I kind of miss the late-twentieth-century brand of harmless conspiracy theory, where Majestic-12 was busily covering up the evidence of visitations by the warring Lizard people and Grays. Conspiracy theories about child sex trafficking in the pizzeria basement are no fun at all.
🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter monsterscraponme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- politics united states
- Status
I kind of miss the late-twentieth-century brand of harmless conspiracy theory, where Majestic-12 was busily covering up the evidence of visitations by the warring Lizard people and Grays. Conspiracy theories about child sex trafficking in the pizzeria basement are no fun at all.
Republicans have ran back and forth between these two extremes before. I remember George W Bush originally ran on an isolationist platform, with "No foreign entanglements" and "No nation-building" as the catchphrases. And we all know how that turned out. They're against foreign entanglements and nation-building when Democrats do them, but when they get handed the flimsiest pretext to knock over Iraq, they jump at the chance. Sort of like they're against government being involved in your personal life until they very much are.
Hm, countering Trump fiscal idiocy... Let's try one on.
----
"Do you want your social security check to be paid in cryptocurrency instead of dollars?
Because that sounds like how Donald Trump wants to pay Seniors their Social Security.
Donald Trump said he wants to pay off all government bonds with a brand new, untested cryptocurrency kind of like Bitcoin. Including the bonds which are the Social Security Trust Fund.
Of course, you bank only accepts deposits in dollars. Your grocery store only takes dollars. You can only use dollars to pay your electric bill.
Don't risk your social security, your house and your life on a wild crypto scheme. Vote Harris-Walz."
Then a second version focused on Project 2025 planning to cut Social Security benefits and how JD Vance is completely in support of it. Are you SURE that Trump will live out his term? Do you trust JD?
No, it was an actual EV Summit at the White House. GM, Ford and Stellantis were all invited, despite making a paltry number of EVs in the USA compared to Tesla.
For @poochyena - Funding a brand new car company in the USA has been an extremely unlikely way to make money for many decades.
There's plenty of legitimate complaints against Musk, including ones more relevant to this thread. Such as his radical right-wing extremism and trying to get Trump elected both by his slanted control of Twitter content and by direct donations.
yet, its also been a very common way to try. There have been dozens of EV startups. Funding startups that are unlikely to succeed is rich people's favorite pastime. Its the rich person's equivalent of buying a lottery ticket.
He likes EVs because they are fast and powerful, not because they are saving the environment.
Pretty sure in terms of US discourse, Israel is the 51st state just in terms of how often it comes up in national discourse/the resources we allocate to it/the reverence in which certain political segments speak of it, Puerto Rico is a Micronesian “third world” country full of impoverished Spanish speakers for some reason, and Canada is an old American territory that we kind of forget exists except when we’re threatened by their relatively somewhat more reasonable medical costs.
"We shall not cease until we have annexed Puerto Rico! They shall be the fifty-first jewel in our crown of conquest!"
Just to put in perspective, if it weren’t for all the brown people, we probably would have tried to woo Cuba as a state after 1898 (end of the Spanish-American War). The Cubans were fighting for independence, but if we’d wooed them like we’d wooed the Texans, why wouldn’t they have wanted to be an equal among the U.S. states? But we did things like exclude Cubans from the Paris peace talks, so they immediately didn’t feel like any kind of freedom or equality emanating from their relationship with the U.S. And nothing we did down there after 1898 would have changed that perception, IIUC.
Certainly would have saved a bunch of trouble a generation-or-so later.
It makes me a little suspicious to see Harris trailing in WI and MI; I think she is relatively safe in those two states.
MI has a rather large Arab Muslim population. If they all vote against Harris as a bloc, I think it will be tough for Harris to win there.
Because Trump is pro-muslims or pro-Palestine? I can see that demographic not voting for Harris but Trump is actually far worse for them.
Elissa Slotkin, who's running for the MI Senate seat says that in their internal polling, Harris is underwater.
No Aurich, this does not work. Donald Trump was the same man on January 7th as he was on January 5th or November 8th, 2016 for that matter. Nothing about who Donald Trump was changed on January 6th. If January 6th revealed him to be a fascist then that is because he was always a fascist and you hadn't noticed yet. The only thing that January 6th changed was us: it clarified a pre-existing truth.
Though, you are right about one thing here, words do have meaning. If January 7th merely revealed Trump's fascism, then the question is: how could we have noticed this in 2016? The problem, I would argue, is that very few people actually know the meaning of the word 'fascism'. They mistake the trappings for the dish. Because of this, when a political candidate arises who is a fascist, they don't see it until the goose stepping and attempted coups begin. So perhaps we should talk about the meat and potatoes of what fascism is.
Fascism, lower case, is a typically-nationalist political cult focused on the restoration of the mythic golden age of the elect which, supposedly, ended through betrayal and insufficient purity but, in actuality, never existed, by a strong leader through will to power. The story reads "not so long ago, Our People enjoyed a golden age, the leadership was skilled and everyone knew their place. The the establishment became impure, lost touch with Our People, and betrayed us: favoring outsiders over Our People and forgetting the privileges Our People earned by building this great age. Thanks to this ongoing betrayal, our society is now crumbling. In order to fix this, we need a strong, primal, manly leader who will restore purity and return Our People to their rightful place in society."
In short fascism is any "make X great again" though methods which focus on cultural and racial purity, will to power, and a strongman savior. It is the shoe that fits what little political ideology Donald Trump actually holds.
Another parallel that fits well. After all, Mein Kampf spends quite some ink objecting to Marxism and communism along essentially similar though more openly racist lines.
Just because someone can't define something doesn't mean that that they can't believe in it. Indeed, when it is something awful, being unable to define it makes it much more likely that one holds it quite dear.
As for the idea that, because Trump holds no principles outside of self interest, he cannot be fascist, this presumes much false about fascism, specifically, that fascism requires holding the kind of principle Trump does not. But, of course, a lack of general principle or ideal outside of a belief in the superiority of the elect, the will to power, and the necessity of purity and devotion is one of the typical elements of fascism. And, if I were to describe the ideological beliefs which Trump does hold those would be them. The man is a racist, a would be authoritarian, and thoroughly believes in racial purity.
So, the answer is yes. Both his general lack of principle and what little principle he does actually hold are all the evidence of fascism. Trumpism is a kind of fascism.
I think the thought process is:
Why should we even bother since you're not going to advocate for anything we care about.0 The "coalition" primaried some of our biggest congressional supporters and the Democratic leadership did nothing. So, we're no longer at the table and you don't want us there.
So how do they get your attention? By forming a large enough voting block to make you lose. See Joe Manchin or how whole heartedly the Republicans embraced the Tea Party.
Anyways, I do see where they are coming from in that their votes are being taken for granted, especially if the other side is so much worse. As for the Democratic leadership, they did the calculus that pissing off the pro-israel lobby would be worse than alienating the pro-palestine lobby. So, we have to take those lumps from that decision.
The real question is: is the Democratic leadership right in ignoring this voting block?
Yeah. The guy who moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is somehow goood for Palestinians? The only thing that can be said that’s positive about Trump and Palestinians is that he happened to not be the president when Oct. 7 and its fallout occurred.
It’s like the Hostess employees voting down the contract. Then the company goes out of business and you’ve got nothing. And they all say “look at all our power.” Yup. The power to screw yourself even worse than the other guy. Way to go!
When did it become in politics that you have to give people all exactly what they want or they will go mutually-assured destruction on you? What happened to being the better option?
Has this country really become so entitled that you vote for the person potentially bringing down democracy entirely, rather than the one who is better for your interests, just because the better one hasn’t given you everything you want?
And people cheer this on as though it actually makes any sense?
EDIT: And does no one realize that the response to punishing someone for not giving you everything you want is likely giving you nothing that you want?
Has this country really become so entitled that you vote for the person potentially bringing down democracy entirely, rather than the one who is better for your interests, just because the better one hasn’t given you everything you want?
And people cheer this on as though it actually makes any sense?
EDIT: And does no one realize that the response to punishing someone for not giving you everything you want is likely giving you nothing that you want?
Single issue voters.
The pro-life movement started around 1973 (Roe v. Wade).
So, it's been around for decades.
Also, please don't confuse understanding and cheering.
It's low-information voters again.
They're reacting emotionally to one issue.
Regardless of who wins the election, they will have burned their bridges to the Democratic Party and they don't even have a bridge with the GOP.
They're reacting emotionally to one issue.
Regardless of who wins the election, they will have burned their bridges to the Democratic Party and they don't even have a bridge with the GOP.
I think AIPAC threw accelerant on that bridge.
AIPAC uncorks $100 million war chest to sink progressive candidates
So was the bridge there or was it burnt already.
I'm not sure ignoring is the right word for what Harris is doing. She has a narrow road to victory and it does not work if every pro-Palestinian vote she gains costs her more than one pro-Israeli vote.
What do the numbers say?
I think that's exactly the problem and why we have to clearly identify what exactly this fight is against.
Part of the problem is that America's 2-party political system doesn't support any nuance, so everything becomes black and white, us and them, sometimes down to one issue.
But it's also happening in parliamentary systems around the world because of the constant attacks on truth and reality, global issues that are emotional, and a constant disruption or destruction of "meaning" so that we end up with threads like this... "Oh yeah, you think everyone's a Nazi".
As a linguist I've been very upset about the trend of co-opting meaningful words and phrases into slurs since 2010 or so (woke, critical race theory, vaccinated) as it's right from the fascist playbook. "Communism" and "socialism" were the old standbys for 70 years but now the bogeymen have expanded to "liberal" and "progressive" and now even "democracy" is beginning to slip into negative territory.
Pervert meaning and you can't find a shared reality, and here we are.
And yet a lot of people seem to be:
Edited: grammar led to wrong meaning in opening paragraph.
So, should we talk about how Trump insists there's already a giant faucet that takes a day on, will route massive amounts of water from the PNW to Los Angeles, and for some reason nobody is using it?
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/ex...can-divert-water-from-pnw-to-la-doesnt-exist/
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/ex...can-divert-water-from-pnw-to-la-doesnt-exist/
The best solution if they went this route has been tried. The Klamath and Trinity Rivers in NorCal have a substantial watershed, and the topography means that a dam can placed close to the mouth.
The bad news is that it has been tried and shot down. Given the activities with the removal of the Copco dams, I suspect that adding a new, larger dam would not be appreciated.
Call me an idiot I guess, but every time I think that fucker can't say anything stupider he goes and fucking does it.
The fact we are just a smidge over 30 days out and it's still this close is frightening. Not that put much stock in Atlas's polls because they seem to be trying to compensate for 2016 errors. But we are in a much different landscape now post the end of Roe.
But only time will tell.
But only time will tell.
I'm not seeing a link to the video even though it's mentioned in the mediate article and I didn't see it in the huff post article.
Full article: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-solution-crime-the-purge_n_66f9b7c8e4b019aae3aa34a3
“See, we have to let the police do their job, and if they have to be extraordinarily rough. And you know, the funny thing with all of that stuff, look at the department store, same thing … You see these guys walking out with air conditioners, with refrigerators on their back, the craziest thing, and the police aren’t allowed to do their job,” Trump said. “They’re told, if you do anything, you’re going to lose your pension — you’re going to lose your family, your house, your car. The police want to do it. The border patrol wants to do it … They’re not allowed to do it because the liberal left won’t let him do it. The liberal left wants to destroy them, and they want to destroy our country.”
Trump then fantasized about giving police one “really violent day” to crack down on crime.
“Now, if you had one really violent day,” Trump said. “Like a guy like Mike Kelly, put him in charge,” he continued, gesturing to Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Kelly. “Congressman Kelly, put him in charge for one day. Mike, he’s a great Congressman. Would you say, Mike, that if you were in charge, you would say, ‘Oh, please don’t touch them. Don’t touch them. Let them rob your store’?” Trump said. “’Let all these stores go out of business, right?’ They don’t pay rent that the city doesn’t. The whole — it’s a chain of events. It’s so bad. One rough hour, and I mean real rough, and the word will get out and it will end immediately. End immediately.”
Linked Paragraphs go to X Video clips.
I guess he is technically only calling for a Day, or even an Hour, of Unchecked Police Brutality, and not the actual Purge.
When the Austrian corporal says he wants to kill Jews and Slavs and take their land, you should take him seriously.
Off topic, but this is really the gut punch. I remember flying over the Tesla factory and being so proud, seeing EVs made in Cali. Then he burned billions just so he could have the privilege of telling my friends and family how much they suck without getting moderated. He could have just done that for free.
I don't want those votes going anywhere but the Harris ticket, and it's not very rational for them to go uncast, go to a third-party candidate, or go to Trump.
That said, it's fair to question whether there will be a Palestine in by November 2028 if there is not a pivot on strategy here. Things don't look good for Gaza, and it would not be hard to imagine greedy eyes turning to the West Bank if left unchecked. Oh, and if Harris does win and keep the status quo, how likely is she to make a change in a second term? Are Republicans really likely to offer something better in 2028 if they lose in 2024?
Hands down, things could be made worse, and Trump would be happy to be the one to do it. However, folks are too wrapped up trying to avoid a big short-term loss. It's not great strategy, but it's a very human mistake...and one for which I find it hard to issue a ton of blame.
That said, Harris is probably playing it right. Even if she plans to pivot (probably slowly) once in office, it would be political malpractice to say so at this point. She'd alienate more votes than she would win and also create problems in the current administration.
The election is going to be a white-knucked ride. Ugh.
The Republicans have never been the party of fiscal responsibility in my entire lifetime and I’m not a youngblood. They just 1) blow money on tax cuts for the wealthy/corporations and the defense department, 2) generally refuse to actually raise revenues for those efforts because they profess, nominally and not with any particularly convincing sincerity, that the economy will magically grow sufficiently as a result to offset those expenditures. And if/when it doesn’t, well, it’s the other party’s fault and, also, we’re out. See you in four or eight years, have fun cleaning it up.
As for the rest of it, it assumes a responsible political party focused on governing and a collective sense of ownership, and not a nihilistic, power-at-all-costs party that only cares about self-enrichment for the various power brokers and supporters.
Last edited:
Drove by some nearby demonstrators today where one person had a "Biden condones genocide" poster.
- Status