3,301 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-13 10:36:36)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Forgive me ireactions, but you did not ask me to shut up on this forum. I said Bernie Sanders needs to shut up because he's a senile old man. And you said it "should not be used" indirectly. I never used it as a threat to shut anyone up.

I also never said anyone else should shut up, either.

Clearly, we aren't going to agree. I guess it's time for me to leave this forum because I'm not allowed to talk about fact. It's not unsubstantiated. There are too many irregularities others are posting. And Russia publicly threatened Trump for them helping him get into power this time around.

If that's not evidence, then I don't know what is.

Even Slider_Quinn21 agrees with me.

Good bye all. I'm done here. I have no tolerance for this kind of censorship and burying our heads in the sand when there is too much substantiated evidence to the contrary. I will continue to fight. It was fun while it lasted.

But not when I am being punished for talking about substantiated fact against Trump (Hitler).

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think it's important to have a clear differentiation between "something feels wrong" and "something is wrong"

I 100% agree that something feels wrong.  The polls, even with GOP trash polls dragging down the average, looked like Harris was going to win.  If not any of the Sun Belt, at least the Blue Wall (which was enough).  Maybe not by much but there was a consistent result from reliable polls that she was up by at least a point or so in all three Blue Wall states.  There was also, for months now, reliable polls showing that she would win the popular vote fairly comfortably.

There was also evidence, mostly from the Selzer poll in Iowa, primary data, and local level polling, that polls were underestimating Democrats.  Maybe they were undercounting republican women voting Democratic or overcounting minority men voting Republic, but something was happening.

Then there was all the other stuff.  Ground game and money seemed to be in Harris' favor and it was thought that it would influence a close election.  And there was the fact that Trump was calling for fraud early, which some saw as an indication that maybe he was getting bad internal polling.

And in Democratic circles, that all added up to what was hoped would be a great night for Democrats.  Harris would win, maybe bigger than most thought and maybe with a couple surprises (Iowa or even Texas/Florida), the Dems would easily win the House, and they had a decent chance of keeping the Senate at least at 50/50.

Then there's the fact that Trump is a known cheater who has a tech billionaire working his butt off to get him elected.  He's been talking fraud for four months, and we know every accusation he makes is a confession.  Maybe he figured out a way to steal it.

The problem:

1. Ground game and money meant nothing.
2. The polls were either mostly right or underestimated Trump again
3. The garbage GOP polls were capturing something
4. The Selzer poll was an extreme outlier
5. Trump made gains with minorities and didn't lose as many women as was feared
6. Democratic circles got it wrong.  They were way too optimistic, cherry picked the results that made them feel better, and bought into stuff that wasn't right.

And that appears to be what happened.  And as ireactions said, while there is speculation, there is no proof that anything out of the ordinary happened.  There's still my last point about Trump being a criminal and a cheater, but if he stole the election, so far, he's done it without leaving any sort of trace.  And just like we said in 2020, this kind of operation would have to be huge and would certainly have leaks, and nothing ever came of it.  If we go by the feeling that Trump couldn't possibly have won, we're the same as election deniers from 2020.  There's no evidence and until there is, we have to trust the system.

So yes it feels wrong.  Yes, Trump is both capable (and motivated) to steal an election and possibly has the infrastructure to do so.  But police can feel like someone killed their wife all they want, but without evidence, the bad guy walks free.  Maybe Trump stole the election.  But unless we can prove it or at least start building a case that we could prove it, it doesn't matter.  He won.  The data says he won.  The proof is that he won.  So it's our duty to accept that he won.

We don't have to like it.  We have to remain vigilant.  But as much as it sucks, it is what it is.  People didn't show up to vote for her.  They did show up to vote for him.  It sucks but it's true.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Without speaking for Slider_Quinn21, no one citing the 2024 election results -- a matter of public record -- should be harassed with unverified claims that the results are invalid. No losing Democrat and no election official have taken that stance.

The claim that Starlink was used to hack the election is false. Voting machines are not connected to the internet to that degree if at all.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024 … s-election

The supposedly missing votes are not missing, just not yet counted, and no elections agency or official has claimed there was fraud.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-2 … 68a1362518

Could there be some means of circumventing the ballots and the vote count that just hasn't come to light yet? Yes, there could be. But as it stands, voter fraud having tipped 2024 to Trump is an unproven claim.

Discussion of Democrats strategies and errors is consistently being deliberately derailed by one poster making unproven claims of voter fraud. That is a tactic of abuse and harassment to suppress criticism and review of Democratic performance. To attack anyone who voices concerns and critiques of the techniques that Democrats use to run for office. I have asked this poster to cease their abuse and harassment.

Every time this happens, I am forced to respond to each and every one of these claims to establish that this harassment is not appropriate, that these claims are not proven. And that people should be able to discuss current events and matters of public record and critique Democrats without constant persecution and misinformation where theories are falsely presented as facts.

I can't deal with it anymore. It's too stressful and upsetting and mentally draining. I also do not have time to do it anymore. I can't spend any more of my lunch breaks addressing this behaviour; I can't deal with it during my off hours and expect to get any of my other tasks done.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I think the conversation is basically at an end.  Democrats failed, fairly massively, in 2024.  They not only lost, but they lost a ton of ground and the entire government.  Trump is going to get to do basically whatever he wants with full control of not only every member of the GOP but all three branches.  If he wants to declare that there are no elections in 2026, no one will be there to stand up to him.  The country, and possibly the world, is in his hands.

What can Democrats do?  I really don't know.  You have a situation where people believe whatever Republicans say, however outlandish.  Democrats can either spend time, effort, and money trying to prove that clean energy isn't making whales depressed, but it's hard to prove something like that and people won't believe them no matter what they prove.  I agree they need to stop focusing on identity politics and focus on issues that help struggling families, but even when they do things that directly help people, Republicans can just lie and say things got worse and people will believe them.  People will go fill up their cars for $2.50 a gallon and they'll believe they paid $5.00 a gallon.  The stock market can make them rich with record-breaking days, but they'll think their personal finances are a disaster.  I don't know how you compete with that.

And that's if we even get elections anymore.  It's pointless to worry about Democrats' strategy in 2028 if we don't even know if there will be an election in 2028.  It's pointless to speculate about who might run because Trump might throw anyone who could run in jail.  It just really sucks, and I hate thinking about it.  I've basically put my head in the sand when it comes to the news because it's all depressing.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am really sorry for what you're going through. It is awful and absurd. It's like that high school bully I got suspended when I was a kid and thought I would never see again suddenly showing up at the office. Just insane.

I don't know if Trump can actually suspend future elections. Also, would he really want to stay in politics once his debts are paid and his trials are dismissed? His political campaign was an exercise in evading debt and criminal proceedings.

Trump's victory was not a landslide. He seems to have won by about two points in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which, if shifted in the opposite direction, would have won Harris the White House.
https://www.thenation.com/article/polit … -election/

Chris Hayes writes: "Trump has a destructive plan for America. But we have the tools to stop it."
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna179161

Blue state governors are fighting back:
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/13/blue-s … op-terror/

Slate reminds us that Republican government will be disliked as much as Democrat government:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … s-why.html

**

There has been quite a bit of unsubstantiated election denialism in this thread. It makes me very upset and unhappy.

It's really difficult to deal with a friend who isn't content to believe what they do, but actively hijacks every single political conversation, deflecting every criticism of Democrat strategies to focus on making false claims about how there is widespread evidence that the election was hacked.

I can't say the election wasn't hacked, but there is no widespread evidence. I cannot find a single news story about any defeated Democrat claiming they were hacked and contesting the election for a recount or a runoff.

This person demands their speculations be considered factual. This conversational bullying is incredibly hurtful. They are implicitly dismissing everyone else's subjects as worthless, tacitly declaring that any political discussion should be entirely in terms of their unverified speculations, misrepresented as fact. I have asked them to cease comments of this nature; they continue.

I have politely explained that these behaviours resemble the tactics of a cult. It's controlling, it's gaslighting, it's insulting, it's hurtful, it's stressful -- and I see that, even when told how upsetting and harassing and abusive it is, this friend doesn't care, they keep interrupting other subjects to say the election was hacked, having previously said that Elon Musk hacked the election with the Starlink satellite network.

Elections officials across the board are pointing out that this is physically impossible.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-e … d6356cb68b

Patrick Gannon, North Carolina State Board of Elections: "Satellite-based internet devices were not used to tabulate or upload vote counts in North Carolina. In addition, our tabulated results are encrypted from source to destination preventing results being modified in transit. And no, tabulators and ballot-marking devices are never connected to the internet in North Carolina."

Mike Hassinger, Georgia secretary of state’s office: "We don’t use Starlink equipment for any part of our elections, and never have. Our election equipment is 100% air-gapped and never connected to the internet."

Matt Heckel, Pennsylvania Department of State: "Counties do not use Starlink to transmit unofficial or official election results. No voting system in Pennsylvania is ever connected to the internet.

David Becker, founder and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation and Research: "It is not possible that Starlink was used to hack or change the outcome of the US presidential election. If anyone tried to interfere with the machines to rig the election, it would be discovered through multiple means, including reconciling the registered voters who cast ballots with the number of votes, as well as the audits."

Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting: "While Starlink provided connectivity in a number of jurisdictions for electronic poll books (EPBs) in this election, neither Starlink nor other types of communication networks play any role in counting votes. Our elections produce huge quantities of physical evidence. A satellite system like Starlink cannot steal that."

The air-gapped, satellite-detached nature of voting machines are a factual matter of computer engineering. No election official has lent any credibility to the claims that the election was hacked via satellite or that tabular alterations could compromise crosschecking against paper results.

Finally, I had to tell this person that if they continued to engage in derailing conversations with unproven conspiracies, they would be subject to a temporary ban. They declared that they were being punished for opposing Trump and were leaving.

I would say they were chastised for hijacking any discussion that isn't about their unproven theories, theories which cite 'widespread evidence' but offers... speculative social media posts from so-called experts who think hacking an election "simple, stupid, easy", as though an air-gapped machine is as vulnerable as a networked Square.

I didn't ban their account. Maybe they'll be inclined to return. But I should not be harassed with misinformation and abused with topic hijacking when trying to have a factual discussion about politics. And I can't keep monitoring and addressing it day after day after day after day. I have other responsibilities.

3,306 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-14 12:52:28)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions - I am back. I am still wrestling with much grief over this election, and I need to limit my posting activity until I am able to have a clearer head. Also, several things have evolved and I hope I will be allowed to at least post the following. I have added to this post further factual discussion of other aspects of this election below at the bottom of the post.

If you still don't want to talk about this at all, despite ample evidence, feel free to edit my post and delete the part you don't like about voting machine breaches. You don't have to respond to it. But I felt it was critical, factual information. It is never my intent to harass or be harmful or otherwise, and I am sorry that you feel that way about any of the information that I have provided. The information below, however, is provided by Harvard graduates in computer science and University computer science professors, as well as court cases and court documentation.

========================================

That being said, here is my contribution to the overall arching thread discussion:

I don't think there is too much wrong on the democratic side. The things happening now that need to stop is infighting and blaming other dems for the loss of this election. Kamala's campaign was well-executed. She included the working class, and highlighted what she brought to the table versus Trump. It is also indicated in Google Searches that the phrase "can I change my vote" jumped in Google Search trends immediately after the election by 700%, including an increase in 250% for queries about tariffs. Clearly, either dems didn't do a good job explaining more about what Trump was going to do (which I have a hard time believing because Kamala spent a good chunk of time in all of her speeches talking about what Trump was going to do), or people didn't pay attention to Kamala's speeches at all and they simply paid attention to all of the right wing talking points spread on social media networks instead.

Other things that I think contributed:

1. When President Joe Biden stepped out of the race, the media were jumping on his age 24/7. They didn't even bother jumping down Trump, who is the same age (80), and is even worse as far as mental acuity goes. The double standard did more to harm the democratic side than anything else. And I fully blame the media for that aspect.

2. There was constant misinformation spread on Twitter about everything Kamala was doing. And voters listened to this over anything else (likely).

3. Voters simply did not do their research on Trump before voting, as is shown by the fact that there is significant voter remorse over this election. Had they known, there may have been a dem landslide.

4. Voters simply ignored Kamala's speeches, and did not let things sink in. Or they simply didn't know who was running. Jimmy Kimmel did a segment on the streets where he asked voters about the election the day after the election, and none of them 1. Knew who was running, 2. Knew the election was already over. How much of this is pervasive within our society so that it negatively impacts voters?

I honestly don't think there is anything much about the democratic party we need to change. All of the above are factors that we cannot control 100%, which is the perception of voters about the candidates, and whether they do their research ahead of time. We cannot change what we cannot control. In which case, there isn't really much of a strategy that we can implement.

I do, however, think we need to stop the infighting and blaming and focus on the next mid term elections. Assuming we even have them in 2026.

==============================================================
1. The other information. ireactions - You may delete this section permanently if you don't like it. And again, it's my last post with this information. I won't post about voting machines again.

2. Also, please don't waste any more of your time responding if you don't like it.
==============================================================

First, there has been additional information coming to light, including an FBI investigation of Polymarket, in which the CEO's home was just raided by the FBI:

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/13/polyma … yne-coplan

There has also been a letter, backed by Harvard graduate computer scientists and University Professors, sent to VP Kamala Harris which shows specific evidence of security breaches that could have resulted in this outcome. This evidence comes from court cases and court documentation, not heresay on social media:

https://freespeechforpeople.org/compute … ification/

And if you read the letter (link below), the evidence is outlined specifically and in full. But, and I will emphatically state this: the letter states that there is no indication of voter fraud happening in the 2024 elections. Just that there is highly circumstantial evidence of breaches by Trump operatives at earlier times that warrant a deeper investigation.

https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-cont … 111324.pdf

In light of the Polymarket information, it is also telling that 1. Elon Musk posted the results of this election a week early on October 30, 2024, saying that "The prophecy will be fulfilled." and 2. The results come from Polymarket, which has never accurately predicted an election. Ever. Again, this is highly circumstantial, and I am only offering this as extremely suspicious behavior. Not proof.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1851659311132692541

In this screenshot, the right image is Elon's post showing the election results a week early on October 30, 2024. The left post are the final election results on Google.

https://i.postimg.cc/yYbd1RxV/image.png

That is all I will say, and is my last post on the topic.

3,307 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2024-11-14 08:43:10)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I don't know if Trump can actually suspend future elections.

It would be illegal, but he has full immunity.  What would be the recourse?  If he suspended 2026 midterm elections, the Republicans would still control Congress and the Senate would never convict him even if he was impeached.  Trump would have some BS argument about some sort of voter fraud scheme the FBI (which he would control) and Department of Justice (which he would control) would have "uncovered."  Half the country would believe him.  So for the safety of the country, no elections would be held.  Or they'd be indefinitely delayed.  And half the country would celebrate.  Democratic congressmen (and maybe some Republican ones) might complain, but Trump could have them jailed (or executed) and there's nothing anyone could do because he has full immunity.  People could riot or protest, and the military (which Trump would control) would massacre them.  He has full immunity.

If he wants to do that, there's no one that would stop them.  We are literally at his mercy because Congress can't (and won't) stop him and the courts have given him unlimited power to break the law.  Maybe Trump doesn't want to do that, but if he does, it doesn't matter if he "can" - he just will.

And that's why I'm not watching or reading any news at all.  As I told my friends, I'm unsubscribing to the world until either Trump goes away on his own or dies.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
ireactions wrote:

I don't know if Trump can actually suspend future elections.

It would be illegal, but he has full immunity.  What would be the recourse?  If he suspended 2026 midterm elections, the Republicans would still control Congress and the Senate would never convict him even if he was impeached.  Trump would have some BS argument about some sort of voter fraud scheme the FBI (which he would control) and Department of Justice (which he would control) would have "uncovered."  Half the country would believe him.  So for the safety of the country, no elections would be held.  Or they'd be indefinitely delayed.  And half the country would celebrate.  Democratic congressmen (and maybe some Republican ones) might complain, but Trump could have them jailed (or executed) and there's nothing anyone could do because he has full immunity.  People could riot or protest, and the military (which Trump would control) would massacre them.  He has full immunity.

If he wants to do that, there's no one that would stop them.  We are literally at his mercy because Congress can't (and won't) stop him and the courts have given him unlimited power to break the law.  Maybe Trump doesn't want to do that, but if he does, it doesn't matter if he "can" - he just will.

And that's why I'm not watching or reading any news at all.  As I told my friends, I'm unsubscribing to the world until either Trump goes away on his own or dies.

This is entirely what I am afraid of, and why I am so...I guess the word you could use is upset...about these election results.

The outcome of Trump having full control of congress and the house is going to be disastrous. I only hope that most of these predictions are hyperbole. But some of the predictions I have listened to stem from a place of fact and concern for our country rather than hyperbolic interludes.

I really want to pursue your path, Slider_Quinn21 and cease all subscriptions of news and everything else but I also don't want to stick my head in the sand either.

So I guess I gotta watch another 4 years of this monstrosity. sad

I just hope we don't get President Vance if Trump somehow kicks the bucket while in office. That would be even worse.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I just hope we don't get President Vance if Trump somehow kicks the bucket while in office. That would be even worse.

See, I disagree.  I think Vance would be bad, but I think he'd be bad in reparable ways.  If Trump died today and Vance was going to be president for the full four years, I think my stress level would go down a ton.  Vance is more dangerous in a Project 2025 way because I think he's way smarter than Trump and more Christian nationalist / far right wing /etc.

Vance would do all the things that Trump would do (replace Alito and Thomas with younger, crazier versions), gut the government to make it work worse, etc, but I don't think he'd do the incredibly dangerous / illegal things that Trump would do.

- I don't think he'd necessarily let Ukraine die or allow Russia to do whatever they want.
- I don't think he'd suspend elections
- I don't think he'd target political rivals
- I don't think he'd be okay with executing people that disagree with him
- I don't think he'd sell out America to make a buck
- I don't think he'd get us out of NATO
- I don't think he'd do the mass deportation (or at least not to the level Trump wants)
- I don't think he'd do the tariffs
- I don't think he'd do outright illegal / thuggish / mobster activities

I think Vance is dangerous, but I don't think he's anywhere near as fascist or anywhere near as anti-American.  I think Vance, while twisted, would do what he thinks is best for the country.  Trump will only do whatever is best for himself and will sacrifice whatever it takes to get what he wants.  I think Trump doesn't care about legacy or the future or any of that.  Vance, I think, would want to be a good president, and I think he'd be much more willing to be a "normal" president than Trump will even try.

And with Vance, we'd be able to possibly fix any damage that he does.  Not on the Supreme Court, of course, but that's gone either way.  Democrats could get control of Congress as early as 2026, and they'd have a great shot of beating Vance in 2028.  I think the economic state would be better compared to Trump, and I think there'd be a slight sense of normalcy.

Again, I think he'd be a terrible president.  But not a king.  Not a tyrant.  Not actively trying to destroy America to appease dictators.  I think he'd stand up to Putin in a way that Trump wouldn't in a million years.  I think he'd actually be "America First" as opposed to what Trump does (which is Trump first).  It'd be bad but not apocalyptic, and him being president is currently best case scenario for me.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
QuinnSlidr wrote:

I just hope we don't get President Vance if Trump somehow kicks the bucket while in office. That would be even worse.

See, I disagree.  I think Vance would be bad, but I think he'd be bad in reparable ways.  If Trump died today and Vance was going to be president for the full four years, I think my stress level would go down a ton.  Vance is more dangerous in a Project 2025 way because I think he's way smarter than Trump and more Christian nationalist / far right wing /etc.

Vance would do all the things that Trump would do (replace Alito and Thomas with younger, crazier versions), gut the government to make it work worse, etc, but I don't think he'd do the incredibly dangerous / illegal things that Trump would do.

- I don't think he'd necessarily let Ukraine die or allow Russia to do whatever they want.
- I don't think he'd suspend elections
- I don't think he'd target political rivals
- I don't think he'd be okay with executing people that disagree with him
- I don't think he'd sell out America to make a buck
- I don't think he'd get us out of NATO
- I don't think he'd do the mass deportation (or at least not to the level Trump wants)
- I don't think he'd do the tariffs
- I don't think he'd do outright illegal / thuggish / mobster activities

I think Vance is dangerous, but I don't think he's anywhere near as fascist or anywhere near as anti-American.  I think Vance, while twisted, would do what he thinks is best for the country.  Trump will only do whatever is best for himself and will sacrifice whatever it takes to get what he wants.  I think Trump doesn't care about legacy or the future or any of that.  Vance, I think, would want to be a good president, and I think he'd be much more willing to be a "normal" president than Trump will even try.

And with Vance, we'd be able to possibly fix any damage that he does.  Not on the Supreme Court, of course, but that's gone either way.  Democrats could get control of Congress as early as 2026, and they'd have a great shot of beating Vance in 2028.  I think the economic state would be better compared to Trump, and I think there'd be a slight sense of normalcy.

Again, I think he'd be a terrible president.  But not a king.  Not a tyrant.  Not actively trying to destroy America to appease dictators.  I think he'd stand up to Putin in a way that Trump wouldn't in a million years.  I think he'd actually be "America First" as opposed to what Trump does (which is Trump first).  It'd be bad but not apocalyptic, and him being president is currently best case scenario for me.

You could be right. Inexperience could have its good side. But, JD Vance has been quoted as saying (and I've seen him say all this), which makes me terrified of there being a JD Vance presidency too:

https://www.thecut.com/article/jd-vance … uotes.html

He’s disconcerted by the idea that this country is being run by “childless cat ladies.”

He’s disturbed by teachers who don’t have children.

He thinks people with children should be rewarded with extra votes.

"Vance’s views on abortion — that it isn’t acceptable, even in cases of rape and/or incest, and that law enforcement should play a role in policing patients’ medical decisions — are strong, if not out of line with his hard-right pivot. Sound bites such as “the rejection of the American family is perhaps the most pernicious and the most evil thing the left has done in this country” don’t feel especially surprising, given the context. But, consider this hypothetical scenario he spun out about the fall of Roe v. Wade, before the Supreme Court actually overturned it. If abortion became illegal in his state (Ohio), he worried, then “every day George Soros sends a 747 to Columbus to load up disproportionately Black women to get them to go have abortions in California. And of course, the left will celebrate this as a victory for diversity — uh, that’s kind of creepy.” He went on to say that, due to the situation’s supposed creepiness, he would be “pretty sympathetic” to some sort of “federal response to prevent it from happening.” Which is itself a pretty creepy prospect."

He said he felt his most “female” on the day he was too weepy to watch Garden State.

He’s outlined a vision for the second Trump presidency that sounds a lot like dictatorship.

"During a 2021 podcast with a prominent men’s-rights activist, Vance called for a “de-woke-ification program” in which the right would “seize the institutions of the left, and turn them against the left.” He went on to say that, should Trump win in 2024, he would encourage his boss to “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country, and say — quoting Andrew Jackson — ‘the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” Based on a recent ABC interview, it sounds like Vance stands by that advice."

These are just snippets of some of the worst of what he's said.

Somehow, I don't think he'd be much better than Trump.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, but I think there's three things about Vance vs Trump that don't scare me.

1. No one is beholden to Vance like they are to Trump.  Vance is less popular among Republicans than Trump, and I don't think Republicans would worship Vance the way they worship Trump.  I think there's a much greater chance that Republicans would push back on Vance in ways that they wouldn't push back on Trump.  If Trump put out a national abortion ban, all Republicans would get behind it because they wouldn't want to alienate Trump's cult base.  Vance has no cult base, and there's no indication that they would all immediately accept Vance if Trump were to die.  Republicans would be free to make the choice that is best for themselves, not necessarily the choice that is best for Trump.

2. I think Vance would take the job seriously in a way that Trump simply won't.  He might want to turn the US into Gilead, but I don't think he's willing to break the law or bully people or manipulate situations in order to do it.  I think he'd try, but he'd try in a way that normal presidents would try.  And if he failed, he'd be upset but he wouldn't burn the whole system down.  Remember that Vance thought Trump was Hitler eight years ago.  That guy is still in there, and without Trump to impress, he might come back out.

3. Anything Vance does (outside of the Supreme Court) can be undone by a future Democratic president.  Even if he guts the federal government per Project 2025, that can be fixed.  Any laws he passes can be undone.  Even the Supreme Court is fixable by adding members to balance things out.  But the point is that we need to have a future Democratic president for that to work.  If Trump suspends elections, there's a chance that he appoints his son to succeed him and then America is finished.  America would be in bad hands with Vance, but there's a chance it's still America.  The boat would be off course, but it wouldn't be destroyed.  Trump will aim the ship right at an iceberg, and there would be no saving it.

I'll take off course.  It means we still have a ship.

Again.  In no way saying Vance is good.  He sucks.  But Vance is, at least in my humble opinion, a significantly safer option for the future of the country and dangerous in a different (and less permanent) way.  Maybe Vance would execute rivals and use the military to attack political opponents and bow down to dictators.  But I don't think he would, and that would make me feel so much better with a Vance presidency.

3,312 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-14 12:29:55)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Yeah, but I think there's three things about Vance vs Trump that don't scare me.

1. No one is beholden to Vance like they are to Trump.  Vance is less popular among Republicans than Trump, and I don't think Republicans would worship Vance the way they worship Trump.  I think there's a much greater chance that Republicans would push back on Vance in ways that they wouldn't push back on Trump.  If Trump put out a national abortion ban, all Republicans would get behind it because they wouldn't want to alienate Trump's cult base.  Vance has no cult base, and there's no indication that they would all immediately accept Vance if Trump were to die.  Republicans would be free to make the choice that is best for themselves, not necessarily the choice that is best for Trump.

2. I think Vance would take the job seriously in a way that Trump simply won't.  He might want to turn the US into Gilead, but I don't think he's willing to break the law or bully people or manipulate situations in order to do it.  I think he'd try, but he'd try in a way that normal presidents would try.  And if he failed, he'd be upset but he wouldn't burn the whole system down.  Remember that Vance thought Trump was Hitler eight years ago.  That guy is still in there, and without Trump to impress, he might come back out.

3. Anything Vance does (outside of the Supreme Court) can be undone by a future Democratic president.  Even if he guts the federal government per Project 2025, that can be fixed.  Any laws he passes can be undone.  Even the Supreme Court is fixable by adding members to balance things out.  But the point is that we need to have a future Democratic president for that to work.  If Trump suspends elections, there's a chance that he appoints his son to succeed him and then America is finished.  America would be in bad hands with Vance, but there's a chance it's still America.  The boat would be off course, but it wouldn't be destroyed.  Trump will aim the ship right at an iceberg, and there would be no saving it.

I'll take off course.  It means we still have a ship.

Again.  In no way saying Vance is good.  He sucks.  But Vance is, at least in my humble opinion, a significantly safer option for the future of the country and dangerous in a different (and less permanent) way.  Maybe Vance would execute rivals and use the military to attack political opponents and bow down to dictators.  But I don't think he would, and that would make me feel so much better with a Vance presidency.

1. True.

2. Also some good points.

3. Absolutely.

My point...most of this hinges on the fact that Trump is not going to suspend elections. But, he means what he says 99.9% of the time. And he has stated that "if you vote for me this time (November 2024) you will never have to vote for me again." That part is what's terrifying.

I fear that November 2024 was our last election to really get anything meaningful accomplished. It's possible the entire democratic party is now done. Ukraine is gone. All of our overseas allies are gone. And unless anything else is done and proven enough to where they can overturn it, I doubt America will survive.

Assuming Trump does suspend elections permanently (and perhaps suspend the democratic party), I guess we will finally have our first woman President in 2028 with President Ivanka Trump. Or President Russian Agent Tulsi Gabbard.

American isolationism (America First) will lead us to the next great depression, as it did in 1929 when it was first championed by one Charles Lindbergh. It led us there because we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world, charging tariffs, and other financial mistakes that should not have to be repeated in a modern society. The isolation approach of the new Trump administration 2.0 is terrifying because it adopts all of the same policies, and it will cripple our economy as Trump and Musk make way for Crypto. Even the top 1% will have a very bad time unless they have risk mitigation measures in place for their finances.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree.  And that's why I'm good with Vance because I don't think he'd do most of that.  I don't think he'd suspend elections, I think he'd allow for free and fair elections, and I think he would accept results that he didn't like. 

The good news is that Trump is very old and unlikely to be in good health.  I think he'll die sooner than later which means we might only have to live a decade at most under a Trump dynasty.  If he hands things over to someone like Vance, maybe he would restore democracy.  I don't know.  But considering what he eats and how he eats while getting zero exercise, I don't think he lives that long.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I agree.  And that's why I'm good with Vance because I don't think he'd do most of that.  I don't think he'd suspend elections, I think he'd allow for free and fair elections, and I think he would accept results that he didn't like. 

The good news is that Trump is very old and unlikely to be in good health.  I think he'll die sooner than later which means we might only have to live a decade at most under a Trump dynasty.  If he hands things over to someone like Vance, maybe he would restore democracy.  I don't know.  But considering what he eats and how he eats while getting zero exercise, I don't think he lives that long.

Your first point is interesting, Slider_Quinn21. I tend to think JD is just going to be a younger version of Trump except 1. He doesn't command the loyalty or the follower demand like you mentioned, 2. He has called Trump America's Hitler. So...I'll keep that in the back of my mind. I just don't know.

I really hope you're right on your second point. But, Trump's father lived to be about 94 so they do have longevity... (I'm trying not to think about that right now)...

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slate offers Trump some passingly friendly advice: do nothing and coast on Biden's achievements.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … riffs.html

(We all know he won't.)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I really hope you're right on your second point. But, Trump's father lived to be about 94 so they do have longevity... (I'm trying not to think about that right now)...

It's possible that he has good genes.  But remember two things:

1. This is a very overweight man who eats extremely poorly.  Even if he and his father ate the same exact foods, the food that Trump eats is going to have more fat, more artificial ingredients, more sugar, more chemicals, etc.  Trump also gets almost no exercise from what we can tell.  He golfs a lot, but he's not walking the course or carrying his own clubs.  And depending on how much work he's actually going to do as president, he's going to get very little sleep and will almost certainly have a high level of stress either way.  A human heart can only take so much.

2. Trump doesn't listen to actual advice.  So if a normal doctor saw a patient exactly like Trump and recommended additional exercise or a statin for cholesterol or less sodium in his diet, etc, then the patient might listen to the doctor and take steps to improve his health.  1) Trump wouldn't listen 2) The doctor won't tell him any of that.  Trump wants to hear that he's in perfect health with no issues and will live forever no matter what he does.  So I assume Trump has issues that any man his age would have, and I assume he's not getting any treatment for it.  Unless they're secretly slipping it into his food or something.  Trump would fire any doctor that said he wasn't in perfect healthy, and Ronny Jackson sure as heck isn't going to tell him anything is wrong.

With those two things in mind, we can't even count on Trump having the best modern medicine in the world.  He's an old fat guy who has a yes man as a doctor.  He was already on a limited timeframe, and God willing, that time is running out.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A lot of left-leaning people are following Slider_Quinn21's lead and just disengaging from news and social media:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … e-00189655

The exhaustion of the Resistance anti-Trumpers is palpable.

That said... I am not sure Trump can really suspend future elections or that he would have any support to do so. Even if Republicans have little regard for civil liberties and democracy, they ultimately want the system of government which they have shamelessly exploited for their own gain to continue after Trump has run his last campaign or passed away.

They plan on being around after Trump; Trump installing himself as dictator for life would leave a power vacuum and a chaotic situation beyond their control when he dies. Government would be fractured into separate fiefdoms and competing factions. The loss of central control and authority would turn their luxurious lives of playing politics into a desperate struggle for power.

Trump hardly has that many years left. I can't see the Supreme Court or the House or the Senate suspending elections when they plan to exist after Trump is gone and depend on the legitimacy of running for office or being appointed by those who ran for office. They wouldn't maintain elections out of morality and ethics, however, as much as out of maintaining a system they've turned to their advantage while maintaining a facade of being respectable.

I think is more likely that Trump and government would make voting as inconvenient and difficult as possible for Democrats, mount legal challenges to vote counts, try to stop counts. That's also definitely of concern. And the VP might refuse to certify the results of the election. But if Trump isn't running in 2028, will a future Republican candidate have the cultlike devotion that Trump has to engage in 2020 style election denlalism?

The situation is bad, but I am not sure it is hopeless.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

See, I thought that before.  I thought that Republicans would use Trump to get control of the White House and when it became convenient to remove him and install their guy (Pence), they would.  Not only did they not do that when they had the chance (the first impeachment), they didn't even do it when it was politically convenient (the second impeachment).  I was confident that the Supreme Court, with nothing really owed to Trump anymore (since he can't give them anything they don't already have), would do the right thing and confirm that the president doesn't have full immunity for crimes.  Not only did they not, but they gave him everything he wanted.

Republicans stood by Trump despite the fact that he tried to overthrow the government, tried to hoard national secrets for God knows what, and when he was convicted of felony offenses.  I don't see any reason they wouldn't follow him down any road.  And once Trump crosses the dictator threshold, he also has fear as a weapon to keep people in line.  If he executes a political rival or two, his allies are less likely to do anything about it.  When he controls law enforcement and the judges, there's not a whole lot he can't do.

Maybe Trump doesn't want any of that.  Maybe he just wants to live in the White House and have people call him Mr. President.  Maybe getting the DOJ to dismiss the crimes against him was enough.  And maybe he doesn't want to "run" again in 2028.  Maybe we have built up a version of our heads of Trump that doesn't exist.

But if that version of Trump does exist, I don't think there's any limit to what he would do, and I don't think there's anything he couldn't do.  He has enough support in Congress, he has control of the Supreme Court to do whatever he wants, he has control of law enforcement to put down any sort of resistance, and he has control of the military if he needs more control.

Maybe he will be a normal president.  But if not, we are all very much at his mercy.

(Just my opinion.  Do not let my fear mongering impact your lives.)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My understanding of the ruling: Trump only has immunity for actions relating to core presidential powers and official acts. Elections do not fall under the banner of core presidential powers and official acts. The Supreme Court ruling is unjust, abhorrent and stretches the limits of the presidential office -- but not to the extent of empowering Trump to stop elections.

The ruling gives Trump immunity in command of the military, in influencing the department of justice, executing laws, and control of the executive branch, and that is a disturbing amount of power. But elections are the domain of the individual Secretary of States or Lieutenant Governors, not the president.

Why did the conservative Supreme Court justices do this? They have been trying to secure minority rule for decades and Trump's case allowed them to consolidate more power for conservative presidents and to remove the levers that Democrats might pull to constrain conservatives. Trump suited their agenda.

The ruling doesn't define official acts in order to allow assassination. While Trump commands the military, commanding assassinations and massacres in violation of domestic and international law would see at least some degree of military resistance and refusal and be considered both an illegal order and an unofficial act.

Even with loyalist generals and promised pardons, military personnel could find themselves facing state level and international charges. It would lead to military walkouts or infighting or both as well as international condemnation, sanctions and diplomatic withdrawals.

This isn't like ARROW where every police officer magically became a loyal henchman when Diaz was blackmailing the city and police administration. At the same time, that resistance would not necessarily be throughout or consistent... so the situation would be messy and chaotic as opposed to cleanly in Trump's control.

Could Trump use the core powers he does have to make voting difficult? Yes, but I don't think he could do away with elections or pressure enough states to go along with it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Onion buys Alex Jones' InfoWars. LOL.
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna180184

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I sincerely hope that you're correct, ireactions.  I'm sure, to some level, I'm just being an alarmist, but here's the scenario I'm talking about.  And here are all the roadblocks I think Trump can throw in front of any opposition.

Now, first, I want to say that I don't foresee Trump simply saying "I'm king now, no more elections."  I think it would be more strategic than that, and he'd use the powers available to him to do it.  I think Trump's DOJ (using loyalists) would come out with a report of a major election fraud scheme for either 2026 or 2028.  It would have "evidence" of crimes in a number of states (including all battleground states) orchestrated by Democrats.  This could be combined with indictments of Trump's political enemies in these states to make it look legitimate.  Trump's FBI would also come out with raids and large demonstrations of evidence.

It would be BS, but it would look official.  I assume journalists and whistleblowers in the FBI and DOJ would come out and say the report is untrue, but would people believe them?

Trump would announce that, temporarily, elections are suspended until the investigation concludes.  I would think either the date would be undetermined, a dummy date would be established, or they would just say all terms are extended until the next major election date (2028 to 2030 or 2026 to 2028).  So now there's an "independent" report of massive election fraud that half the country will be inclined to believe.  Would Republican senators and congressmen fall for it?  My assumption is yes, and even if enough would impeach Trump, I don't know if enough would convict because you'd need almost 50% of Republican senators to vote for that.  And, remember, there would be an official report including "evidence" that a lot of Republicans would instantly believe because it plays into the narrative.  Conservative media and social media would be parroting the report and the evidence, and Trump would be hailed as a hero who ended election fraud in the country.

There would certainly be unrest in the country, but I think any unrest could be easily subdued by police, the national guard, and the military.  I think the standard citizen would be powerless to do anything.

But let's say that people didn't believe it and Trump was impeached and convicted.  And let's say that he was indicted for crimes because he doesn't technically have control over elections.  His first move in that case would be to claim that he is immune because his actions were official acts.  He oversees the DOJ so he can order them to do whatever he wants, whether it's legal or not.  He just had the report created and released, and then he just recommended that there be no elections.  Then Congress and the states went along with it.  He's totally immune.

If a judge says that he's not immune, he appeals to the Supreme Court.  Do they believe him?

Now maybe Trump not going to prison for election crimes isn't the worst thing in the world.  In this scenario, he isn't president and elections happened.  But it took the media being allowed to report on it, whistleblowers being allowed to speak out, enough people in important positions either believing the report to be untrue or believing the report to be irrelevant, enough congressmen to impeach, enough senators to convict, either a Republican attorney general brave enough to indict his own president or a Democrat has to win in 2028 to assign an attorney general to indict, courts have to believe that Trump is committing an unofficial act or the Supreme Court has to believe it, and then a jury would have to convict.

All that would have to happen for Trump to go to jail.  And that's really the only risk that Trump faces.  It's a fairly remote possibility of jail time as the risk and being king as the reward.

Because I think people would just believe the report, and the lack of elections would simply make people complacent.  The resistance would die down and the Republicans in power would stay in power.  Democrats would get swept up in the investigation, and loyalist Republicans would replace them.  And people wouldn't care because most people don't care about politics anyway.

(Again, I'm probably just being an alarmist, but that scenario doesn't seem far fetched to me)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am not saying Trump would not try to do some or all of what you fear -- I'm just questioning whether or not Trump could actually succeed or find the compliance he would need. Trump's goal is to slash the headcount of every federal agency and reduce them all to being staffed solely with loyalists led by loyalists -- except this smaller workforce would then lack the manpower, experience and ability to carry out complex schemes of conspiracy and subterfuge like election sabotage and fraud while being easy for Democrats and media and civil liberties agencies to monitor fully and totally.

Meanwhile, if Trump finds it untenable to make his cutbacks, then we have federal agencies staffed with such a wide range of people, some of whom would follow illegal or fraudulent orders; some of whom would refuse; some of whom would leak them as whistleblowers. There's also the question of whether or not police or military would follow illegal or fraudulent orders or if enough would lose confidence to dissent in the ranks.

Ultimately, if Trump tried to pull any of these, he could undoubtedly go some part of the distance, but he'd face chaos and a rise to civil war. That's bad in itself; I just don't think Trump has the masterful control to have the outcomes that he would seek from these gambits. Republicans have bowed to Trump over and over again because he served their own ambitions, but I am not sure if illegality that would lead to resistance in the ranks and civil conflict would serve them or their wish to live in luxury as professional politicians.

I don't think your scenario is farfetched in what Trump might want attempt, but the results would be messy and explosive as opposed to triumph and dominance for Trump.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Two contrary perspectives:

The Bulwark says Democrats is doing fine with outreach to working class voters but have drifted too far left for most of them and warns that left wing populism is too weak to overcome right wing populism, and Democrats must pursue centrist policies to win Democrats and Republicans alike: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democrats- … the-allure

The Jacobin says Harris wasted her time trying to campaign as an acceptable candidate to Republicans instead of offering left wing populism and major structural change needed to help the working class, and that Democrats depend on wealthy donors who are squeezing the very voters Democrats need to win: https://jacobin.com/2024/11/harris-trum … ts-workers

I wonder where the truth is and if Slider_Quinn21 will tell me.

3,324 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-17 09:18:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Just an aside:

Adam Schiff was on Jake Tapper on CNN this morning talking about Trump calling him the Enemy Within. He addressed what voters were talking about on the streets re: them wanting somebody who will address the economy, and other issues. The thing is, that Kamala brought up and addressed every single issue Schiff cited in her speeches. Better and more effective than Trump ever did. She brought up and addressed her plan very specifically at every opportunity, while Trump only had "concepts of a plan".

Am I the only one who paid attention? Trump attacked Kamala constantly with racist epithets and other attacks and staged Nazi rallies in the last days of his campaign. Didn't even address these issues. Even threatened to go after anybody talking bad about him, threatened to assassinate Liz Cheney and threatened to shoot members of the press.

But yet, voters say she won't "address the economy"? I call BS. And it makes me so mad anytime anyone says this because it's literally her entire speech. Ugh. Her whole entire agenda was about the economy and lifting up everybody, not just the very rich billionaires. Trump literally said nothing and had no plan.

Even Ruben Gallego on right now - economy, economy, economy "if my paycheck's less it doesn't matter what the GDP is"...Kamala said she'd be addressing price gouging, providing incentives for small businesses, reducing taxes, etc. and solving all of this. Trump had "concepts of a plan". Exactly what part of this am I supposed to believe that they simply are not addressing the root problem: overt racism and outright misogyny? Sticking their heads in the sand as usual. Playing the blame game and deflecting rather than addressing the real problems. It's not the economy. The economy was just an excuse not to vote for a black woman.

I don't want to watch any news anymore. All it does is make my blood pressure boil. But it's still better than sticking my head in the sand I guess. My blood pressure will probably be 350 over 900 by the time this new administration is over.

3,325 (edited by Grizzlor 2024-11-17 10:54:37)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The election was in many cases inevitable.  Incumbents lost around the world, far worse in places like Britain, due to runaway inflation.  This was somewhat "delayed" by the Dobbs decision in 2022, which converted a likely red wave into a trickle, and clearly put Dem cheerleaders into a state of false hopes.  For one, midterms, and Dems should be poised for a comeback in '26, feature high-propensity voters in a larger way.  They are more educated, and afluent.  In the general, you get the "rank and file," people who don't bother to vote otherwise.  In the case of Trump, who has solely been responsible for an unprecedented turn out with his base for three general's now.  Yes, Harris improved slightly on some Biden demos, but lost on others.  Most of those losses wound up being in blue states (more on that later), and did not affect the outcome very much.  This was the case with the "red" Latino shift.  No, what got Trump elected was what worked in 2016.  He pushed a simpler message, albeit intertwined with idiocy and intolerance, but populism DOES work, to some extent.  That resulted in large-scale growth of his base, but he also mastered independent, late-deciding, and most of all, "new voters."  I myself will take the hit for dismissing the scattershot Musk-led approach of pushing low-information, low-engagement people, particularly younger men, into voting Trump.  This was highly evident in the large number of ticket splitting and Trump-only votes cast in BG states.  Harris and Democrats deserve credit for bucking a lot of this, to ensure that numerous Democrats won razor-thin races in Congress, which she lost. 

So what did it?  Well, I have digested copious amounts of Monday morning quarterbacking the last few weeks, and the consensus doesn't move far from the mean on what I feel are these main points....

1. Joe Biden lost this election.  Trump did a lot, as I point out above, to get the numbers to win it in a more decisive fashion, and a hand-cuffed Harris did all she could, in a comically short amount of time.  In reality, she had no chance.  Joe Biden passed some significant legislation during his first two years, no question, but most of it has and will continue to take time to get going.  Still, he made several poor decisions during that time which came back to haunt him.  All of which resulted in a horrible "wrong track" and Pres approval rating which NO incumbent party or Pres has ever won on. 

  a. Inflation.  Biden insisted on the massive "American Rescue Plan," a $1.9 TRILLION dollar stimulus, which on top of what Trump had doled out, likely superheated the economy, and exacerbated inflation.  Economists of all stripes warned against this.  Biden calculated that job growth was more important than anything, and while he still might be correct, the public was hit with inflation that half or more of the population had never experienced before.  I was a wee toddler when Carter's inflation broke his administration, and allowed Reagan to breeze in. 
  *I would point out that the Federal Reserve increased inflation by purchasing debt securities as protection against pandemic economic downturn.

  b. Dysfunction.  The Afghanistan withdrawal was a complete fiasco.  Yes, Trump set that on its way with his Taliban deal, and yes, the Afghan Army had given up.  However, bipartisan Congressional panels found that the US military's recommendations were countermanded by Biden's own impatience on the subject.  In the long run, the USA is better off being out, but the perception of dysfunction was very damaging.  Biden's foreign affairs continued to take a hit, when his initial Ukraine successes have morphed into a near three-year stalemate, as he's kept Ukraine from neither advancing nor ceding the battlefield, out of concern over a wider conflict.  Biden's strategy has been a failure, because Trump is likely months away from shifting course entirely anyway.  On Gaza, Biden's hard line against the IDF's systematic destruction of the Palestinian enclave, followed by attacks in Lebanon and Iran, have all followed Biden's hollow admonishments.  He and by virtue, Harris, have shown to be largely ineffective on the world stage.  Not that strong man Trump was any better prior, but world events have not gone their way.

  There was of course, nothing more dysfunctional than Joe Biden's immigration policy.  After the health order was struck down in 2021, his administration made an absolute, buffoonish move to take America's limited, and extremely specific asylum language, and throw it out the door.  This was down without Congressional approval, and resulted in a non-stop border incursion that officials did nothing to stem.  The policy completely blew up in their faces when DeSantis and Abbott decided to bus migrants to Northern "sanctuary cities,"  which were overwhelmed, and pissed millions of people off, primarily working class voters of color.  The lack of a plan or any kind of structure made Biden again look totally inept.

  c. "Lawfare." The four-sided indictments handed Donald Trump, a weakened candidate who was unsure of his future, and trailing Ron DeSantis badly, the GOP nomination.  Now, I don't know if you can "blame" Joe Biden for this or not, directly, but he certainly could have made a call, and not allowed it to happen.  I said at the time, this was risky.  The GA and NY cases were a complete joke, and one will never see the light of day, and the other is likely to be thrown out on appeal.  Those Democratic prosecutors bowed to party pressure to move forward, buoyed by the cover given from Jack Smith's dual-prosecutions.  Even there, only one of them had a real shot, the Jan 6th case, which the Supreme Court gutted regardless.  Again, Trump was flailing away to nothing when these prosecutors, plus the idiots in Colorado who tried to toss him from the ballot, only supercharged his campaign and made him a martyr. 

  d. Not dropping out.  Joe Biden got a lot done with Democrat majorities through 2022, he should have taken the hints, and moved aside.  I've said before, I'm not sure if ANY Democrat would eventually have beaten Trump with the wrong track numbers where they were.  But they had a chance, and those chances faded when Biden pressed on.  The result were near-constant gaffes, and the White House seemingly "hiding" the President from the public during the past two years.  Say what you will about Trump's lunacy during the pandemic, but he was visible and audible throughout.  To his detriment, but when voters had the choice, they decided that Trump's pandemic response, at the time one-sided towards the economy, was something they wanted more of now.  Harris was a good campaigner, but she was hand-cuffed.  She was given Biden's campaign team, the same team that managed to see him achieve abysmal approval ratings, and who's management came to an embarrassing conclusion with the June debate, and clearly advised her NOT to attack her boss.  The result was that swing voters saw her as "more of the same," and a non-starter.  A full primary process was needed, and not in August of 2024 but in 2023!!!  Biden's refusal to move aside doomed his party's ticket.  It made their "democracy" claim worthless, given that their candidate was nominated without a single vote.

Alright, enough shitting on Joe.  Is the Democrat Party dead?  LOL, of course not.  Even bad parties in a 50/50 country are still going to compete, you never know what the next big over-reach of the ruling party will be.  They always over-reach.  For me, there are two types of voter-movement which affected Democrats this time.

2. The swing voter, he or she of low-turnout, low-information, and low-engagement politically.  He or She who apparently cannot be accurately polled.  What DO these indecisive people care about?  Well this time around, it was the cost of living primarily.  Costs which Democrats have just not done much about, at least in a meaningful way.  Has anyone wondered why there is a massive, long-term move from blue states to red ones?  Yeah, yeah, there's cultural reasons, but that's not the cause.  The cause is money.  Places like California and New York, which shed citizens at record levels, did so because they are high tax, high cost environments.  They keep raising taxes and tolls, and people are not only tired of it, they cannot afford it.  This has been happening even before COVID, and the exodus is a major problem.  States like Texas, Florida, Carolinas, Tennessee, Georgia Arizona, etc, all will gain electoral votes, and they are increasingly tough for Democrats in.  There was a time when the Democrat Party was focuses on cost of living issues primarily, in additional to environment, public health, and education.  Well, they continue to fail on the first one.  Housing construction favors the wealthy, with lower income folks increasingly priced out and forced to move, weakening their voter base.  This is a national issue.

3. The higher propensity voter shift has continued to be an issue.  This began in 2016, and aside from a massive stay-at-home vote turnout from 2020, has gotten worse.  These are voters who vote semi-regularly, watch the news, discuss politics, and leaned center to left for most of their lives.  This voter has moved, and for this election, they flat out RAN away from the Democratic party.  They are not MAGA.  They are not Republican.  They are 1000% ANTI-WOKE.  That's right, the Democratic Party's allegiance to coastal, university wokism has ruined this party.  It has promoted an agency not of equality but equity, a reverse racism which even minorities themselves have polled as being against.  Terms like DEI were publicly admonished by growing legions of moderate and center-left individuals.  The backlash to corporate DEI was devastating. 

  Then there's the criminal justice aspect, which has been been maybe the most damaging to the left.  Beginning with canonizing George Floyd, Democrats in cities began to tie the hands of law enforcement.  The result was widespread crime, both petty and violent.  Added to the violence from some freely roaming migrants, almost all individuals having been stopped by police, only to be let back on the street due to progressive Judges.  Nowhere has this been more devastating than the metropolises of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, where voters had massive pro-Trump shifts, and voted out a number of progressive mayors, district attorney's and others.  The cities have been turned into cesspools.  Suburban voters have been treated to non-stop coverage of the insanity for four years. 

  These voters and more are sick and tired with Wokism.  They are fed up with statues of Jefferson or Hamilton being removed and hidden from view.  They're fed up with drag queen story hour.  They're fed up with PRONOUNS.  They're fed up with being told what vaccines you must have, or masks you must wear.  Fed up with Columbus Day being converted to Indigenous Day.  Fed up with BOYS competing in GIRLS sports.  Fed up when the media does things like "hide the Hunter Biden laptop story" or cancel people for questioning public health decisions made, as it turned out, without scientific backing.  Most of all, they're fed up with the social media left calling them racists or transphobic or garbage, simply because the LEFT has invented new ways to Nanny-State people.  I was flippant to this myself, thinking well it's just MAGA whiners or libertarian martyrs.  NO, it's a significant portion of the population.  It's growing, and worse of all for Democrats, it's gaining MASSIVE ground with voters 30 and under, especially men.  When Joe Rogan laughs at some of the ridiculous nonsense the woke come out with, most of young America laughs WITH him.  Democrats will never come back significantly unless they divorce themselves from this idiotic wokism once and for all, as the future demographics are not in their favor on this.  You cannot have lousy economic conditions for young people (particularly men) AND put cultural dog collars and leashes on them.  George Orwell hath spoken.

So yeah, that was a LOT to read.  I expect Trump's Presidency to come up short on most of what he promised, as he's an awful manager of everything, and is surrounded by vultures.  He'll tire of Elon Musk quickly.  I'm most intrigued to see how long RFK Jr. lasts, as though I support a good part of his health platform, I cannot see where it goes.  Case in point, on the other night's Real Time series, while the panel, including noted health expert Dr. Casey Means, applauded Bobby Jr's initiatives, Bill Maher, the skeptic laughed.  When they all complained about America's ill health being driven by fast food, Bill stated the obvious, people eat McDonald's because it's "FUCKING DELICIOUS."  They all were incredulous, but once again, the comedian had it right.  Just like Joe Rogan or John Olliver or Dave Chappelle, always keep your ears open for the comics, because they are the first ones willing to say what the public cannot.  The woke have attacked them to no end, I wonder why?  They saw through the B.S.

3,326 (edited by ireactions 2024-11-17 12:52:39)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor's take makes the most sense to me.

According to Axios, Biden's stimulus, while well-intentioned and not the sole cause of inflation, added about 3 percent for a total of 7 percent, and that addition caused the increase in federal borrowing rates.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/10/trump- … -inflation

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco says, however, without stimulus, the economy might have tipped into deflation and been even harder for everyone -- but regardless, Democrats were associated with rising prices.
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insi … inflation-

As a person who identifies with wokeism -- it's obviously not a winning political message and comes off as cultural policing. Even Andrew Yang of the Forward Party says so. It seems we need the non-woke vote to win. https://www.andrewyang.com/blog/abandon … -behaviors

It would probably be best to focus on making life better for the working class by serious and meaningful structural changes to challenge corporate exploitation of labour instead of a tax credit here and a subsidy there that only helps the middle class.

As much as public health is a political issue of policy, do vaccines and masks really need to be a political item anymore? Use them if you want them (which I do), no need to be offended by anyone who doesn't.

3,327 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-18 03:58:35)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Grizzlor's take makes the most sense to me.

As much as public health is a political issue of policy, do vaccines and masks really need to be a political item anymore? Use them if you want them (which I do), no need to be offended by anyone who doesn't.

That, in general, is a question to ask Trumpers. They're the ones who refuse to follow the rules and wear masks and vaccinate. Dems, as a rule, do not. Until that happens, they will continue to be society's self-proclaimed victims.

There actually is a reason to vilify them because not wearing them harms everybody. Not vaccinating kids in school harms other children and can cause outbreaks. It can harm herd immunity and provide a breakthrough point for mutated viruses to take hold. There is at least one case of Polio in New York now. The disease had been completely wiped out. All thanks to anti-vaxxers who refuse modern medicine because of some horrific mutation of incorrect information they saw online.

I think I have a right to be offended by somebody who chooses to buck science and medical doctors because they are too stupid to see why it's important and they believe FOX News. I think I have a right to be offended by somebody who thinks aborting a 5mm zygote is equal to aborting a human being in the 9th month, and they actually think 9th month abortions actually happen. I think I have a right to be offended by somebody who completely rejects science and refuses to do anything about it. And I think they should continue to be ostracized by society because of it as a form of punishment.

I don't want their vote to contribute if I have to not be offended just so they can have the freedom to base their decisions on unfounded unscientific information because facts are less entertaining to them.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor, I was with you for most of that, but I think there are some issues.

What is woke and who is cheerleading it?  I never heard Kamala Harris talk about anything that you referred to.  I never heard her champion DEI or boys playing girls sports or downplaying Hunter Biden's laptop or critical race theory or any of that.  Now Republicans were speaking out against it, but they've essentially made up a word with no definition and are staunchly against it.  And it can include tons of things that can change on the day, and it's usually something that is happening so rarely that it's affecting almost no one's actual lives.  As I said, two prisoners got sex change operations, and Ted Cruz essentially won his race on that point alone.

So how do you fight that?  If I said that Grizzlor has children-eating invisible goblins in his house that he controls with his mind, how would Grizzlor defend himself?  He could let people into his home to see that there are no goblins there, but they're invisible and he controls them with his mind.  Of course you can't see or hear them, or maybe he hid them in Dimension Z while investigators are there.  People don't have to provide proof that any children were eaten because the media covers it up or the investigators are corrupt or whatever.  And any expert that Grizzlor brings to proves that invisible goblins don't exist is obviously biased.

Meanwhile, Grizzlor has now spent hours and hours of his time trying to defend himself against something that some idiot made up that is impossible to prove.

Now Democrats could come out against all those things, but herein lies the problem.  If you speak out against them, you lose voters on the left.  There are people that benefit from DEI, there are people that enjoy doing drag shows, there are trans kids that want to play sports.  If they spoke out against everything that conservative media defines as "woke" (which, again, changes regularly and could be anything), they'd essentially be ceding all social progressivism.  What if Republicans define gay marriage as woke?  Or interracial marriage as woke?  Or Brown vs Board of Education as woke?  Do Democrats have to come out in favor of segregation because they have to fight woke so that they don't lose elections?

I still maintain that the number one reason Republicans are winning is because they have all the stupid people.  Stupid people believe whatever they hear from whoever they like the most.  They've convinced themselves that Donald Trump is the smartest man on the planet, and that whatever he says is the truth.  They've convinced themselves that kids are getting involuntary sex changes when schools don't even let kids take an aspirin without parental approval.  They've convinced themselves that there are millions of invisible child-eating goblins out to get them all over the world.

Stupid people can easily get conned, and that's what happened.  They all got conned.  When stupid people are evenly distributed in both parties, then this stuff doesn't work.  If I say that there are child-eating goblins and Grizzlor says there aren't, then half the people believe me and half believe him.

The good news is that stupid people are going to suffer big time under Trump.  They're going to be absolutely wiped out both economically and physically.  I think a lot of them are going to believe when they're being told that it's raining (and it's not you know what), but a lot of them are finally going to realize they've been lied to.  And if that convinces enough of them to go back to Democrats, then I think we might have something resembling a fair system again.

But if they all continue to believe in Donald Trump no matter how bad their lives are, then Democrats will be battling invisible child-eating goblins forever.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

About Democratic party messaging...I've been thinking about ways to communicate my point better, but this post writes and communicates it perfectly.

So, I will just leave this here.

No, the Democratic Party Can't "Message Better" to Racism, Misogyny, and Ignorance

https://johnpavlovitz.substack.com/p/no … nt-message

In the wake of the election results, one of the most common media postmortems has been the Democratic Party’s supposed failure to reach those Americans who they were unable to persuade over the course of the campaign; rural and working class voters, especially. The airways have been filled with politicians and talking heads offer their critiques and suggestions on how Democrats need to rethink how they are messaging.

I’m sorry, but that’s largely nonsense.

This election result isn't about Dem messaging.

Their messaging during the campaign was pitch-perfect in any other iteration of America. It was about helping the middle class, lowering taxes for the average American, continuing with sound economic policies to cut rising grocery prices, preserving democracy, taxing the wealthy, affordable healthcare and education, the rights of women, strengthening the border, unity, opportunity.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz formed a balanced ticket filled with character, intellect, and genuine love for this country, and they eloquently delivered their vision beautifully. Their respective resumes contained exemplary histories of their work on behalf of the working people of this nation. They were experienced, mature, and competent.

And none of these realities could overcome the America that we’ve become—or at least a sizable portion of it has.

This election result isn’t about policy or platform, it’s about racism, misogyny, lack of education—and a Right-wing media machine that caters to those realities.

There is no messaging strategy that can overcome deeply-held prejudice and rising ignorance, and those two factors are the only explanation for someone like Donald Trump even being the nominee, let alone getting 76 million votes.

Trump neither attempted to embrace working Americans nor offer them any substantive plans to help them, because he knew he didn’t need to. He simply peddled wild, racist fever-dreams and continually repeated grotesque fabricated nightmares about immigrants eating pets and sex-change operations on middle school students, knowing that terrified people without critical thinking skills are an easy mark.

For months, while Kamala Harris and Tim Walz breathlessly traversed the country laying out their concrete plans for a diverse nation where every human being would receive an opportunity to thrive, detailing support for first-time homebuyers and small business owners and adult parental caregivers—Donald Trump and J.D. Vance blasted people with nonsensical verbal-diarrhea rally rants about violent foreign hordes coming to rape women and about child predators lurking in public bathrooms.

And the results were what they were: more people chose a mythical war against non-existent problems, instead of sound policies delivered by reasonable human beings, because at the end of the day, they took the politics of least resistance. They objected to the hours necessary to read platforms and understand the issues at stake, in favor of a cheap and easy high that told them life was simple: everything was bad, enemies were advancing, and their vote would eliminate the bad people.

How the hell do you “message” against that?

Pressed in his disastrous debate with Kamala Harris about his supposed healthcare plan, this several-times bankrupt, convicted felon and court adjudicated rapist who has had four years as president and nearly a decade as the Republican Party’s de-facto leader, admitted to having only “the concept of a plan.” (Translation: the plan, is you getting sick or going broke or dying prematurely.) That alone would and should have disqualified him from office—but he said he’d kick out the black and brown people, erase trans kids, and destroy “wokeness”, so tens of millions of alleged adults said, “Yeah, he’s our guy!”

And people who are that cavalier and careless with something as important as the health and welfare of their families, cannot be reached with any methods, aside from Dems creating a lowest-common denominator, Left propaganda disinformation network that will offer competing simplistic platitudes. And that is a slippery slope, for sure.

We need to stop pretending there is some perfect Democratic candidate or magic messaging, to connecting with people who have abandoned objective reality and complex evaluation, and chosen to embrace their false fears and uninformed phobias— while failing to do the slightest bit of work to know what candidates' policies and plans are, and the complex impact those things will have on their families and workplaces and futures. (The huge spike in Internet searches of things like “How do tariffs work?”, “What is Project 2025?”, “Can they deport legal immigrants?”, and “Can I change my vote?” after the election, shows that whatever people were using to make one of the most consequential decisions in their lifetimes during the campaign, didn’t include the issues or platforms.)

I have always been as still am a registered Independent. Believe me, I know the Democratic Party isn’t perfect and that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz had flaws as any candidates would, but they provided this nation with a ticket and a campaign that should have been enough in the nation that we once were before 2016; before red hat-catch phrases and open racism and dehumanizing language usurped thorough examination of the complicated issues and the solutions to to those problems. Donald Trump invited people to stop thinking and to let fear lead them, and I’m not sure how we reverse that.

Kamala Harris and the Dems didn't fail America, they just exist in a nation where far too many people don't pay attention or care to understand what's actually happening.

Maybe more of them will now.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The upshot of this editorial: Kamala Harris was a great candidate, Democrats couldn't and shouldn't do anything differently to win elections from now on. What exactly is the point of this? Kamala Harris isn't going to be president, so describing her merits is pointless. If this person -- or anyone, really -- won't discuss and can't think of what Democrats might do to stop losing elections, then I wonder why they bothered to write a column at all.

I wonder why anyone produces political opinions that contain no ideas, suggestions or anything that is in any way productive or useful. Or why they think idea-free, suggestion-vacant, non-constructive responses are a worthwhile contribution in discussing what Democrats might do to start winning elections again.

Perhaps, if they have no ideas on how Democrats might do to win from now on, they could... apply their pen to some other field.

**

Speaking as someone who masks and uses vaccines, democratic people don't force others to wear headgear they don't want and get injections they don't want. Someone who believes in democracy will recommend and encourage, oppose misinformation, and respect individual choice. And given how a two point shift in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania would have won Kamala Harris the election, the Democratic Party isn't in any shape to disdain people whose votes they need.

The contempt and disdain for people who voted Trump or don't mask or don't vaccinate may be very satisfying from a personal standpoint, but it isn't very helpful in terms of political campaigns and political messaging.

**

The issue of misinformation that Slider_Quinn21 describes reflects how Republicans have now dominated the mediasphere. Voters supported health care, minimum wage increases and other progressive ballot measures but didn't support progressive candidates enough to win the election. This means that Democrats' progressive platforms are not reaching low information voters sufficiently to identify the ballot measures they want with the party that supports them.

This is also the result of a weak Democratic media presence and strategy. President Biden was distant and hidden away from the press and felt absent. Democrats have for too long only tried to be present in media in the months leading to elections and on being a strong presence in key swing states, with Harris' 107 day campaign trying to eke out a narrow victory.

Democrats need to be more present and central in media, both through current broadcast and social media networks and in producing a left of center, fact-oriented media system to compete with the right.

Slider_Quinn21 calls Trump voters "stupid voters". I am going to argue that they are "struggling voters": people with limited media exposure, who maybe can't afford to pay for online newspapers, who are seeing all their news via memes and Twitter, who are so tired from working three jobs and taking care of family that they can't seek out non-partisan or left of center media, with Republican-coverage flooding their line of sight. Democrats and left of center media needs to reach these struggling voters.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Slider_Quinn21 calls Trump voters "stupid voters". I am going to argue that they are "struggling voters": people with limited media exposure, who maybe can't afford to pay for online newspapers, who are seeing all their news via memes and Twitter, who are so tired from working three jobs and taking care of family that they can't seek out non-partisan or left of center media, with Republican-coverage flooding their line of sight. Democrats and left of center media needs to reach these struggling voters.

I'm angry at them so I'm calling them stupid, but you're probably more accurate.  But, at the same time, I can't think of a better word than "stupid" right now.  Because these people choose to believe a reality that is not like the one they are seeing with their own eyes.  They are gaslighting themselves and allowing themselves to be fooled.  They believe nonsense about babies being executed and schools performing complicated surgeries even though that's absolutely ridiculous.  They believe that gas is $8/gallon when they probably pass ten gas stations a day charging a fraction of that.  They believe two prisoners getting sex change operations is a danger to them and their families.

These are people who either can't think critically or refuse to.  To me, that's not ignorance.  It's stupidity.  And I would be angrier at these people except I know they're going to be hurt the worst by what Trump is about to do.  So they'll be punished and don't need any additional attack from me.

3,332 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-19 11:57:23)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions writes that: The upshot of this editorial: Kamala Harris was a great candidate, Democrats couldn't and shouldn't do anything differently to win elections from now on. What exactly is the point of this? Kamala Harris isn't going to be president, so describing her merits is pointless. If this person -- or anyone, really -- won't discuss and can't think of what Democrats might do to stop losing elections, then I wonder why they bothered to write a column at all.

I wonder why anyone produces political opinions that contain no ideas, suggestions or anything that is in any way productive or useful. Or why they think idea-free, suggestion-vacant, non-constructive responses are a worthwhile contribution in discussing what Democrats might do to start winning elections again.

Perhaps, if they have no ideas on how Democrats might do to win from now on, they could... apply their pen to some other field.

He is correct, though. Latino male voters are highly traditionally misogynistic. They believe that a woman's place is in the home: in the kitchen. And nowhere else. If that is indeed how the vote shifted this election cycle, it makes perfect sense. And it also explains why any change in messaging will never reach these voters who are against women in positions of power. It's an unfair and sexist reality, but it's the truth.

And I don't think discussing Kamala's merits are pointless. She's the most qualified candidate for office in 300 years: with decades of experience in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. If this cannot win over racist misogyny, then we are in trouble as a nation and it will only get worse. A quick google search is able to overcome a vast majority of disinformation. Discussing her merits also drives home the point that a highly qualified black woman candidate could not ever overcome a white, 34-time convicted felonious rapist racist con man male candidate who lies every time he opens his damned mouth in this particular generation of voters, sadly.

ireactions also wrote: Slider_Quinn21 calls Trump voters "stupid voters". I am going to argue that they are "struggling voters": people with limited media exposure, who maybe can't afford to pay for online newspapers, who are seeing all their news via memes and Twitter, who are so tired from working three jobs and taking care of family that they can't seek out non-partisan or left of center media, with Republican-coverage flooding their line of sight. Democrats and left of center media needs to reach these struggling voters.

I believe Slider_Quinn21 is correct in that they are "stupid voters" in spite of his anger. All they have to do is turn on MSNBC at any time during the election at appropriate times, and they would see Kamala's excellent speeches and detailed comparisons between the candidates. It's accessible, timely, and present. And it's available on lower TV channels, and MSNBC.com, so the argument of affordability and obscurity is nonsense. They just choose to listen to FOX News instead. They simply choose to pander to racist and misogynistic tropes that feed their motivations and ideals, and refuse to do research on the candidates before casting their votes. This is evident in Google searches for "can I change my vote" reaching over 750% increases after the election, as well as tariff-based queries reaching over 250% increases in Google searches.

Sadly, no, they cannot change their vote. But hopefully by the midterms, they will have a different outlook if they haven't all been deported by the Trump administration by then.

3,333 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2024-11-19 14:04:26)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I believe Slider_Quinn21 is correct in that they are "stupid voters" in spite of his anger. All they have to do is turn on MSNBC at any time during the election at appropriate times, and they would see Kamala's excellent speeches and detailed comparisons between the candidates. It's accessible, timely, and present. And it's available on lower TV channels, and MSNBC.com, so the argument of affordability and obscurity is nonsense. They just choose to listen to FOX News instead. They simply choose to pander to racist and misogynistic tropes that feed their motivations and ideals, and refuse to do research on the candidates before casting their votes.

I think this is part of it but not even all of it.  I don't think people are stupid for not doing full research into everything or watching full speeches or any of that.  I would also say that MSNBC is not without bias, and most analyses of the media landscape call this out.  They don't lie as much Fox, but they're definitely slanted to the left.

And I don't even know if my problem is necessarily where they get their news.  You can watch Fox News and think critically.  My issue is more that people don't have any interest in learning anything.  I think this election might have gone differently if people had bothered to learn what a tariff is and who pays it.  Or understood on any level how the government works.  Or what the Vice President is responsible for.  What the relationship between the president and the  Department of Justice.  What the relationship is between the actions of the president and the economy.  How the economy works and how slowly it moves.  The relationship between the president and Congress and who controls what. 

People basically just said "Kamala Harris is Biden" and "I have a good memory of the year 2017 so Trump must be great" and nothing else.  No one put any more thought into than that, and that's why we are here.  I've seen countless interviews with Trump supporters who have no idea how tariffs work.  Which is fine except that it's clear that Trump has no idea how tariffs work.  People think that Kamala Harris, as VP, had some sort of control over what Biden does when the VP's roles are extremely limited and extremely specific.

I think these voters are stupid because they don't know and they don't want to know.  They fall for dumb little slogans because they want to put absolutely no thought into it.  I don't care how they get their news or what their politics are, but I do care that they have a 6th grade understanding of how the country works.

And we are in this situation because we've allowed the dumbest among us to elect the king of the dummies.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

MSNBC is clearly no longer penetrating the consciousness of the electorate when Republicans have taken over social media and dominate the airwaves, and social media is unfortunately far more ubiquitous than MSNBC.

But speaking of MSNBC, here's an argument from them for Democrats to run on economic populism.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna180615

It actually has some actionable ideas and perspectives as opposed to another pointless "Democrats should change nothing about their losing strategy / Kamala was great / no ideas for how Democrats can win going forward" essay.

It seems to me that the nonsense on the left wing spectrum is coming from anyone who has an ongoing history of harassing others for discussing how Democrats lost the 2024 election, anyone who demands Democrats change nothing about their current trajectory of losing the 2024 election, anyone has no real ideas on how Democrats can win after losing the 2024 election but feels they must regularly convey how they lack any ideas for Democrats to win while belittling anyone else who tries to come up with any.

Democrats lost the election in 2024. That is the current factual premise for political discussion about Democrats in this thread. The Democrat defeat of 2024 is a current event of public record. Anyone who is offended and triggered by discussion of how Democrats lost in 2024 should really seek some other community to discuss politics in their preferred manner.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I think these voters are stupid because they don't know and they don't want to know.  They fall for dumb little slogans because they want to put absolutely no thought into it.  I don't care how they get their news or what their politics are, but I do care that they have a 6th grade understanding of how the country works.

And we are in this situation because we've allowed the dumbest among us to elect the king of the dummies.

On a personal level, it's not your business to care.

On a political level, it would probably be good for the Democratic Party to figure out how these people get their news and what their politics are because, apparently, we need some of their votes to win.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Some interesting analysis on where Kamala Harris' campaign faltered. Critical review is always preferable to cult-like obsequious fawning.

M. Steven Fish:
During the DNC, the Democrats cast Trump as weak and pathetic rather than treating him like an 800-pound gorilla who should terrify us. Harris largely did the same during the debate. The proof of concept was there: When the Democrats switched to a higher-dominance mode, they controlled the narrative, their prospects brightened and Trump stalled.

But the Democrats then reverted to their low-dominance norm. They fell back on their timeworn, futile tactic of ceding the spotlight to Trump. Rather than just ridiculing Trump’s victim complex, promising to kick his self-pitying ass and then immediately directing attention back to their own great plans for the country, the Democrats devoted precious campaign time, especially in the critical homestretch, to repeating Trump’s increasingly outrageous statements and enjoining everyone to join them in being afraid and offended.

I’m hard-pressed to think of a single novel, provocative, brash, daring, or entertaining thing that Harris said during the last seven weeks of the campaign. One consequence was that a lot of people remained unsure what she stood for. Even worse was the widespread suspicion that she didn’t stand for anything.

We all watched the spectacle unfold. How would her policies differ from Biden’s? Well, she couldn’t say but could confirm that her presidency wouldn’t just be a re-run of his. How, then, would it differ? Her answer: Well, you know, her first term wouldn’t just be a Biden second term. How, then, did she vote on California’s Proposition 36, which would recriminalize retail theft and some drug offenses? Her answer: “I am not going to talk about the vote on that.” On immigration: Didn’t she take office seeking to decriminalize illegal border crossings and didn’t she and Biden wait too long to deal with the border problem? Her answer: Our immigration system is broken. Fine, but didn’t she take too long to try to fix it? Her answer: The problem predated Biden and her. OK, but couldn’t they have acted earlier? Her answer: She had prosecuted drug traffickers earlier in her career.

It came to look as if avoiding risk was the name of her game and that her aim was to run out the clock without saying anything controversial. This is what low-dominance politics looks like.

Democrats’ usual way of abnormalizing Trump — did you see what he just said?! Aren’t you scared to death by what this bully is doing?! — has got to stop. That approach only builds Trump up. The only effective way to deal with Trump is to ridicule him, troll him and otherwise diminish him with expressions of disdain and contempt. As we’ve discussed, for a brief period during the campaign, that’s what the Democrats did and it worked wonders. After the Democrats returned to making the election a referendum on Trump and his awfulness, Trump bulldozed them without breaking a sweat.

https://www.salon.com/2024/11/19/how-de … messaging/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

On a political level, it would probably be good for the Democratic Party to figure out how these people get their news and what their politics are because, apparently, we need some of their votes to win.

Oh absolutely.  I think it's vital for democracy for the stupid voters to be split evenly.  They can believe equally that Democrats are pedophiles that drink children's blood to stay young and that Republicans are careless monsters that would gleefully trade a human life for a buck.  We just can't have them all voting one way because a) there are too many of them and b) they are too easily tricked.

I don't know how to get them back.  Too many of them are "Democrats bad, Republicans good" and I don't know how you deprogram people like that on a large scale.  My only hope is that Trump makes life so miserable for all of them that they have no choice but to realize that they've been lied to.  But even then I assume Trump would blame it on "woke" and they'd believe him.

3,338 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-19 21:00:15)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Some interesting analysis on where Kamala Harris' campaign faltered. Critical review is always preferable to cult-like obsequious fawning.

M. Steven Fish:
During the DNC, the Democrats cast Trump as weak and pathetic rather than treating him like an 800-pound gorilla who should terrify us. Harris largely did the same during the debate. The proof of concept was there: When the Democrats switched to a higher-dominance mode, they controlled the narrative, their prospects brightened and Trump stalled.

But the Democrats then reverted to their low-dominance norm. They fell back on their timeworn, futile tactic of ceding the spotlight to Trump. Rather than just ridiculing Trump’s victim complex, promising to kick his self-pitying ass and then immediately directing attention back to their own great plans for the country, the Democrats devoted precious campaign time, especially in the critical homestretch, to repeating Trump’s increasingly outrageous statements and enjoining everyone to join them in being afraid and offended.

I’m hard-pressed to think of a single novel, provocative, brash, daring, or entertaining thing that Harris said during the last seven weeks of the campaign. One consequence was that a lot of people remained unsure what she stood for. Even worse was the widespread suspicion that she didn’t stand for anything.

We all watched the spectacle unfold. How would her policies differ from Biden’s? Well, she couldn’t say but could confirm that her presidency wouldn’t just be a re-run of his. How, then, would it differ? Her answer: Well, you know, her first term wouldn’t just be a Biden second term. How, then, did she vote on California’s Proposition 36, which would recriminalize retail theft and some drug offenses? Her answer: “I am not going to talk about the vote on that.” On immigration: Didn’t she take office seeking to decriminalize illegal border crossings and didn’t she and Biden wait too long to deal with the border problem? Her answer: Our immigration system is broken. Fine, but didn’t she take too long to try to fix it? Her answer: The problem predated Biden and her. OK, but couldn’t they have acted earlier? Her answer: She had prosecuted drug traffickers earlier in her career.

It came to look as if avoiding risk was the name of her game and that her aim was to run out the clock without saying anything controversial. This is what low-dominance politics looks like.

Democrats’ usual way of abnormalizing Trump — did you see what he just said?! Aren’t you scared to death by what this bully is doing?! — has got to stop. That approach only builds Trump up. The only effective way to deal with Trump is to ridicule him, troll him and otherwise diminish him with expressions of disdain and contempt. As we’ve discussed, for a brief period during the campaign, that’s what the Democrats did and it worked wonders. After the Democrats returned to making the election a referendum on Trump and his awfulness, Trump bulldozed them without breaking a sweat.

https://www.salon.com/2024/11/19/how-de … messaging/

I believe this article on "Salon" which is a questionable source is largely unfair. Everyone already knew by then what Kamala stood for: that Israel has and should continue to have the right to defend itself. But that both Israel and Palestine should be able to coexist. What Trump will be doing the first day he is in office? He will be removing all weapons delays to Israel, and Netanyahu will be able to incinerate any and all Palestinians as he pleases. - https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-said-l … 3989.html.

I fully disagree with the assessment that "Trump bulldozed them." No he didn't. He spouted nonsense and hurled racist insults at Kamala and Puerto Ricans, threatened the assassination of political rivals, threatened shooting the press, and could barely string two words together. And he held a 1939-like Nazi Rally at MSG. And he "bulldozed them"? No he didn't. He damned well didn't.

I also fully disagree that the democratic party needs to change. And I am NOT afraid to point the finger where it squarely belongs. The proof will come out. It will. You can continue to hurl name calling and abuse at me because I certainly don't want to talk about "how the democratic party can change". Because that's not the freaking issue. And that is BS largely spread by Bernie who is a senile old coot. And it's gaslighting to tell us that that it is the issue when it's not.

We obviously don't see eye to eye. And that's okay. But you don't have to hurl name calling at me and tell me to leave because for whatever reason, you dislike Kamala. I am not a Bernie bro. I really do not like him at all because he's just another old man and not what the government needs to be successful.

Hopefully I am allowed to have a different opinion here. If not, oh well.

As the woman who proceeded to count "what the Rethuglicans deemed illegal" votes in Bucks County, PA despite Supreme Court objection says "Trump doesn't have to follow the law so why do we?" Eff the right wing extremist Supreme Court. If they're a vote, count them all.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If you are not at all the person described in my summary, why are you so insulted?

Your denial that Trump defeated the Democrats in 2024 shows a total inability to deal with the obvious and unfortunate reality that Kamala isn't going to be President.

I see your supposed about-face for what it truly is: a passive-aggressive, veiled harassment due to your anger over your unproven conspiracy theory not being permitted on this board.

You spent months sneering and jeering at anyone and everyone who had doubts about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, bragging about how they would win the 2024 election. When they lost, you decided to post unproven stories about the voting machines being hacked by satellites to continue your mockery and ridicule and try to avoid being on the receiving end. You were told that election denialism would get you banned.

Now you are angry whenever anyone describes the Democratic defeat of 2024 as an observable fact and a matter of public record. You are triggered because your preferred response -- it was hacked, it was rigged, it was cheated, they actually won -- was identified as abuse and harassment and conversation hijacking that was going to -- and still can -- get you banned from this board.

You decided you would leave and find some other community. I see the search went well since you're back.

And now, fuming over how your conspiratorial wings have been clipped, you're now choosing the path of passive-aggressive microaggressions towards anyone who engages in critical review of why Democrats lost the 2024 election because if you made your preferred response to that conceded-by-Kamala reality, it would be your last post on this board for awhile.

Perhaps you're thinking if you just colour in the lines long enough and gradually escalate, you can seamlessly resume your curtailed behaviours. You'd be mistaken.

Perhaps you simply have nowhere else to go because you can't find a community that will discuss politics in your preferred fashion where the Democratic Party is a cult and you are a slavish disciple and the Democratic defeat of 2024 is denied and ignored.

No one who thinks air-gapped voting machines can be hacked by satellite has any capacity to evaluate what is and isn't a credible news source. Your measure of credibility at this point is whatever supports your cult.

It is very obvious that your comments were and are designed to intimidate people discussing how Democrats lost the election. You want to make it uncomfortable for anyone who can address unpleasant but provable reality.

You want people -- and you've targeted me -- to be walking on eggshells, afraid to mention that Democrats lost the 2024 election, worried about what harassment you'll unleash in response.

It is very obvious in your responses how triggered and offended you are that anyone dares to cite how Democrats lost in 2024 without bringing up your pet conspiracy theory.

Your election denialism is not welcome here. Your rebranded and thinly-veiled election denialism is not welcome here. Your hostility towards people discussing widely-reported and conceded election results and current events is not welcome here. Your cult is not welcome here.

3,340 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-20 06:30:40)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

If you are not at all the person described in my summary, why are you so insulted?

Your denial that Trump defeated the Democrats in 2024 shows a total inability to deal with the obvious and unfortunate reality that Kamala isn't going to be President.

I see your supposed about-face for what it truly is: a passive-aggressive, veiled harassment due to your anger over your unproven conspiracy theory not being permitted on this board.

You spent months sneering and jeering at anyone and everyone who had doubts about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, bragging about how they would win the 2024 election. When they lost, you decided to post unproven stories about the voting machines being hacked by satellites to continue your mockery and ridicule and try to avoid being on the receiving end. You were told that election denialism would get you banned.

Now you are angry whenever anyone describes the Democratic defeat of 2024 as an observable fact and a matter of public record. You are triggered because your preferred response -- it was hacked, it was rigged, it was cheated, they actually won -- was identified as abuse and harassment and conversation hijacking that was going to -- and still can -- get you banned from this board.

You decided you would leave and find some other community. I see the search went well since you're back.

And now, fuming over how your conspiratorial wings have been clipped, you're now choosing the path of passive-aggressive microaggressions towards anyone who engages in critical review of why Democrats lost the 2024 election because if you made your preferred response to that conceded-by-Kamala reality, it would be your last post on this board for awhile.

Perhaps you're thinking if you just colour in the lines long enough and gradually escalate, you can seamlessly resume your curtailed behaviours. You'd be mistaken.

Perhaps you simply have nowhere else to go because you can't find a community that will discuss politics in your preferred fashion where the Democratic Party is a cult and you are a slavish disciple and the Democratic defeat of 2024 is denied and ignored.

No one who thinks air-gapped voting machines can be hacked by satellite has any capacity to evaluate what is and isn't a credible news source. Your measure of credibility at this point is whatever supports your cult.

It is very obvious that your comments were and are designed to intimidate people discussing how Democrats lost the election. You want to make it uncomfortable for anyone who can address unpleasant but provable reality.

You want people -- and you've targeted me -- to be walking on eggshells, afraid to mention that Democrats lost the 2024 election, worried about what harassment you'll unleash in response.

It is very obvious in your responses how triggered and offended you are that anyone dares to cite how Democrats lost in 2024 without bringing up your pet conspiracy theory.

Your election denialism is not welcome here. Your rebranded and thinly-veiled election denialism is not welcome here. Your hostility towards people discussing widely-reported and conceded election results and current events is not welcome here. Your cult is not welcome here.

Let's get one thing clear. I did not state a word about election denialism in my post. I kept it generally vague for a reason because I am trying to avoid the topic and I was going to start my next post on another topic. And I was going to leave it at that. Instead, you write a long attack telling me to go elsewhere. Fine. You're the one jumping to conclusions here because for whatever reason, you hate anybody who disagrees with your narrow "Bernie Bros" view that the Democratic Party has lost its way. I am not buying that assessment one bit from a senile old coot like Bernie. We had Taylor Swift and Beyonce` endorsements. Trump had Kevin Sorbo and other low-appeal right wing cult personalities and kept being banned from using famous music from artists who did not want him to use it because they did not want to be associated with him.

I haven't harassed anybody. All I have done is provide information, and you're calling my providing of information harassment. I hadn't even bothered to try to find another "board." Let's make one other thing clear: You are the one who invited me back in your post: "Maybe he will come back". I came back because I had compassion and perhaps I was wrong. That's the only reason, and the only reason that I came back.

Clearly, there is at least some agenda to discuss a completely misaligned post election diagnosis. Unlike MSNBC's Joe Scarborough who did his reversal by tucking in his tail and crying and running to Mar-a-Lago to "reboot communications," I don't think you'll do that. Perhaps you'll eventually see the light that Bernie's assessment and blaming other democrats is misguided. I tried to work with you to discuss it but instead you wrote an extra long attack against me despite the fact that I provided far better sources than Salon.com and Al Jazeera.

The democratic party needs to stop these internal warring factions of Bernie Bros and "the democratic party has lost its way" BS and work together to investigate the technical issues and find the facts behind what actually went wrong. Until that happens, it's all still speculation. And I'll simply leave things at that.

It's also important to note that just because Bernie says it doesn't mean it's fact. It's an opinion. And there are a variety of different opinions on election post mortems. You can't take Bernie's gospel as truth and expect to moderate a discussion forum on such a narrow view. I respect even less of Bernie's opinion because he's a senile old coot at 83 years old - he is older than both Biden and Trump.

Good luck everyone.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You are gravely mistaken to think "Maybe he'll come back" was an expression of anything but dread, and your thinly-veiled election denialism is thinly-veiled, conspicuous and obvious: every editorial that examines the election results is met with your sneering, cultlike brag about how the losing candidate was too perfect to have lost.

There is no analysis, there is no review, merely ad hominem derision towards anyone discussing how Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election to which you react as though it were stated as a defamatory slur as opposed to a factual matter of public record.

Your goal is obvious: you want people to be uncomfortable saying that Kamala lost and fear your reprisal.

This will no longer be tolerated. This is a thread about current events existing in reality. The unpleasant but observable reality is that Donald Trump won the 2024 election and will be president again. No one trying to discuss this unhappy reality should have to deal with overt hostility or subtle microaggressions from you being offended by discussion of widely reported, loser-conceded election results.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think everyone should calm down.  I think several things are at play here.

1. People are angry.  I'm angry.  This sucks.  It's allowed to suck, and we're allowed to be angry.  What really sucks is that the bad part hasn't even started yet.

2. Trump won.  As weird as that might feel or as bad as that might be, it's what happened.  Maybe Trump did something, but if he did, he covered his tracks.  If he did, he got away with it.  But until we can prove he did it, we need to treat conspiracy theories about Kamala winning the same way we treated conspiracy theories about Trump winning in 2020.  They're nonsense.  I would love for nothing more than for Trump to be caught in another crime and thrown in prison and Kamala be president.  But this isn't Scandal, and there's no indication that anything like that would ever happen.  He's going to be president, and now it's our turn to respond.

3. How do Democrats react?  I honestly don't know.  I think Democrats were in trouble either way, and this just expedites the trouble.

On one hand, I think QuinnSlidr is right in the sense that Democrats are on the right side of history.  They stood up for democracy, for the middle class, for justice, for hope, for the future, and for America.  I think the Democratic party should still stand for these things, and I don't think Kamala or the Harris campaign should have regrets about the campaign they did.

On the other hand, they lost.  And they lost bad.  Not just at the presidential level but everywhere.  From sea to shining sea, this election was a disaster.  If Kamala lost and the Democrats won the House and kept the Senate, you could blame things on Harris or her campaign.  Or you could blame racism or sexism.  But white male Democrats also lost in places they shouldn't have so it can't be all that.

The problems that the Democrats face are many.  One, there's Trump-level concerns.  Will we ever get to have elections again?  Will Trump stack the deck to make it hard/harder/impossible for Democrats to win?  Will Trump go after Democrats with his DoJ and there won't be any Democrats to run in 2026/2028?  ireactions says that I shouldn't worry about this stuff, and since his head is probably clearer than mine, I will believe him.

But there's the problem of the Democratic coalition, both what it is and what it needs to be.  The coalition in 2020 (and what they tried to do in 2024) was traditional Democrats with suburban/college-educated former Republicans who were repulsed by Trump.  The problem is that those two groups don't have a ton in common.  Traditional Democrats are in favor of unions and social programs and helping the less fortunate and stuff like that.  Suburban college-educated people are cool with all that, but they're more interested in social progressive issues like climate change and LGBT rights Ukraine and democracy and some of the "woke" stuff.  One group is worried about tomorrow.  The other group is doing well enough that they're worried about 2050.

So when Democrats focus on unions and child tax credits, one part of the base is energized and the other half is indifferent.  When Democrats focus on Ukraine and climate change, half the base is energized and the other half is wondering why we're focused on that stuff when groceries are expensive.  Republicans don't have that problem - when they scream about whatever woke is, everyone cheers.  When they scream about lowering taxes, everyone cheers.  They're a monolith.

And I don't have a solution to that.  My solution for 2024 was for Kamala to ignore voters like me and let me make the pragmatic choice.  If that means downplaying Ukraine or climate change or whatever, that's fine.  But I'm also hesitant to just say "forget about climate change" because I would like my kids to live on the Earth.  I'm fortunate not to be hit hard by inflation or gas/grocery prices, and I have the luxury of worrying about more than just right now.  But my concerns are still concerns, and if Republicans get Democrats to abandon climate policy, then Republicans win even when Democrats win.

So I don't know.  They need to focus on kitchen table issues and get back blue collar workers.  My expectation is that Trump will screw things up so monumentally that a lot of those people will abandon Trump and vote Democrat in 2026/2028.  Basically, Republicans will lose in 2026/2028 for the same reason that Democrats lost in 2024 - extreme inflation, huge increases to prices, high unemployment, etc.  And in that case, they can focus on economic issues in the same way that Republicans focused on it in 2024.  And then I think their changes can be smaller - obviously a pivot from Trump/democracy and a focus on the middle class and economic recovery.

But what if Trump doesn't destroy the economy.  Not only would he not lose the blue collar workers, but Democrats would probably lose some of the suburban upper middle class people who only voted for Biden/Harris because of Trump.  If they're successful under Trump, they might vote for Vance and other Republicans.  And then the only hope Democrats would have would be to convince Obama/Trump voters to come back now that Trump is gone.  Or hope that, as Trump said, evangelicals will never have to vote again.

But honestly, at this point, I struggle to care.  It feels like we lost a battle and the war.  The Supreme Court is gone.  Ukraine will be gone.  Palestine will be gone.  The bad guys won.  Even if the good guys win next time, it might be too late to turn things back around.  It feels hopeless, and honestly, maybe it is.

Again, the bad part hasn't even started yet.

3,343 (edited by ireactions 2024-11-20 10:12:32)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Democrats are on the right side of history. But their strategy is on the losing side of history. Their 2024 loss is a matter of public record. I shouldn't be derided overtly or subtly for stating that Democrats lost in 2024 which is a highly observable and entirely factual observation. Defeat is a part of life.

And when people lose, the healthy and well-adjusted person will assess and review how and why they lost and what they can do to achieve better results as opposed to deriding any news source that dutifully reports that the score was 312-226 and not in our favour.

This is a political thread about current events and Kamala's loss is a factual news story. No one should have to debate whether or not Kamala Harris lost the election. Even Kamala isn't debating it.

Kamala's defeat is stressful enough; to deal with someone scornful towards reporting and discussing how she lost is just ridiculous. This is why election denialism is so toxic whether on the left or the right.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

The problems that the Democrats face are many.  One, there's Trump-level concerns.  Will we ever get to have elections again?  Will Trump stack the deck to make it hard/harder/impossible for Democrats to win?  Will Trump go after Democrats with his DoJ and there won't be any Democrats to run in 2026/2028?  ireactions says that I shouldn't worry about this stuff, and since his head is probably clearer than mine, I will believe him.

I wouldn't say you shouldn't worry. I'm saying that it will not be as easy and immediate as Trump thinks or hopes it will be, and that Democrats are not defenseless... but they are also not invulnerable.

77 million people voted against Trump. That is cause for hope.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna179969

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Democrats are on the right side of history. But their strategy is on the losing side of history. Their 2024 loss is a matter of public record. I shouldn't be derided overtly or subtly for stating that Democrats lost in 2024 which is a highly observable and entirely factual observation. Defeat is a part of life.

Agreed.  What's frustrating is that Republicans denied they lost and went with the same strategy as 2020 and won big.  Election denialism and racism and revenge and all of that was popular and was an effective electoral strategy.  Plus, it was huge that two people in prison got sex changes on taxpayer dollars.  If you divide the cost by every taxpayer, it's gotta be pretty close to a cent per person that taxpayers paid.  Enormous.

So I don't really know what to say to that.  It wasn't Kamala being a bad candidate because Democrats lost across the board.  I still think it's a coalition problem and the coalition needs to change.  Swapping out blue collar workers for upper middle class workers was a bad trade for Democrats.

I also don't know what they can do to fix it.  Biden and Democrats were very pro-union, and the union workers voted overwhelmingly for Trump.  If Democrats give union workers what they want (and Trump talks about firing striking workers openly), I don't see what Democrats can do to win them back.  They don't listen, they don't pay attention, and they don't seem to care.

That's why I'm going to wait to see whether or not those people are annihilated by Trump's policies.  If they are, I think the Democrats' work becomes very easy.  If they aren't, I don't think Democrats have much of a shot whether Trump allows elections or not.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A wise man once remarked: it's possible to commit no errors and still lose. Kamala Harris was a good candidate. But -- and this is something that's going to happen to all of us at various points in life -- she was outmatched by the challenges and circumstances.

She had 107 days, and she understandably operated on a low-risk, narrow strategy trying to eke out a small victory via swing states and the blue wall. It didn't work, but she came close. As vote counts come in, it's become pretty clear: a two point shift towards her in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have meant a Democrat victory.

107 days is not a lot. Kamala had to deal with Biden's foreign policy where voters, alienated by Biden's support of Israel, didn't feel comfortable voting for Kamala and where many voted for no one. Kamala had to deal with how the Democratic Party was a machine built on big money donors whose corporations are exploiting the very people from whom Democrats need votes, preventing her from offering a more transformational vision of her presidency. Kamala was facing a global anti-incumbent wave.

It was just too much for a 107 day campaign with the VP of the current administration being parachuted in last minute, too late to deal with serious issues in the entire party and offer a vision to address it, too late to have a new strategy that wasn't about running close and hoping to be slightly ahead enough to win.

Which is why, even though Kamala lost... I don't blame her. While I agree with a lot of the Kamala-criticism, I feel it's more criticism of the party than the politician, whose head must have been spinning. The problems were and are structural and systemic and take a lot more than 107 days to sort out.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think the fact that Democrats lost across the board shows that Kamala wasn't the issue.  Which is both good and bad.  They can't really blame the presidential campaign, but it also shows that the issues they have go beyond one politician.  People just weren't buying what Democrats were selling.

Maybe time will fix that.  Maybe it won't.  Luckily for Democrats, I don't have to make any key decisions.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There's certainly a lot of disagreement in Democrat circles. Did they swing too far to the right in pursuing Republican voters? Has the Democrat party moved too far to the left in cultural attitudes? Has going too far one way or the other or not far enough cost them the capacity to become a majoritarian party?

I am not sure, but all of these contradictory and opposing takes have mostly one commonality: the working class is a the voting bloc that Democrats need to pursue instead of Never Trumpers or women or minorities or specific communities. People who work for a living are in sufficient numbers to vote Democrats into office and while these other groups have serious deprivations in civil liberties and societal (in)equalities, their numbers are like SLIDERS fandom -- not large enough to go mainstream for majoritarian success.

The other key factor that I've mentioned before that keeps coming up: the majority of voters are not getting their news from pro-democracy sources like MSNBC or Slate.com or The New Republic or even newspapers and TV news. They're getting their news from social media: podcasts and influencers. The Democratic Party in 2024 seemed to barely exist here while Republicans seemed to rule that space. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to start existing in a louder, wider, larger network of pro-democracy news media and social media that's present and prominent even when there isn't an election.

I am really hoping this post will not receive a response insisting that the defeated Democrats in 2024 are a majoritarian success by some Byzantine metric of something or other that doesn't correspond to reality.

3,348 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-22 05:09:59)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

There's certainly a lot of disagreement in Democrat circles. Did they swing too far to the right in pursuing Republican voters? Has the Democrat party moved too far to the left in cultural attitudes? Has going too far one way or the other or not far enough cost them the capacity to become a majoritarian party?

I am not sure, but all of these contradictory and opposing takes have mostly one commonality: the working class is a the voting bloc that Democrats need to pursue instead of Never Trumpers or women or minorities or specific communities. People who work for a living are in sufficient numbers to vote Democrats into office and while these other groups have serious deprivations in civil liberties and societal (in)equalities, their numbers are like SLIDERS fandom -- not large enough to go mainstream for majoritarian success.

The other key factor that I've mentioned before that keeps coming up: the majority of voters are not getting their news from pro-democracy sources like MSNBC or Slate.com or The New Republic or even newspapers and TV news. They're getting their news from social media: podcasts and influencers. The Democratic Party in 2024 seemed to barely exist here while Republicans seemed to rule that space. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to start existing in a louder, wider, larger network of pro-democracy news media and social media that's present and prominent even when there isn't an election.

I am really hoping this post will not receive a response insisting that the defeated Democrats in 2024 are a majoritarian success by some Byzantine metric of something or other that doesn't correspond to reality.

You are not wrong. After having some time to calm down a bit, and even though I will elicit much dread for existing at all, I am going to say this:

I agree 100% here. Democrats are terrible...TERRIBLE...at social media. They cannot even put together the basics of a mediocre social media campaign. They NEED an overall social media communications manager who is savvy and knows the space in order to be the most effective at turning that space into votes. So far, they haven't been all that successful at doing this. If it's one major weakness they have that needs to be addressed, it's this one.

At the risk of being attacked for saying good things about Kamala: Until Kamala's team came along, there was not much dems were doing on social media. They kept losing ground a lot. Kamala's team brought a breath of fresh air to a failed social media presence. But it wasn't enough.

107 days left of the campaign simply was not enough to overcome what was already losing ground. If it's one thing republicans are good at over Democrats is social media. Even if Trump's team posted a sinking ship because of low morale, and they were hacked by Iran at the same time, the republicans are good at recovering on social media. They have a much larger, more organized, savvy, and pointed presence that puts Democrats on social media to shame.

Republicans can broadcast fake news and misaligned talking points designed to trick voters into believing one thing when the truth is really something else (notice that there are voters who thought the ACA was not the same as Obamacare and how shocked they were when they found out that the ACA *IS* Obamacare). And all of this because republicans are good at nicknaming things on social media and broadcasting that to more people in a way that led people to believe it over the actual truth. The question here is: how do you get people to always do their research first and confirm that what they believe is false when the algorithm is tailored to their interests and cognitive biases, rather than fact?

Dems have a long road ahead to get good enough at social media to overcome this and they need to start now. Not a month before the midterms. But they need to begin to prepare now.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Democrats are terrible...TERRIBLE...at social media.

I hate to say it, but I think Democrats are just terrible at politics.  I think they trust systems too much, and I think they care too much about doing things the right way.  I think they're afraid to play dirty or do what it takes to win.  And I think that's why they don't win.

Republicans decided in the early 90s to win at any cost.  They had a long-term strategy to overturn Roe.  They had a plan and they executed it.  They came off as evil and corporate and uncompromising and unsympathetic, but it didn't matter electorally.

Democrats were too slow to go after Trump for his crimes.  They were too slow to swap out Biden.  They were too trusting that people just wouldn't vote for Trump because of who he is.

They have the right message and the right people and they're on the right side of history, but they need to take a page out of Republican playbooks and get the win no matter what.  Because if you do things the right way and lose, this is where we end up.

3,350 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-22 12:17:05)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
QuinnSlidr wrote:

Democrats are terrible...TERRIBLE...at social media.

I hate to say it, but I think Democrats are just terrible at politics.  I think they trust systems too much, and I think they care too much about doing things the right way.  I think they're afraid to play dirty or do what it takes to win.  And I think that's why they don't win.

Republicans decided in the early 90s to win at any cost.  They had a long-term strategy to overturn Roe.  They had a plan and they executed it.  They came off as evil and corporate and uncompromising and unsympathetic, but it didn't matter electorally.

Democrats were too slow to go after Trump for his crimes.  They were too slow to swap out Biden.  They were too trusting that people just wouldn't vote for Trump because of who he is.

They have the right message and the right people and they're on the right side of history, but they need to take a page out of Republican playbooks and get the win no matter what.  Because if you do things the right way and lose, this is where we end up.

I agree with you. I think Michelle Obama's messaging - "They go low, we go high" did more harm than good for the party in the end. Don't get me wrong, I think Michelle Obama is fabulous otherwise. But in politics, Dems need to hit harder and lower below the belt. And cause Republicans more pain. A constant message of "Why are they allowing criminals, rapists, and child traffickers in office"? kind of thing. And other talking points the republicans can't easily get out of.

Ads saying "ACA = Obamacare". Or "The ACA *IS* Obamacare."

Other ads that take on common republican talking points exactly like that.

Just going by the book is not enough.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If Democrats can get their act together, resistance is not futile, says this article where Donald Trump's total inability to run government is already showing itself again:
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/22/resist … d-against/

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the advice, "When they go low, we go high" conceptually, but not every piece of advice applies to every situation at all times. Republicans understand something Democrats don't: politics is not, despite all appearances, playing bridge at the club. It's a knife fight in a sewer.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

If Democrats can get their act together, resistance is not futile, says this article where Donald Trump's total inability to run government is already showing itself again:
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/22/resist … d-against/

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the advice, "When they go low, we go high" conceptually, but not every piece of advice applies to every situation at all times. Republicans understand something Democrats don't: politics is not, despite all appearances, playing bridge at the club. It's a knife fight in a sewer.

The article is on point, ireactions. With Trump in government ready to implement Project 2025 with all the loyalists at his side, what is government going to look like by the midterms? Will it even be recognizable? Will we even have midterms? I know President Biden is trying to push through the judges he can. As well as make other changes to help stem the tide of the impact of effects of a second Trump term. What if elections are abolished on the first day of Trump's new term? What do we do?

Will Dems be able to act in time to preserve what we have? Do they have time to pivot and adjust their strategy?

The latest shows Trump is shoring up the White House's budget office with Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/22/politics … index.html

3,353 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-24 11:34:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This article, though published in Scientific American in 2021, still holds relevance today I think. In it, forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee explains the outgoing president's (at the time) pathological appeal and how to wean people from it.

The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … loyalists/

It explains several points, including what attracts people to Trump? What is their "animus" or "driving force"?

The author says that in her book Profile of a Nation, she outlined narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis as two major emotional drives behind Trump supporters. She further explains that "narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive". "The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship."

This helps to explain why Trump only wants loyalists in positions of power in his administration. They are easy to manipulate. They will never say no. And they will always do whatever he asks because of this symbiotic relationship. The scars run so deep that only psychological intervention and treatment will help wean them from Trump's clutches.

She then further explains that "“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure."

We see this time and time again in right wing extremist echo chambers who spread ridiculous conspiracy theories about Ashley Babbit that aren't true, Pizza Gate, and George Soros. With Elon Musk now spreading dangerous election theories that not only go against established norms but trying to put California under the microscope, these are all only going to get worse this Trump term instead of better.

No amount of fact is going to sway these people because of the psychological and emotional bond they have towards their figurehead. Anything he says is true, and everything everyone else says is false, even if it's the actual truth. This article further explains the point that driving circumstances have lead these people to believe what they believe, and that only changing these circumstances is what will help make them open up to the possibilities of something else.

So how do we deal with Trumpers who remain present in our lives for the next 4 years?

The advice that Bandy has for people who don't support Trump but still have mini Trumps in their lives is bleak. Bandy explains that this is difficult because the relationship between Trump and his followers mirrors an abusive relationship quite closely. The abuser basically hijacks the mind, and in a hijacked mind you can no longer present facts or appeal to logic. They advise never to confront a Trumper's beliefs because the only thing you will be met with is resistance. Persuasion should also not be the goal but of a change of the circumstances which lead to these faulty beliefs. She also explains that anyone who is close to Trump supporters must maintain their own bearing and mental health. As she said "people who harbor delusional narratives tend to bulldoze over reality in their attempt to deny that their own narrative is false."

I paraphrased and included quotes from the article where appropriate. But I highly recommend reading the entire article from beginning to end.

So now, we not only have one demagogue hungry for absolute power but potentially two which now includes Trump and Elon Musk. We then have voters who are demonstrating voter's remorse after learning about tariffs, project 2025, and that the ACA is Obamacare (they thought Obamacare was separate but that is actually a republican lie). I don't know where this is going to lead in the end. But the end result cannot be a good one.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Democrats seemed to think in 2020 that Trump was a spent force and weren't too concerned about disqualifying or imprisoning him.

That was clearly a mistake.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Democrats seemed to think in 2020 that Trump was a spent force and weren't too concerned about disqualifying or imprisoning him.

That was clearly a mistake.

This was definitely a gross miscalculation on their part. Sadly. sad

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Here, someone rages about how Democrats fail to offer precarious workers anything.

In the months leading up to the election, The New Republic, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and CNN (those are just the ones I tend to look at) ran a constant parade of articles glibly talking about how awesome the economy is, and how stupid and foolish Americans are to be unhappy with the current state of affairs. Look at the articles; the language could hardly be more condescending.

This is while large swaths of the population are struggling to buy groceries, can never hope to buy a house, can never get started on an independent life, are working ourselves into the ground, and have much less economic status than our parents and grandparents did. Every day we see the contrast between what the elites have and what we don’t. And what little relief we may have felt in our bank accounts during the Covid years has dried up. These celebratory, condescending articles deny what people are living through every day, and they explicitly sneer at people for voicing our plain experience. This is called gaslighting.

I feel that a lot of what circulates in the liberal media bubble is shaped by the fact that most of the writers have never faced eviction, have never been threatened by a rogue cop or an enemy soldier, have never lost the family farm, have never been required to choose between dignity and safety, have never been told that they have to revise their viewpoints if they want to keep a job that they need to survive. You don’t understand our priorities, and you simply don’t see most of the country; you’ve banished us for being too uncouth, and we’ve become invisible. At least until you need someone to make your food, fix your car, or deliver your packages. You simply can’t grasp how residually angry people are, how silenced they feel, or how much we need action and meaningful solutions.

Yes, this includes the specific anger of women and the specific anger of minorities. Obviously. But why should we be angrier with Trump than with the Democrats? The Democrats are the ones who lied and sneered at us and piled on the B.S. while doing basically nothing to help. Trump, for better or worse, intuitively understands this anger and can convincingly claim that he will do some kind of something to try to make it better. The Democrats can’t say that. I mean, they can say it, but nobody’s going to believe them, because all they’ve given us for decades is haughty “messaging” that never translates into substantial, meaningful, fair, and broad-based action. People talk about how Trump is going to take away our rights, and that may well be true, but it’s hard to even care about it when our rights are already thoroughly tiered, hardly existent, and contingent on constricting identity claims, and when every day we confront the stark inequality and looming precarity of our lives.
https://newrepublic.com/article/188669/ … everything

3,357

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Democrats absolutely need to quit acting like they're smarter than Republicans and independents.  It's not true, and it alienates undecided voters. Also, they should quit telling people that they're voting against their own interests when they have no knowledge of what the people's interests are.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I really, really, really, really, REALLY hate this son-of-a...

Thank goodness I don't have to go to any Trumper's family's houses for Thanksgiving this year.

============================

Special counsel Jack Smith drops election subversion and classified documents cases against Donald Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics … index.html

3,359 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-11-26 19:58:52)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Some small, good news this election cycle. Finally.

Derek Tran has declared victory over terrible Trumper Michelle Steel:

Derek Tran maintains lead over Michelle Steel as vote counts trickle in

https://laist.com/news/politics/democra … -26-update

Derek Tran declares victory in California's 45th U.S. House District 3 weeks after Election Day

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/decision- … n/3569565/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Now that it's been six months since I had COVID-19, I am getting my next dose of the COVID vaccine on Sunday.