Discussion thread for the 2024 USA election

[TheZizz]

The problem with a trump victory is, the old guard doesn't want to work with him, moreover they demonstrate a wherewithal if not willingness to sabotage US national security just to spite him (or perhaps motivated by a childlike naivety to giving the benefit of the doubt to complete randos from every corner of the earth...would this be less, or more of an indictment as a public official?), hence the "project 2025" proposal to terminate their employment. At least it took less than a full-on hostile takeover of Denver Colorado, for old guard to (publically) divert course. Without trump, what accountability is there?

However the leader of US appears to matter less with every new day, for better or worse. Except that the people in charge of making sure that the planes & trains don't crash seem to tend toward favoring trump, and I wouldn't be so keen on discouraging this essential demographic like many of my contemporaries seem to.

But then if trumps wins, some people might need transportation to undo the intercourse they had. The stakes could not be higher. Actually I'm not normally one to trivialize something so heavy as childrearing but, when in rome right. Of course, everyone who would rather terminate their progeny than to propogate, ought to be obliged and with gusto.

 

[CannonStreak]

This will be sensitive, since it revolves around a recent school shooting, but...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/06/jd-vance-school-shootings/

Can you believe this? One; a fact is always right and immutable, while things like school shootings are changeable and therefore; they are not facts of life at all. Second, can you all believe how sick this is and how wrong this really is? We should not have JD Vance as a vice president.

 

[Linkmain-maybe]

“I don’t like to admit this. I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Vance said at a rally in Phoenix where he offered prayers for the victims. “But if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets and we have got to bolster security at our schools.”

“I don’t want my kids to go to school in a place where they feel like you’ve got to have additional security, but that is increasingly the reality that we live in,” Vance said.

It is a fact of life that school shootings are things that happen in the US. Facts can change. At this moment, I am alive. The statement "Linkmain-maybe is alive is at the moment" a fact. If I died tomorrow, that would no longer be a fact. It is a fact that I am awake, however such statement in a couple hours from now will not.

I think you misunderstand what a fact is. A fact is something that is true or can be proven with evidence. Vance's quote is currently true and can be proven with how school shootings are frighteningly common, and likely will keep happening. However, things can change to such points that a fact becomes, well, not a fact.

I don't support Vance, but this isn't something you can criticize him for saying. What he is saying is true, and its the reason why I walk through multiple metal detectors everyday at school.

 

[CannonStreak]

“I don’t like to admit this. I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Vance said at a rally in Phoenix where he offered prayers for the victims. “But if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets and we have got to bolster security at our schools.”

“I don’t want my kids to go to school in a place where they feel like you’ve got to have additional security, but that is increasingly the reality that we live in,” Vance said.

It is a fact of life that school shootings are things that happen in the US. Facts can change. At this moment, I am alive. The statement "Linkmain-maybe is alive is at the moment" a fact. If I died tomorrow, that would no longer be a fact. It is a fact that I am awake, however such statement in a couple hours from now will not.

I think you misunderstand what a fact is. A fact is something that is true or can be proven with evidence. Vance's quote is currently true and can be proven with how school shootings are frighteningly common, and likely will keep happening. However, things can change to such points that a fact becomes, well, not a fact.

I don't support Vance, but this isn't something you can criticize him for saying. What he is saying is true, and its the reason why I walk through multiple metal detectors everyday at school.

Well, for starters, I think you mean truth instead of facts. If anything, I was told that truth is subjective, and I am talking about objective things.

I’d say the fact that school shootings can potentially happen is true, but saying it is a fact of life, it does not have to be this way, I mean, it barely happens, if at all in other countries.

Plus, whatever is really true, Vance had some big backlash from it, regardless. Plus, face it, Vance is not really a good guy to begin with.

Maybe I am using the wrong word here, but I still think facts are not meant to change, if easily. Plus, even with that aside, like other extremist republicans or whatever, I doubt he would actually do much of anything about it.

Besides, I just looked up the definition of “fact of life”.

a fact of life

1. something unpleasant that cannot be avoided: 2. something unpleasant that…

dictionary.cambridge.org

It is described as unchanging here and in other dictionaries. If it can be changed, which it can, then it is NOT a fact of life.

 

[StoicPhantom]

They're often used interchangeably but a fact is more of an outcome whereas a truth is a governing principle. Electricity always returns to source is a fact and it is a fact because negative electrons being attracted to positive electrons and vice versa is a truth that governs said fact.


It is true that mass shootings are a fact of life because the truth is that none of Vance's or anyone else's prescriptions for preventing them tackle the real problem. The rampant bullying in schools is never addressed because the bullies are generally not accountable for their actions, either because they are born losers who don't care about their future or because their family is influential in the community. The school's administration is usually voted in by the community and that causes them to be especially cautious about their reputation which leads to them trying to ignore the problem. Teachers are then pressured to not discipline the children and that allows them free reign to do whatever they want to the victim.

The parents operate on a similar but slightly different paradigm where they are concerned about their status among each other. The parents of the other kids will quietly go along with the bully's family in pressuring the school administration and the bully victim's family to ignore the outbursts of the bully victim and to silence them. And often times the bully victim's own family will turn on them and tell them to either "man up" and solve their own problems or to simply laugh with them and that will somehow make months/years long bullying go away by taking the piss out of the bullies and making friends with them.


Naturally, this will mean that the bully victim will be completely isolated from their community as all the adults charged with protecting them will have failed them for their own selfish reasons. And that kind of complete abandonment tends to illuminate the true nature of society that would abandon its fellow members if it means avoiding dealing with uncomfortable problems and dysfunctional dynamics that frequent centralized societies. Most will go on to become dysfunctional adults with severe social dysfunction, but a few will internalize that pain and suicide as a result.

But a new variant has emerged relatively recently where that pain is externalized in a way that essentially leads into a murder-suicide by the bully victim onto their own community. They want to die but they want to get retribution for their abandonment and so they commit what effectively becomes psychological terrorism where the physical damage isn't necessarily the goal so much as the fear and pain that the greater society will experience in the aftermath. We saw this with the original Columbine shooting and subsequent mass shooters seem to have adopted that as a model when it became clear that it caused an enormous amount of psychological damage to society that was far greater than any physical damage these shooters do.

But the response has been to mitigate symptoms instead of solving the underlying problem because the problem stems from a society that is built on sacrificing one another in order to work around fundamental flaws in its design. It starts off as sacrificing the bully victim because they were a weirdo that no one likes anyway and even when it escalates to suicide only the school administration really has to deal with any real heat and everyone else breaths an internal sigh of relief in that at least the "problem" took care of itself.

But now that the "problem" is starting to fight back like they were told to, everyone is freaking out about it. And because the "problem" only manifested because they were sacrificed, the solutions are about doubling down on the sacrificial framework by further attempting to remove any power the bully victim has. Whether it be gun control or convincing the entire school to riddle the bully victim with bullets should they so much as sneeze the wrong way it all comes back to making them completely helpless to do anything about their situation.


And that is why mass shootings will continue to be a "fact of life". The common theme between all mass shooters is that they have no particular ideology or target and seemingly cause indiscriminate damage and death out of a generalized hatred of society. But the mainstream narrative since Columbine has been that these are lone wolf extremists that have a history of being weird or obsessive. AKA weirdos. There's no desire to think about why they are so angry at society or why the subject of social dysfunction keeps coming up because killing is bad and we don't need to think too much beyond that.

It's not even an anomaly either. You can see this over in Gaza with Hamas. Hamas is made almost entirely of war orphans that have never been outside of that 25 mile stretch or whatever it was. Their whole life has been about oppression and loss to the point that they don't really have any desire to live outside of getting revenge on Israel. The whole world sacrificed Palestine to solve a problem they didn't really want to solve in the aftermath of WWII and they have proceeded to ignore Israel's repeated encroachment and atrocities as it would be too much work to deal with that whole mess of geopolitical affairs that span the globe.

And now that very same world is threatened by unraveling because the UN, which was supposed to have been formed to prevent another holocaust from happening, has showed its ass over this whole affair by performative moral posturing in lieu of actually doing anything about it because they are afraid of getting dragged into a greater conflict with Israel's western allies.

Which just goes to show that scale ultimately doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you have the world's largest surveillance and police state, mass shooters cannot be stopped because they can't be detected before they act. Almost everything that could describe "warning signs" happen so often that people don't even bat an eye anymore. Even then, you can't arrest people that haven't committed a crime. Unlike regular criminals, there's no rules based around personal preservation and they can strike anytime, anywhere.

It doesn't matter if you have the latest in weaponry or get tens of billions of dollars every month, the Palestinian resistance cannot be stopped. A people with nowhere to run and nothing left to lose cannot be beaten by a society that has everything. A complex society like Israel that is sustained largely on outside influence will lose to a force committed to its destruction. Any attempt to eradicate the Palestinians will spawn more and more generations of children stripped of their freedom and will to live that will fuel Hamas for generations to come. Hamas is an idea not a group.

In other words, a society that has sacrifice built into its mechanism is not sustainable. What goes around comes around. The Golden Rule. Karma. Many societies have their own word for it because it is a universal truth that governs our world. Everything from the Yin and Yang to Math teaches us that for every action there is an equivalent opposite reaction. It doesn't matter how small the sacrifice is there will always be an equivalent sacrifice done in turn. Those sacrifices will eventually destabilize and collapse society. Because sacrifice as a culture is a constant it means that new victims will mean more sacrifice inflicted back onto society. Those who were bullied become the bullies. Those who are bullies become the victims. Violence begets violence. Trauma begets trauma. A society that sacrifices its citizens is sacrificed in return.


And so one can say that mass shootings are a fact of life because everyone refuses to observe this truth.

 

[CannonStreak]

StoicPhantom, I hope this does not offend you, but that last part about you saying mass shootings being a fact of life, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever said. Again, no offense.

"Something unpleasant that cannot be avoided" is the definition of fact of life, as I posted in my last post. Yes, it is true that school shootings can happen, but think about other countries where school shootings barely happen or happen at all. Meanwhile, in the USA, school shootings happen far more than anywhere else in the world. How can it be a fact of life when it can be avoided in most other countries, if at all?

The fact that things can be done to prevent or even lessen this from happening (even JD Vance said schools would need better security, which can lessen this) means it can be changed, even if that does not mean it will completely go away. Now, more effort must be done to make it completely go away, but if other countries can make it so that they barely or do not happen, it can happen in the USA and thus this is not a fact of life.

Plus, what you said about Hamas and the UN does not relate to the school shooting. I am sorry to say, but a school shooting is much like other things in society; they can be changed in any way and thus are not facts of life, as facts of life always hold true in all cases. Only the potential for those things happening is true.

 

[Linkmain-maybe]

How can it be a fact of life when it can be avoided in most other countries, if at all?

"How can starvation be a fact of life in poor African countries when people in the US have food?"

Facts of life can change depending on the person, and the facts of life you provided in your article are only relative to certain groups of people. Rising prices? Only people who engage in the economy care, and some people don't. Balding? Many people don't bald. Exams? Many people don't even go to school. Or... security checkpoints at the area. Majority of people don't have to deal with that, but since the people who LIVE there must deal with it, it is a fact of life there.

Facts are often relative to the person or group of people it's referring to. And in the US, school shootings are a common, and currently unavoidable thing. It is a fact of life for people in the US. To deny otherwise is to debate meaningless semantics or a refusal to accept that bad things can be unfortunate Facts of life.

 

[CannonStreak]

"How can starvation be a fact of life in poor African countries when people in the US have food?"

Facts of life can change depending on the person, and the facts of life you provided in your article are only relative to certain groups of people. Rising prices? Only people who engage in the economy care, and some people don't. Balding? Many people don't bald. Exams? Many people don't even go to school. Or... security checkpoints at the area. Majority of people don't have to deal with that, but since the people who LIVE there must deal with it, it is a fact of life there.

Facts are often relative to the person or group of people it's referring to. And in the US, school shootings are a common, and currently unavoidable thing. It is a fact of life for people in the US. To deny otherwise is to debate meaningless semantics or a refusal to accept that bad things can be unfortunate Facts of life.

Well, maybe I am being stubborn. Facts of society and facts of nature might be different, and I am sure they are. But there ARE more "facts of life" that can be more inevitable than a school shooting, like volcanoes and physical laws unable to be changed.

What I am trying to say, is that a fact of life as in how physical laws can't change and affect our lives evermore and something like a school shooting as well as other things in society are different. The consequences of physical laws are unavoidable, just like how the definition I provided about fact of life says, while school shootings are avoidable. That is partly why Vance got backlash. I know school shootings can happen, but given what I read about the shooter and his family, it could have been prevented, like any school shooting.

Even though the school shootings might be described as a fact of life, it is much less of one than laws of physics and other inevitabilities are.

EDIT: I should point out that school shootings have happened in the past, making them facts, but other than that, school shootings can be prevented, making them less than 100 percent "facts of life".

 

[Sucumbio]

Framing mass shootings as unavoidable by calling them a fact of life (the same as say, breathing) could undermine efforts to address and prevent them by leading to further normalization, complacency by desensitization, reduced pressure on policymakers, and shift of public perception away from the issue to preserve the status quo.

This is not a surprising position for JD Vance, as he represents the faction of US voters who would address mass shootings by arming as many people as possible.

 

[StoicPhantom]

"Something unpleasant that cannot be avoided" is the definition of fact of life, as I posted in my last post.

If you scroll down to that second definition of the link you posted you should see the word idiom under "fact of life". If you search for that word on that site you will run into a definition like this:

a group of words in a fixed order that has a particular meaning that is different from the meanings of each word on its own:
To "bite off more than you can chew" is an idiom that means you have tried to do something which is too difficult for you.

Idiom as a concept is admittedly a difficult thing to understand, but I take "fact of life" in this case as less an unimpeachable reality and more of a present one. This type of idiom is often used about realities that cannot be changed by the user regardless of whether it is possible to change it overall. Mass shootings are a fact of life in America because American culture perpetuates them and is incredibly difficult to change because of a lot of complex systems that most Americans support stand in the way.

Now, more effort must be done to make it completely go away, but if other countries can make it so that they barely or do not happen, it can happen in the USA and thus this is not a fact of life.

Other countries are other countries. If you paid attention to my previous post you'd realize that there are cultural dynamics that cause and perpetuate mass shootings. You don't see them in other countries as much because they are a distinctly American thing. Mass shootings as a form of murder-suicide didn't even really start becoming a thing until Columbine and that wasn't even that long ago. It was bombings that were popular until shootings become trendy.

I mean yeah, if you undid decades if not centuries of social engineering like people only having value through productivity, frameworks like needing to suppress others in order to uplift oneself, consumerism is the ultimate goal in life, and profit above all else then you might be on your way to solving this problem. But when even self-proclaimed communists and socialists can't stop consuming long enough to organize temporary boycotts of badly behaving corporations good luck abolishing profit-seeking which is basically the root of all of this cultural malaise.

Plus, what you said about Hamas and the UN does not relate to the school shooting. I am sorry to say, but a school shooting is much like other things in society; they can be changed in any way and thus are not facts of life, as facts of life always hold true in all cases. Only the potential for those things happening is true.

Again, if you paid attention to my previous post you would see that root cause of mass shootings is sacrificing people in order to avoid needing to deal with difficult problems concerning the very foundation of society. That sacrifice eventually gets turned unto the perpetrator. I used schoolyard bullying as my main example but this can be said about anytime that a minority is selected as a scapegoat and sacrificial pawn to get around social, political, and cultural issues.

For example:

Homosexuals were blamed for both the AIDS and currently emerging Monkeypox epidemic in order to cover up massive failure in public health policy and quell potential panic in the public. Because only sexual deviants, druggies, and blacks get AIDS and good, God fearing white conservatives shouldn't need to worry about anything like failures in leadership.

In fact, the entire LGBT and its billion letters is a perfect example of various discriminated minorities banding together to become a powerful cultural and political force to the point that their oppressors are now complaining about slowly becoming a (discriminated) minority themselves. Perfect example of what goes around comes around.


The problem with people like yourself is you keep trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution. I don't know what your preferred prescription is but I've seen everything from banning guns to arming the teachers and children themselves. None of these begin to address the root problem as I described in the previous post. Trying to solve the problem by doubling down on what caused it seems to be an incredibly popular trend for pretty much everything now and that's why problems still perpetuate.

School shootings are not a technical problem. There isn't something you can just tweak slightly and make the problem go away. You have to take down the entire cultural and social framework in America and rebuild it. Americans don't want to do that and so they are trying to double down on what caused the problem because beating the children harder will eventually work if you do it hard enough, apparently.


Overall, I think you are taking things way too literally and missing the underlying spirit and meaning. No one here seriously thinks mass shootings are as natural as breathing nor do they think it can't be solved. I know you're on a huge anti-Trump tear in this thread but this is not something you want to double down on. I suggest rereading my previous post until you understand it and especially reading the first part of this post because that is what you seem to be hung up on the most.

 

[CannonStreak]

If you scroll down to that second definition of the link you posted you should see the word idiom under "fact of life". If you search for that word on that site you will run into a definition like this:



Idiom as a concept is admittedly a difficult thing to understand, but I take "fact of life" in this case as less an unimpeachable reality and more of a present one. This type of idiom is often used about realities that cannot be changed by the user regardless of whether it is possible to change it overall. Mass shootings are a fact of life in America because American culture perpetuates them and is incredibly difficult to change because of a lot of complex systems that most Americans support stand in the way.


Other countries are other countries. If you paid attention to my previous post you'd realize that there are cultural dynamics that cause and perpetuate mass shootings. You don't see them in other countries as much because they are a distinctly American thing. Mass shootings as a form of murder-suicide didn't even really start becoming a thing until Columbine and that wasn't even that long ago. It was bombings that were popular until shootings become trendy.

I mean yeah, if you undid decades if not centuries of social engineering like people only having value through productivity, frameworks like needing to suppress others in order to uplift oneself, consumerism is the ultimate goal in life, and profit above all else then you might be on your way to solving this problem. But when even self-proclaimed communists and socialists can't stop consuming long enough to organize temporary boycotts of badly behaving corporations good luck abolishing profit-seeking which is basically the root of all of this cultural malaise.


Again, if you paid attention to my previous post you would see that root cause of mass shootings is sacrificing people in order to avoid needing to deal with difficult problems concerning the very foundation of society. That sacrifice eventually gets turned unto the perpetrator. I used schoolyard bullying as my main example but this can be said about anytime that a minority is selected as a scapegoat and sacrificial pawn to get around social, political, and cultural issues.

For example:

Homosexuals were blamed for both the AIDS and currently emerging Monkeypox epidemic in order to cover up massive failure in public health policy and quell potential panic in the public. Because only sexual deviants, druggies, and blacks get AIDS and good, God fearing white conservatives shouldn't need to worry about anything like failures in leadership.

In fact, the entire LGBT and its billion letters is a perfect example of various discriminated minorities banding together to become a powerful cultural and political force to the point that their oppressors are now complaining about slowly becoming a (discriminated) minority themselves. Perfect example of what goes around comes around.


The problem with people like yourself is you keep trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution. I don't know what your preferred prescription is but I've seen everything from banning guns to arming the teachers and children themselves. None of these begin to address the root problem as I described in the previous post. Trying to solve the problem by doubling down on what caused it seems to be an incredibly popular trend for pretty much everything now and that's why problems still perpetuate.

School shootings are not a technical problem. There isn't something you can just tweak slightly and make the problem go away. You have to take down the entire cultural and social framework in America and rebuild it. Americans don't want to do that and so they are trying to double down on what caused the problem because beating the children harder will eventually work if you do it hard enough, apparently.


Overall, I think you are taking things way too literally and missing the underlying spirit and meaning. No one here seriously thinks mass shootings are as natural as breathing nor do they think it can't be solved. I know you're on a huge anti-Trump tear in this thread but this is not something you want to double down on. I suggest rereading my previous post until you understand it and especially reading the first part of this post because that is what you seem to be hung up on the most.

I am pretty sure I never said that others do not take mass shootings seriously. Also, the fact of life thing, I looked it up again and found that it is also a noun, like this one.

Fact of life Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

FACT OF LIFE meaning: 1 : something that exists and that cannot be changed or ignored; 2 : the facts about sex that are told to children

www.britannica.com

And this.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fact-of-life

And this.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

facts of life

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of facts of life by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

So, with that, fact of life is not just an idiom.

As for making school shootings go away, I never said that; I just said that the fact that they CAN happen won't go away. But they can be changed, and how much they can happen is not exactly a solid fact, since how often they happen can change.. As for the countries thing, countries are inhabited by people, and we are supposed to be people. We can still be more like other countries, especially in this case, in terms of not having school shootings. In fact, the number of school shootings in America compared to other countries is said. Fact of life or not, this is not something that should be ignored, let alone be something that should be a key thing that separates us from other countries.

In the end, a fact of life is based on a fact. Facts have nothing about them that can change, and I do not think that you understand that, aside from that they can happen, there is not much about them that makes them factual since much about school shootings can change.

You seem to be ignoring how this is not a fact of life. A fact is " a thing that is known or proved to be true." While one thing may be true about something, it is not a fact that school shootings can't be reduced, nor should they not be reduced. What JD Vance is just sad, and there is no need to side with him on that.

 

[CannonStreak]

Say, did anyone watch the debate last night? I forgot to watch it, but it seems Kamala owned Trump there.

 

[Nah]

I didn't watch it. Half of it was that it started while I was still at work and by the time I got home it was nearly over and usually all I want to do when I get home from work is to go the **** to sleep, half of it was that watching it wasn't going to even remotely do anything of value for me. Neither candidate is new at this point, it's like, how many undecided fence-sitters could there still be at this point? Who "won" the debate is largely a matter of confirmation bias. I don't even see what is comedically entertaining about watching Trump continue to be a blithering idiot in 2024 when he has a real chance of becoming 21st Century Hitler.

Our choices are just "narcissitic psychopath fascist" and "enabler of fascists not really any different from standard Dems despite what people want to desperately believe because people are having 2008 Obama feels again".

 

[Alicorn]

I watched it. Kamala grilled Trump like a fish.

Trump does not know what a tariff is. The man has a bachelor's in economics. The guy really is a terrible business man. Holy, I was on the floor, this guy doesn't know what he was even talking about.


Kamala really tore him down when she pointed out that Trump told the Republican party to not take the deal. Trump deliberately sunk the border deal. That alone should have gotten him in trouble. He is not a politician he is a citizen he shouldn't be allowed to meddle in the government.

Trump also made a historic blunder. He reminded voters that he was the one who packed the court and that he is proud of the six conservative justices that overturned Roe V. Wade.

He also started talking about migrants from Haiti eating pets in OH. Something that was promptly debunked and caused a stir online. Conservatives are worried that the far right memes are going to cost them the election.

Trump then talked about how he liked Ukraine but anyone who's been awake since 2016 knows how much Trump dislikes Ukraine. I remember the who Bergsma thing. The lengths Trump was willing to go to black mail the Ukraine government to give him dirt on Hunter Biden all for it to amount to nothing.

 

[LazrGatr]

I watched it. Kamala grilled Trump like a fish.

Trump does not know what a tariff is. The man has a bachelor's in economics. The guy really is a terrible business man. Holy, I was on the floor, this guy doesn't know what he was even talking about.


Kamala really tore him down when she pointed out that Trump told the Republican party to not take the deal. Trump deliberately sunk the border deal. That alone should have gotten him in trouble. He is not a politician he is a citizen he shouldn't be allowed to meddle in the government.

Trump also made a historic blunder. He reminded voters that he was the one who packed the court and that he is proud of the six conservative justices that overturned Roe V. Wade.

He also started talking about migrants from Haiti eating pets in OH. Something that was promptly debunked and caused a stir online. Conservatives are worried that the far right memes are going to cost them the election.

Trump then talked about how he liked Ukraine but anyone who's been awake since 2016 knows how much Trump dislikes Ukraine. I remember the who Bergsma thing. The lengths Trump was willing to go to black mail the Ukraine government to give him dirt on Hunter Biden all for it to amount to nothing.

Extremely biased take full of misinfo. That debate was a trashfire 3v1 against Trump and didn't serve the American public anything. Kind of like the last debate, except without the 3v1. Trump supporters walking away from it claiming Trump "won" while delusional democrat voters claiming Harris "won". All the while neither candidate is going to do anything to fix American infrastructure, which at this point is all I care about. Probably not a controversial take to desire my tax dollars not fund two proxy wars + foreign aid while taxes against "the rich" (burden always falls on the working and lower class) are infinitely raised.

 

[Linkmain-maybe]

Second Trump assassination attempt??

 

[CannonStreak]

Second Trump assassination attempt??

From what I hear, it was just a shooting somewhere near the golf course. Nothing implies that Trump was the real target, yet.

 

[Respect38]

The "fact of life" is not that school shootings happen, in his quote, but rather "if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets, and we have got to bolster security at our schools.”

Notice the comma at the end of the first part of the quote, not a period. The "it" there is the state of affairs in which our schools are soft targets, relatively undefended considering the value of what lies inside. (our very own children, whose security anti-security laws have compromised)

 

[Xfire]

Speaking of the Trump Assassination attempt, I believe a bigger discussion to have is to understand why voters believe a potential Trump administration for the next 4 years would fix USA's problems. Given how badly the economy was mismanaged under Reagan's and Bush's policies to this day, how would Trump's policies mitigate some of that during 4 years? When Trump took office around 2016-2020, not much progress was done despite the Supreme Court, Congress, and House (partially) was held by a Republican majority.

Spoiler: Thoughts about video

Most detractors from the video think that the close-ups of people's faces make them appear crazier than they are. I'd argue that even just listening to their words, it's still a bunch of mud that overshadows what little rationality they have left. A great dichotomy is between the blue lady who perfectly expressed the griefs of the US population, then a red shirt guy who doesn't want to be forced in an electric car.

 

[Alicorn]

Why does Kamala Harris not respect children's parents?

The basic instinct of a human being is reproduction and protection of children. Parents try to protect their daughters and sons from castration during sex change. Democrats do not allow them to protect and threaten to deprive them of parental rights. Parents may not even be informed. This is a violation of even the minimum rights of people.Propaganda influences people so much that it has removed basic instincts.
Tell me, why should we allow her to do this?

I want to clear something up. Just because one parent doesn't want their kid to undergo an operation without their knowledge does not mean that parent gets to make decisions for every other parent.

The entire parent's rights argument falls apart when said activist sticks their nose into another parent's business.

Second the whole panic about kids undergoing operations without their parent's knowledge does not exist and wouldn't make sense if you think about it for more than five seconds. You want to know why?

That's because a Doctor can't operate on a minor without a legal guardian's consent and said guardian also needs the minor's medical history and insurance information. That is a lot of hoops to join through to get an operation done. You have a better chance of winning the lottery and getting struck by lighting in the same day than any of that stuff happening that I just listened.

The whole parent's rights thing also works against itself. That's because you are taking away a parent's right to make choices for their sons or daughters by replacing the parent's autonomy with that of the states. That is a contradiction that does not make sense. Because who is taking the child to get the operation? Who has the medical information and medical insurance? The parents or legal guardian does so there is no one taking a kid to get an operation without the knowledge of said parent or legal guardian.

Do you see where I am going with this? A AlexTLD

 

[MasterCheef]

The whole parent's rights thing also works against itself. That's because you are taking away a parent's right to make choices for their sons or daughters by replacing the parent's autonomy with that of the states. That is a contradiction that does not make sense. Because who is taking the child to get the operation? Who has the medical information and medical insurance? The parents or legal guardian does so there is no one taking a kid to get an operation without the knowledge of said parent or legal guardian.

Do you see where I am going with this ? A AlexTLD

HOLY SMOKE ; is this the MOST IDIOTIC post in this entire thread ?

You should really do some research before making claims where the stuff coming out of your mouth is WORSE than the stuff which comes out of the cheeks you sit on.

This is truly happening. There are real parents for whom, their children are being permanently castrated.
The question is why ? Because the state soo intensely despises it's citizens it is declaring war on them. They hate the citizens freedoms because their greed is soo intense.

Allowing minors to make personal health decisions ( when vulnerable they can be manipulated quite easily) the results of which they have no idea of the long term negative consequences , is one of a number of definitions of taking away parent's rights.

Also if schools are being sued for the children who have under gone "gender re-assignment surgery" then it is absolutely happening without the parent's consent.

How can you defend this torture ?

Also it amazes me how they ( the Democratic Party & Left machine ) get away with calling something a right which it is NOT in any way shape or form.

California Legislative Update: Reproductive and Gender Affirming Care Rights and Protections

California Governor Gavin Newsom signs bills on reproductive and gender affirming health care including SB 345 AB 1707 SB 487 AB 571 SB 385 AB 254 AB 352

natlawreview.com

 

[Sucumbio]

This is a hot button topic and I appreciate the level of attention it's getting in the media but let's not point our ire at each other please. We can discuss this without name calling. Thanks.

 

[Xfire]

Spoiler: Rhetoric

HOLY SMOKE ; is this the MOST IDIOTIC post in this entire thread ?

You should really do some research before making claims where the stuff coming out of your mouth is WORSE than the stuff which comes out of the cheeks you sit on.

This is truly happening. There are real parents for whom, their children are being permanently castrated.
The question is why ? Because the state soo intensely despises it's citizens it is declaring war on them. They hate the citizens freedoms because their greed is soo intense.

Three things:

1) You conveniently skipped the previous paragraph, which again dismantles this so called accessibility. You don't think that Doctors who perform these procedures would know the potential health complications? Especially without prior knowledge about the minor's health records?

2) From Reuters, there are approximately 17,683 patients from 6-17 years old going through "castration" between 2017-2021, so approximately 0.005% of the US population of 330 million. Trends are rising (albeit small) and one could argue that "one is too many," but if this is really a major problem that threatens the US mindscape, more independent and mainstream ones would've caught on by now (and the one I linked also covers how complicated the whole topic has become).

3) Based on your post history, I hope that one day someone feeds you a new rhetoric to copy and paste on this forum, and on that day, you'll feel so original.

It's depressing to see the current discourse based on polling trends and what it says about the US nation as a whole. After so many scandals under Donald Trump's name, you'd think the general public might decide that it's not a good idea to vote for him as president, but thanks to the internet muddying up the political sphere, it's near impossible for a general consensus. He did decry that Project 2025 is diabolical and said he wouldn't implement any of their proposals, but given that he is willing to do everything it takes to win (Jan 6 Riots, Stormy Daniels Trial, Elon X grifts), I wouldn't be surprised if he and his peers did implement them just to fulfill their long standing spite at the expense of others.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

EDIT: Not much activity in this thread, but I do understand how exhausting it is to discuss politics without the vitriol surrounding it. Channel 5 (I really do like using that Youtube channel as an example, huh?) directly interviewed one of the local communities at the Swing States and many of them also expressed their dissatisfaction with the political discourse. Manufacturing jobs are still relatively in decline regardless of either US Candidate over the past 8 years and no job fields were made to compensate for that.

 

[CannonStreak]

With less than 2 days before the election, I have this to say...

Trump may have a good amount of support, but consider this: He has a lot of things going against him that people can see. His dementia, his actions from his dementia like dancing in a rally for thirty minutes, his actions as president from 2016 to 2020, his mishandling of Covid, not to mention the January 6 insurrection he caused. Now, one of the big reasons why he won the 2016 election was that Russian interference thing that happened, and while he is still using that in this election and had used it in the one before, many are more aware of it now, so it is not going to help him much. Now, there is also that thing where he had the Supreme Court Justices he appointed undo Roe vs. Wade and thus abortion, which angered a lot of people, especially women. Not counting women who support Trump somehow, I can see a lot of women vote against him for that matter, and from what I know, there are more women than men in the United States. On top of that, back in 2016, those who voted for Trump most likely did not know how bad he would turn out as president, so while he still has lots of supporters, it has dwindled down over time before 2024 and the 2024 election. Plus, Kamala beat Donald Trump in what would be the only debate between the two. He said he won, but that was a lie, and contradicted that through saying he would not debate Kamala again. Now, with that said, Trump has told so many lies, too; so I can imagine that hurting him very well, especially with how many lies he has told over the years, so even if there are plenty who bought those lies, many others have seen through them. It also does not help that he plans to take away free speech and other rights, plans to use the military to attack citizens he does not like, and endorses dictators like Putin, who in particular attacked Ukraine and is doing bad things to Ukraine, so with that, the interference from Russia may not Trump much here for that matter. He has also attacked people and insulted them in the past, so that does not help. And he has so many criminal charges against him, and was convicted on some of them, making him a felon.

Now, Kamala, on the other hand, has so much going for her, with lots of support. I know Trump has a lot of support, but I don't think that will match Kamala's in the end, mainly for reasons I provided. She is more of a strong leader here, and I have seen many people endorse her, including plenty of celebrities like Taylor Swift. Also, I have seen many out there; mainly but probably not limited to the social media site called Threads; saying "vote blue" and saying good things about Kamala Harris. With what many things Trump has against him, I doubt that the support he has alone will help him win against Kamala, if he wins at all.

So, unless Trump has another way to cheat, (if he has not, it is too late at this point), I don't see Trump winning against Kamala. It's just important that many people go and vote and vote for Kamala.

 

[Sucumbio]

This is the first time I've been worried that the election won't be believed regardless of who "wins"... I was skeptical when Al Gore "lost" (winning the popular vote but losing anyway) but there wasn't the same nervous tension because even then we didn't have Jan 6.

 

[CannonStreak]

Oh, I forgot to say some things in my last post.

So, under the Biden and Harris administration, inflation has gone down, unemployment has been at its lowest, more jobs have been created, and it has been said that right now, we are the number one economy on Earth, especially as of February of this year.

Loading…

www.usnews.com

Also, the Gross domestic product, which is "a measure of a country's economic activity that quantifies the value of its final goods and services produced over a specific period of time", is doing well in the United States, compared to the time when Trump was president, where it do much worse. Here is some data here.

Gross Domestic Product, Third Quarter 2024 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the third quarter of 2024 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.0 percent. The GDP estimate released today is...

www.bea.gov

.

Anyways, Trump, if elected, will be bad for the economy, given his tariffs and such that will make things much worse, as in things getting more expensive and plenty of other bad things economy wise. And if Kamala is elected, she will have a plan in action where she would make it so homebuyers would have a 25000 down payment in terms of buying homes.

Harris to propose up to $25K in down-payment support for 1st-time homebuyers

It's part of her economic agenda she will unveil Friday, her campaign says.

abcnews.go.com

I am sure Kalama will do other things good for things like healthcare, while Trump only had a "concept of a plan" for healthcare.

I am not saying Trump will lose, but he has a lot going against him now.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

Calm before the storm...

 

[StoicPhantom]

Now, Kamala, on the other hand, has so much going for her, with lots of support.

She got like three percent of the vote in the 2020 primary lmfao. This feels like I'm back in 2016 where all the support was top down to make it look like Clinton was worth a squirrel fart.

Also, the Gross domestic product, which is "a measure of a country's economic activity that quantifies the value of its final goods and services produced over a specific period of time", is doing well in the United States, compared to the time when Trump was president, where it do much worse.

As the name implies, GDP covers everything including the billionaires. It's not representative of how the average person is doing. Wealth inequality can worsen, as it has, and nothing would change that number because it is representative of all of society and doesn't really care how the wealth is distributed within that society.

The real answer is that the country hasn't even fully recovered from 2008 let alone COVID lockdowns or this current inflationary crisis.

 

[CannonStreak]

She got like three percent of the vote in the 2020 primary lmfao. This feels like I'm back in 2016 where all the support was top down to make it look like Clinton was worth a squirrel fart.


As the name implies, GDP covers everything including the billionaires. It's not representative of how the average person is doing. Wealth inequality can worsen, as it has, and nothing would change that number because it is representative of all of society and doesn't really care how the wealth is distributed within that society.

The real answer is that the country hasn't even fully recovered from 2008 let alone COVID lockdowns or this current inflationary crisis.

Okay, first off, THAT was in 2020, not 2024, and that said, her support has seemingly jumped when she was picked as the democratic presidential candidate.

Also, while the GDP may not be about the average person, but I never said it was about the average person. All I was saying was that it was better than it was when Trump was around. Still, everyone is different, some may be in a situation where they are so poor that they don't see the economy as good. Even then, the president, let alone government, can't do everything for every single person. In some ways, the person has to try and get out of whatever situation themselves, even if they don't like it and would rather rely on help.

Also, I did say inflation went down, so I don't think there is much of a problem. That may depend on the person, of course, BUT it would not get better if Trump is reelected. That said, inflation going down does not mean prices have decreased. That has to do with the concept of deflation which has happened only once or twice in the USA's lifetime. Still, it (inflation) has gone down, so while prices may still be high for some, it is still a good thing, and I don't see how we are in much of an inflationary crisis, if at all.

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/nx-s1-5108607/inflation-consumer-prices-economy-interest-rates#:~:text=Close%20Navigation%20Menu-,Inflation%20falls%20to%20its%20lowest%20level%20in%20more%20than%203,annual%20increase%20since%20February%202021

.

Current U.S. Inflation Rate: 2.6% in October 2024 - NerdWallet

Inflation increased 0.2% in October, putting today's inflation rate at 2.6%. Understanding inflation, why it matters and how to handle it can help when making financial decisions.

www.nerdwallet.com

Loading…

apnews.com

 

[StoicPhantom]

Okay, first off, THAT was in 2020, not 2024, and that said, her support has seemingly jumped when she was picked as the democratic presidential candidate.

Right, because she was never nominated by the people and got in purely through nepotism in 2024. Her support coincidentally jumped when party leadership picked her in the same way Hilary Clinton had massive support in the polling until she lost. Almost like the media driven narrative and polls are designed to create the illusion of support in the hopes that people will play follow the leader.

All I was saying was that it was better than it was when Trump was around.

No one gives a ****.

Also, I did say inflation went down, so I don't think there is much of a problem. That may depend on the person, of course, BUT it would not get better if Trump is reelected. That said, inflation going down does not mean prices have decreased. That has to do with the concept of deflation which has happened only once or twice in the USA's lifetime. Still, it (inflation) has gone down, so while prices may still be high for some, it is still a good thing, and I don't see how we are in much of an inflationary crisis, if at all.

Inflation to the average person, aka voters, is entirely about price increase/decrease. The only people who care about muh currency value are people who have lots of money in the first place. Even then, prices going back to normal doesn't make up for the deficit people experience with the previously high price. You need a surplus to offset a loss, which requires proper economic stimulus as well.

If you have $1000 in the bank and grocery prices went from $300 to $500 you are going to have $500 in the bank instead of $700 like you would normally have. Grocery prices going back to $300 next month is not going make up for that extra $200 you lost from the previous month. The only way to make that up is if you gain an extra $200 back in some other way.

But when wages are **** and people are getting laid off left and right it is hard to make that back up on your own. Meanwhile, your other bills still exist and it is a lot harder to deal with them when you just randomly lose $200 for no real reason that people should have to deal with.

 

[CannonStreak]

Right, because she was never nominated by the people and got in purely through nepotism in 2024. Her support coincidentally jumped when party leadership picked her in the same way Hilary Clinton had massive support in the polling until she lost. Almost like the media driven narrative and polls are designed to create the illusion of support in the hopes that people will play follow the leader.


No one gives a ****.


Inflation to the average person, aka voters, is entirely about price increase/decrease. The only people who care about muh currency value are people who have lots of money in the first place. Even then, prices going back to normal doesn't make up for the deficit people experience with the previously high price. You need a surplus to offset a loss, which requires proper economic stimulus as well.

If you have $1000 in the bank and grocery prices went from $300 to $500 you are going to have $500 in the bank instead of $700 like you would normally have. Grocery prices going back to $300 next month is not going make up for that extra $200 you lost from the previous month. The only way to make that up is if you gain an extra $200 back in some other way.

But when wages are **** and people are getting laid off left and right it is hard to make that back up on your own. Meanwhile, your other bills still exist and it is a lot harder to deal with them when you just randomly lose $200 for no real reason that people should have to deal with.

I do think there can be more personal factors, to say the least, than just wages being bad and workers getting fired. I will agree on something you may not have said, workers should be treated better, of course. But the situation is not the same for every individual person, key word, individual. I do think that inflation as defined by the average person is not so correct. Otherwise, general price decreases, or deflation, would have happened more. The average person does not know everything. At least, as I may have said, unemployment has gone down significantly. More jobs have been created, and if that did not happen, I can imagine things being a lot worse.

As for the Kamala and the 2020 thing, I don't think it is just because of nepotism. I know there are more factors that determine who gets to be a presidential candidate. I can think that if it was because of just nepotism, she may not have been as popular as she is now. Just because Biden endorsed her does not mean that was the main or only reason she became the candidate. I don't think the case you mentioned about polls is entirely the case, too, key word, entirely, especially in this case, where there are people who see Trump for who he is now, and Kamala's case is much different from Hilary's. I mean, Trump mainly won against the latter due to the Russian interference that was going on back then, did he not? Whatever the case, though he is still using it to try to win, it is not going to be as strong as it was back then.

For the second thing you responded to, I can say if no one gives a care, it would not be worth mentioning, and given how bad Trump was when he was president, I am sure people do care. Not everyone is as apathetic to something like that as you think.

 

[StoicPhantom]

But the situation is not the same for every individual person, key word, individual.

It matters for the people in those key states that swing elections. Whether or not some yahoo is living it up in Silicon Valley doesn't really matter in states like Iowa.

I do think that inflation as defined by the average person is not so correct.

It doesn't really matter what you personally think about inflation. It matters what voters who vote think about inflation. If they personally believe that prices for necessary goods are too high then you'd better do something about it if you're in a position to do so.

At least, as I may have said, unemployment has gone down significantly. More jobs have been created, and if that did not happen, I can imagine things being a lot worse.

That's because part time jobs have exploded in availability, in part because employers find it more profitable to hire part timers as opposed to full-time employees. Part time jobs are famously inadequate for dealing with average household expenses. Hence the whole everybody is working three jobs thing in our current reality.

As for the Kamala and the 2020 thing, I don't think it is just because of nepotism. I know there are more factors that determine who gets to be a presidential candidate. I can think that if it was because of just nepotism, she may not have been as popular as she is now. Just because Biden endorsed her does not mean that was the main or only reason she became the candidate.

The whole point of democracy is for the people to decide their leaders. If the party establishment picks them instead then it is pretty much the definition of nepotism. People voted for Biden, not Harris, and yet it is Harris, not Biden, that is the nominee. People in fact voted for many, many candidates in the 2020 primary before Harris. She wasn't even front runner status like Bernie, Pete, Klobuchar, Warren. She was knocked out before Tulsi Gabbard, a pariah in the party now. She only became VP because Biden opened his big mouth about nominating a black woman and she was the only eligible one.

For all the bluster about democrats being the defenders of democracy they seem to be incapable of respecting it in their own elections. Like, can you imagine if the GOP just picked a nominee other than Trump against the will of their voter base? The entire party establishment would be destroyed practically overnight. But it's just business as usual with democrats.

I don't think the case you mentioned about polls is entirely the case, too, key word, entirely, especially in this case, where there are people who see Trump for who he is now, and Kamala's case is much different from Hilary's.

As much of a meme as Nate Silver is, he was right when he said that polls only reflect what people put into them. 2016 showed that a lot of people were embarrassed to even mention in anonymous polls that they voted for Trump, which no doubt explained why they were so wrong. And that's before getting into the fact that not a lot of people participate in polling in the first place.

I mean, Trump mainly won against the latter due to the Russian interference that was going on back then, did he not?

No, he didn't. Russian memes were the original election conspiracy theory that democrats shamelessly employed and then whined when republicans rolled their own in 2020. There is no evidence that Hilary would have won without their presence, if they ever existed at all.

Russian memes are the democrats attempts to escape accountability after insisting that Hilary was the only electable candidate and sinking their actual electable candidate: Bernie Sanders.


See, this whole conversation proves my point about this being a top down phenomena. All you've been doing is throwing around generalized statistics that don't actually reflect reality for the voters who matter in elections. This same strategy of telling people how they are supposed to feel is exactly what sunk the DP in 2016. Muh Russian memes has prevented them from reflecting on their mistakes and they are trying to double down by ousting the actual winner of 2020 for one of the early losers. Trump and Bernie still boasted enormous support in their reruns whereas Hilary and Kamala sunk really hard after their losses. Kamala only enjoys nominee status because party leadership intervened just like with Hilary. Meaning, establishment support is required for them to function whereas Bernie and Trump were pariahs in their respective parties and still won/almost won.

 

[CannonStreak]

It matters for the people in those key states that swing elections. Whether or not some yahoo is living it up in Silicon Valley doesn't really matter in states like Iowa.


It doesn't really matter what you personally think about inflation. It matters what voters who vote think about inflation. If they personally believe that prices for necessary goods are too high then you'd better do something about it if you're in a position to do so.


That's because part time jobs have exploded in availability, in part because employers find it more profitable to hire part timers as opposed to full-time employees. Part time jobs are famously inadequate for dealing with average household expenses. Hence the whole everybody is working three jobs thing in our current reality.


The whole point of democracy is for the people to decide their leaders. If the party establishment picks them instead then it is pretty much the definition of nepotism. People voted for Biden, not Harris, and yet it is Harris, not Biden, that is the nominee. People in fact voted for many, many candidates in the 2020 primary before Harris. She wasn't even front runner status like Bernie, Pete, Klobuchar, Warren. She was knocked out before Tulsi Gabbard, a pariah in the party now. She only became VP because Biden opened his big mouth about nominating a black woman and she was the only eligible one.

For all the bluster about democrats being the defenders of democracy they seem to be incapable of respecting it in their own elections. Like, can you imagine if the GOP just picked a nominee other than Trump against the will of their voter base? The entire party establishment would be destroyed practically overnight. But it's just business as usual with democrats.



As much of a meme as Nate Silver is, he was right when he said that polls only reflect what people put into them. 2016 showed that a lot of people were embarrassed to even mention in anonymous polls that they voted for Trump, which no doubt explained why they were so wrong. And that's before getting into the fact that not a lot of people participate in polling in the first place.


No, he didn't. Russian memes were the original election conspiracy theory that democrats shamelessly employed and then whined when republicans rolled their own in 2020. There is no evidence that Hilary would have one without their presence, if they ever existed at all.

Russian memes are the democrats attempts to escape accountability after insisting that Hilary was the only electable candidate and sinking their actual electable candidate: Bernie Sanders.


See, this whole conversation proves my point about this being a top down phenomena. All you've been doing is throwing around generalized statistics that don't actually reflect reality for the voters who matter in elections. This same strategy of telling people how they are supposed to feel is exactly what sunk the DP in 2016. Muh Russian memes has prevented them from reflecting on their mistakes and they are trying to double down by ousting the actual winner of 2020 for one of the early losers. Trump and Bernie still boasted enormous support in their reruns whereas Hilary and Kamala sunk really hard after their losses. Kamala only enjoys nominee status because party leadership intervened just like with Hilary. Meaning, establishment support is required for them to function whereas Bernie and Trump were pariahs in their respective parties and still won/almost won.

Funny on what you said on the very part. I don't think what you said reflects the average person's opinions on voting. What you said is not all that applicable to every individual. Besides, the average person is not everything when it comes to voting. People can be wrong on a lot of things. They may go by a different idea rather than the true definition, but that does not mean they are right. Besides, this is not one of those "the customer is always right" situations.

Besides, I am thinking about half of what you said is based on conspiracy theories, or a lack of proper information at least, not that you are dumb, for I am not saying that, but it is just a lack of information, so no offense; all especially in regards to how Kamala got nominated and other things. Plus, the Russian disinformation and interference is real. To say something along like it was a conspiracy is most definitely wrong. In fact, I am starting to think you are a Trumper/MAGAt for saying that,. Again, no offense, but I don't think you understand politics that well. Your apparent disdain for Democrats seems to have lead you the wrong way on what you may think is true. It is not what I personally think on some issues, you just seem to have a good number of things misinterpreted.

I am not trying to bully you, or make fun of you or say bad things about you, but if you think no one gives a care about what would not be better under Trump, then you seem to miss the point. Trump did a lot of things wrong, and many other republicans are not better. In fact, I say it is not a good idea to side with them. In regards to things you said like the Russian interference being a conspiracy, many people say that as an excuse to not believe that, among other things. Even if you don't like/dislike/don't trust the democrats, that does not mean they are just as bad as the republicans. Lately, the democrats have been better than the republicans, and in fact, I think you are not liking them partly by looking at some of the littlest things in a not so good way, and maybe twisting it a little to fit your definition of things. That is not how reality is supposed to work, by the way. You can't just ignore the facts or twist them for your own gain.

Anyhow, I think I get that you are not into politics much. But Trump has done worse things and we should not let minor things the democrats have done, like the ones you claim but have not proven, keep us from doing the right thing.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Besides, I am thinking about half of what you said is based on conspiracy theories, or a lack of proper information at least,

I'm assuming you have hard evidence on what and why this is true, yes? Like, I have a lot of evidence backing up everything I've said, but I want to make sure you have a coherent idea of a counterargument before I bother digging it all out.

Plus, the Russian disinformation and interference is real.

I'm not saying it is or isn't real, I'm saying it didn't swing the election. People who keep pushing this point keep conflating the existence of interference with Hilary being able to win if Russia didn't exist. I want hard evidence that Hilary would have won without Russian interference. Many countries interfere with our elections (*cough Israel) I want evidence that it had enough impact to invalidate Trump's win.

Lately, the democrats have been better than the republicans, and in fact, I think you are not liking them partly by looking at some of the littlest things in a not so good way

Jill Stein is now neck and neck with Kamala among Arab voters in Michigan, a very important demographic in a very important swing state, because of the DP's support for genocide. They are not in fact better than the republicans. In fact, I can prove they aren't any better materially than the republicans in many different issues from climate change to genocide. That's not the point though. The point is they are making the same strategic mistakes that cost them 2016.

Again, no offense, but I don't think you understand politics that well.

You glossed over most of my well-reasoned arguments then tried to insinuate that I was a MAGAt (whatever that means). I'd like to see less condescending remarks and more rebuttals to what I've said.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

I don't tend to post here, it's not my cup of tea, but I'm putting out the call:

Get out tomorrow and vote. And if you've got integrity, the answer for who to vote for is clear. As much as I hate this two-party bull **** that America has locked itself into, a blue vote tomorrow is the only way to guarantee our right to vote again. I'd love to be able to vote for a third party, but we cannot afford it this time.

I don't want the nuclear codes in the hands of a man who praised the Ukraine invader and **** his pants in the same day.

Vote Kamala tomorrow.

 

[Nah]

The idea that voting for the Democrats will at a minimum result in less harm is a myth that needs to die. It's not a "few small mistakes", it's an established, years and decades long pattern of giving lip service to doing the right thing but then never actually follow through with it. We didn't get to the place we are now solely because of the GOP. You can't keep campaigning on "but the other guy is worse!" without actually giving people reason to believe that is indeed true. Not liking the Democrats does not necessarily make one a Republican/MAGA, and I'm sure S StoicPhantom is not among their ranks. I've expressed my disdain for the Dems multiple times in my time here, but you'll find me dead before you find me voting GOP. I'll lay out some of the examples I have on hand/can remember re: the Democrats and how they're really not meaningfully better than the Republicans, keep in mind there is more evidence than what I'm leaving here:

First thing would be abortion. The Dems have been portraying themselves as the party that will champion women's rights and take back the abortion rights that the GOP stole from America, but when we gave them the chance to protect abortion, they decided not to. When Obama was running for president, he said that "abortion is a high priority" and that he'd be happy to sign the already crafted bill for that purpose. They had the White House, they had majorities in both the House and Senate, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they just....didn't bother advancing the bill, when it would've been easy for them to. We're really supposed to trust them this time when they were given the perfect opportunity to do so and they squandered it?


People view the Democratic Party as the not-homophobic, not-transphobic party, in contrast to the overtly homophobic/transphobic Republican Party. The Dems routinely claim that they support LGBTQ rights, yet instead compromise with and aid homophobes and transphobes (1 , 2 ). Hillary Clinton during the 2022 midterms said something to the effect of "we can't have both trans rights and democracy", as if the two are mutually exclusive and that anyone who supports trans rights is somehow standing against democracy. The homophobic Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was a Bill Clinton administration thing, as was the homophobic Defense of Marriage act, which passed with a veto-proof majority because it had such strong bipartisan support. Harris was asked in a recent interview if trans people should have access to gender-related care and her response was "I believe we should follow the law". To translate for everyone, she's saying she doesn't give a **** and will go with whichever way the wind blows. We are talking about someone who has for years been in a position to shape the law and is running for a position that will allow her to continue to shape the laws of this country.

Then you have the genocide in Gaza that's been happening for the past year that has now also spilled into Lebanon. We have already gone over this in this thread, but to re-iterate, both parties have always given strong support to Israel's 75-year long genocide of Palestinians. Harris has made it clear that she will be no different from Biden in regards to this, and has even gone so far as to say that the American people just have to accept the US happily supporting the genocide if we want anything good to happen to us. I know that some people are thinking "but it'd get worse under Trump!", but it really does not get worse that Israel being given a free pass to enact one of the bloodiest chapters of its genocide. The only difference between a Harris administration and a Trump administration at this point would be that the Ds would continue to offer empty platitudes and meaningless gestures while the Rs would not and would just openly cheer on Israel, but the result is functionally the same (this is the essence of this whole thing, that people are still willing to buy the Dems' lip service but not see their actions and what it produces). And if they're willing to support something like genocide, it's not really a good sign for how they'll treat people at home.

I remember Biden's 2020 campaign site saying that Biden was in favor of "protecting the environment" and "working with local environmentalists and indigenous peoples" to that end, yet ended up at least twice not doing that, his administration approving projects that environmentalists and the local peoples were not ok with (1 , 2 ).

The idea of the USA having a universal, single-payer healthcare system instead of our current abhorrent for-profit "healthcare" system is highly unpopular in both parties.

Crime is something I talked about a bit in this post here last year: https://smashboards.com/threads/som...ted-by-politics-in-a-way.520194/post-24852517
You would think that after 50-something years of the "War on Drugs" being a complete failure in its official purpose, people might want to try a different approach, but it been highly successful in its true purpose, so it continues on.

There's also how the Democrats, like the Republicans, are an ardently pro-capitalism party. Current federal definition of domestic terrorist includes anyone who does not support capitalism (go to the bottom of page 7). If humanity wants to live a long and genuinely happy existence, capitalism must die ASAP. It has had thousands of years to prove that it is something worthwhile, yet has not, while giving plenty of reason to show that it is nothing more than cancer.

The fascism that people are so worried about if Trump wins is going to come regardless of which major party wins--we lose either way.

Also, while the GDP may not be about the average person, but I never said it was about the average person. All I was saying was that it was better than it was when Trump was around. Still, everyone is different, some may be in a situation where they are so poor that they don't see the economy as good. Even then, the president, let alone government, can't do everything for every single person. In some ways, the person has to try and get out of whatever situation themselves, even if they don't like it and would rather rely on help.

Also, I did say inflation went down, so I don't think there is much of a problem. That may depend on the person, of course, BUT it would not get better if Trump is reelected. That said, inflation going down does not mean prices have decreased. That has to do with the concept of deflation which has happened only once or twice in the USA's lifetime. Still, it (inflation) has gone down, so while prices may still be high for some, it is still a good thing, and I don't see how we are in much of an inflationary crisis, if at all.

If the economy does not benefit the average person, who makes up the vast majority of the population, it's not really a good economy. What good is a government and/or a socioeconomic system if it does not exist to help as many people as possible? We of course get told that all these signs that the economy is doing well because capitalism exists for the sole purpose of consolidating all wealth into as few hands as possible--it's doing well because it's benefitting the wealthy, as intended. Poverty, especially in this day and age, is a product and necessity of capitalism, people are poor because the system demands it.

 

[CannonStreak]

First, I did not say that the democrats were perfect, far from it, actually. I know there are bad apples IN the democratic party, but they do tend to be better than the republicans in plenty of ways, maybe not completely, but still. Still, every political party has its faults, you can't expect a party to be completely good. You have to find the balance between the good and bad of parties and find out which one is good for you. I still think StoicPhantom is going by conspiracies (even if he is not republican, he seemed more like it based on what may be conspiracy theories) and in Nah's case, superstition. Still, I don't know where Nah is getting her information, but while she has the right to believe what she wants to believe, that does not mean it is that accurate.

As for the average person thing, I am sorry, but the average person does not know that much about politics. There are many people who do not study politics or remember it from school. I don't think the average person knows what they are dealing with in terms of politics or the economy. They may make up more of the population, but many of them are not that knowledgeable in that area. Just because they make up more of the population does not mean they are completely, and emphasis on completely, qualified to determine what is good for the economy. That is the job of the more knowledgeable, those actually in politics, and I am aware that some politicians don't do politics or the economy right, but not all politicians are the same.

I don't know what lead you to believe what you believe about the democrats, Nah, but I do think and say your sources are exaggerated.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

The idea that voting for the Democrats will at a minimum result in less harm is a myth that needs to die. It's not a "few small mistakes", it's an established, years and decades long pattern of giving lip service to doing the right thing but then never actually follow through with it. We didn't get to the place we are now solely because of the GOP. You can't keep campaigning on "but the other guy is worse!" without actually giving people reason to believe that is indeed true. Not liking the Democrats does not necessarily make one a Republican/MAGA, and I'm sure S StoicPhantom is not among their ranks. I've expressed my disdain for the Dems multiple times in my time here, but you'll find me dead before you find me voting GOP. I'll lay out some of the examples I have on hand/can remember re: the Democrats and how they're really not meaningfully better than the Republicans, keep in mind there is more evidence than what I'm leaving here:

First thing would be abortion. The Dems have been portraying themselves as the party that will champion women's rights and take back the abortion rights that the GOP stole from America, but when we gave them the chance to protect abortion, they decided not to. When Obama was running for president, he said that "abortion is a high priority" and that he'd be happy to sign the already crafted bill for that purpose. They had the White House, they had majorities in both the House and Senate, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they just....didn't bother advancing the bill, when it would've been easy for them to. We're really supposed to trust them this time when they were given the perfect opportunity to do so and they squandered it?


People view the Democratic Party as the not-homophobic, not-transphobic party, in contrast to the overtly homophobic/transphobic Republican Party. The Dems routinely claim that they support LGBTQ rights, yet instead compromise with and aid homophobes and transphobes (1 , 2 ). Hillary Clinton during the 2022 midterms said something to the effect of "we can't have both trans rights and democracy", as if the two are mutually exclusive and that anyone who supports trans rights is somehow standing against democracy. The homophobic Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was a Bill Clinton administration thing, as was the homophobic Defense of Marriage act, which passed with a veto-proof majority because it had such strong bipartisan support. Harris was asked in a recent interview if trans people should have access to gender-related care and her response was "I believe we should follow the law". To translate for everyone, she's saying she doesn't give a **** and will go with whichever way the wind blows. We are talking about someone who has for years been in a position to shape the law and is running for a position that will allow her to continue to shape the laws of this country.

Then you have the genocide in Gaza that's been happening for the past year that has now also spilled into Lebanon. We have already gone over this in this thread, but to re-iterate, both parties have always given strong support to Israel's 75-year long genocide of Palestinians. Harris has made it clear that she will be no different from Biden in regards to this, and has even gone so far as to say that the American people just have to accept the US happily supporting the genocide if we want anything good to happen to us. I know that some people are thinking "but it'd get worse under Trump!", but it really does not get worse that Israel being given a free pass to enact one of the bloodiest chapters of its genocide. The only difference between a Harris administration and a Trump administration at this point would be that the Ds would continue to offer empty platitudes and meaningless gestures while the Rs would not and would just openly cheer on Israel, but the result is functionally the same (this is the essence of this whole thing, that people are still willing to buy the Dems' lip service but not see their actions and what it produces). And if they're willing to support something like genocide, it's not really a good sign for how they'll treat people at home.

I remember Biden's 2020 campaign site saying that Biden was in favor of "protecting the environment" and "working with local environmentalists and indigenous peoples" to that end, yet ended up at least twice not doing that, his administration approving projects that environmentalists and the local peoples were not ok with (1 , 2 ).

The idea of the USA having a universal, single-payer healthcare system instead of our current abhorrent for-profit "healthcare" system is highly unpopular in both parties.

Crime is something I talked about a bit in this post here last year: https://smashboards.com/threads/som...ted-by-politics-in-a-way.520194/post-24852517
You would think that after 50-something years of the "War on Drugs" being a complete failure in its official purpose, people might want to try a different approach, but it been highly successful in its true purpose, so it continues on.

There's also how the Democrats, like the Republicans, are an ardently pro-capitalism party. Current federal definition of domestic terrorist includes anyone who does not support capitalism (go to the bottom of page 7). If humanity wants to live a long and genuinely happy existence, capitalism must die ASAP. It has had thousands of years to prove that it is something worthwhile, yet has not, while giving plenty of reason to show that it is nothing more than cancer.

The fascism that people are so worried about if Trump wins is going to come regardless of which major party wins--we lose either way.


If the economy does not benefit the average person, who makes up the vast majority of the population, it's not really a good economy. What good is a government and/or a socioeconomic system if it does not exist to help as many people as possible? We of course get told that all these signs that the economy is doing well because capitalism exists for the sole purpose of consolidating all wealth into as few hands as possible--it's doing well because it's benefitting the wealthy, as intended. Poverty, especially in this day and age, is a product and necessity of capitalism, people are poor because the system demands it.

Here's the thing

As with every election featuring the orange buffoon, this isn't even a fight where the issues are taking center stage. This is a fight of someone with a reasonably level head vs. An egotistical man child who openly supports objectively evil policies. In an era where a lot of the government supports these radical beliefs. Now isn't the time for this half-empty "oh well both sides are bad" centrist ****.

The person who wins this controls the largest military force in the planet exclusively. I'd love it to abolish the party system but now is not the time to be resting on laurels which is what you are doing. You can pull this **** next time when Trump is dead or behind bars for the rest of his life.

How's our chance to put a confirmed criminal despot behind bars. We **** this up, and he pardons himself instead of facing punishment for his crimes.

 

[CannonStreak]

Here's the thing

As with every election featuring the orange buffoon, this isn't even a fight where the issues are taking center stage. This is a fight of someone with a reasonably level head vs. An egotistical man child who openly supports objectively evil policies. In an era where a lot of the government supports these radical beliefs. Now isn't the time for this half-empty "oh well both sides are bad" centrist ****.

The person who wins this controls the largest military force in the planet exclusively. I'd love it to abolish the party system but now is not the time to be resting on laurels which is what you are doing. You can pull this **** next time when Trump is dead or behind bars for the rest of his life.

How's our chance to put a confirmed criminal despot behind bars. We **** this up, and he pardons himself instead of facing punishment for his crimes.

Okay, I will make this short, BUT not gonna lie, I would also be in favor of abolishing the party system. I mean, it is outdated anyway, isn’t it?

EDIT: Also, I wish to say I am not treating democrats like the good guys here, not by the whole. I am treating them like lesser evils.

But as you all may know, lesser evils don’t mean that much. I mean, they are still flawed, and as I said before, that does include democrats. It doesn’t help that those nominating presidential candidates don’t often choose the right candidates, and are biased.

I have a mixed stance on politics, but we do deserve better than just lesser evils, if you know what I mean.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

Okay, I will make this short, BUT not gonna lie, I would also be in favor of abolishing the party system. I mean, it is outdated anyway, isn’t it?

EDIT: Also, I wish to say I am not treating democrats like the good guys here, not by the whole. I am treating them like lesser evils.

But as you all may know, lesser evils don’t mean that much. I mean, they are still flawed, and as I said before, that does include democrats. It doesn’t help that those nominating presidential candidates don’t often choose the right candidates, and are biased.

I have a mixed stance on politics, but we do deserve better than just lesser evils, if you know what I mean.

Yes, we do, but this is not the time for that ****. One candidate is a convicted felon, sexual abuser, and incited an army's worth of people to storm the U.S Capitol in a temper tantrum when he lost.

The other one laughs funny and didn't do all that stuff. The answer has literally never been more clear.