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.
On August 14 2024 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam.
You can replace the politicians, though, if you can convince a majority of voters in the primary & general to replace that politician with a specific other politician. That's not easy, but it sounds easier than a violent revolution. After all, you'd need a popular majority anyway if you're going to win a violent revolution without the backing of the ruling class.
I think popular positions (like money-out-of-politics) fail because, although they're popular, voters don't care enough about them to insist upon them in the primaries. (For example, Bernie ran on a laundry list of popular correct positions, but ultimately lost the primaries because more voters picked the other candidate.) Then, in the general, there's no candidate backing that position.
On August 13 2024 20:14 Uldridge wrote: Nibble enough at the legislation and people will, at some point, feel put in a corner. I didn't say people revolt at the slightest, but I'm also not entirely sure we take the boiling frog approach with this one either (i.e. slowly eroding freedoms while we're lavishing in luxury, too lazy to respond, until there's a fascist regime).
Facist regimes are not enough either if they manage the population decently and provide good quality of life. You can easily take the boiling frog approach all the way to fascism and it would work.
Why do you think the classic quote is used so often?
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
Then how do you stop it? Will you revolt when you see the wheel churning away?
I think the lesson is that liberals/social democrats won't.
Pretty much just banking on (probably a series of) mistakes by the fascists leaving an opening for both the disorganized and organized masses to either be lead back into the catastrophes of capitalism or work together toward a sustainable socialist future.
Well since we know for certain that violent socialist revolutions never work, doing it this way has a better probability of actually producing a positive outcome.
Depends on what you mean by "work", but surely socialism can be granted the same grace of becoming ever "more perfect".
If the Declaration of Independence can claim:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
and that violent revolution is ~250 years on and still "working on" eliminating constitutionally legal slavery, in perpetual war around the world, and supporting genocide (among much more "imperfections"), then surely we can credit Vietnam with a successful revolution and give them the grace to consider their imperfect practice of socialism as them "working on" being "more perfect" as well.
What do you mean by "doing it this way"? My presumption is you mean running on the Hamster Wheel. + Show Spoiler +
1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam.
What I mean is that there has literally never been a violent socialist revolution that has ever produced a stable government that is good for its citizens.
It's literally never happened. So there's not much historical evidence to suggest that one happening in the United States would do any better.
First, that's not an explanation for what you mean by "doing it this way" as an alternative.
Not exactly sure it's fair to make the measure "stable government" when said "stable government" is literally out assassinating democratically elected leaders of, fomenting coups against, enacting draconian sanctions against, and engaging in outright war with the socialist governments you'd disqualify from success due to their "instability" (though Cuba's been pretty "stable" despite an embargo that makes the Gaza blockade look reasonable)
As for "good for its citizens", it's a metric that seems lacking. Particularly in the context of the US just saying that their slaves, the victims of their genocides (domestic), countless immigrant laborers and so on, simply aren't citizens over the years.
You see, it's pretty amazing what you can do when you genocide a people to steal their land, kidnap a bunch of people, force them to work for you for free, exploit immigrants/children for labor just to repeatedly expel them, kill millions of innocent people around the world, overthrow democratically elected governments, and so on while you can just write it off as "good for its citizens".
That's without even getting into women's rights or meaningfully trying to address the waking nightmare that is living in the US for sooo many citizens right now.
On August 14 2024 09:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
This statement is misleading or false in several ways:
1. Trump has had his own failed social media platform for years now, which has been an opportunity "to hear what Trump has to say without media bias" on a daily basis, so listening to his interview with Musk doesn't actually provide a unique opportunity for anything.
2. Even without making a Truth Social account, Trump's daily posts already get reposted and quoted and passed around the more successful social media platforms with the exact words intact, so people are already inundated with Trump's thoughts (free from media bias), no matter what.
3. When media and news organizations do decide to analyze what Trump says, you can always decide to ignore their analysis (or you can decide to consider it). Sometimes, considering it can be a wise decision, such as how Trump unsurprisingly lied a whole bunch of times in that Musk interview: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html
4a. The "one billion views" number is completely nonsensical and not even referring to the number of interview listeners. Even Fox News wrote the full context of that number, and they included the screenshot of Musk's tweet that says "Combined views of the conversation with @realDonaldTrump and subsequent discussion by other accounts now ~1 billion" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/musk-boasts-1-billion-views-no-limits-x-interview-trump.amp
4c. So, first of all, the number "one billion" arises from the sum of all views across all tweets and posts and videos talking about the interview or secondhand responses of other people who are talking about the video - which could range from response videos to fact checks to memes to one-liner comments. The number "one billion" absolutely does not correspond to the number of people watching the interview or "wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias". (Not to mention that Twitter has its own biases.)
4d. Second of all, views aren't necessarily voluntary, nor do they require you to seek out or engage with a video or post that pops up in your newsfeed. If you're just scrolling through random posts on Twitter, and you pass by 3 different statements or videos about the interview - even if you don't click on any of them - you've just contributed 3 views to that silly one billion total. All this to say that the super-inflated "one billion" number doesn't actually imply that so many people are legitimately interested in hearing Trump or Musk say the same things for the hundredth time.
4f. The total number of actual voluntary listeners (either live or afterwards) and people wanting to watch/hear the true interview is hard to figure out, as well as how long people listened to the interview for (3 seconds scrolling past, 10 minutes, 45 minutes, etc.). Maybe it's 5 million actual, sincere listeners. Maybe it's 10 million. Maybe it's 20 million. Maybe it's 50 million. Musk combines and conflates all the forms of views and impressions, voluntary and involuntary, so we don't have really useful information. I wonder, though, if any swing voters actually bothered to tune in, let alone if their minds were actually changed.
On August 14 2024 09:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
This statement is misleading or false in several ways:
1. Trump has had his own failed social media platform for years now, which has been an opportunity "to hear what Trump has to say without media bias" on a daily basis, so listening to his interview with Musk doesn't actually provide a unique opportunity for anything.
2. Even without making a Truth Social account, Trump's daily posts already get reposted and quoted and passed around the more successful social media platforms with the exact words intact, so people are already inundated with Trump's thoughts (free from media bias), no matter what.
3. When media and news organizations do decide to analyze what Trump says, you can always decide to ignore their analysis (or you can decide to consider it). Sometimes, considering it can be a wise decision, such as how Trump unsurprisingly lied a whole bunch of times in that Musk interview: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html
4a. The "one billion views" number is completely nonsensical and not even referring to the number of interview listeners. Even Fox News wrote the full context of that number, and they included the screenshot of Musk's tweet that says "Combined views of the conversation with @realDonaldTrump and subsequent discussion by other accounts now ~1 billion" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/musk-boasts-1-billion-views-no-limits-x-interview-trump.amp
4c. So, first of all, the number "one billion" arises from the sum of all views across all tweets and posts and videos talking about the interview or secondhand responses of other people who are talking about the video - which could range from response videos to fact checks to memes to one-liner comments. The number "one billion" absolutely does not correspond to the number of people watching the interview or "wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias". (Not to mention that Twitter has its own biases.)
4d. Second of all, views aren't necessarily voluntary, nor do they require you to seek out or engage with a video or post that pops up in your newsfeed. If you're just scrolling through random posts on Twitter, and you pass by 3 different statements or videos about the interview - even if you don't click on any of them - you've just contributed 3 views to that silly one billion total. All this to say that the super-inflated "one billion" number doesn't actually imply that so many people are legitimately interested in hearing Trump or Musk say the same things for the hundredth time.
4f. The total number of actual voluntary listeners (either live or afterwards) and people wanting to watch/hear the true interview is hard to figure out, as well as how long people listened to the interview for (3 seconds scrolling past, 10 minutes, 45 minutes, etc.). Maybe it's 5 million actual, sincere listeners. Maybe it's 10 million. Maybe it's 20 million. Maybe it's 50 million. Musk combines and conflates all the forms of views and impressions, voluntary and involuntary, so we don't have really useful information. I wonder, though, if any swing voters actually bothered to tune in, let alone if their minds were actually changed.
Not to mention that the guy bragging about views is literally the owner of the platform. He can literally make up a number, go into the database and change the "views" count to that number. He doesn't even need to buy views from India like "normal influencers".
This is like if Victor came on here and bragged he had 1B posts on TL.net, and pointed to the number next to his name to prove it.
Or, more nefariously, a practice run for preparing the audience for vote padding in November. That 1B number is as believable, and has as much proof for it, as Maduro's 6.4m votes in Venezuela.
On August 14 2024 09:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 1B views is pretty amazing, plenty wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias.
This statement is misleading or false in several ways:
1. Trump has had his own failed social media platform for years now, which has been an opportunity "to hear what Trump has to say without media bias" on a daily basis, so listening to his interview with Musk doesn't actually provide a unique opportunity for anything.
2. Even without making a Truth Social account, Trump's daily posts already get reposted and quoted and passed around the more successful social media platforms with the exact words intact, so people are already inundated with Trump's thoughts (free from media bias), no matter what.
3. When media and news organizations do decide to analyze what Trump says, you can always decide to ignore their analysis (or you can decide to consider it). Sometimes, considering it can be a wise decision, such as how Trump unsurprisingly lied a whole bunch of times in that Musk interview: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html
4a. The "one billion views" number is completely nonsensical and not even referring to the number of interview listeners. Even Fox News wrote the full context of that number, and they included the screenshot of Musk's tweet that says "Combined views of the conversation with @realDonaldTrump and subsequent discussion by other accounts now ~1 billion" https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/musk-boasts-1-billion-views-no-limits-x-interview-trump.amp
4c. So, first of all, the number "one billion" arises from the sum of all views across all tweets and posts and videos talking about the interview or secondhand responses of other people who are talking about the video - which could range from response videos to fact checks to memes to one-liner comments. The number "one billion" absolutely does not correspond to the number of people watching the interview or "wanting to hear what Trump has to say without media bias". (Not to mention that Twitter has its own biases.)
4d. Second of all, views aren't necessarily voluntary, nor do they require you to seek out or engage with a video or post that pops up in your newsfeed. If you're just scrolling through random posts on Twitter, and you pass by 3 different statements or videos about the interview - even if you don't click on any of them - you've just contributed 3 views to that silly one billion total. All this to say that the super-inflated "one billion" number doesn't actually imply that so many people are legitimately interested in hearing Trump or Musk say the same things for the hundredth time.
4f. The total number of actual voluntary listeners (either live or afterwards) and people wanting to watch/hear the true interview is hard to figure out, as well as how long people listened to the interview for (3 seconds scrolling past, 10 minutes, 45 minutes, etc.). Maybe it's 5 million actual, sincere listeners. Maybe it's 10 million. Maybe it's 20 million. Maybe it's 50 million. Musk combines and conflates all the forms of views and impressions, voluntary and involuntary, so we don't have really useful information. I wonder, though, if any swing voters actually bothered to tune in, let alone if their minds were actually changed.
Not to mention that the guy bragging about views is literally the owner of the platform. He can literally make up a number, go into the database and change the "views" count to that number. He doesn't even need to buy views from India like "normal influencers".
This is like if Victor came on here and bragged he had 1B posts on TL.net, and pointed to the number next to his name to prove it.
Or, more nefariously, a practice run for preparing the audience for vote padding in November. That 1B number is as believable, and has as much proof for it, as Maduro's 6.4m votes in Venezuela.
And we all know that if Trump ever references "one billion" about his interview with Musk, he's going to mention it inaccurately and in bad faith, likely implying that a billion people listened to the interview or approve of the interview or are happy with the interview, etc.
Apparently even with Jeffrey Epstein dead, Donald Trump has still been flying around in his buddy's plane, just like the old days. Except now he's using it for campaigning, rather than sexual deviance.
On August 15 2024 00:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently even with Jeffrey Epstein dead, Donald Trump has still been flying around in his buddy's plane, just like the old days. Except now he's using it for campaigning, rather than sexual deviance.
On August 15 2024 00:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently even with Jeffrey Epstein dead, Donald Trump has still been flying around in his buddy's plane, just like the old days. Except now he's using it for campaigning, rather than sexual deviance.
Could be either, but he has enough history of being a sexual predator that I didn't feel the need to overstep and assert any new unfounded issues (unless new allegations end up being released and substantiated).
From fake/AI crowd sizes to nonsensical helicopter anecdotes to just being casually racist and sexist and bizarre, Trump is really getting more unhinged by the month. His old age and delirium and idiocy should really be highlighted more, the same way that Biden's old age was. Or maybe the facts that he's a rapist and a fraud and a liar? Or can we just fast forward to the end of this, where Trump inevitably calls Kamala Harris the n-word (now that he finally knows that she's black), and see if he still wins the November election or if American democracy will actually survive Trump and Vance and Project 2025?
As much as I love and am amused by Jon Stewart, I question the merit of posting it as a source of any news in USPMT. It's a comedy piece for comedy and not something following strong journalistic ethics.
I do think it's impactful, but it's also voicing what a group of people wants to hear rather than trying to gague Trump's decline.
On August 15 2024 04:01 Fleetfeet wrote: As much as I love and am amused by Jon Stewart, I question the merit of posting it as a source of any news in USPMT. It's a comedy piece for comedy and not something following strong journalistic ethics.
I do think it's impactful, but it's also voicing what a group of people wants to hear rather than trying to gague Trump's decline.
Sorry, I should have been clearer - it isn't that I don't believe the stories are real, just that it's literally a comedy piece. If your goal is to demonstrate that Trump is mentally declining further then the links you just posted do a better job of displaying that than a comedy piece about those articles.
On August 15 2024 03:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From fake/AI crowd sizes to nonsensical helicopter anecdotes to just being casually racist and sexist and bizarre, Trump is really getting more unhinged by the month. His old age and delirium and idiocy should really be highlighted more, the same way that Biden's old age was. Or maybe the facts that he's a rapist and a fraud and a liar? Or can we just fast forward to the end of this, where Trump inevitably calls Kamala Harris the n-word (now that he finally knows that she's black), and see if he still wins the November election or if American democracy will actually survive Trump and Vance and Project 2025?
Who knew that when you run an entire campaign on a platform of nothing but personal attacks, that all of a sudden when your opponent changes you don't know what to do?
This same thing would have happened in 2016 if Hillary hadn't won the nomination, Trump would have been just as lost.
The Republicans don't have a political platform to actually campaign on. All of their policies are unpopular except for their tax cuts, and they know they can't get tax cuts passed through their own caucus anymore because of how much it will balloon the deficit.
So personal attacks are all they have. That's all they were going to use on Biden, and now that Biden is out of the race (that he never should have been running in the first place) they just don't know what to do. Trump is making shit up as he goes, and without an easy punching bag this is the best he is capable of.
On August 15 2024 03:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From fake/AI crowd sizes to nonsensical helicopter anecdotes to just being casually racist and sexist and bizarre, Trump is really getting more unhinged by the month. His old age and delirium and idiocy should really be highlighted more, the same way that Biden's old age was. Or maybe the facts that he's a rapist and a fraud and a liar? Or can we just fast forward to the end of this, where Trump inevitably calls Kamala Harris the n-word (now that he finally knows that she's black), and see if he still wins the November election or if American democracy will actually survive Trump and Vance and Project 2025?
Who knew that when you run an entire campaign on a platform of nothing but personal attacks, that all of a sudden when your opponent changes you don't know what to do?
This same thing would have happened in 2016 if Hillary hadn't won the nomination, Trump would have been just as lost.
The Republicans don't have a political platform to actually campaign on. All of their policies are unpopular except for their tax cuts, and they know they can't get tax cuts passed through their own caucus anymore because of how much it will balloon the deficit.
So personal attacks are all they have. That's all they were going to use on Biden, and now that Biden is out of the race (that he never should have been running in the first place) they just don't know what to do. Trump is making shit up as he goes, and without an easy punching bag this is the best he is capable of.
As far as I can tell, "Kamabla" and "he served 24 years but he resigned so he could run for office" seem to be the Republicans' current strategy for defaming their opponents... Y'know, they talked a big game, saying they had done research on Kamala as well as her potential VP picks, but they can't even so much as get their opponents' names correct. They're mad that Biden isn't their opponent anymore because now they have to run against someone they haven't been smearing for the last 4 years.
On August 15 2024 03:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From fake/AI crowd sizes to nonsensical helicopter anecdotes to just being casually racist and sexist and bizarre, Trump is really getting more unhinged by the month. His old age and delirium and idiocy should really be highlighted more, the same way that Biden's old age was. Or maybe the facts that he's a rapist and a fraud and a liar? Or can we just fast forward to the end of this, where Trump inevitably calls Kamala Harris the n-word (now that he finally knows that she's black), and see if he still wins the November election or if American democracy will actually survive Trump and Vance and Project 2025?
Who knew that when you run an entire campaign on a platform of nothing but personal attacks, that all of a sudden when your opponent changes you don't know what to do?
This same thing would have happened in 2016 if Hillary hadn't won the nomination, Trump would have been just as lost.
The Republicans don't have a political platform to actually campaign on. All of their policies are unpopular except for their tax cuts, and they know they can't get tax cuts passed through their own caucus anymore because of how much it will balloon the deficit.
So personal attacks are all they have. That's all they were going to use on Biden, and now that Biden is out of the race (that he never should have been running in the first place) they just don't know what to do. Trump is making shit up as he goes, and without an easy punching bag this is the best he is capable of.
As far as I can tell, "Kamabla" and "he served 24 years but he resigned so he could run for office" seem to be the Republicans' current strategy for defaming their opponents... Y'know, they talked a big game, saying they had done research on Kamala as well as her potential VP picks, but they can't even so much as get their opponents' names correct. They're mad that Biden isn't their opponent anymore because now they have to run against someone they haven't been smearing for the last 4 years.
And "Tampon Tim" for wanting to make sure that there are plenty of menstrual products for anyone who needs them lol. The best response I've heard to that nickname is the reminder that tampons are great at preventing a Red Wave.
Is that another felony? Or is it not a crime because Trump is running for president again, or because no official deals have been made between Trump and Netanyahu, or something else? Would it be a crime if someone else did what Trump is doing?
Is that another felony? Or is it not a crime because Trump is running for president again, or because no official deals have been made between Trump and Netanyahu, or something else? Would it be a crime if someone else did what Trump is doing?
A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel isn't a dispute between the US and a foreign government. It'd be a problem if he were promising stuff the US will do in return. If he's promising that the US will do stuff if he's elected president and clearly conditioned that way, it seems like it'd be legal, right?
Is that another felony? Or is it not a crime because Trump is running for president again, or because no official deals have been made between Trump and Netanyahu, or something else? Would it be a crime if someone else did what Trump is doing?
A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel isn't a dispute between the US and a foreign government. It'd be a problem if he were promising stuff the US will do in return. If he's promising that the US will do stuff if he's elected president and clearly conditioned that way, it seems like it'd be legal, right?
No idea if that depends on what is said or done before or after Trump becomes president, hence why I asked I legitimately know nothing about this topic, so I figured I'd inquire about it.
On August 15 2024 03:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: From fake/AI crowd sizes to nonsensical helicopter anecdotes to just being casually racist and sexist and bizarre, Trump is really getting more unhinged by the month. His old age and delirium and idiocy should really be highlighted more, the same way that Biden's old age was. Or maybe the facts that he's a rapist and a fraud and a liar? Or can we just fast forward to the end of this, where Trump inevitably calls Kamala Harris the n-word (now that he finally knows that she's black), and see if he still wins the November election or if American democracy will actually survive Trump and Vance and Project 2025?
EPT
I legitimately know nothing about this topic, so I figured I'd inquire about it.
