. 

Big D still favourite with the bookies.

I'd be surprised if Genocide Joe manages to win.

^the way you call them big D and genocide joe is actually a good example of the way in which Trump presents himself (and others) manipulates people's feelings about them

I'm not being manipulated. I just don't like Biden.

If you can get behind using those respective names for them then you are being manipulated, whether you like it or not.

Trump is a fascist who tramples on human rights and democracy, locks immigrant children in cages away from their parents, is friendly with mass-murdering fascist dictators and is fine with said mass murders if it happens to suit him politically (and that includes the one in Gaza). He's also a lying, manipulating fraud and a member of a powerful, privileged, corrupt elite just as much as Biden. He's also a much greater threat to human rights and democracy than Biden (and let it be clear that i despise biden too). I don't mean to be harsh or to attack anyone here and I know you all mean well, but I have no patience with any justification for voting for this man (under any circumstance) or downplaying who he is. It's just too serious and dangerous for that

I'm not going to go back and forth over who has done what, because for everything said about Biden there will be 'yeah but Trump'.

The fact is, Trump is not in power. Biden is in power NOW, and is the one supporting this genocide.

Everything Marie said. This is bigger than Trump himself, too. The Republican agenda is being propped up by billionaire Christian nationalist groups who are pushing to install a theocratic hetero-patriarchal government and law. They are anti-women's and LGBTQIA+ rights, pro-censorship of the internet and against freedom of expression, among many other things. They spelled this all out openly in the Project 2025 document (and then deleted it like the cowards they are).

For the record, I also don't believe you have ill intentions and I know you are good people. But I think it's paramount to be informed on this stuff.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 06, 2024, 04:49 PMTrump is a fascist who tramples on human rights and democracy, locks immigrant children in cages away from their parents, is friendly with mass-murdering fascist dictators and is fine with said mass murders if it happens to suit him politically (and that includes the one in Gaza). He's also a lying, manipulating fraud and a member of a powerful, privileged, corrupt elite just as much as Biden. He's also a much greater threat to human rights and democracy than Biden (and let it be clear that i despise biden too). I don't mean to be harsh or to attack anyone here and I know you all mean well, but I have no patience with any justification for voting for this man (under any circumstance) or downplaying who he is. It's just too serious and dangerous for that

Yes, I agree, Marie. It seems like Trump's popularity is both inexplicable and dangerous.

 

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 06, 2024, 04:33 PMI'm not being manipulated. I just don't like Biden.

One time, in a booze-fuelled argument, a friend of mine, driven to exasperation, said to his opponent: "I know what you're thinking and you're wrong to think that!" It sounded so over-the-top unfair at the time that it quickly became a regular catch-phrase with me and my friends, so I'm going to say it to you now, jimmy jazz - but completely as a joke at my expense: I hope that's understood. ;) 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 06, 2024, 05:08 PMOne time, in a booze-fuelled argument, a friend of mine, driven to exasperation, said to his opponent: "I know what you're thinking and you're wrong to think that!" It sounded so over-the-top unfair at the time that it quickly became a regular catch-phrase with me and my friends, so I'm going to say it to you now, jimmy jazz - but completely as a joke: I hope that's understood. ;) 

Yes sir.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 06, 2024, 05:11 PMYes sir.

:laughing:    :thumb:

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 06, 2024, 04:57 PMI'm not going to go back and forth over who has done what, because for everything said about Biden there will be 'yeah but Trump'.

The fact is, Trump is not in power. Biden is in power NOW, and is the one supporting this genocide.

yes that's fair, I don't want to go over all that either, but trump has been in power and done horrible things too, so why isn't he called names like that then? That's what I mean.

Anyway, the 'i know what you're thinking and you're wrong to think that' story also hits the nail on the head about the way I'm feeling so i'll second that

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 06, 2024, 04:06 PMstarting April 15, the USA will for weeks be seeing Defendant Trump, forced to attend his own trial, which will surely turn off many voters.

The guy who's been impeached twice, been accused of colluding with Russia, been accused of plotting a coup to overthrow the government, facing 91 felony charges, and has been mugshotted in a jail beginning to attend (another) trial will result in his polling going down?

(https://media.tenor.com/0jsB09aHEiYAAAAM/you-sure-really.gif)

^ :laughing:  Put like that, it sounds unlikely, but I'm still hoping !

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 06, 2024, 03:47 PMyeah no if you want to protest Biden that's good but there are many better ways of doing that than voting trump. Also I wouldn't call trump's policy about these things wild card; he just doesn't give a shit about human rights and is very ready to support atrocities if is suits him. That's unambiguous and all you need to know

I have already protest voted against Joe Biden this past week. It was the democratic primary and I casted a blank ballet to show that there is a chunk of Democrats that don't agree with what he is doing in regards to aid to Israel providing weapons etc. 12% of the base in New York did the same. Like I stated before my presidential votes counts for so little. He will easily win NY state so throwing it away by voting for Trump doesn't mean much. I'm not trying to make the case that Trump is better than Biden but I just don't like them both and there are no other meaningful options really.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 07, 2024, 05:08 PMI have already protest voted against Joe Biden this past week. It was the democratic primary and I casted a blank ballet to show that there is a chunk of Democrats that don't agree with what he is doing in regards to aid to Israel providing weapons etc. 12% of the base in New York did the same. Like I stated before my presidential votes counts for so little. He will easily win NY state so throwing it away by voting for Trump doesn't mean much. I'm not trying to make the case that Trump is better than Biden but I just don't like them both and there are no other meaningful options really.

I know you're not making the case that trump is better, and I'm also aware your vote is not influential. That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that even as an act of protest, trump is too horrible a person to make voting for him (as an act in itself regardless of outcome) justifiable. The blank vote you did is one of the actually decent forms of protest I had in mind.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 07, 2024, 09:31 PMI know you're not making the case that trump is better, and I'm also aware your vote is not influential. That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that even as an act of protest, trump is too horrible a person to make voting for him (as an act in itself regardless of outcome) justifiable. The blank vote you did is one of the actually decent forms of protest I had in mind.

I find it mildly amusing that a non-American is trying to convince an American that their protest vote isn't morally justifiable.

If DJ believes that the Democrats need to make changes and improve on foreign policy in a way that makes their administrations' actions more ethical and in line with his moral compass, then voting for their primary opposition (Republicans), in a state that Democrats have no realistic chance of losing (this time around) is much more effective at sending that message than a blank vote, assuming a non-insignificant amount of other disillusioned Democrats/independents did the same.

In terms of affecting the outcome of the election, him voting for Trump will have the same effect as if he had voted for some random scumbag like Harvey Weinstein. But the message is different. You can't vote for an opposition party in a primary (well, sort of, some states let you choose a party ballot, but you're constrained in that party's vote, it's not a collective dual party either/or situation, you choose which party's primary you're voting in), so protesting with a blank vote makes sense there. But it doesn't make sense in a general election. You think the Dems would be worried or make changes in response to a protest vote(s) that tells them: "Well, I won't vote for you in a majority Dem state, but I'm not so upset with you that I'd dare vote for your opposition party"?

If only 5% of Dems in New York switched and voted for Trump in the general, it would send the party a message that they're not obligated a vote just because voters don't like their opposition party. The Dems would do all the exit polling and research after to figure out why they lost those voters and they'd shift approach accordingly next time (and if they didn't, they'd continue to bleed voters). A blank vote in a general doesn't mean anything (excluding downballot votes, which assumedly, wouldn't be blank). In terms of the presidential election, it's like showing up for attendance at school, and then not paying attention to the teacher and doing none of the homework and claiming you're protesting school.

yeah I know all that, I don't care. You're still trying to convince me of the beneficial/lack of harmful outcome of it, when that wasn't ever my point. It's a kind of cynical utilitarism that I can't get behind, the end doesn't justify the means. The blank vote was just one example, there are other more impactful ways to protest too

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 07, 2024, 09:31 PMI know you're not making the case that trump is better, and I'm also aware your vote is not influential. That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that even as an act of protest, trump is too horrible a person to make voting for him (as an act in itself regardless of outcome) justifiable. The blank vote you did is one of the actually decent forms of protest I had in mind.

I can't cast a blank ballot in November because there are other local races that I DO want to participate in and I think there is a proposal or two on the back that I need to vote on. Blank ballots only work for the primary.

I would just take issue with the characterisation of Biden as Genocide Joe, and like Marie, would like to make it clear I don't like him - now - either. However, if anyone should be accused of genocide, should this not be Trump? If there's a scale you can put on genocides, is not the genocide of your own people, the people who voted you into power and trusted in and believed you - worse than that of a foreign nation? Not that either are acceptable, but have we already forgotten how Trump wilfully ignored, downplayed and then lied about Covid while Americans were dying in their hundreds of thousands? It was his administration - and him in particular - that was responsible for so many Republican/MAGA voters dying because they refused to believe Covid was real, as he told them it wasn't. They literally trusted in him and it killed them. So surely both men deserve the title, and I would, if you're going to vilify Biden with that epithet, suggest either Terminator Trump or, more likely, Traitor Trump.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 07, 2024, 09:31 PMI know you're not making the case that trump is better, and I'm also aware your vote is not influential. That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that even as an act of protest, trump is too horrible a person to make voting for him (as an act in itself regardless of outcome) justifiable. The blank vote you did is one of the actually decent forms of protest I had in mind.

it literally has no impact who you vote for.  Other than the vote tally changes by one vote. The same guy will win either way.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 08, 2024, 01:22 AMI can't cast a blank ballot in November because there are other local races that I DO want to participate in and I think there is a proposal or two on the back that I need to vote on. Blank ballots only work for the primary.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 03:11 AMit literally has no impact who you vote for.  Other than the vote tally changes by one vote. The same guy will win either way.

I swear to god you guys are still trying to explain to me how voting works when I've already said that all this stuff is bedside the point for me

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 08, 2024, 02:24 AMI would just take issue with the characterisation of Biden as Genocide Joe, and like Marie, would like to make it clear I don't like him - now - either. However, if anyone should be accused of genocide, should this not be Trump?

No.

Accusations of genocide on either side are debatable, but regardless of that there's still the point of why Trump isn't called dictator donnie then, or something, if the nicknames are meant to be calling them out unbiased

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 12:15 PMAccusations of genocide on either side are debatable, but regardless of that there's still the point of why Trump isn't called dictator donnie then, or something, if the nicknames are meant to be calling them out unbiased

Who is supposed to be unbiased and who said the nicknames are supposed to be unbiased?

People have been calling Trump orange and all sorts of other shit for years.

This argument 😂

Orange is not remotely the same as genocide mate.
If you're saying it's not manipulation your implying it's unbiased. Since it is biased, it spreads a disproportionately good perception of trump compared to Biden (which is not a coincidence, that's the goal) and is therefore manipulation through political propaganda.

Also I'm not talking about what people in general have been calling them, I'm talking about what I see them being called now, here

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 01:16 PMOrange is not remotely the same as genocide mate.

It doesn't have to be. It's still a negative thing and people have called Trump plenty of negative names.

QuoteIf you're saying it's not manipulation your implying it's unbiased. Since it is biased, it spreads a disproportionately good perception of trump compared to Biden (which is not a coincidence, that's the goal) and is therefore manipulation through political propaganda.

Also I'm not talking about what people in general have been calling them, I'm talking about what I see them being called now, here

I think everyone on this thread has already made their minds up about Trump and Biden and no piss-taking nickname is going to change anybody's perception of either of them.

Genocide Joe and Deadly Donald

Everyone happy now? 8)

The "Genocide Joe" nickname has been given to Biden by people on the left, and primarily those who are against what Israel is doing in Gaza with the support of the U.S.

https://www.facebook.com/RollingStone/posts/714096060578463/

QuoteThousands of pro-Palestine demonstrators marched on Washington, D.C., demanding a Gaza ceasefire. They directed their rage primarily at Joe Biden. It started with the chants:

"Biden, Biden, you can't hide! We charge you with genocide!"

"Hey hey! Ho ho! Genocide Joe has got to go!"

And even, at least once, the classic four-syllable refrain familiar to anyone who's been near a Trump rally or right-wing protest in recent years: "Fuck Joe Bi-den!"

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 01:16 PMOrange is not remotely the same as genocide mate.
If you're saying it's not manipulation your implying it's unbiased. Since it is biased, it spreads a disproportionately good perception of trump compared to Biden (which is not a coincidence, that's the goal) and is therefore manipulation through political propaganda.

Also I'm not talking about what people in general have been calling them, I'm talking about what I see them being called now, here

This is all semantics at this point, Psy's post explains the origin of the nickname Genocide Joe. It's basically people on the left that are so fed up with his unwavering support of Israel. There are plenty of other members of congress catching flack for having the same position as well. The only difference is that they don't have catchy nicknames but they are still getting pressured. Their defense is that if you don't support Israel then you are antisemitic and pro Hamas which is wildly incorrect misinformation.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 08, 2024, 02:16 PMThis is all semantics at this point, Psy's post explains the origin of the nickname Genocide Joe. It's basically people on the left that are so fed up with his unwavering support of Israel. There are plenty of other members of congress catching flack for having the same position as well. The only difference is that they don't have catchy nicknames but they are still getting pressured. Their defense is that if you don't support Israel then you are antisemitic and pro Hamas which is wildly incorrect misinformation.

Yeah, that is true. And by my own morals I would never voice support for Biden and his pro-genocide actions either. But this is not happening in a vacuum. The strategy of "withholding votes to pressure Biden into stopping supporting Israel" is a pretty huge gamble that I think in the long run has only served to harm Biden's chances of winning period.

Guys it doesn't matter at all where the nickname originally comes from, or whether it will actually convince people. I mentioned it as an example of a biased perception of trump Vs Biden, and that's still true.

For that matter, if my memory serves me well, the posts of psyfi and sgr in the politics threads are also manipulatively biased

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 08, 2024, 02:52 PMYeah, that is true. And by my own morals I would never voice support for Biden and his pro-genocide actions either. But this is not happening in a vacuum. The strategy of "withholding votes to pressure Biden into stopping supporting Israel" is a pretty huge gamble that I think in the long run has only served to harm Biden's chances of winning period.

Biden's current actions/inaction is what is harming his slight chances of winning. The protest vote isn't. Well that's not true, the protest vote in Michigan is going to tank Biden. Huge Muslim community there and actually helped him to win against Trump last time isn't voting for him so there is that.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 03:07 PMGuys it doesn't matter at all where the nickname originally comes from, or whether it will actually convince people. I mentioned it as an example of a biased perception of trump Vs Biden, and that's still true.

For that matter, if my memory serves me well, the posts of psyfi and sgr in the politics threads are also manipulatively biased

What's biased about Psyfi's last post? I have been to those marches in the rain and have chanted those exact words.

I'm not talking about that post

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 03:07 PMGuys it doesn't matter at all where the nickname originally comes from, or whether it will actually convince people. I mentioned it as an example of a biased perception of trump Vs Biden, and that's still true.

For that matter, if my memory serves me well, the posts of psyfi and sgr in the politics threads are also manipulatively biased

I post videos and links to podcasts and news stories from a variety of sources that I think are interesting and provocative and sometimes entertaining.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat and I also happen to dislike both Trump and Biden for various reasons.

Yeah, I know

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 03:07 PMGuys it doesn't matter at all where the nickname originally comes from, or whether it will actually convince people. I mentioned it as an example of a biased perception of trump Vs Biden, and that's still true.

For that matter, if my memory serves me well, the posts of psyfi and sgr in the politics threads are also manipulatively biased

As humans, we all have implicit biases that are impossible to completely shake due to our upbringing, our religion (or lack thereof), our financial situation, and issues the we personally value, and I think we all recognize and understand that. Trying to be cognizant of that to keep it in check is a noble goal.

As has been pointed out, the nickname of 'Genocide Joe' came from the left. They're using this nickname because obviously, they view what Israel's doing in Gaza to be a genocide, and they view Biden as being complicit through continued aid and support of Israel. There would be no point (at least right now) for these protestors on the left to highlight the likelihood that if Trump was in office, he'd probably be doing the exact same thing as Biden, because Biden's the one in power now and who has the ability to make changes. As Lexi points out, it is a big gamble to threaten withholding votes (which is, in essence, what the left calling him this is a signal for) for Biden to get him to course-correct on Israel. Lexi points out it might just end up stunting his chances of winning in 2024. That's possible, but, alternatively, it might be enough of a political threat to make his administration make changes in regards to Israel - which appears recently to have happened (http://reuters.com/world/middle-east/biden-speaks-with-israels-netanyahu-after-strike-kills-food-aid-workers-2024-04-04/) - in doing so, it might end up being a benefit to his chances to win the election and it might save lives in the long run. Too much uncertainty about how things will play out to say for sure.

Nicknames, in the realm of politics, when boiled down are simply tools of persuasion that are meant to highlight a perception or reality of some kind attributable to the politician the nickname is bestowed upon. It could be a favorable nickname; I'm reminded of how FDR bestowed upon Stalin the nickname of 'Uncle Joe' (https://reason.com/1989/04/01/why-fdr-loved-uncle-joe/) to soften his image in the west. Or, as we've seen, it could be a disparaging nickname like 'Genocide Joe'. I wouldn't expect anyone critical of Trump, who used nicknames for him like 'Mango Mussolini' or 'Don the Con' to also add an addendum to their nickname describing fascistic or fraudulent behaviors that Biden has also been party to. Or, just an example from your recent post:

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 06, 2024, 04:49 PMTrump is a fascist who tramples on human rights and democracy, locks immigrant children in cages away from their parents, is friendly with mass-murdering fascist dictators and is fine with said mass murders if it happens to suit him politically (and that includes the one in Gaza).

Beyond the fact that using 'cages' to describe the chain-link enclosures at border facilities is also a manipulative method of persuasion, as it's intentionally used to bring to mind how animals might be trapped in a claustrophobic and uncomfortable setting (and I know you didn't come up with using that word in this context, just pointing it out in general), it could be considered manipulatively biased to not bring up the fact that the 'cages' were built under the Obama/Biden administration (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-democratic-national-convention-ap-fact-check-immigration-politics-2663c84832a13cdd7a8233becfc7a5f3) and were used in the same way (albeit to a smaller degree):

Quote from: AP NewsTrump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. They are chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where migrants were temporarily housed, separated by sex and age.

At the height of the controversy over Trump's zero-tolerance policy at the border, photos that circulated online of children in the enclosures generated great anger. But those photos — by The Associated Press — were taken in 2014 and depicted some of the thousands of unaccompanied children held by President Barack Obama.

When that fact came to light, some Democrats and activists who had tweeted the photos deleted their tweets. But prominent Democrats have continued to cite cages for children as a distinctive cruelty of Trump.

What's going on today with the elaborate explanations of political topics that aren't to the point? (I hope y'all are appreciating how hard I'm trying (and not quite succeeding) not to use the word mansplaining)

I'll fully admit the cages thing is biased too but that doesn't change the fact that there's a certain widespread bias in trump's favour

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 05:38 PMWhat's going on today with the elaborate explanations of political topics that aren't to the point? (I hope y'all are appreciating how hard I'm trying (and not quite succeeding) not to use the word mansplaining)

I'll fully admit the cages thing is biased too but that doesn't change the fact that there's a certain widespread bias in trump's favour

One of those days, I guess.  :laughing:

So, what's the point then? I thought we were discussing manipulative bias in politics?

And a certain widespread bias in Trump's favor where?

The point I was making is that using genocide joe and big D in the same context is an example of such bias

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 06, 2024, 03:54 PMI think one of the biggest parts in trump's success is the fact that he has somehow managed to present himself as human and relatable in a way that Hilary or Biden haven't. Like they're sneaky despicable politicians pulling hidden strings and exerting their power in a way thats detached from humanity, but he pretends that while he might be bad, at least he's upfront and bad in the way your asshole neighbour could be. It's the same reason why in many stories, the character we find most hateful is not necessarily the one that does the worst things, either because they come across as excessively cold and inhuman or petty and despicable (or both). In the case of trump, it's a ruse and falling for it is foolish

this is how it started

I'd be interested to hear how there is widespread bias in Definitely Doubly Deadly and Deceitful Donald's favour.

If anything Lord and Saviour Joesus Christ gets an easy ride in the media and among the public.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 09:41 AMI swear to god you guys are still trying to explain to me how voting works when I've already said that all this stuff is bedside the point for me

well i guess i don't think I've heard an explanation for why casting a protest vote for Trump  would be a problem, unless you're worried it might help him win. I also haven't really been following this discussion tbh I just got triggered by the idea of someone thinking their vote actually matters lol

I've explained that already, I object to it for 'giving such a person a vote is gross, whatever the reason' reasons

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 08, 2024, 06:06 PMI'd be interested to hear how there is widespread bias in Definitely Doubly Deadly and Deceitful Donald's favour.

If anything Lord and Saviour Joesus Christ gets an easy ride in the media and among the public.

😂 see my quoted post above

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 08, 2024, 11:16 AMNo.

I'm honestly curious how much of you not liking Biden has anything to do with Gaza. I feel like Genocide Joe is an effective Trump style nickname but nothing more than that really. But it seems like a virtue signal to me.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Apr 08, 2024, 06:20 PMI've explained that already, I object to it for 'giving such a person a vote is gross, whatever the reason' reasons😂 see my quoted post above

maybe you have. That's basically the same thing as no reason in my book. "Bad vibes" or whatever.

And that's fair, I get that not everyone will agree with it

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 06:29 PMI'm honestly curious how much of you not liking Biden has anything to do with Gaza. I feel like Genocide Joe is an effective Trump style nickname but nothing more than that really. But it seems like a virtue signal to me.

Not a lot really. I don't see how anyone can defend Israel. Plenty of footage of them targeting civilians and blowing them to bits as if it's GTA.

I fully admit my ignorance on this but is it not a stretch to assume this conflict would've looked any better if it had been Trump instead of Biden as pres?

Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 08, 2024, 06:59 PMI fully admit my ignorance on this but is it not a stretch to assume this conflict would've looked any better if it had been Trump instead of Biden as pres?

I'm assuming you're talking about Israel-Hamas, and yes, it is a stretch to assume it would've looked any better if it had been Trump instead of Biden leading the helm. It very well could've been worse. It's all speculative. It's similar to the right's criticism of how Biden botched the Afghanistan pull-out, with the conveyed assumption that it would've gone better under Trump. All speculative. With US Presidents though, it's always 'the buck stops here', and the opposition party to whoever holds the executive branch will let no crisis go to waste in playing the finger-pointing blame game. Biden's current political albatross though is that its his own party that's vastly criticizing how Israel-Hamas is being handled. For example, to my knowledge, Trump hasn't yet called Biden 'Genocide Joe'.

Yeah, and Genocide Joe is honestly a more damning and useful nickname for attacking Biden than anything Trump has come up with for him. He probably would love to use it against him but that would be implicitly accusing Israel of genocide lol. So there's some collateral damage involved in using that nickname.


The reality is, I do think Biden is weak on foreign policy but no more so than in the typical sense. It just seems worse because the world it's on fire and he happens to be president.

I think a lot of Republicans actually have the mentality that if Trump were in office, Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Iran would be dealt with and peace in the Middle East would have been secured through the Abraham accords. The attacks on Oct 7 would have never occurred, and he would have still pulled out of Afghanistan as he planned to do but somehow without the country quickly being taken over by the Taliban.

I think the reality of the situation is our position in the world has been declining since 9/11, and that didn't stop during Trump. No significant new wars being launched is a matter of historical circumstance. But the situation continued to deteriorate in all of the key strategic  regions, including Ukraine and the Middle East. Bush laid the ground work for Obama who then laid it for Trump who laid it for Biden. Each leader has, through their actions and policies, continued us along roughly the same trajectory we've been on for over 20 years. But yes. At the same time any crisis can always be expected to be weaponized against you, and if you don't do the same back in response to your opponents then you might be playing a losing strategy.

The people on the left who are calling him Genocide Joe, on the other hand, are less interested in Bidens electoral success than they are in applying pressure to the United States to shift their policy towards Israel. In this case it's not a cynical move. The prospect of trying to appeal to them to look the other way on Gaza for the sake of getting Biden 4 more years just fundamentally misses what their political priorities are.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 08, 2024, 04:04 PMBiden's current actions/inaction is what is harming his slight chances of winning. The protest vote isn't. Well that's not true, the protest vote in Michigan is going to tank Biden. Huge Muslim community there and actually helped him to win against Trump last time isn't voting for him so there is that.

This is where I think we might just have to agree to disagree, then. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on 2020 I think it could be very possible for Biden to win 2024 if all the protest non-voters in crucial states would vote for Biden instead of throwing their votes away. And nobody's going to convince me that Biden winning is a worse outcome than Trump. Right now those are our two possible outcomes. It sucks but one of them is going to happen.

I don't want to come off like I'm finger pointing. But as someone who will be very directly harmed the anti-LGBT policies Trump and Project 2025 have spoken on and outlined, it just bums me out that people I thought were in my corner (including some irl friends) are just going to let this country get torpedoed into christofascist hell.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 07:50 PMYeah, and Genocide Joe is honestly a more damning and useful nickname for attacking Biden than anything Trump has come up with for him. He probably would love to use it against him but that would be implicitly accusing Israel of genocide lol. So there's some collateral damage involved in using that nickname.


The reality is, I do think Biden is weak on foreign policy but no more so than in the typical sense. It just seems worse because the world it's on fire and he happens to be president.

I think a lot of Republicans actually have the mentality that if Trump were in office, Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Iran would be dealt with and peace in the Middle East would have been secured through the Abraham accords. The attacks on Oct 7 would have never occurred, and he would have still pulled out of Afghanistan as he planned to do but somehow without the country quickly being taken over by the Taliban.

I think the reality of the situation is our position in the world has been declining since 9/11, and that didn't stop during Trump. No significant new wars being launched is a matter of historical circumstance. But the situation continued to deteriorate in all of the key strategic  regions, including Ukraine and the Middle East. Bush laid the ground work for Obama who then laid it for Trump who laid it for Biden. Each leader has, through their actions and policies, continued us along roughly the same trajectory we've been on for over 20 years. But yes. At the same time any crisis can always be expected to be weaponized against you, and if you don't do the same back in response to your opponents then you might be playing a losing strategy.

The people on the left who are calling him Genocide Joe, on the other hand, are less interested in Bidens electoral success than they are in applying pressure to the United States to shift their policy towards Israel. In this case it's not a cynical move. The prospect of trying to appeal to them to look the other way on Gaza for the sake of getting Biden 4 more years just fundamentally misses what their political priorities are.

I agree with all of this. I think some credit has to be given to progressives for sticking with their convictions in their criticism of Trump and Biden. In 2016, Bernie kinda got shafted by the DNC, and some progressives decided to punish the Democrats by either sitting the election out, or voting third party, or in some cases, even voting for Trump. I think that's a significant reason why Trump was able to win (though of course, not the only reason). In 2020 though, the Dems were successfully able to rally the progressives to vote for Joe, even though he wasn't perfect, to get rid of Trump, and at least move the country closer towards where some of their political priorities are. Now it seems like the pendulum is starting to shift again - and I think the Dems are going to have a more difficult time rallying progressives to get a turnout like they did in 2020 - I'm sure recency bias plays a role in that too. But really, the only way to convince the Dems to change their political priorities is to remind them that they need progressives if they want to win elections. I don't think "At least we're not as bad as the other guys!" is a viable long-term strategy to get turnout from progressives (however, it's been largely viable in the last 8 years). How the Dems can successfully court both progressives and independents effectively will remain an uncertain tightrope that they'll have to walk. I think the progressives who are casting protest votes (or not planning to vote) in crucial swing states are playing with a dangerous gambit - the idea that if things get worse in the short-term (for Democrats/Progressives), they'll get better in the long-term.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 08, 2024, 08:04 PMThis is where I think we might just have to agree to disagree, then. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on 2020 I think it could be very possible for Biden to win 2024 if all the protest non-voters in crucial states would vote for Biden instead of throwing their votes away. And nobody's going to convince me that Biden winning is a worse outcome than Trump. Right now those are our two possible outcomes. It sucks but one of them is going to happen.

I don't want to come off like I'm finger pointing. But as someone who will be very directly harmed the anti-LGBT policies Trump and Project 2025 have spoken on and outlined, it just bums me out that people I thought were in my corner (including some irl friends) are just going to let this country get torpedoed into christofascist hell.

The fact of the matter is you can't simultaneously concede that Biden is supporting a genocide and then castigate people for trying to apply pressure to try to get him to stop. And in order for that effort to have any real teeth, there has to be leverage that you can employ to potentially hurt Biden. That's the only type of pressure that actually means anything, and when you are talking about a  supposed genocide taking place, it really doesn't make sense to forgo applying that pressure.


The only argument we ever hear is that Trump is worse. If you don't get why that's such an unsatisfying answer at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You can't have genocide on the one side of the equation and then still expect to get endless purchase from referring to "kids in cages" or "trans genocide" etc. Once you accept that a genocide is happening, you can't heighten the stakes any more than that by appealing back to how evil Trump is. 

This is a serious rhetorical issue for the democrats and their supporters to deal with at the moment. I actually basically agree with you and Marie that ultimately Trump would end up doing nothing to help that situation while making other situations here worse. But you kind of have to already believe that for that to seem convincing. It's just a weak counter argument rhetorically. The only effective counter is to portray him as not supporting genocide. Once you concede on that point, the appeals to evil orange man seem rather impotent.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 08, 2024, 08:33 PMI agree with all of this. I think some credit has to be given to progressives for sticking with their convictions in their criticism of Trump and Biden. In 2016, Bernie kinda got shafted by the DNC, and some progressives decided to punish the Democrats by either sitting the election out, or voting third party, or in some cases, even voting for Trump. I think that's a significant reason why Trump was able to win (though of course, not the only reason). In 2020 though, the Dems were successfully able to rally the progressives to vote for Joe, even though he wasn't perfect, to get rid of Trump, and at least move the country closer towards where some of their political priorities are. Now it seems like the pendulum is starting to shift again - and I think the Dems are going to have a more difficult time rallying progressives to get a turnout like they did in 2020 - I'm sure recency bias plays a role in that too. But really, the only way to convince the Dems to change their political priorities is to remind them that they need progressives if they want to win elections. I don't think "At least we're not as bad as the other guys!" is a viable long-term strategy to get turnout from progressives (however, it's been largely viable in the last 8 years). How the Dems can successfully court both progressives and independents effectively will remain an uncertain tightrope that they'll have to walk. I think the progressives who are casting protest votes (or not planning to vote) in crucial swing states are playing with a dangerous gambit - the idea that if things get worse in the short-term (for Democrats/Progressives), they'll get better in the long-term.

I've mostly been voicing my revulsion to trump so far but I agree with all this too

Quote from: SGR on Apr 08, 2024, 08:33 PMI agree with all of this. I think some credit has to be given to progressives for sticking with their convictions in their criticism of Trump and Biden. In 2016, Bernie kinda got shafted by the DNC, and some progressives decided to punish the Democrats by either sitting the election out, or voting third party, or in some cases, even voting for Trump. I think that's a significant reason why Trump was able to win (though of course, not the only reason). In 2020 though, the Dems were successfully able to rally the progressives to vote for Joe, even though he wasn't perfect, to get rid of Trump, and at least move the country closer towards where some of their political priorities are. Now it seems like the pendulum is starting to shift again - and I think the Dems are going to have a more difficult time rallying progressives to get a turnout like they did in 2020 - I'm sure recency bias plays a role in that too. But really, the only way to convince the Dems to change their political priorities is to remind them that they need progressives if they want to win elections. I don't think "At least we're not as bad as the other guys!" is a viable long-term strategy to get turnout from progressives (however, it's been largely viable in the last 8 years). How the Dems can successfully court both progressives and independents effectively will remain an uncertain tightrope that they'll have to walk. I think the progressives who are casting protest votes (or not planning to vote) in crucial swing states are playing with a dangerous gambit - the idea that if things get worse in the short-term (for Democrats/Progressives), they'll get better in the long-term.

i don't know that Bernie bros actually did turn to Trump in any significant number. I've heard that claimed vaguely but I'd like to see numbers on that.

In any case, struggling to get people to turn out, especially young people and more progressive types, is indeed a constant theme with the Democrats struggling to mobilize a certain portion of their base.

I'm not so convinced there was a winning move for Biden here vis a vis Israel, but the impression he has given is of someone who is just stuck in some unquestioning status quo logic of always supporting Israel. That logic was tolerable to more people before this recent war. As the body count rises that position is just becoming more and more untenable. But the Democrats are fucked both ways on this issue because the right has always weaponized the perception that the democrats were less loyal to Israel against them, to the largely sympathetic-to-Israel American public. But as the war potentially changes the level of sympathy people have, that changes that calculus. And Biden has just been slow to adjust.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 09:54 PMi don't know that Bernie bros actually did turn to Trump in any significant number. I've heard that claimed vaguely but I'd like to see numbers on that.

I remembered reading about it years ago, but your question here is a valid one - so I had to look it up to see if my memory was true - according to NPR, who links to a survey over around 50,000 people, a little over 1 in 10 Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump in the general (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds). Might not seem like a whole lot, but when the electoral margins were as slim as they were in 2016, I think it's significant.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 09:54 PMIn any case, struggling to get people to turn out, especially young people and more progressive types, is indeed a constant theme with the Democrats struggling to mobilize a certain portion of their base.

I'm not so convinced there was a winning move for Biden here vis a vis Israel, but the impression he has given is of someone who is just stuck in some unquestioning status quo logic of always supporting Israel. That logic was tolerable to more people before this recent war. As the body count rises that position is just becoming more and more untenable. But the Democrats are fucked both ways on this issue because the right has always weaponized the perception that the democrats were less loyal to Israel against them, to the largely sympathetic-to-Israel American public. But as the war potentially changes the level of sympathy people have, that changes that calculus. And Biden has just been slow to adjust.

I agree on all points. The Democrat leadership, in my opinion, is missing a lot of youth and vitality. Regardless of anyone's opinions of her, AOC represents the kind of energy the Dems are going to need going forward. I can't blame young people for not getting excited to go vote for Democrats when so many of their primary establishment messengers are completely out-of-touch septuagenarians and octogenarians like Biden, Pelosi, and Hillary. It appears Obama is getting more involved recently, and he's still favorably viewed (last I checked) by the Democrat base, so they're gonna need to lean on him a lot.

I feel like Israel has, for a long time, had overwhelming support and sympathy from the western public because of the Holocaust. After October 7th, it feels like they've been given a lot of leeway and wiggle room as a result of that long-held sympathy (and of course, a long military alliance with the US). But in some ways, it feels like with what they're doing in Gaza, they're ready to completely cash that Holocaust ticket. Because after this, when people appeal back to the Holocaust in defense or sympathy-garnering for Jews/Israelis, people will respond with: "Well what about your genocide in Gaza?". Depending on how things go for Israel, the ticket might be worth cashing for them in the long run. But at some point, when they conduct themselves like they have been, that ticket isn't going to cash in the minds of the public anymore. But I agree that Biden is in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of position.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 09:14 PMThe fact of the matter is you can't simultaneously concede that Biden is supporting a genocide and then castigate people for trying to apply pressure to try to get him to stop. And in order for that effort to have any real teeth, there has to be leverage that you can employ to potentially hurt Biden. That's the only type of pressure that actually means anything, and when you are talking about a  supposed genocide taking place, it really doesn't make sense to forgo applying that pressure.


The only argument we ever hear is that Trump is worse. If you don't get why that's such an unsatisfying answer at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You can't have genocide on the one side of the equation and then still expect to get endless purchase from referring to "kids in cages" or "trans genocide" etc. Once you accept that a genocide is happening, you can't heighten the stakes any more than that by appealing back to how evil Trump is. 

This is a serious rhetorical issue for the democrats and their supporters to deal with at the moment. I actually basically agree with you and Marie that ultimately Trump would end up doing nothing to help that situation while making other situations here worse. But you kind of have to already believe that for that to seem convincing. It's just a weak counter argument rhetorically. The only effective counter is to portray him as not supporting genocide. Once you concede on that point, the appeals to evil orange man seem rather impotent.

In theory I agree with the point on voter pressure. If I was getting any indication that threatening to withhold votes was actually going to accomplish the goal of getting Biden to stop supporting the genocide, I would support it. And if I had any sense of reassurance that should such a threat fail, the left/progressive people making the threat will still vote for Biden in November. But I don't get that impression at all.

I guess I'm just trying to say my problem with not voting out of protest is not that I disagree with it morally. I hope you all are right and leveraging Biden will actually work. But I just can't trust that it will.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 08, 2024, 10:23 PMI remembered reading about it years ago, but your question here is a valid one - so I had to look it up to see if my memory was true - according to NPR, who links to a survey over around 50,000 people, a little over 1 in 10 Sanders supporters ended up voting for Trump in the general (https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds). Might not seem like a whole lot, but when the electoral margins were as slim as they were in 2016, I think it's significant.

I agree on all points. The Democrat leadership, in my opinion, is missing a lot of youth and vitality. Regardless of anyone's opinions of her, AOC represents the kind of energy the Dems are going to need going forward. I can't blame young people for not getting excited to go vote for Democrats when so many of their primary establishment messengers are completely out-of-touch septuagenarians and octogenarians like Biden, Pelosi, and Hillary. It appears Obama is getting more involved recently, and he's still favorably viewed (last I checked) by the Democrat base, so they're gonna need to lean on him a lot.

I feel like Israel has, for a long time, had overwhelming support and sympathy from the western public because of the Holocaust. After October 7th, it feels like they've been given a lot of leeway and wiggle room as a result of that long-held sympathy (and of course, a long military alliance with the US). But in some ways, it feels like with what they're doing in Gaza, they're ready to completely cash that Holocaust ticket. Because after this, when people appeal back to the Holocaust in defense or sympathy-garnering for Jews/Israelis, people will respond with: "Well what about your genocide in Gaza?". Depending on how things go for Israel, the ticket might be worth cashing for them in the long run. But at some point, when they conduct themselves like they have been, that ticket isn't going to cash in the minds of the public anymore. But I agree that Biden is in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of position.

It's not just the left that's divided on the issue. Have you been following any of the daily wire beef with Candace?

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 09, 2024, 12:06 AMIt's not just the left that's divided on the issue. Have you been following any of the daily wire beef with Candace?

Yes I have, a little bit. I don't particularly like either Candace or Ben Shapiro, so I've only lightly been following it. But Shapiro is a shill for Israel, so I don't take his opinions on the matter very seriously.

I don't think  he's a shill lol. I think he's just a Zionist to the core.

Candace has been going on about gangs of Jews running Hollywood and beefing with Rabbi Shmuley. I have never particularly liked her either but I have definitely found all of that pretty entertaining.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 09, 2024, 12:36 AMI don't think  he's a shill lol. I think he's just a Zionist to the core.

Yeah, tomato, tomah-to. Plus Ben Shapiro is an insufferable nerd.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 09, 2024, 12:36 AMCandace has been going on about gangs of Jews running Hollywood and beefing with Rabbi Shmuley. I have never particularly liked her either but I have definitely found all of that pretty entertaining.

Didn't Dave Chapelle say that wasn't a gang, but rather, a 'coincedence'?  :laughing:

I'll admit, I love some good internet drama. You ever watch this guy's channel? I feel like you'd enjoy it. Covers drama primarily about comedians, but also streamers, and political junkies.

Witnesses in Trump's hush money trial likely to include former members of his inner circle, sources say (https://abcnews.go.com/US/witnesses-trumps-hush-money-trial-include-former-members/story?id=108901965)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 08, 2024, 12:43 AMI find it mildly amusing that a non-American is trying to convince an American that their protest vote isn't morally justifiable.

^ I do my best to remember that some people are talking about their own country in these threads, while I, for instance, am an outside observer who misses quite a lot of culturally significant details - which includes most of the process of primary elections, as well as this thing about "registered Republicans". Like, where is this registered, and what happened to the secrecy of the ballot box? In the UK many people guard the privacy of how they vote, afaik, because, albeit long ago, it was a hard-won privilege to be able to vote your conscience without coercion.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 09:14 PMThe only argument we ever hear is that Trump is worse. If you don't get why that's such an unsatisfying answer at this point, I don't know what to tell you. You can't have genocide on the one side of the equation and then still expect to get endless purchase from referring to "kids in cages" or "trans genocide" etc. Once you accept that a genocide is happening, you can't heighten the stakes any more than that by appealing back to how evil Trump is.

^ Well I think that the argument "Person B is worse" is a very powerful and convincing reason to vote for Person A. I don't see how that is "unsatisfying at this point".
I also don't follow the logic of the piece I put in bold. As others have mentioned, it's quite likely that Trump would take a similar line to Biden on Israel (let's not forget how he emboldened Israel's claims by shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem despite Palestinian opposition).
That being so the options are: (i) genocide overseas + democracy at home, vs. (ii) genocide overseas + effectively dismantle democracy at home.
We all agree that genocide is terrible, but that doesn't mean that "you can't heighten the stakes any more". But, yeah, on careful reading, I see that the "kids in cages" argument can now look weak and hypocritical.   

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 08, 2024, 09:14 PMI'm not so convinced there was a winning move for Biden here vis a vis Israel, but the impression he has given is of someone who is just stuck in some unquestioning status quo logic of always supporting Israel. That logic was tolerable to more people before this recent war. As the body count rises that position is just becoming more and more untenable. But the Democrats are fucked both ways on this issue because the right has always weaponized the perception that the democrats were less loyal to Israel against them, to the largely sympathetic-to-Israel American public. But as the war potentially changes the level of sympathy people have, that changes that calculus. And Biden has just been slow to adjust.

^ Yep, I agree, especially with the bit in bold.
It's my hope that Biden will be adjusting, between now and November. Also, no one has suggested this possibility, afaik: that the pro-Gaza Dems who didn't vote Biden in the Primaries as a protest, will feel that they've sent Biden a  sufficiently strong message of disapproval over his attitude to Israel, and will ultimately support him again in Nov. Any takers for this theory?

Quote from: SGR on Apr 08, 2024, 12:43 AMI feel like Israel has, for a long time, had overwhelming support and sympathy from the western public because of the Holocaust. After October 7th, it feels like they've been given a lot of leeway and wiggle room as a result of that long-held sympathy (and of course, a long military alliance with the US). But in some ways, it feels like with what they're doing in Gaza, they're ready to completely cash that Holocaust ticket. Because after this, when people appeal back to the Holocaust in defense or sympathy-garnering for Jews/Israelis, people will respond with: "Well what about your genocide in Gaza?". Depending on how things go for Israel, the ticket might be worth cashing for them in the long run. But at some point, when they conduct themselves like they have been, that ticket isn't going to cash in the minds of the public anymore. But I agree that Biden is in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of position.

^ That's a really great summary of how world attitudes to Israel have shifted, SGR :thumb:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 09, 2024, 04:28 PM^ I do my best to remember that some people are talking about their own country in these threads, while I, for instance, am an outside observer who misses quite a lot of culturally significant details - which includes most of the process of primary elections, as well as this thing about "registered Republicans". Like, where is this registered, and what happened to the secrecy of the ballot box? In the UK many people guard the privacy of how they vote, afaik, because, albeit long ago, it was a hard-won privilege to be able to vote your conscience without coercion.

So you register with a party so that you can vote in that party's primary. When it comes to the general election, you can end up voting anyway you want but it just shows that you have a history of aligning with a certain party. When you register for that party then elected officials know which doors to knock on to get support for their candidates in future elections. You can be register as a Republican but vote for a Democrat in the general election. The vote that you cast is private. So I take it that politicians don't do door knocking over in the UK to talk to their constituents?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 09, 2024, 04:28 PM^ Well I think that the argument "Person B is worse" is a very powerful and convincing reason to vote for Person A. I don't see how that is "unsatisfying at this point".
I also don't follow the logic of the piece I put in bold. As others have mentioned, it's quite likely that Trump would take a similar line to Biden on Israel (let's not forget how he emboldened Israel's claims by shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem despite Palestinian opposition).
That being so the options are: (i) genocide overseas + democracy at home, vs. (ii) genocide overseas + effectively dismantle democracy at home.
We all agree that genocide is terrible, but that doesn't mean that "you can't heighten the stakes any more". But, yeah, on careful reading, I see that the "kids in cages" argument can now look weak and hypocritical.

People are fed up with voting for the lesser of two evils. We did that with Biden in the first place. People weren't voting for Biden proudly they were just voting for Not Trump. That isn't going to work this time around. Just like jwb said he definitely needs to pivot fast and turn to the more Progressive legislators for advice on how to move forward to get that section back before November.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 09, 2024, 04:28 PM^ Yep, I agree, especially with the bit in bold.
It's my hope that Biden will be adjusting, between now and November. Also, no one has suggested this possibility, afaik: that the pro-Gaza Dems who didn't vote Biden in the Primaries as a protest, will feel that they've sent Biden a  sufficiently strong message of disapproval over his attitude to Israel, and will ultimately support him again in Nov. Any takers for this theory?

So the Democrat party is split into two at the moment. Progressives and corporate Dems. The Progressives are the ones that are a bit further left and are considered the Pro Palestinian segment of the Dem party. Right now there aren't enough Progressives to see that big of a change in how Dems in general vote. So the group that did the protest votes hoping that Biden would notice are either going to just end up staying home, holding their nose and voting for Biden or throwing away their vote to either Trump or writing in a candidate. They wouldn't cast a blank ballot for the general election because there will be other important local races to vote for.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 09, 2024, 10:48 PMSo you register with a party so that you can vote in that party's primary. When it comes to the general election, you can end up voting anyway you want but it just shows that you have a history of aligning with a certain party. When you register for that party then elected officials know which doors to knock on to get support for their candidates in future elections. You can be register as a Republican but vote for a Democrat in the general election. The vote that you cast is private. So I take it that politicians don't do door knocking over in the UK to talk to their constituents?

Don't forget all the goddamn fucking political mail your 'registered party' will send you during primaries.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 09, 2024, 11:00 PMDon't forget all the goddamn fucking political mail your 'registered party' will send you during primaries.

Oh yeah that's so annoying. I feel like it's ineffective but that's the way that candidates are used to doing things so they will continue using mailers as a way to get information out along with polling sites and the election dates.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 09, 2024, 04:28 PM^ Well I think that the argument "Person B is worse" is a very powerful and convincing reason to vote for Person A. I don't see how that is "unsatisfying at this point".

Well maybe that's because you are approaching it strictly in the abstract, without consideration for the actual context of where we are at politically, right now. They (the Democrats) have been leaning hard  on the Trump boogeyman card for some time now, and it's the go to response anytime anyone finds a flaw in the Democratic candidate. The fact of the matter is that rhetorically speaking, you get diminishing returns with that kind of message. Whether that seems strictly logical to you or not.

As SGR and I were speaking about earlier, it's always been an issue for the democrats in recent history to motivate some of their younger and more progressive base. Because they aren't particularly inspired by the politics of the mainstream  Democrats. So the only argument the democrats typically use to bring them around is to point to how dangerous the other side is.

That argument has already been losing steam. But when you raise the stakes of the rhetoric so high by introducing genocide into the discussion, any sense of moral clarity you hope to gain by pointing back to Trumps misdeeds has been pretty thoroughly obfuscated. That's why I said if you are really looking to defend Biden rhetorically on that issue, biting the bullet on saying he's supporting a genocide is basically a poison pill.

It would be much more effective rhetorically to either deny there is a genocide or deny Biden is supporting it. Obviously that's immoral to do if you in fact believe that the contrary is true, but if you really do believe he's supporting a genocide and the other side would too, at what point does revolution start to not just be an option but a moral necessity? Like if we literally get to the point of voting for Hitler Vs Stalin, do we not at some point ditch the whole lesser of two evils analysis and instead force a third option through violence?

So hopefully that clarifies why I say it is such an unsatisfactory answer. Especially to this particular cohort of voters, many of whom have long been disillusioned with electoral politics in general and are tired of being beat over the head every 4 years to get in line and vote the party line and then go  back to being ignored for the next four years. Or hearing about how if you consider voting for a third party that's just a vote for the other side. So you have no options, and that is by definition unsatisfying. Especially if people believe there is a genocide going on. The idea that we live in a democracy where we're not only powerless to stop it, but also we have no choice but to keep funding and arming the offending party, is once again by definition an unsatisfying answer.

Quotealso don't follow the logic of the piece I put in bold. As others have mentioned, it's quite likely that Trump would take a similar line to Biden on Israel (let's not forget how he emboldened Israel's claims by shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem despite Palestinian opposition).
That being so the options are: (i) genocide overseas + democracy at home, vs. (ii) genocide overseas + effectively dismantle democracy at home.
We all agree that genocide is terrible, but that doesn't mean that "you can't heighten the stakes any more". But, yeah, on careful reading, I see that the "kids in cages" argument can now look weak and hypocritical. 

I already said that is basically my opinion as well, that Trump would be worse on other issues and probably very similar in his approach to Israel. I'm only explaining what I see as the rhetorical weakness of this response to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. That answer is basically preaching to the converted, and beyond that it's falling on deaf ears.

But maybe if nothing else we stumbled onto a good slogan for the Biden 24 ticket: Lesser of the Two Genocides. Get in line, peasants. Democracy needs you.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 09, 2024, 10:48 PMSo you register with a party so that you can vote in that party's primary. When it comes to the general election, you can end up voting anyway you want but it just shows that you have a history of aligning with a certain party. When you register for that party then elected officials know which doors to knock on to get support for their candidates in future elections. You can be register as a Republican but vote for a Democrat in the general election. The vote that you cast is private. So I take it that politicians don't do door knocking over in the UK to talk to their constituents?

Thanks for that explanation, DJ: it's crystal clear to me now. :thumb:
In the UK, there is a smaller group of people who are politically active for each party, and yes, they do some door-to-door petitioning for voters - but they have no idea in advance about the politics of the person whose door they are knocking on. They ask things like "Can we count on your vote in the election? Would you like to put this sticker/poster up in your window/ car to show support for our party?"
It must be a pretty thankless job, I imagine: like being a Jehovah's Witness.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 09, 2024, 11:18 PMSo hopefully that clarifies why I say it is such an unsatisfactory answer.

^ Yes, you 've made a very persuasive argument to support what you said earlier. Thanks.

QuoteBut maybe if nothing else we stumbled onto a good slogan for the Biden 24 ticket: Lesser of the Two Genocides. Get in line, peasants. Democracy needs you.

:laughing: Yep, that slogan must surely be a winner !

I guess I would just hope most young left/progressive voters would understand that voting against Trump does not mean you support Biden's policies, it just means Trump has the same plus more bad policies. Of course it's unsatisfying, the fact that we live in such a system at all is unsatisfying. But the people I'm talking about aren't calling for violent revolution, they're sending a message to Biden that it seems pretty clear to me he won't listen to, and in the long run that will only help Trump.

And for the record I think the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media are being irresponsible by not talking more about the shit in that Project 2025 document and I think they are complicit in all of this too.

But in the end, if someone wants to throw away a vote that could have helped stop this country from being taken over by Christofascist thugs, that's their decision. I have nothing else left to say on this subject.

No they're not calling for violent revolution, there still trying to apply political pressure to Biden to act differently on Israel. The objective isn't to get Trump elected. It's to change Biden's policy on Israel. And once again, once you raise the stakes of the rhetoric to genocide, it literally can't get any higher. So the idea that you can't apply this pressure because it might hurt Biden, who is weak to begin with and can hardly string a sentence together as it is, it's just not quite the threat you think it is to say Trump might get elected. He's probably going to get elected anyway tbh.

My point about violent revolution is my own. If you follow the lesser of two evils completely down the rabbit hole you reach a point where it's Hitler vs Stalin and suddenly the only just response is to force a third option at the point of a gun.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 01:27 AMNo they're not calling for violent revolution, there still trying to apply political pressure to Biden to act differently on Israel. The objective isn't to get Trump elected. It's to change Biden's policy on Israel. And once again, once you raise the stakes of the rhetoric to genocide, it literally can't get any higher. So the idea that you can't apply this pressure because it might hurt Biden, who is weak to begin with and can hardly string a sentence together as it is, it's just not quite the threat you think it is to say Trump might get elected. He's probably going to get elected anyway tbh.

My point about violent revolution is my own. If you follow the lesser of two evils completely down the rabbit hole you reach a point where it's Hitler vs Stalin and suddenly the only just response is to force a third option at the point of a gun.

As I said, I guess I'd be more onboard with applying pressure if it felt like it was actually going to accomplish its goal. Because right now I think it's fair to predict that Biden will continue to support Israel, November will come and the protest voters will be back at square one: Biden or Trump.

But I agree that it's all probably futile at this point. I can't hang any hope on a Biden victory anymore. It's getting hard to muster up hope at all honestly.

It's the same in Ireland: they knock at every door (often, if they don't get an answer right away they head to the next door, just shoving flyers tyhrough the letterbox) but it works quite well I believe, as you get a chance (if you want to) to air your grievances about Party A's policies, even if you vote for Party B or C, or don't really know which way you're going to vote. You can also be convinced to switch your allegiance if the candidate is convincing enough, especially on local issues. Also helps if they're friendly and personable, and young I guess. It also gives each candidate/party a more honest sense of feedback, rather than just knocking on doors you know will support you, which seems to me, as an outsider, akin to packing a hall full of your supporters and then going on about what a great reception you got.

In Ireland (as I assume is the case in the UK, though Lisna or JJ can set me straight if not) voting is strictly secret. You go into a booth and you're not even allowed take your phone because a while ago people were taking selfies with their ballot card, which sort of invalidates the whole idea of a secret and private vote. On exiting, you can tell reporters who ask you who you voted for, but you can just as easily tell them you don't want to say. That's your right.

Here, we get no party literature specific to how we vote: every party - including independents - send stuff to you, most of which goes in the bin, but it does give you a chance to compare what they're saying. They don't know they have your vote, so in that regard it's unbiased, though of course all the parties not in power will make a point of telling you what mistakes the one(s) in power are making, and how they would do things differently. Traditionally, families did vote along historical lines (father voted Fianna Fail, grandfather did, his father did so I do etc) but that doesn't always happen now. Like I say, mostly (as with, I assume, most people) it's what your local TD (member of parliament/congressman/whatever) can do for you and your area, and not always so much what they can do for the country, though that does come into it too.

Mind you, as I've noted elsewhere, if they don't get the result they want it seems they just do what they like now, so makes you wonder why you even bother to vote.  ::)

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 01:27 AMMy point about violent revolution is my own. If you follow the lesser of two evils completely down the rabbit hole you reach a point where it's Hitler vs Stalin and suddenly the only just response is to force a third option at the point of a gun.

Hmmm...I can't imagine why politicians want to take our guns away.  ::)

Would it be any kind of policy to try to outlaw ammo? I mean, your 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about ammo does it? You can have all the guns you like, America, but you're going to have to be happy hitting each other over the head with them!  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:
#VoteTrollheartTheInSaneChoice
#GunsWithoutAmmo2025
#We'reComing4URBullets&Shells

You're pretty much spot on I think Big T, except I vote by post :checkmark:

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 10, 2024, 02:20 AMWould it be any kind of policy to try to outlaw ammo? I mean, your 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about ammo does it? You can have all the guns you like, America, but you're going to have to be happy hitting each other over the head with them!  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:
#VoteTrollheartTheInSaneChoice
#GunsWithoutAmmo2025
#We'reComing4URBullets&Shells

Trollheart, that won't work. We're Americans. If you ban ammo, we'll just make our own and whoever can do it best and most efficiently will make the most money on the black market.

(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/76046a56-2961-4580-ae7f-1f9a606c2b28/de6zozr-16000158-cf77-404b-8d86-4bf5fc3598de.gif?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzc2MDQ2YTU2LTI5NjEtNDU4MC1hZTdmLTFmOWE2MDZjMmIyOFwvZGU2em96ci0xNjAwMDE1OC1jZjc3LTQwNGItOGQ4Ni00YmY1ZmMzNTk4ZGUuZ2lmIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.s17PhM6DIXGI3Oq0Fy98Jc2RFRJbL-4BHrqgHiyFr-k)

Ah yes, but how many guns will blow up in people's faces before you get it right? I bet enough people will say, "Screw this! I'm tired of having my eyebrows burned off! Where's that stick with the nail in it? I'm off down the club. With my club." Sorry. :shycouch:

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 10, 2024, 02:03 AMAs I said, I guess I'd be more onboard with applying pressure if it felt like it was actually going to accomplish its goal. Because right now I think it's fair to predict that Biden will continue to support Israel, November will come and the protest voters will be back at square one: Biden or Trump.

But I agree that it's all probably futile at this point. I can't hang any hope on a Biden victory anymore. It's getting hard to muster up hope at all honestly.

Unfortunately, as it's been throughout human history, if you want to make real change, sometimes you have to take risks that may or may not backfire.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 10, 2024, 02:27 AMAh yes, but how many guns will blow up in people's faces before you get it right? I bet enough people will say, "Screw this! I'm tired of having my eyebrows burned off! Where's that stick with the nail in it? I'm off down the club. With my club." Sorry. :shycouch:

Again Trollheart, we're America, do you think a few (hundred) people getting their faces blown off is going to stop us from making and perfecting homemade ammunition?  :laughing:

We'll do our usual 'thoughts and prayers' and get back to work loading shells.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 02:24 AMTrollheart, that won't work. We're Americans. If you ban ammo, we'll just make our own and whoever can do it best and most efficiently will make the most money on the black market.

(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/76046a56-2961-4580-ae7f-1f9a606c2b28/de6zozr-16000158-cf77-404b-8d86-4bf5fc3598de.gif?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzc2MDQ2YTU2LTI5NjEtNDU4MC1hZTdmLTFmOWE2MDZjMmIyOFwvZGU2em96ci0xNjAwMDE1OC1jZjc3LTQwNGItOGQ4Ni00YmY1ZmMzNTk4ZGUuZ2lmIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.s17PhM6DIXGI3Oq0Fy98Jc2RFRJbL-4BHrqgHiyFr-k)

lets be real. That's all cosplay. Americans don't use their guns to overthrow the government anymore. They use them to kill rioters who are protesting against the police or to shoot up random schools.

We still have the guns yes but I think the backbone required to turn those guns against the state has long since left us.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 03:28 AMlets be real. That's all cosplay. Americans don't use their guns to overthrow the government anymore. They use them to kill rioters who are protesting against the police or to shoot up random schools.

We still have the guns yes but I think the backbone required to turn those guns against the state has long since left us.

I suppose it all depends on how far we got pushed. As long as we're bitterly divided against each other (D's v. R's) over rather trivial culture war issues, the guns will never get aimed at the state. And even if we weren't bitterly divided, it would take a serious crisis to push us to that point. I'm not sure where or what that point is, but I do believe it exists. Though we've been fat, dumb and happy for a long time, enough prolonged suffering would be enough to change things, as long as peoples' ability to communicate and organize isn't quashed.

Still, the fact that we could reach that point does pose a threat against the government. After all, they couldn't even win a war against a bunch of guerillas in the jungles of Vietnam.

Those guerrillas were fighting an occupying force. This is common mistake people make. You can't compare a government vs rebel groups in its own country with a situation where rebel groups are up against a foreign occupying force. There are very different stakes at hand when you are fighting on your home turf, and governments will go a lot further when it is their own regimes on the line vs just losing our hand in some foreign intervention we were involved in.
It's worth noting that our own revolutionary war was yet another example of ousting a foreign occupying force.

In reality, I actually don't rule out  that we could see some type of armed civil conflict within the United States in the future if things become destabilized enough, but I just don't buy into the myth of our guns somehow keeping us safe from tyranny. Any serious attempt to overthrow the government would require much more than your AR. And typically there would presumably be an armed force out there that was willing to arm said militants with the aim of destabilizing the United States, as we have so often done in other countries. So I think that's mostly something we tell ourselves as a sort of national myth. But the reality is if any armed conflict did emerge I think people would abruptly come back down to the grim reality of what that actually looks like.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 04:33 AMThose guerrillas were fighting an occupying force. This is common mistake people make. You can't compare a government vs rebel groups in its own country with a situation where rebel groups are up against a foreign occupying force. There are very different stakes at hand when you are fighting on your home turf, and governments will go a lot further when it is their own regimes on the line vs just losing our hand in some foreign intervention we were involved in.
It's worth noting that our own revolutionary war was yet another example of ousting a foreign occupying force.

That's very true, it was a poor analogy in regards to what the US military would be capable of, and what lengths it would go to if protecting against a real threat to the US government from its own citizens on its own soil.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 04:33 AMIn reality, I actually don't rule out  that we could see some type of armed civil conflict within the United States in the future if things become destabilized enough, but I just don't buy into the myth of our guns somehow keeping us safe from tyranny. Any serious attempt to overthrow the government would require much more than your AR. And typically there would presumably be an armed force out there that was willing to arm said militants with the aim of destabilizing the United States, as we have so often done in other countries. So I think that's mostly something we tell ourselves as a sort of national myth. But the reality is if any armed conflict did emerge I think people would abruptly come back down to the grim reality of what that actually looks like.

It wouldn't just take your AR, that's true, it would also take your neighborhood's AR's, your town's AR's, your county's AR's, and probably your states' AR's in coordination with other states AR's.

It's definitely something worth pondering. Like you, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility, even if it seems like an impossibility now. Back in the day, people would be willing to defy and fight the government over a tax they viewed as unfair. That would never happen today. The other thing that's vastly different is the security state, specifically after the PATRIOT act (thanks Bush). If you actually got to the point where you were planning some kind of attack or uprising against the government, more than likely, the government would already know about the plan - and if they knew about the plan, they would find some reason to arrest the ringleader and any other participants if they needed to, even if they couldn't nail them for planning an insurrection.

Things would literally need to spiral out of control, in my view, with multiple groups of people organizing against the government all at once for any armed uprising to be successful. And those groups, importantly, would need to organize and coordinate with each other. And even at that point, if we look back to history, the armed uprising would need to establish relations and cooperation with some foreign power to provide them arms, aid, and backup (like we did with France in the Revolutionary War). If an armed uprising could not prove itself out as being legitimate to the point that a foreign power had faith that it would work, it would be a hard sell that it could be successful.

Recently, election seasons have had people proclaiming the dangers of a coming civil war. I don't see exactly how that'd happen or play out - but given how polarized we are as a country, it's hard to see an armed uprising against the government playing out either. Again though, it's hard to predict such country-defining events when we, by nature, are usually prisoners of the moment.

It's funny you juxtaposed the probability of an armed rebellion against the govt vs a civil war happening when the way I conceptualize it, the scenario I would think is most plausible is one which could fit both of those categories. Like, would you describe what happened in Syria as an armed rebellion against the government or a civil war? I'd say it's both.

But you seem to be hung up on the idea of us being united. I don't think that's necessary either. We can just as easily be divided and have a multi vector conflict  with multiple armed parties with mutual animosities towards each other, or a complicated web of alliances and hostilities. Any number of scenarios.

Look at Weimar Germany for example. The communists and the social democrats and the fascists all hated each other and the country was in a state of constant political instability. Attempted rebellions, political assassinations, etc.

The only recipe for revolution isn't a united populace against a tyrannical government.  It's also internal political instability and tension. And that's exactly the road we are on. That doesn't mean I think it's the most likely scenario. But I definitely think it seems more plausible now than it did 10 years ago. And it just seems like with each passing year that it only continues to move in one direction.

Quote from: Jwb on Apr 10, 2024, 06:07 AMIt's funny you juxtaposed the probability of an armed rebellion against the govt vs a civil war happening when the way I conceptualize it, the scenario I would think is most plausible is one which could fit both of those categories. Like, would you describe what happened in Syria as an armed rebellion against the government or a civil war? I'd say it's both.

But you seem to be hung up on the idea of us being united. I don't think that's necessary either. We can just as easily be divided and have a multi vector conflict  with multiple armed parties with mutual animosities towards each other, or a complicated web of alliances and hostilities. Any number of scenarios.

Look at Weimar Germany for example. The communists and the social democrats and the fascists all hated each other and the country was in a state of constant political instability. Attempted rebellions, political assassinations, etc.

The only recipe for revolution isn't a united populace against a tyrannical government.  It's also internal political instability and tension. And that's exactly the road we are on. That doesn't mean I think it's the most likely scenario. But I definitely think it seems more plausible now than it did 10 years ago. And it just seems like with each passing year that it only continues to move in one direction.

I wouldn't say I'm 'hung up' on us being united, but I do think some level of coalition and cooperation between our ideological factions, putting aside certain ideological differences, would obviously be beneficial to resist/overthrow the most powerful military in the world. It's a far stretch from Syria. Us splitting into some kind of anti-government Republican faction and anti-government Democrat faction, both of which oppose and fight against each other and the broader established US govt seems fantastical (but not necessarily impossible), but in that scenario, I doubt anyone other than the US govt wins.

As I've said, there are obviously lessons we can learn from history, Weimar Germany included, but that was nearly 100 years ago, and they went through the great depression and hyperinflation, and of course, the technological ways the government can keep tabs on and control/manipulate us is much different than it was then. Plus, much of the anger and fervor of Weimar Germany was due to the overriding feeling from many Germans that their government sold them out with Versailles Treat aftter they suffered a great loss and international humiliation in WW1. Hitler had been banging on for years about the imminent economic collapse and doom that would be caused by capitalism, and when the Great Depression happened, people in Germany started to pay more attention to him. So yeah, different time and place with different reasons for social/political unrest, not sure it would be a good comparison to how something similar would play out in the US.

While I agree a completely united populace against the government isn't the only answer against a tyrannical government, it's probably the best one (we're talking ideals, majority support). The fact that we do have guns for example provides a bulwark against the government in beginning attempts at repression. How many Ruby Ridges would it take before Americans lost faith in their government? Before the US government lost the consent of the tax-paying masses and people started to revolt? These incidents would be borne out of the fact that some Americans had guns and weren't afraid to use them. The more these stories spread (again, assuming the US govt does not censor/quash independent news media), the more pissed Americans would become.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 10, 2024, 12:05 AMThanks for that explanation, DJ: it's crystal clear to me now. :thumb:
In the UK, there is a smaller group of people who are politically active for each party, and yes, they do some door-to-door petitioning for voters - but they have no idea in advance about the politics of the person whose door they are knocking on. They ask things like "Can we count on your vote in the election? Would you like to put this sticker/poster up in your window/ car to show support for our party?"
It must be a pretty thankless job, I imagine: like being a Jehovah's Witness.

See, I have done door knocking for candidates. When you know the political affiliation of the person you are going to, you avoid having to have unpleasant interactions. You are basically going to safe bets and just to inform the person that a candidate is running in the party that they are aligned to and that they need your help to win. We do ask "can we count on your vote?" It's part of getting a general consensus to apply to election math. I hate election math because people do and will change their minds when it comes time to vote. Sometimes they will either not show up to vote at all or they go to vote but who knows who they vote for since it's all private information. We also coordinate to have people driven to the polls if they don't have vehicles and need a ride. It is a super thankless job that's why I don't like doing it for free anymore. I make sure that I'm being paid at the least 20 bucks an hour to do it but that's really under selling my experience doing door knocking since I have 10 years under my belt doing it.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 10, 2024, 12:15 AMAnd for the record I think the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media are being irresponsible by not talking more about the shit in that Project 2025 document and I think they are complicit in all of this too.

The reason why no is talking about Project 2025 is because no one takes it seriously. It's way too outlandish and most of the things proposed in it wouldn't be able to get passed or enforced.

I honestly think you are a little too worried about a pipe dream that won't come true.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 10, 2024, 07:00 AMThe reason why no is talking about Project 2025 is because no one takes it seriously. It's way too outlandish and most of the things proposed in it wouldn't be able to get passed or enforced.

I honestly think you are a little too worried about a pipe dream that won't come true.

I certainly hope you're right. But I think about stuff like how they killed Roe vs. Wade, and that thought turns to the dread of having a Supreme Court that can do that plus Trump plus a republican majority and I can easily imagine things getting worse.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 04:07 AMI suppose it all depends on how far we got pushed. As long as we're bitterly divided against each other (D's v. R's) over rather trivial culture war issues, the guns will never get aimed at the state. And even if we weren't bitterly divided, it would take a serious crisis to push us to that point. I'm not sure where or what that point is, but I do believe it exists. Though we've been fat, dumb and happy for a long time, enough prolonged suffering would be enough to change things, as long as peoples' ability to communicate and organize isn't quashed.

This scenario of Dems vs Republicans reminds me of this movie coming out.


Also there is a mobile game where you fight other states in a war like scenario.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 10, 2024, 08:00 AMI certainly hope you're right. But I think about stuff like how they killed Roe vs. Wade, and that thought turns to the dread of having a Supreme Court that can do that plus Trump plus a republican majority and I can easily imagine things getting worse.

Democrats control the house and senate at this moment though.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 10, 2024, 03:27 PMThis scenario of Dems vs Republicans reminds me of this movie coming out.

Also there is a mobile game where you fight other states in a war like scenario.

Yeah, I've heard of that movie, which kind of worries me because media 'priming' is a thing. We become more accepting of certain ideas because of movies/media that shape our collective understanding of them. Similar to how, if you brought up the idea of simulation theory to 95% of the American public they'd respond with: "Wait, like The Matrix?!"

It might however just be an entertaining popcorn flick, but the idea that all of us could have 'Civil War' at the top of our mind as we enter into what will likely be one of the most bitter, ugly and divisive elections in American history is concerning to say the least.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 10, 2024, 03:27 PMDemocrats control the house and senate at this moment though.

My mistake, though from what I'm seeing it looks like Democrats have the Senate but Republicans have the house. Either way I think it's better to be safe than sorry. So far I've been able to get a small stockpile of medication in case of things going south, and if things really go to pot it might be possible to get a work visa to move to Canada or somewhere else since I have a partner with qualifications and we're legally married now. Probably a good topic for a household meeting in the near future.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 10, 2024, 04:39 PMMy mistake, though from what I'm seeing it looks like Democrats have the Senate but Republicans have the house.

You're correct, the Republicans control the house currently with a slim majority.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 10, 2024, 04:39 PMMy mistake, though from what I'm seeing it looks like Democrats have the Senate but Republicans have the house. Either way I think it's better to be safe than sorry. So far I've been able to get a small stockpile of medication in case of things going south, and if things really go to pot it might be possible to get a work visa to move to Canada or somewhere else since I have a partner with qualifications and we're legally married now. Probably a good topic for a household meeting in the near future.

Yeah I don't mean to downplay your concerns because they are valid. Who know what wacky shit might happen. Thank you for the update. I stand corrected. I thought they had both bodies. I'm reluctantly voting for two Senators in NY that I hate just to keep the democrats in control of the Senate but they are both pro Israel.

Americans think they pay too much in taxes. Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/)

"You Can't Make This Stuff Up": Rand Paul Continues Listing Wasteful Government Spending

WASTEFUL government spending?!?

(https://media.tenor.com/ihqN6a3iiYEAAAAM/pikachu-shocked-face-stunned.gif)