|
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 |
Northern Ireland22534 Posts
On November 05 2024 14:02 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 13:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2024 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent. While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters. I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift. ...And that's why we have people like GH insisting that voting for Harris is wrong, not because he's right wing but because he's firmly in the perpetually online maladjusted dipshit group. The reason voting for Harris is "wrong" is because supporting genocide is "wrong". That Dems and their supporters have already rationalized their support for genocide pretty much means fascism is winning regardless of the 2024 election outcome. It's obvious to me how Trump winning can lead to fascism, but how does Harris winning also lead to fascism? How is genocide not fascism to you? Genocide is completely separate from fascism, and not only because basically every political spectrum has done it including communist (even right now!) But because it existed long before fascism did. Next Russia is trying to speed run all the possible war crimes including genocide and Trump getting into power increases that one AS WELL AS what is going on in the middle east. And if you are one issue, anti fascism voter, then why would you be against the person "supporting fascism" compared to the actual fascist. And if you think Fascism and genocide are the same thing , then wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop the fascist from taking power of the worlds most powerful army?
Red lines are red lines, despite what Barack Obama says
Consider this hypothetical.
You’ve dude A you really hate, dude B you really dislike but less
Someone tells you you’re duty bound to have you wife or s/o banged by one of them. For the greater good. Hey B is slightly less shit
Alternatively, you have the option of just leaving your wife or s/o to remain in glorious monogamy, untainted with such sordid machinations.
I don’t see why this is so unfathomable to folks. GH considers it a non-negotiable issue, and provided neither party shifts to his position he’s not going to proffer his support to either. In a state where his vote is effectively meaningless anyway.
Why is this so confusing?
|
Probably should have added "a tool of" and the edit before hitting post to avoid some confusion.
"On November 05 2024 13:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent. While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters. I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift. ...And that's why we have people like GH insisting that voting for Harris is wrong, not because he's right wing but because he's firmly in the perpetually online maladjusted dipshit group. The reason voting for Harris is "wrong" is because supporting genocide is "wrong". That Dems and their supporters have already rationalized their support for genocide pretty much means fascism is winning regardless of the 2024 election outcome. It's obvious to me how Trump winning can lead to fascism, but how does Harris winning also lead to fascism?
How is genocide not a tool of fascism to you?
EDIT: I should add this
On April 24 2024 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2024 07:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Framing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-Semitic is a bad take for Biden, and I disagree with his interpretation of those protests. I'm with you on that part. I'm still struggling to see how this lays the foundation for fascism though. Republicans/Fascists also frame pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic and will find the fact that Biden already laid the foundation for that framing in Democrat's minds and provided a program to help fascists crack down on such protests quite useful. Then fascists can point to it being a critique and product/policy that came from Democrats, that "the libs" accepted it when Biden/Democrats did it, and any opposition now is just them being bitter partisans. If Democrats push it, they'll be labeled as sympathizers or terrorists themselves, so they won't, and will call that "pragmatism". Same for the Cop City in ATL, domestic spying, the (still in use) 2001 AUMF, policing the public in NYC using the military, cracking down on "illegals", and the list goes on and on. After Democrats lay down all these foundations for fascism and eventually lose control of them (since they won't win every election in perpetuity) they'll pick up their batons in a vain attempt to avoid being the targets of those policies, institutions, etc. by finding "bipartisan compromises" on where to direct that fascism among the US public and oppressed people around the globe. Which is uncomfortably acceptable to relatively affluent cishet white men. Because to be clear, Democrats have been making these kinds of "compromises" with less overtly fascist Republicans for decades (like consistently increasing police budgets, DOMA, and so on). Which brings us back to the bipartisan framing of pro-Palestinian actions as "antisemitic protests" that is already aligning Democrats and Republicans around cracking down on these purportedly "antisemitic protests" in a tiny, comparably placid, preview of what is to come if they aren't stopped (organized civil disobedience, like Biden is joining Republicans to crack down on, will be required) before then. Hopefully that helps you understand my point? "
Democrats convinced themselves they have to support genocide to protect democracy and don't recognize the Niemöllerness of it.
|
Northern Ireland22534 Posts
We could construct all sorts of composite platforms to stick other people in the same kind of scenario who are more towards the relative centre
What if the Democrats were now also rabidly anti abortion, pro-gun but still overall better than Trump’s platform? You’d vote for them right?
What if they were all that but wanted to repeal the ACA?
What if they…
You mean to tell me you’d still happily turn out and vote, in good conscience so long as they were better than the alternative?
Nah we all have our lines in the sand, one may not vote for the other lot but one can still lose a vote
|
United States41404 Posts
On November 05 2024 14:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 14:02 Billyboy wrote:On November 05 2024 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 13:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2024 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
“My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent. While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters. I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift. ...And that's why we have people like GH insisting that voting for Harris is wrong, not because he's right wing but because he's firmly in the perpetually online maladjusted dipshit group. The reason voting for Harris is "wrong" is because supporting genocide is "wrong". That Dems and their supporters have already rationalized their support for genocide pretty much means fascism is winning regardless of the 2024 election outcome. It's obvious to me how Trump winning can lead to fascism, but how does Harris winning also lead to fascism? How is genocide not fascism to you? Genocide is completely separate from fascism, and not only because basically every political spectrum has done it including communist (even right now!) But because it existed long before fascism did. Next Russia is trying to speed run all the possible war crimes including genocide and Trump getting into power increases that one AS WELL AS what is going on in the middle east. And if you are one issue, anti fascism voter, then why would you be against the person "supporting fascism" compared to the actual fascist. And if you think Fascism and genocide are the same thing , then wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop the fascist from taking power of the worlds most powerful army? Red lines are red lines, despite what Barack Obama says Consider this hypothetical. You’ve dude A you really hate, dude B you really dislike but less Someone tells you you’re duty bound to have you wife or s/o banged by one of them. For the greater good. Hey B is slightly less shit Alternatively, you have the option of just leaving your wife or s/o to remain in glorious monogamy, untainted with such sordid machinations. I don’t see why this is so unfathomable to folks. GH considers it a non-negotiable issue, and provided neither party shifts to his position he’s not going to proffer his support to either. In a state where his vote is effectively meaningless anyway. Why is this so confusing?
Because you literally can't opt out of the result and therefore insisting that you're opting out of a preference between two very different states is nonsensical. One of the two of them is going to be the next President. You don't get to be above it all, politics matters. When one candidate is campaigning on increasing police brutality against suspects, it matters.
You can't refuse to negotiate because the result of the negotiations will be imposed upon you and everyone else regardless of your refusal, you're still accountable. Politics is not something you can opt out of.
People act like it's the choice between watching two different Adam Sandler movies and think you can just say "well I don't care for Adam Sandler so I'll just stay home". It's not. You, and everyone else, are going to be forced to watch one of them. Even if you literally don't care which you still have an obligation to check how your peers will be impacted by them and vote for the one that they'd hate least.
GH's argument has never been that he isn't voting because mathematically voting is pointless and you're more likely to change the world by buying a lottery ticket than voting in a non swing state. I'd be good with that argument because it's literally true. One vote doesn't make a difference and as long as your failure to vote isn't changing the actions of others then sure, don't vote.
GH's argument has always been that he's better than the rest of us because he identifies as a revolutionary and identifies as having transcended the political system. I'd have more patience with him if he identified as a golden retriever because at least then he'd have a chance of being a good boy.
|
On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive.
What if you just enjoy his show and want to hear cool stories from a guy living in the rainforest?
|
United States41404 Posts
On November 05 2024 14:49 WombaT wrote:
We could construct all sorts of composite platforms to stick other people in the same kind of scenario who are more towards the relative centre
What if the Democrats were now also rabidly anti abortion, pro-gun but still overall better than Trump’s platform? You’d vote for them right?
What if they were all that but wanted to repeal the ACA?
What if they…
You mean to tell me you’d still happily turn out and vote, in good conscience so long as they were better than the alternative?
Nah we all have our lines in the sand, one may not vote for the other lot but one can still lose a vote
I'd vote for the rabidly anti abortion but still better than Trump candidate. I wouldn't like doing it but I'd still do it.
Let's say we went further with the hypothetical and made me choose between Hitler and Stalin or whatever. You still can't opt out of politics. Even in the most absurdly awful scenario you're still operating within a society and still have an obligation to shape that society. Your obligation may change from the ballot box to bombing government buildings but you can't simply say that you're above it all. There's no sweet spot of badness where the obligation ends, where electoralism has failed but direct action isn't required and you can just chill and do nothing. The stance that electoralism has failed is by definition a declaration of the moral necessity for direct action. That voting is not enough, therefore you must do more than voting.
If it came down to Hitler or Stalin then the ethical choice isn't to insist that you're better than this, it's to fucking be better than this and take direct action.
GH identifies as being morally superior. His actions are those of a moral inferior. It's not that nobody understands his position. It's that nobody understands why he can't see how obviously contemptible it is. His starting point is that the ballot box is insufficient, democracy is failed, the only ethical course is direct action. And yet he takes no direct action. He does less than the rest of us because he believes that the need for action has never been greater. It's utterly absurd. The worse society gets, the greater his obligation, and yet the less he does, the better he feels about it.
I don't take issue with the idea that electoralism has failed. I don't agree with it but whatever, it's a valid viewpoint. I take issue with using the idea that electoralism has failed as an excuse to opt out. If one really were to believe that then the need for action would be greater than ever. GH isn't failing to meet the basic moral minimum of my belief structure, he's failing to meet the basic moral minimum of the one he proclaims to be his own.
|
On November 05 2024 14:49 WombaT wrote:
We could construct all sorts of composite platforms to stick other people in the same kind of scenario who are more towards the relative centre
What if the Democrats were now also rabidly anti abortion, pro-gun but still overall better than Trump’s platform? You’d vote for them right?
What if they were all that but wanted to repeal the ACA?
What if they…
You mean to tell me you’d still happily turn out and vote, in good conscience so long as they were better than the alternative?
Nah we all have our lines in the sand, one may not vote for the other lot but one can still lose a vote
Feel like we pretty thoroughly exhausted the fact that libs/Democrats don't actually have a line or any policy/value/people they couldn't support/abandon/genocide to support evil (of the lesser kind) in the name of ostensible "democracy".
|
United States41404 Posts
On November 05 2024 14:55 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. What if you just enjoy his show and want to hear cool stories from a guy living in the rainforest?
Then it might be time to have a long hard look in the mirror.
|
I have a question for GH about the lesser evil voting.
I'm not trying to catch you out GH, i'm genuinely interested:
Do you think left wingers would be better spending their time getting behind left wing democratic candidates in local politics instead of railing against the democratic party as a whole, in an attempt to make the Dems more left wing regardless of what happens at the top?
It seems to me having a philosophy based almost entirely on rejecting both parties could end up counter productive instead of promoting left wing voices within one of those parties...
|
I guess Fetterman wasn't convincing enough in his arguments.
The comments on youtube have not been kind, but give him props for at least showing up and doing 2 hours.
|
Fascinating actual things happening:
1) NBC gives Drumpf free ads in compensation for equal time violations by having Kamala on SNL which Lorne had said not to do previously
2) A judge denied the motion to block Musk's sweepstakes
3) Mississippi and Georgia judges have blocked counting ballots received after election day. Nevada ruled to take without postmarks up to 4 days after.
4) Colorado hasn't yet ruled in the case of the Libertarian Party suing Secretary of State Jena Griswold, whose office leaked voting machine passwords in a spreadsheet uploaded online, which she hasn't resigned over, but an employee who allegedly made the mistake was fired over. Plaintiffs want to mandate hand counting of everything.
5) Beaming Election Eve endorsement by Megyn Kelly (of "only Rosie O'Donnell" and "blood coming out of her... wherever" fame) of Drumpf (joining the number of others aligned with him against the establishment) who has done 7 events in the past 2 days and not rested for the past 2 months or so. Knowing he can't have done too much better, with the potential this may be the final stretch of the journey of his public legacy the seeds of which started 40+ years ago, has closed out in the state where he redrew the map in 2016, that by most calculations is the new Florida, that Harris could have picked the governor of as her running mate instead of what the Democrat "voters" ended up with.
|
So I guess this it? Good luck US, good luck World!
|
On November 05 2024 05:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 05:01 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2024 03:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2024 03:11 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2024 02:41 r00ty wrote:On November 05 2024 01:51 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 00:54 r00ty wrote:On November 04 2024 18:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 04 2024 18:30 r00ty wrote:On November 04 2024 16:37 oBlade wrote:
Kamala picked up a last minute endorsement from noted white supremacist Richard Spencer. Said she is the best person to lead the American empire. Not sure whether she has disavowed yet or intends to or is delaying on purpose as a form of dog whistling. Other white supremacist and co-holocaust denier (with Kanye) Nick Fuentes has rejected Drumpf but apparently not gone as far as to endorse Kamala, who is half Indian, probably because it makes him look like a hypocrite for having attacked JD Vance's wife, who is full Indian. Like those two grifters are relevant in any way. lol. I thought it was weird, so I checked it out: Given the slightly surprising endorsement, both due to his politics and previous comments about women, Spencer clarified in a phone interview with Newsweek on Saturday morning, "I just want someone who is competent to be in charge so that something can happen, as opposed to demonization of the other side." He also added that: "there's a total absence of policy among the GOP. It's the 'no' party, it's almost nihilistic party," in contrast to how he views the Democrats as, "more competent," "able to be reasonable," and wanting "to govern the whole country." and He continued: "When I put it that way, the choice is very clear. I think Donald Trump and the MAGA [Make America Great Again] movement bring nothing but stupidity and chaos." While the dude is completely reprehensible, the criticism is pretty much spot on. I thought this would be some low effort confusion trolling attempt, but interesting. I can see his point though, DJT is no posterchild for any ideology you really want to further. He's a clown, obviously very uneducated, a liar and narcissist. I still struggle to understand him having any appeal. I give him charisma, but that's about it. In my opinion calling him Hitler is actually an insult to Adolf. Say what you want about the man, at least he had an ideology and the policies. Edit: What's most worrying to me about the orange man is his irrational long lasting vindictiveness. From Liz Cheney over Obama to the offshore windmills at his golf course in Scotland. He can't let it go. That's also why he hates my country so much: 2 failed Trump Tower projects (Frankfurt and Stuttgart). Fascinating story, attempted money laundering in plain sight but local officials called him out. There’s probably some cafe in Buenos Aires where Hitler has spent the last 8 years frequently fuming about the comparison. Yeah I think you’re bang on there, Trump doesn’t need to himself be a devoted fascist to enable those who are. You allude to it in your post, what I consider probably Trump’s most dangerous attribute as a leader, his seemingly pathological need for absolute loyalty. Not a loyalty to party, country etc, but to him. You then combine that with his seeming lack of ideological convictions, and it’s a rather manipulable combo. All you have to do is placate his ego and hey, you’re somewhat in favour now. I mean consider the following hypothetical, (and no I’m keeping it simple and not adding a million and one caveats), which scenario do you think Trump himself would find preferable?: 1. The GOP as a broad conservative coalition, including influential figures within the tent who are critical of Trump. 2. The GOP pivots further right, to be full-blown Fascist, or in that ballpark but is slavishly loyal to the Donald. As an aside, your point re personal slights is a very well-made one. I feel it’s not quite talked about enough. We’re not even always talking frosty interpersonal relations, or pettiness on minor issues, but quite considerable movement on big foreign policy that maps remarkably well onto ‘what country does Trump have some grudge against?’ The Putin relationship is the perfect example. The US is killing it because of Russia being sanctioned. The subsidies for Ukraine are a joke compared to the net profit the US economy gets becauses of energy prices over the last two years. That lie about the economy being better under Trump pisses me off so much. Using regional wars in order to provoke international sanctions to control energy prices is exactly the foreign policy of the Republican Party of 20 years ago. Some of us hated it. Some were just pretending. I prefer the guy who didn't allow an absurd war. You do not need war to run an economy. To the extent that you set up an economy to run on war, it deserves to suffer from peace until it's corrected, ESPECIALLY the public sector. How are your energy costs doing by the way? On November 05 2024 02:41 r00ty wrote:
Hopefully he won't make it, but if, i wanna see him deporting the cheap labor force while putting a 20% tarrif on imports and see how that works out for fixing inflation.
That'd be great. The past millions of jobs have net gone to immigrants, with jobs stagnant and being lost for natives. The government net loses money also, when it creates its makework BS jobs, because they don't come with enough growth to pay back their own cost in the debt the US takes to make them. For example the IRA spent $369 billion to "create" 300k jobs, meaning a million and a quarter per job. Thanks OBiden. You seem to be of the mindset that the *only* reward of the $369B spent was creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's not true. There was so much more. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf Page 4 has the enormous table of contents. You seem more familiar than me - I don't have time to read all 180 pages at the moment - What's the approximate value of everything that was created besides the jobs? On November 05 2024 03:43 r00ty wrote:On November 05 2024 03:11 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2024 02:41 r00ty wrote:On November 05 2024 01:51 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 00:54 r00ty wrote:On November 04 2024 18:40 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 04 2024 18:30 r00ty wrote:On November 04 2024 16:37 oBlade wrote:
Kamala picked up a last minute endorsement from noted white supremacist Richard Spencer. Said she is the best person to lead the American empire. Not sure whether she has disavowed yet or intends to or is delaying on purpose as a form of dog whistling. Other white supremacist and co-holocaust denier (with Kanye) Nick Fuentes has rejected Drumpf but apparently not gone as far as to endorse Kamala, who is half Indian, probably because it makes him look like a hypocrite for having attacked JD Vance's wife, who is full Indian. Like those two grifters are relevant in any way. lol. I thought it was weird, so I checked it out: Given the slightly surprising endorsement, both due to his politics and previous comments about women, Spencer clarified in a phone interview with Newsweek on Saturday morning, "I just want someone who is competent to be in charge so that something can happen, as opposed to demonization of the other side." He also added that: "there's a total absence of policy among the GOP. It's the 'no' party, it's almost nihilistic party," in contrast to how he views the Democrats as, "more competent," "able to be reasonable," and wanting "to govern the whole country." and He continued: "When I put it that way, the choice is very clear. I think Donald Trump and the MAGA [Make America Great Again] movement bring nothing but stupidity and chaos." While the dude is completely reprehensible, the criticism is pretty much spot on. I thought this would be some low effort confusion trolling attempt, but interesting. I can see his point though, DJT is no posterchild for any ideology you really want to further. He's a clown, obviously very uneducated, a liar and narcissist. I still struggle to understand him having any appeal. I give him charisma, but that's about it. In my opinion calling him Hitler is actually an insult to Adolf. Say what you want about the man, at least he had an ideology and the policies. Edit: What's most worrying to me about the orange man is his irrational long lasting vindictiveness. From Liz Cheney over Obama to the offshore windmills at his golf course in Scotland. He can't let it go. That's also why he hates my country so much: 2 failed Trump Tower projects (Frankfurt and Stuttgart). Fascinating story, attempted money laundering in plain sight but local officials called him out. There’s probably some cafe in Buenos Aires where Hitler has spent the last 8 years frequently fuming about the comparison. Yeah I think you’re bang on there, Trump doesn’t need to himself be a devoted fascist to enable those who are. You allude to it in your post, what I consider probably Trump’s most dangerous attribute as a leader, his seemingly pathological need for absolute loyalty. Not a loyalty to party, country etc, but to him. You then combine that with his seeming lack of ideological convictions, and it’s a rather manipulable combo. All you have to do is placate his ego and hey, you’re somewhat in favour now. I mean consider the following hypothetical, (and no I’m keeping it simple and not adding a million and one caveats), which scenario do you think Trump himself would find preferable?: 1. The GOP as a broad conservative coalition, including influential figures within the tent who are critical of Trump. 2. The GOP pivots further right, to be full-blown Fascist, or in that ballpark but is slavishly loyal to the Donald. As an aside, your point re personal slights is a very well-made one. I feel it’s not quite talked about enough. We’re not even always talking frosty interpersonal relations, or pettiness on minor issues, but quite considerable movement on big foreign policy that maps remarkably well onto ‘what country does Trump have some grudge against?’ The Putin relationship is the perfect example. The US is killing it because of Russia being sanctioned. The subsidies for Ukraine are a joke compared to the net profit the US economy gets becauses of energy prices over the last two years. That lie about the economy being better under Trump pisses me off so much. Using regional wars in order to provoke international sanctions to control energy prices is exactly the foreign policy of the Republican Party of 20 years ago. Some of us hated it. Some were just pretending. I prefer the guy who didn't allow an absurd war. You do not need war to run an economy. To the extent that you set up an economy to run on war, it deserves to suffer from peace until it's corrected, ESPECIALLY the public sector. How are your energy costs doing by the way? On November 05 2024 02:41 r00ty wrote:
Hopefully he won't make it, but if, i wanna see him deporting the cheap labor force while putting a 20% tarrif on imports and see how that works out for fixing inflation.
That'd be great. The past millions of jobs have net gone to immigrants, with jobs stagnant and being lost for natives. The government net loses money also, when it creates its makework BS jobs, because they don't come with enough growth to pay back their own cost in the debt the US takes to make them. For example the IRA spent $369 billion to "create" 300k jobs, meaning a million and a quarter per job. Thanks OBiden. The "Trump at least is not a warmonger" narrative, lovin' it. And finally the cleaning, harvest helper and other not so desirable jobs are available to true Americans. Thank the Donald. Erase the "at least" and you've arrived at the truth. Excuse me that I don't consider the cost of German energy to be worth Ukrainian and Russian lives. You should have built some nuclear plants. Nor am I moved by the Democratic Party's need to rely on cheap and illegal foreign labor, to work as maids and tomato pickers, as somehow propping up the entire western system that you rely on for energy, either. The fact that a job is not personally desirable to you doesn't mean American citizens don't want employment, or that therefore the Democrats need to import ethnic minorities to do it for them. Dude. You have no clue what you are talking about. German energy would be way cheaper if the war was over, and even cheaper if we traded normally with Russia. You act as if German energy is cheaper due to the war, when the absolute opposite is true. German energy is expensive because we support Ukraine in their war against an oppressive invader.
He should also be careful of what he assumes, that's a problem with people residing in a certain media bubble.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't rely on anyone for my energy consumption, just hoisted 10m³ of wood out of my forest into my barn to keep us cozy during the winter. Over the year our solar produces more than we consume and the price for fire wood keeps rising, a side business of my family.
I'm absolutely pro nuclear power and against EVs in their current state until we find a better solution, but it was a democratic decision to abandon the first and push the second. I don't agree with those policies, as powering EVs from a majorly coal powered grid is madness and vote accordingly. But we're getting there.
Yeah a cheap and stable natural gas supply would be nice for our economy, can't deny that. We really went for it. But in the long term we can't have Putin having his way with Ukraine and that's what's at stake in this election. When i had to decide wether to install a gas powered heating system i specifically decided against it because ot Putin. It was the time when Russia frequently shut off Ukraine. They had already proven not to be a reliable partner, it was a bad decision out of good intentions (change through trade), but Putin's gonna Putin...
the Democratic Party's need to rely on cheap and illegal foreign labor
the Democrats need to import ethnic minorities
Sorry i can't take you seriously, you're lost in a conspiracy theory. Take care.
|
On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent. While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters. I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift. I think your seriously underestimating the amount of maladjusted people in the world today.
|
On November 05 2024 16:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 12:27 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 12:07 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:57 WombaT wrote:On November 05 2024 11:44 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2024 11:35 WombaT wrote:What are his rationales? “My salary depends on this.” The sad part is it really doesn’t Rogan built his entire brand on being perceived (relatively) politically independent, having interesting guests from various spheres and having a ton of knowledge on MMA, that’s what folks tuned in for. Least among my circle, which maybe isn’t super representative to be fair Rogan’s empire is probably more overall lucrative if he doesn’t do things like, I dunno outright coming out as pro Trump. So if you’re going to do that I’d assume it comes from that understanding My understanding is that his fan base is composed entirely of perpetually online maladjusted dipshits who identify as politically independent as a way of virtue signaling. To them they don’t see a contradiction between endorsing Trump and being an outsider to politics because they’re fully buying into the narrative that voting Trump is in some way subversive. The calculus here is simple. Grifters gonna grift. He doesn’t make money from people who don’t buy into this alternative media with alternative facts shit. He never will. It costs him nothing to alienate them while he stands to benefit from aligning with them. They won’t even recognize a contradiction between endorsing a candidate and being independent. While I frequently accede to your wisdom Kwawk, Rogan’s numbers probably transcend mere maladjusted dipshits. They just do. Spotify didn’t pay the big bucks otherwise I don’t think this is entirely fair with his historic output, although a fair assessment of some recent pivots. He gave Bernie a platform, indeed I think he endorsed him one time He can just be wrong, that doesn’t make him a grifter. If he believes his shtick, hey. Dave Rubin or Candace Owens, now there’s some grifters. I think he’s just shifted from his previous politics to being an avowed supporter of right wing politics, but I see that as a genuine shift rather than jumping on a grift. I think your seriously underestimating the amount of maladjusted people in the world today.
He also sold Alpha Brain and other questionable stuff since the very beginning.
The guy was never "just" a podcaster. I watched him when i was interested in a guest until a few months before the spotify deal/move to austin/covid. He obviously went full retard and has become basically unwatchable for anyone not in the dimwit-right wing/dude bro/chud category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
