|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 07 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 04:48 BlackJack wrote:On June 07 2024 02:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It's also unrealistic and impractical to think that a candidate could/should match every single one of your values and positions identically. Having multiple choices means picking the one who best represents your positions, even if that's only 90% or 70% or 50% (if the other candidates are even lower). With millions of voters, there may very well be millions of slightly different opinions and combinations of opinions, so it makes sense for many of them to consolidate around candidates that are "close enough".
Or 5%, right? That's really the pitch you're offering him. If Biden matches 5% of his values and positions and Trump matches 0% then he would be a fool to not vote for Biden because he's the less worse option of the 2 and we know one of them is going to win. Logically this same argument applies even if Biden matches 0.0001% of his positions and Trump matches 0. Clearly Biden is not "close enough" for GH to support. I'm not sure why people can't accept this and still repeatedly pitch him with this idea that if X > Y you have to support X no matter what. Many of the positions are dichotomous between Biden vs. Trump, so 5% and 0.0001% are mathematically impossible (some examples of "Biden or Trump": allow or don't allow women to get abortions, support or don't support LGBTQ+ rights, invest or don't invest in climate change research, ally with Ukraine or ally with Russia, accept election results or undermine democracy, etc.). You're missing the point, however, if you're thinking about GH's evaluation in terms of percent agreement across the board. I fully recognize that GH might agree with 98% of Biden's positions but still not vote for Biden, if the remaining 2% are that Biden is still messing up the Israeli-Palestinian response and Biden is still not a socialist (or however GH wishes to frame his non-negotiable lines). Those are the only positions that GH is using to inform whether or not he votes... at least, until there are multiple candidates that pass GH's first round. I imagine that, in GH's perfect world, he would be able to select an ideal candidate among several candidates who are all already on the correct side of his vital lines - socialists, moral takes on the I-P conflict, etc. - and only then would GH scrutinize all those qualifying candidates for the secondary themes and their positions on everything else. Only then would those across-the-board agreement percentages matter. GH surely has many informed opinions on education, climate change, crime, immigration, and many other themes, but all of those are sacrificed if Biden steps over the one or two lines that GH deems most valuable, even if GH likes Biden's views on those other themes, and even if Trump steps further over those same lines. Those one or two lines are non-negotiable and unacceptable, and completely end the consideration. And that's absolutely GH's right, to have those standards, regardless of how many other important themes (or Supreme Court Justices, or human rights, or laws) are being sacrificed in the process. Also, I really did mean it when I said I wanted to move on from this conversation for now. Thanks 
This is pretty rigid thinking. GH literally wants to blow up the entire system and do something different. The idea that it's mathematically impossible for him to be completely dissimilar to both candidates because those candidates have some opposing viewpoints doesn't make sense. At the end of the day they are both capitalists that represent the status quo. That alone is 95% of the meat and potatoes that GH is going to disagree with.
|
like as far as weighted criterion goes how do you justify being against saudi esports due to lgbtq+ rights but support america.
im assuming you can ignore body count somehow?
|
edit: frick frack odenson just catching up on the thread people are still voting for red cap man on a site i considered full of smart people wtf.
|
On June 07 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:
It is so silly how accepted it seems to be that US elections are all about gaming a gamified system, and not in any way about actually getting results most in line with what the population would want.
I view it similar to games with poor balance forcing people to use blatantly overpowered shit. It’s a shitty system with hundreds of outdated assumptions.
|
On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary.
The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me.
Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation.
|
On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military.
Who could have possibly seen this coming /s
|
On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s
I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military.
But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race.
It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable.
|
United States42967 Posts
On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable.
Then why did you willingly do it? Why didn’t you stop it?
|
On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable.
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that even if Donald Trump wins the November 2024 election fair-and-square, then Biden / Congress / Americans should still prevent him from becoming president in January 2025 (because he's an insurrectionist, fascist, leader of white supremacists, etc.)?
|
On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable. So what are we talking about then? Dan from the grocery store breaking the concrete in his shed to grab his secret stash of guns and gutting a swath through a secret service detail to assassinate president-elect Donald J Trump as he exists a courthouse from one of his many indictments?
(good thing I wasn't looking to visit the US any time soon, i'm probably on a list now)
|
On June 07 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that even if Donald Trump wins the November 2024 election fair-and-square, then Biden / Congress / Americans should still prevent him from becoming president in January 2025 (because he's an insurrectionist, fascist, leader of white supremacists, etc.)? I'm saying it is unreasonable and illogical to willingly hand power over to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist, fascist, leader of openly fascist white supremacists, that openly says he'll be a day 1 dictator, particularly out of an ostensible fidelity to "democratic" integrity. It's patently absurd on its face.
In part, because once you willingly hand power to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race.
"Winning" is in quotations in part because of the 2000 election. I'd also think it pretty uncontroversial (at least among Biden supporters) to recognize it'd be practically impossible for Trump to win a "fair-and-square" election amid perpetual voter suppression efforts by Republicans (along with plenty of other non-"fair-and-square" electoral aspects).
|
On June 08 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that even if Donald Trump wins the November 2024 election fair-and-square, then Biden / Congress / Americans should still prevent him from becoming president in January 2025 (because he's an insurrectionist, fascist, leader of white supremacists, etc.)? I'm saying it is unreasonable and illogical to willingly hand power over to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist, fascist, leader of openly fascist white supremacists, that openly says he'll be a day 1 dictator, particularly out of an ostensible fidelity to "democratic" integrity. It's patently absurd on its face. In part, because once you willingly hand power to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. "Winning" is in quotations in part because of the 2000 election. I'd also think it pretty uncontroversial (at least among Biden supporters) to recognize it'd be practically impossible for Trump to win a "fair-and-square" election amid perpetual voter suppression efforts by Republicans (along with plenty of other non-"fair-and-square" electoral aspects).
I totally agree that "winning" is in quotations marks. After all, he committed election fraud and cheated during both the 2016 and 2020 elections, so there's no reason to think he's going to suddenly play by the rules during the third time around!
While I'm sure that Biden would willingly, peacefully, and traditionally transfer power over to Trump, if Trump were to win (however unreasonable and illogical and unethical it may be), what would you envision happening if Biden doesn't do that? How would this play out? Would Biden stay president, because he won second place / because he's already president? Would some other person be appointed? Would the military back Biden? I can't imagine (at least half of) Congress would back Biden?
|
On June 08 2024 00:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2024 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 07 2024 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 22:18 Gorsameth wrote:On June 07 2024 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 07 2024 07:39 WombaT wrote:On June 07 2024 07:19 Ryzel wrote:
Logic and reason are the enemies of a revolutionary. They’re great to get a spark going, but the oxygen to start the fires of revolution comes from the outrage of the masses. The status quo typically benefits a majority of people; the disenfranchised minorities are *more* rational in seeking to uproot it but those who have shaped their lives on it and consequently benefit from it would be totally irrational in doing so. Revolutions happen when either 1) a small group seizes power (more like a coup though), 2) a demagogue effectively stokes the emotions of the majority to become irrational, or 3) the status quo degenerates to the point where the disenfranchised become the majority.
That being said, it’s really not rational for anyone to desire this because a revolution motivated in this way does not have any guarantee that it will solve the problems it says it will. If there’s no planning, all emotion, it just turns into a country-wide riot.
It’s basically mob mentality applied to a society, and cold logic and reason are antithetical to the flame stoking that’s required to get people to that point. That’s why activists are called agitators. They’re like the hyenas nipping at the wildebeest to drive them into a stampede. A call to logic and reason to uphold particular structures that themselves aren’t essentially logical or reasonable is the enemy of the revolutionary. The willingly handing power/control of the world's most dangerous military/nuclear arsenal to someone they know to be an insurrectionist fascist for the sake of "democracy" is near the top of this list for me. Ironically, "the Hindenburg disaster" doesn't refer to willingly handing power over to Hitler. Maybe if it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. In a completely shocking turn of events Average Joes on the internet prefer taking the risk of a Trump presidency over leading an armed insurrection against the United States military. Who could have possibly seen this coming /s I know you're being flippant, but there's 2 months between the election and when the "winner" actually gets power. It could be dealt with before he ever had control of the military. But once you willingly hand power to a insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without such a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. It's for those reasons and more it is near the top of my list of absurd contortions of "logic and reason" to try to rationalize something that obviously on its face is illogical and unreasonable. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that even if Donald Trump wins the November 2024 election fair-and-square, then Biden / Congress / Americans should still prevent him from becoming president in January 2025 (because he's an insurrectionist, fascist, leader of white supremacists, etc.)? I'm saying it is unreasonable and illogical to willingly hand power over to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist, fascist, leader of openly fascist white supremacists, that openly says he'll be a day 1 dictator, particularly out of an ostensible fidelity to "democratic" integrity. It's patently absurd on its face. In part, because once you willingly hand power to a 2x impeached, insurrectionist fascist leading a hoard of white supremacists that openly said he'd be a day 1 dictator, you're not getting it back without a fight. One that'll probably require a global coalition and constantly threaten the nuclear driven annihilation of the human race. "Winning" is in quotations in part because of the 2000 election. I'd also think it pretty uncontroversial (at least among Biden supporters) to recognize it'd be practically impossible for Trump to win a "fair-and-square" election amid perpetual voter suppression efforts by Republicans (along with plenty of other non-"fair-and-square" electoral aspects). I totally agree that "winning" is in quotations marks. After all, he committed election fraud and cheated during both the 2016 and 2020 elections, so there's no reason to think he's going to suddenly play by the rules during the third time around! While I'm sure that Biden would willingly, peacefully, and traditionally transfer power over to Trump, if Trump were to win (however unreasonable and illogical and unethical it may be), what would you envision happening if Biden doesn't do that? How would this play out? Would Biden stay president, because he won second place / because he's already president? Would some other person be appointed? Would the military back Biden? I can't imagine (at least half of) Congress would back Biden?
I mean there are a plethora of possibilities. Not engaging in what your own voters identify as genocide would be a good start and helpful for boosting much needed turnout among people that have already voted for Biden (especially in Michigan) imo. Democrat's/Biden's genocidal hubris has pretty thoroughly precluded that though.
Presumably Biden would remain president unless/until it was uncovered that they prevented handing Trump power by illegal means. In which case he could step down and Harris would take over. If Democrats wanted to be thorough they could impeach/prosecute him and have Harris pardon him if convicted as a display of Democrat ambivalence about it all.
|
GH reading last few of your posts I must say that it is somewhat shameless of you to call anyone a fascist.
So once you dealt with Trump, what would you do with, as you said "hoard of white supremacists"? Keep them in a camps?
For what is worth though I think you are actually right on the money and ever since the guilty verdict, Trump becoming president is out of question whether he wins election or not.
|
To defeat the fascist one must become the fascist
|
Nazi Germany is an amazing success story about deeply fascist methodology ridding a culture of widespread fascist ideology.
When we sentence a murderer to death because we don't think they can exist anywhere in society without killing other people, we are not being hypocrites. We are killing a murderer to protect other people because that murderer is totally fucked.
I want to be clear that it doesn't mean any time we tell ourselves we are doing a good thing, its that simple. Humans are not perfect and even good intentions go poorly. However, I think it is dishonest for people to say GH is describing something unethical here.
When someone says "I am going to destroy our democracy and impose fascism on the country", I think people would be insane to say "And if he is about to realize his dream, we ought to shrug our shoulders and slobber all over the definition of democracy"
It feels like some of you are saying it truly does not matter what a candidate promises to do. So long as they win the election legitimately, any form of violence or forceful prevention is unethical.
Let's say Trump pledged to kill all Peruvians in the country day 1 of his presidency. I would be really bummed if you guys just let him chop me up. This is of course an extreme example, but I am trying to indicate we shouldn't pretend there is no situation worth defying democracy over. You guys can disagree on the assumptions GH is making, but its clearly the right call if we accept his assumptions.
|
On June 08 2024 07:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Nazi Germany is an amazing success story about deeply fascist methodology ridding a culture of widespread fascist ideology.
When we sentence a murderer to death because we don't think they can exist anywhere in society without killing other people, we are not being hypocrites. We are killing a murderer to protect other people because that murderer is totally fucked.
I want to be clear that it doesn't mean any time we tell ourselves we are doing a good thing, its that simple. Humans are not perfect and even good intentions go poorly. However, I think it is dishonest for people to say GH is describing something unethical here.
When someone says "I am going to destroy our democracy and impose fascism on the country", I think people would be insane to say "And if he is about to realize his dream, we ought to shrug our shoulders and slobber all over the definition of democracy"
It feels like some of you are saying it truly does not matter what a candidate promises to do. So long as they win the election legitimately, any form of violence or forceful prevention is unethical.
Let's say Trump pledged to kill all Peruvians in the country day 1 of his presidency. I would be really bummed if you guys just let him chop me up. This is of course an extreme example, but I am trying to indicate we shouldn't pretend there is no situation worth defying democracy over. You guys can disagree on the assumptions GH is making, but its clearly the right call if we accept his assumptions.
Bolded: If you actually claim that you believe in democracy and democracy need to be protected, but then as soon as you not in majority, you go "f... that, cant let that happen", then yes, that is unethical.
|
On June 08 2024 08:12 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2024 07:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Nazi Germany is an amazing success story about deeply fascist methodology ridding a culture of widespread fascist ideology.
When we sentence a murderer to death because we don't think they can exist anywhere in society without killing other people, we are not being hypocrites. We are killing a murderer to protect other people because that murderer is totally fucked.
I want to be clear that it doesn't mean any time we tell ourselves we are doing a good thing, its that simple. Humans are not perfect and even good intentions go poorly. However, I think it is dishonest for people to say GH is describing something unethical here.
When someone says "I am going to destroy our democracy and impose fascism on the country", I think people would be insane to say "And if he is about to realize his dream, we ought to shrug our shoulders and slobber all over the definition of democracy"
It feels like some of you are saying it truly does not matter what a candidate promises to do. So long as they win the election legitimately, any form of violence or forceful prevention is unethical.
Let's say Trump pledged to kill all Peruvians in the country day 1 of his presidency. I would be really bummed if you guys just let him chop me up. This is of course an extreme example, but I am trying to indicate we shouldn't pretend there is no situation worth defying democracy over. You guys can disagree on the assumptions GH is making, but its clearly the right call if we accept his assumptions. Bolded: If you actually claim that you believe in democracy and democracy need to be protected, but then as soon as you not in majority, you go "f... that, cant let that happen", then yes, that is unethical.
No one actually cares about democracy as some kinda spiritual belief. Democracy has a variety of qualities that society has agreed are an ethical framework. The goal is an ethical society, not a democratic society. When people gaze upon the glory of democracy, it’s not because of the mechanics of it. It is because of the moral impact it has on society.
There are millions of examples in history where laws were clearly unethical or someone breaking laws or rules is clearly ethical. I think the mistake you are making is equating laws and ethics.
|
It is funny that Trump was found guilty on corrupting the 2016 presidential election on all counts, by a jury. And this basically wasn't of any debate in this thread. It slowly became much later on. Which I think signals that ordinary American voters also do not understand the trial and what Trump was found guilty of. Which works well for the GOP and the strategists they put on CNN claiming no one knows what the crime was, or something. I think there they mean that each individual juror could decide for themselves if campaign finance violation either corrupted the election, or was done to cover up tax crimes. Which might end up as a loose end on appeal. But it is basically the only thing they have.
And that the MAGA world is saying that this 'hush money trial' aka presidential election corruption trial was only brought to corrupt the 2024 election in Biden's favour. And that we should let a person guilty of corrupting the 2016 election walk to at least make the 2024 election fair.
Trump's legal strategy was.. odd. Now we have Hunter Biden on trial. And it appears he is equally guilty. But that the jury might actually feel sorry for Hunter and decide to do actual jury nullification because they realize this is a political hitjob by the GOP. And the crime involved has nothing to do with politics, but is a sad case of drug abuse by a severe addict. And that these charges normally never get brought to anyone. And that Hunter Biden is only on trial because he is Joe Biden's son. And that having dropped this case would have looked bad on Biden's DoJ. And that this trial may pour cold water on the 'two systems of justice'-talking line by MAGA morons.
@Razyda
Sounds like you are falling for the tolerance paradox fallacy. In general, you cannot really allow fascists to vote away democracy. Yes, if facsists get too strong, you need to take their right to vote away. Because if you do not take the right to vote away from a select number of people for a short time, you may end up losing it for everyone for all time. Fascists do not even need close to a majority of the vote to end democracy. Nazi Germany is just one of many examples. Self coups like the one Trump did is the most common example. Which is also what Hitler did. Hitler also did a first coup that failed.
I get that people may still want to say "But Trump isn't literally Hitler". Don't do a literal Godwin's. Fine. But I wouldn't wager on it. Yes, the US has a problem where part of the electorate is slowly coming to terms that their guy will soon never win elections again. And that they are losing 'their country'. At the same time, the GOP hasn't moved away from this voter, hasn't changed their platform, to incorporate new voters. There's plenty of blacks and latino's that are really conservative. And there's plenty of other people that want populist polities that increase spending powers of rural and poor people. Go run on that. Not on Trump and his goal to break the system and become dictator on day 1.
I still believe one of the reasons that Trump stole the national security documents, either consciously or not, is that he wanted to break as many crimes as possible. Because if they charge you with several absurd crimes, it is much easier to say that that hush money trial is a witch hunt and that they are weaponizing the justice system. If tomorrow, Garland gives a press conference and says Trump was seen shooting someone on 5th avenue and that he will be arrested ASAP. And that it is all on tape. Many people aren't going to believe that. And Trump can easily say that the fake criminal charges are getting more absurd. If tomorrow, news dropped that Joe & Hunter Biden broke into a pet shop and stole 200 goldfish, I wouldn't believe that either. Because that's an absurd crime. So if Trump did like 20 other small petty white collar crimes, even more strongly so. I am actually surprised he didn't commit more crimes. Why not? He has nothing to lose. If he is found guilty in 1 more trial, he is going to jail for life. Unless he breaks the system. And the more crimes he is charged with, the easier for him to break the system. So say Trump is blackmailing Alito or Thomas. Would the DoJ bring charges if they have evidence, but it isn't on tape? Or the Chinese paid Trump 200 million to not ban Tik Tok? Or Trump sold cabinet positions to the oil industry. Are those crimes? Maybe. Will DoJ charge Trump for them under the current climate? And if Trump did more witness tampering, would they bring another indictment? If you are inclined to believe Trump, it becomes easier and easier the more crimes Trump commits. Believing that Trump committed a dozen crimes is way harder than believing Trump is innocent and it is all a witch hunt. But just one crime is much easier to believe.
And yes, many hardcore Trump supporters need literal cult deprogramming. They don't need to be locked into a camp. You just need to suspend their rights to vote for 8 years. And force them to take therapy. This is not a joke. Cult deprogramming is an actual thing. And we need it for the worst of the MAGA cult. So stop comparing this to herding Trump supporters into concentration camps. That's the literal opposite. It is not punishment. It is helping them heal.
Somehow, the worst of the MAGA mob seemed to have cooled down quite a bit after Jan6. And there were almost no pro Trump protests at his NYC trial. But people are still getting death threats. Two people were recently arrested because the FBI thought they were going to kill Fauci. And yes, crazy people actually can get crazy violent. It is not just fun and games and posturing. A Trump supporter with a hammer high on conspiracy theories did almost kill Nancy Pelosi's husband. That guy and Ashley Babbit would definitely benefit from mandatory cult deprogramming. That's what we did in Europe with Islamist terrorists as well. It worked for some.
|
On June 08 2024 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2024 08:12 Razyda wrote:On June 08 2024 07:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Nazi Germany is an amazing success story about deeply fascist methodology ridding a culture of widespread fascist ideology.
When we sentence a murderer to death because we don't think they can exist anywhere in society without killing other people, we are not being hypocrites. We are killing a murderer to protect other people because that murderer is totally fucked.
I want to be clear that it doesn't mean any time we tell ourselves we are doing a good thing, its that simple. Humans are not perfect and even good intentions go poorly. However, I think it is dishonest for people to say GH is describing something unethical here.
When someone says "I am going to destroy our democracy and impose fascism on the country", I think people would be insane to say "And if he is about to realize his dream, we ought to shrug our shoulders and slobber all over the definition of democracy"
It feels like some of you are saying it truly does not matter what a candidate promises to do. So long as they win the election legitimately, any form of violence or forceful prevention is unethical.
Let's say Trump pledged to kill all Peruvians in the country day 1 of his presidency. I would be really bummed if you guys just let him chop me up. This is of course an extreme example, but I am trying to indicate we shouldn't pretend there is no situation worth defying democracy over. You guys can disagree on the assumptions GH is making, but its clearly the right call if we accept his assumptions. Bolded: If you actually claim that you believe in democracy and democracy need to be protected, but then as soon as you not in majority, you go "f... that, cant let that happen", then yes, that is unethical. No one actually cares about democracy as some kinda spiritual belief. Democracy has a variety of qualities that society has agreed are an ethical framework. The goal is an ethical society, not a democratic society. When people gaze upon the glory of democracy, it’s not because of the mechanics of it. It is because of the moral impact it has on society. There are millions of examples in history where laws were clearly unethical or someone breaking laws or rules is clearly ethical. I think the mistake you are making is equating laws and ethics.
Bolded: Not really I just find hypocrisy dishonest, hence unethical.
On June 08 2024 09:51 Kitalpha wrote:
It is funny that Trump was found guilty on corrupting the 2016 presidential election on all counts, by a jury. And this basically wasn't of any debate in this thread. It slowly became much later on. Which I think signals that ordinary American voters also do not understand the trial and what Trump was found guilty of. Which works well for the GOP and the strategists they put on CNN claiming no one knows what the crime was, or something. I think there they mean that each individual juror could decide for themselves if campaign finance violation either corrupted the election, or was done to cover up tax crimes. Which might end up as a loose end on appeal. But it is basically the only thing they have.
And that the MAGA world is saying that this 'hush money trial' aka presidential election corruption trial was only brought to corrupt the 2024 election in Biden's favour. And that we should let a person guilty of corrupting the 2016 election walk to at least make the 2024 election fair.
Trump's legal strategy was.. odd. Now we have Hunter Biden on trial. And it appears he is equally guilty. But that the jury might actually feel sorry for Hunter and decide to do actual jury nullification because they realize this is a political hitjob by the GOP. And the crime involved has nothing to do with politics, but is a sad case of drug abuse by a severe addict. And that these charges normally never get brought to anyone. And that Hunter Biden is only on trial because he is Joe Biden's son. And that having dropped this case would have looked bad on Biden's DoJ. And that this trial may pour cold water on the 'two systems of justice'-talking line by MAGA morons.
@Razyda
Sounds like you are falling for the tolerance paradox fallacy. In general, you cannot really allow fascists to vote away democracy. Yes, if facsists get too strong, you need to take their right to vote away. Because if you do not take the right to vote away from a select number of people for a short time, you may end up losing it for everyone for all time. Fascists do not even need close to a majority of the vote to end democracy. Nazi Germany is just one of many examples. Self coups like the one Trump did is the most common example. Which is also what Hitler did. Hitler also did a first coup that failed.
I get that people may still want to say "But Trump isn't literally Hitler". Don't do a literal Godwin's. Fine. But I wouldn't wager on it. Yes, the US has a problem where part of the electorate is slowly coming to terms that their guy will soon never win elections again. And that they are losing 'their country'. At the same time, the GOP hasn't moved away from this voter, hasn't changed their platform, to incorporate new voters. There's plenty of blacks and latino's that are really conservative. And there's plenty of other people that want populist polities that increase spending powers of rural and poor people. Go run on that. Not on Trump and his goal to break the system and become dictator on day 1.
I still believe one of the reasons that Trump stole the national security documents, either consciously or not, is that he wanted to break as many crimes as possible. Because if they charge you with several absurd crimes, it is much easier to say that that hush money trial is a witch hunt and that they are weaponizing the justice system. If tomorrow, Garland gives a press conference and says Trump was seen shooting someone on 5th avenue and that he will be arrested ASAP. And that it is all on tape. Many people aren't going to believe that. And Trump can easily say that the fake criminal charges are getting more absurd. If tomorrow, news dropped that Joe & Hunter Biden broke into a pet shop and stole 200 goldfish, I wouldn't believe that either. Because that's an absurd crime. So if Trump did like 20 other small petty white collar crimes, even more strongly so. I am actually surprised he didn't commit more crimes. Why not? He has nothing to lose. If he is found guilty in 1 more trial, he is going to jail for life. Unless he breaks the system. And the more crimes he is charged with, the easier for him to break the system. So say Trump is blackmailing Alito or Thomas. Would the DoJ bring charges if they have evidence, but it isn't on tape? Or the Chinese paid Trump 200 million to not ban Tik Tok? Or Trump sold cabinet positions to the oil industry. Are those crimes? Maybe. Will DoJ charge Trump for them under the current climate? And if Trump did more witness tampering, would they bring another indictment? If you are inclined to believe Trump, it becomes easier and easier the more crimes Trump commits. Believing that Trump committed a dozen crimes is way harder than believing Trump is innocent and it is all a witch hunt. But just one crime is much easier to believe.
And yes, many hardcore Trump supporters need literal cult deprogramming. They don't need to be locked into a camp. You just need to suspend their rights to vote for 8 years. And force them to take therapy. This is not a joke. Cult deprogramming is an actual thing. And we need it for the worst of the MAGA cult. So stop comparing this to herding Trump supporters into concentration camps. That's the literal opposite. It is not punishment. It is helping them heal.
Somehow, the worst of the MAGA mob seemed to have cooled down quite a bit after Jan6. And there were almost no pro Trump protests at his NYC trial. But people are still getting death threats. Two people were recently arrested because the FBI thought they were going to kill Fauci. And yes, crazy people actually can get crazy violent. It is not just fun and games and posturing. A Trump supporter with a hammer high on conspiracy theories did almost kill Nancy Pelosi's husband. That guy and Ashley Babbit would definitely benefit from mandatory cult deprogramming. That's what we did in Europe with Islamist terrorists as well. It worked for some.
Bolded1: He wasn't...
Italic: So prosecution of a pretty much only opponent of Joe Biden in presidential election (I dont think there is a world where Kennedy wins election) by this prosecutor:
"Alvin Bragg ran for district attorney on a promise to indict Donald Trump."
and this judge:
"And the judge in Trump’s trial, Juan Merchan, donated to “a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation,” in violation of a rule barring New York judges from contributing to political campaigns, according to Honig."
https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted
Is law working as intended, but prosecution of Hunter (not running for anything) is political hitjob"
Bolded 2: just to make sure also all the dudes with blond hair and blue eyes, and obviously the ones who criticize government. Thats what democracy is all about...
Italic 2: never said "concentration", but anyway: hard work is great method of reeducation and why stop at MAGA crowd, lets help everyone who is socially dangerous, disruptive, suspicious, and other disloyal elements, whose deeds and thoughts were not contributing to the strengthening of the Democratic party...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
