US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

Charlemagne picked up on the hypocrisy too... The brand is damaged and even if Trump does bad stuff, the average Joe will just say they're both corrupt

 

[Moxie]

I make a distinction between people who are on the left - and liberal. Just like I make a distinction between people who are on the right - and conservatives. I make these distinctions due to the fact that a lot of people on both the modern left and right are prone to exaggerated simplifications that lead to extremism, whereas in a sane political world, we need both conservatives and liberals working together, and both understanding that it’s necessary to do so.

There ares very few true liberals and conservatives who are prominent in western democracies now.

So the left wingers I’m talking about are a spectrum, obviously, including those who are to an extent liberal - meaning they’re sort of open minded and willing to listen and maybe even persuaded - and those who are rigidly revolutionary who believe any fad and fashion, just so long as it’s destructive to society.

The left I’m talking about in this thread are the latter. And by the way, you defended trans activists and, I’m sure as well, BLM rioters on this forum. You said the bug eyed loon who screeched at senator Hawley that men can become pregnant and that his questions were violence did okay - he was the problem.

She’s a professor (dear Lord!) sent there by the democrats to argue a position. An expert, if you like - though I don’t.

These are extremists trying to destroy your country, through physical violence, child abuse and lies. And your president supported them…

I appreciate your clarifying.

What I've argued with you guys over isn't exactly the point here...you're just wagging a finger, and you eliminate any fine points in my argument. (As in, for example, to say that I defended BLM "rioters," when one thing I argued is there was much less "rioting" than wars being portrayed. But let's not relitigate that now.) The POV on this thread tends pretty conservative and reactionary, so I don't mind being the counterargument.

IMO, the extremists who are trying to destroy my country just got elected, so we differ in that.

 

[Kieran]

Of course, this question was bound to start whispering in the wings:

Who was Joe Biden really protecting with his pardon?​

 

[Kieran]

I appreciate your clarifying.

What I've argued with you guys over isn't exactly the point here...you're just wagging a finger, and you eliminate any fine points in my argument. (As in, for example, to say that I defended BLM "rioters," when one thing I argued is there was much less "rioting" than wars being portrayed. But let's not relitigate that now.) The POV on this thread tends pretty conservative and reactionary, so I don't mind being the counterargument.

IMO, the extremists who are trying to destroy my country just got elected, so we differ in that.

No there’s nothing reactionary in my views. I wish you’d point it out if there is. Unless what you mean is that I react negatively to modish, damaging ideas which intend to destroy objective truth, science, reason, with no obvious goal other than to weaken the most successful and free societies in history…

 

[Moxie]

that's easily refuted. Remember he was President before and he didn't do it.

I'm not clear which thing you say is easily refuted. Trump DID pardon his son-in-law's father in his first term, so he has done it before. Also, his legal position was less precarious, and the Jan. 6th rioters hadn't been identified or tried.

Yes, we all suspect he would have done it anyway. But now he has a free pass. That's the point. That's why it's so disappointing and selfish. In a funny way I actually don't mind. If it can stop Democrats from constantly virtue signalling they're the good guys then I'll count that as a positive. Now if they can grow some balls, have a coherent non-identitarian theory of the case perhaps they'll win some voters back.

Trump has long said he'd pardon the Jan. 6th insurrectionists, from "Day 1," so he already feels he has a free pass. This is how he feels about power. I'm not sure what kind of weak "high road" of Biden not pardoning his son was going to change.

I was chatting to one of my friends. He works for an American company here in the UK. He chatted with a lot of Americans going into the elections. Blacks, whites, Asians... to a person they were all voting for Trump. For them it was the economy, and just tired of 'all the nonsense'. I asked what all the nonsense was (and bear in mind this is a super woke guy who I constantly banter with), and he tells me they're just tired of the hypocrisy and woke-ness. The idea of freedom, which I thought Kamala was winning, was lost right from the get go it seems. They're concerned about becoming like Canada

I can offer you this listen for a deeper dive into the stats of how people voted. I think you would find it interesting, and more informative than a small, anecdotal sampling of friends, and friends of friends, from afar.

The economy mattered a lot. And, although Harris laid out more of a plan, which was pretty moderate, the GOP/right-wing media did a better job of convincing voters that she was still too liberal, in many ways. I think this is a place where you can blame Harris not having enough time. (You blamed Biden above for not keeping his word on being a one-term President, but I still give the Democratic Party a lot of the blame on laying down on that one.)

Trump won on immigration, but Harris only won on abortion by a smaller margin. There are voters out there who believed Trump that he'll protect them. I find that to be a leap of faith.

A big factor is that Dems stayed home. Bigger than you think. And the Trump campaign targeted low-propensity voters, and first time voters, and did well there.This is interesting. Certainly an enthusiasm gap for Dems.

Anyway, if you have 20 minutes, give it a listen.

Monday Morning Politics: Election Post-Mortem | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

NPR's Domenico Montanaro talks about the latest national political news and looks back at the election results, now that the final demographic breakdowns are in.

www.wnyc.org

 

[Moxie]

No there’s nothing reactionary in my views. I wish you’d point it out if there is. Unless what you mean is that I react negatively to modish, damaging ideas which intend to destroy objective truth, science, reason, with no obvious goal other than to weaken the most successful and free societies in history…

To me, your continually calling the left out as abusers of children is pretty reactionary.

 

[Kieran]

To me, your continually calling the left out as abusers of children is pretty reactionary.

If you think chemically castrating young boys isn’t child abuse, then I hope the democrats spend decades in the wilderness until they understand the extent of the abuse they’re responsible for…

 

[Federberg]

I'm not clear which thing you say is easily refuted. Trump DID pardon his son-in-law's father in his first term, so he has done it before. Also, his legal position was less precarious, and the Jan. 6th rioters hadn't been identified or tried.

Trump has long said he'd pardon the Jan. 6th insurrectionists, from "Day 1," so he already feels he has a free pass. This is how he feels about power. I'm not sure what kind of weak "high road" of Biden not pardoning his son was going to change.

I can offer you this listen for a deeper dive into the stats of how people voted. I think you would find it interesting, and more informative than a small, anecdotal sampling of friends, and friends of friends, from afar.

The economy mattered a lot. And, although Harris laid out more of a plan, which was pretty moderate, the GOP/right-wing media did a better job of convincing voters that she was still too liberal, in many ways. I think this is a place where you can blame Harris not having enough time. (You blamed Biden above for not keeping his word on being a one-term President, but I still give the Democratic Party a lot of the blame on laying down on that one.)

Trump won on immigration, but Harris only won on abortion by a smaller margin. There are voters out there who believed Trump that he'll protect them. I find that to be a leap of faith.

A big factor is that Dems stayed home. Bigger than you think. And the Trump campaign targeted low-propensity voters, and first time voters, and did well there.This is interesting. Certainly an enthusiasm gap for Dems.

Anyway, if you have 20 minutes, give it a listen.

Monday Morning Politics: Election Post-Mortem | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

NPR's Domenico Montanaro talks about the latest national political news and looks back at the election results, now that the final demographic breakdowns are in.

www.wnyc.org

I still think you're missing the wood for the trees. How was such a deeply flawed candidate like Trump able to beat the incumbent party. If you don't believe that radical change is required then... well get ready to be disappointed in 4 years, because I'm not getting the sense that the task is properly understood. Democrats have lost the Executive, the House and the Senate. By the end of his term there may be an even greater conservative tilt in the Supreme Court. Don't for one second believe that voters weren't aware of that.

For my part I'm delighted that a lot of Southern States have started to implement some needed changes. Paternity fraud, no fault divorces etc.

On another note, can any American on here explain to me why California, possibly the most technologically advanced State in the entire world takes over a month do get election results? India with over 500 million voters sorts their shit out in less then a handful of days!

 

[Moxie]

^ We discussed the forest, and I think it's worth looking at the "trees," too. And incumbent party loses on the economy..that's pretty classic and you know that. Biden never had great approval ratings. There's more than one thing going on.

As to what voters are aware of, you should understand that there are a lot of low-information voters in this country. As I mentioned, Trumped targeted and won first time voters and low-propensity voters, which tend also to be less politically involved or informed. They're certainly not looking at the big picture, and tend to vote by instinct or "feelings."

I just offered a deeper dive into the numbers. It's obviously fine if you're not interested.

 

[shawnbm]

"As to what voters are aware of, you should understand that there are a lot of low-information voters in this country. As I mentioned, Trumped targeted and won first time voters and low-propensity voters, which tend also to be less politically involved or informed. They're certainly not looking at the big picture, and tend to vote by instinct or "feelings."

^ That right there is an example of why the Dems lost handily across the board at the federal level this election cycle. There is an elitist and condescending tone, in fact, outright patent in the words used, that says that only the"low-information", uninformed or less than could vote for Trump. Those more informed or with more voting experience--generally more involved--would vote otherwise. You beneath those who have more experience and more educated and therefore informed tend to be instinctual and vote on emotion or feeling, and that is why Trump won and Biden lost--along with Congress going the same way.

No, Moxie--and until that mindset is jettisoned by the Dems it is going to be a probleml. I mean--you basically laid it out right there for all to see. I get the feeling you may not be able to see it, but it is right there in front of you. Hell, you wrote it.

 

[shawnbm]

^ and Moxie, I like reading your posts even if I disagree with them. You are clearly an educated and informed woman (no offense).

Wink, wink

 

[Federberg]

No, Moxie--and until that mindset is jettisoned by the Dems it is going to be a probleml. I mean--you basically laid it out right there for all to see. I get the feeling you may not be able to see it, but it is right there in front of you. Hell, you wrote it.

couldn't agree more! It's the point I've been trying to make. And for the record, the Americans my friend was interacting with aren't hill billies Highly educated, and super smart. Do I agree with their decision? Hell no! I consider Trump a threat to the Western alliance. The last thing I want to see is a return to Great Power politics. I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed. I was delighted to see Putin allowing naked pics of Melania to be published in Russian media. That right there might just solve the problem!

PS, after his first term I conceded that the Abraham Accords were actually a giant step for Middle East peace. If his administration does something as structurally sound in foreign policy in his next term even I will have to eat some crow. All I can do is watch and hope now. But I'm still depressed about what he'll do with tariffs. As for the American constitutional order... well voters voted for what they're gonna get. I'm sure as heck not going to worry about it, if they don't....

 

[Moxie]

"As to what voters are aware of, you should understand that there are a lot of low-information voters in this country. As I mentioned, Trumped targeted and won first time voters and low-propensity voters, which tend also to be less politically involved or informed. They're certainly not looking at the big picture, and tend to vote by instinct or "feelings."

^ That right there is an example of why the Dems lost handily across the board at the federal level this election cycle. There is an elitist and condescending tone, in fact, outright patent in the words used, that says that only the"low-information", uninformed or less than could vote for Trump. Those more informed or with more voting experience--generally more involved--would vote otherwise. You beneath those who have more experience and more educated and therefore informed tend to be instinctual and vote on emotion or feeling, and that is why Trump won and Biden lost--along with Congress going the same way.

No, Moxie--and until that mindset is jettisoned by the Dems it is going to be a probleml. I mean--you basically laid it out right there for all to see. I get the feeling you may not be able to see it, but it is right there in front of you. Hell, you wrote it.

I knew someone would say this. I meant to explain to Federberg that many voters, and I mean all voters in the US, not just Republicans or Trump voters, are not that interested in politics, or don't bother with the fine-points that much. This was to HIS point that everyone who voted for Trump would have the future of the Supreme Court in mind. Plenty of Dems who were too uninspired, or whatever, to vote clearly weren't thinking about, either. My point that Trump won low-propensity voters doesn't mean I think they're not intelligent, they just care less about politics than some of do, at least most of the time. He got a lot of first time voters, meaning he inspired them to vote. That ain't nothin'. But you definitely misunderstood me.

 

[Moxie]

If you think chemically castrating young boys isn’t child abuse, then I hope the democrats spend decades in the wilderness until they understand the extent of the abuse they’re responsible for…

I know we see this topic differently, so I don't want to get into it all over again, but your choice of term is political. Also, you and others here mention boys in this so often, and rarely mention a similar horror of puberty blockers in girls. We're talking about 300,000 or so youth ages 13-17 in the US who identify as transgender, and not all use medication, so there seems an outsized emphasis on this, around here, and in the greater population, due to fear and othering. On the other hand, recent changes in abortion laws and closings of women's health care clinics affects a huge population in the US, particularly poor women. Yet all we get around here is a big yawn. Personally, I think it's easy to see which of these is a crisis, and which is a manufactured bugaboo.

 

[Jelenafan]

Listen, why can we never learn?

It’s cyclical here in the States. In my lifetime I’ve heard pundits read the “obituary” of either party at least a dozen times each…

 

[Kieran]

I know we see this topic differently, so I don't want to get into it all over again, but your choice of term is political. Also, you and others here mention boys in this so often, and rarely mention a similar horror of puberty blockers in girls. We're talking about 300,000 or so youth ages 13-17 in the US who identify as transgender, and not all use medication, so there seems an outsized emphasis on this, around here, and in the greater population, due to fear and othering. On the other hand, recent changes in abortion laws and closings of women's health care clinics affects a huge population in the US, particularly poor women. Yet all we get around here is a big yawn. Personally, I think it's easy to see which of these is a crisis, and which is a manufactured bugaboo.

If you want me to mention the young girls and women being mutilated by trans activists masquerading as healthcare workers, I mentioned them many times.

You didn’t care then, either. You’re misunderstanding as well, that is not only about the quantity of kids being abused, it’s that the left are trying to change the truth regarding these things, in order to damage the west. They’re fifth columnists happily spreading chaos. And they’re welcome at the White House when there’s a democrat living there.

I don’t really care about abortion clinics being closed. Probably as much as you care about kids being targeted and abused by the left…

 

[shawnbm]

I knew someone would say this. I meant to explain to Federberg that many voters, and I mean all voters in the US, not just Republicans or Trump voters, are not that interested in politics, or don't bother with the fine-points that much. This was to HIS point that everyone who voted for Trump would have the future of the Supreme Court in mind. Plenty of Dems who were too uninspired, or whatever, to vote clearly weren't thinking about, either. "My point that Trump won low-propensity voters doesn't mean I think they're not intelligent, they just care less about politics than some of do, at least most of the time. He got a lot of first time voters, meaning he inspired them to vote. That ain't nothin'. But you definitely misunderstood me."

You say that, but then take a look at the last two or three sentences that I placed in quotations while quoting your entire response. Maybe you are just engaging in hyperbolic comment, but how you know people who voted for the Pres.-elect "just care less about politics than some of do, at least most of the time" [sic]??? From where did you obtain this information? The very next sentence about Trump getting a lot of first time voters necessarily meaning he inspired them to vote and that this is nothing is another perplexing non-sequitur comment. I recall when I was a first-time voter I was excited to vote just because it was my first time. I have no idea if the first time voters who cast a vote for the Pres.-elect in fact were inspired to vote for the first time because he was running or if they simply turned 18 it was time to vote. It could very well be that he inspired some of them, but the idea that that was definitive is pure conjecture, at least in my view. That is, unless there is some sort of very substantial poll that establishes this as more likely than not with the plus or minus of three or less LOL. At any rate, happy Thursday to you, Moxie.

 

[Moxie]

You say that, but then take a look at the last two or three sentences that I placed in quotations while quoting your entire response. Maybe you are just engaging in hyperbolic comment, but how you know people who voted for the Pres.-elect "just care less about politics than some of do, at least most of the time" [sic]??? From where did you obtain this information? The very next sentence about Trump getting a lot of first time voters necessarily meaning he inspired them to vote and that this is nothing is another perplexing non-sequitur comment. I recall when I was a first-time voter I was excited to vote just because it was my first time. I have no idea if the first time voters who cast a vote for the Pres.-elect in fact were inspired to vote for the first time because he was running or if they simply turned 18 it was time to vote. It could very well be that he inspired some of them, but the idea that that was definitive is pure conjecture, at least in my view. That is, unless there is some sort of very substantial poll that establishes this as more likely than not with the plus or minus of three or less LOL. At any rate, happy Thursday to you, Moxie.

My point is simple, and maybe I should stop illustrating/embellishing it in ways that you guys want to read in as condescending towards Trump voters. The US electorate in general is made up of plenty of people on both sides who don't care much about politics and don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. It doesn't make them stupid or unsophisticated. It means they care more about lots of other things. I responding to Federberg's confident statement that everyone who voted knew darned well that the Supreme Court and the all of them were at play here. I was telling him he overestimates us. Simple as that. And you know that to be true. It's the same reason we have low voter turnout, generally.

 

[Federberg]

My point is simple, and maybe I should stop illustrating/embellishing it in ways that you guys want to read in as condescending towards Trump voters. The US electorate in general is made up of plenty of people on both sides who don't care much about politics and don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. It doesn't make them stupid or unsophisticated. It means they care more about lots of other things. I responding to Federberg's confident statement that everyone who voted knew darned well that the Supreme Court and the all of them were at play here. I was telling him he overestimates us. Simple as that. And you know that to be true. It's the same reason we have low voter turnout, generally.

well then.. you missed my point. They didn't necessarily need to know the details. They didn't need to affirmatively vote for Trump, they could just as easily, and more than likely in the era of negative voting, have made the decision to vote against Democrats. To vote against the party that was effectively arguing that the status quo was better than anything Trump could offer. The young far more than the old recognise the time we're in perhaps better than you. It's terrible for young people. The system is literally rigged against them. They don't need to understand the repercussions of a conservative Supreme Court, they just need to understand that their interests are best served by destroying the system that is against them. Perhaps you are the ignorant one, is the deeper point.

 

[Moxie]

well then.. you missed my point. They didn't necessarily need to know the details. They didn't need to affirmatively vote for Trump, they could just as easily, and more than likely in the era of negative voting, have made the decision to vote against Democrats. To vote against the party that was effectively arguing that the status quo was better than anything Trump could offer. The young far more than the old recognise the time we're in perhaps better than you. It's terrible for young people. The system is literally rigged against them. They don't need to understand the repercussions of a conservative Supreme Court, they just need to understand that their interests are best served by destroying the system that is against them. Perhaps you are the ignorant one, is the deeper point.

I didn't say anyone was ignorant, is my point. Also, the group that went overwhelmingly for Trump: 45-65 year olds. Young people much less so, those men by a lot, compared to women.