2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Jacob, that's just a disingenuous parallel. If I read some writings of any author with two braincells on the hypocrisy of American liberalism, including commies, libertarians and even other liberals, I'm sure I'd agree with some of their points and disagree with others. What does it have to do with anything? You just think it's smart to compare me to a zealot for some reason.
 
Jacob, that's just a disingenuous parallel. If I read some writings of any author with two braincells on the hypocrisy of American liberalism, including commies, libertarians and even other liberals, I'm sure I'd agree with some of their points and disagree with others.

Yes, I agree, but as I said it's the not the opinion on its own, it's the weird quasi orientalist reaction to something that hardly anyone in the west (or anywhere outside of eastern europe and the middle east) cares about. Reading your initial post really reminded me of all the conversations I've had with islamists. If you think that means I'm calling you an islamist, then مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ
 
Sure. Sounds like an adequate reaction to my post. Showing distaste with the current state of the media and disagreement with the ideology that's being pushed does sound pretty much like I want to put a burqua on every lady and desecrate some holy sites.
Also, there is no nuance in disagreement with left authoritarianism, alarmism and populism and disagreement with basic liberal ideas.
I can conclude, that if I criticize a certain agenda, I'm basically a religious extremist. Which is arguably better than nazi so I'll take it. :smile:

If you can charachterize leftist thought in monolithic terms, then people are justified to describe the reactions to it in similarly broad terms. If you don't provide examples of illiberal 'centralised' leftism and how salient the threat is, then it's just gonna sound as conspiratorial and lazy as every Qanon, white genocide spiel about how people feel like they're being displaced or that Democrats are evil. Jacob is making fun of your rationale. People just talk past, misunderstand, and misread each other when you combine humor and politics. But it can also be used to alleviate the mood.

Like, if I'm 100% real, every person that talks about society in abstract is usually full of it and just doesn't want to do research. We laugh at normies for talking about taxes and voting, but the truth is that those are exactly the conversations we should be having; and these people are better informed than us, because any meaningful conversation is not going to be had by talking about how you feel about the vacuum that is western marxism.

Are we gonna talk about minorities? Cool! Let's just talk about minorities then. Do you feel like it's inappropriate to give a special status to some minority? Well, let's talk about that then. Do you feel restricted as to your speech? Well, how come? What are the mainstream practices? Hmm maybe you're right. Maybe your negative experience can inform us of bad trends and practices. Are they justified still in light of the alternatives? What can we do to internalise the problem as highlighted by your insight?

These are the conversations people are just too lazy to talk about, because talking about the inherent ills of society makes you feel and sound cool and like a galaxy brain that is just so much more aware of society and the broader picture than all these sheeple, and it doesn't even require you to do research!

You can still talk about culture (and as someone that studied a subject on it, I can tell ya that cultivating a healthy, integrity-oriented culture can be more effective than any hard laws given a certain scope/environment (but people disagree on what integrity should mean)). Probably just needs to be a conversation on the merits if you want it be meaningful. But some people just don't have the time and mental will and fortitude to do a bit of reading, which is a problem. I do still think that people should have some responsibility to at least formulate the specific problem that bothers them instead of defaulting to 'the global Jews/Marxists/neoliberals are at it again'.

122270702_371656117219985_3284116771525805493_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would argue that actual conservatives also hate Trump. I don't think there's any reasonable way to call him a "conservative".
Looking at videos of ex-Trump voters restores my soul. ?

ElDfrdHUcAEQYGk

ElDfqodUwAAOJEJ

ElDwCc0UUAAmhrg

 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree, but as I said it's the not the opinion on its own, it's the weird quasi orientalist reaction to something that hardly anyone in the west (or anywhere outside of eastern europe and the middle east) cares about. Reading your initial post really reminded me of all the conversations I've had with islamists. If you think that means I'm calling you an islamist, then مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ
Quasi orientalist reaction? What does it even mean?
Also, where lies the value to the conversation in anecdotally comparing me to islamists anyway?
 
If there's any ideology that controls the state that would be liberalism, and if you take a cursory look at which parties are in government across the West and most of the world in general right now you'll find center right and center left parties almost universally in power, with a few exceptions, some of which are of course worrying.

What really controls the state though is simply capital. Wealthy people and corporations fund politicians and parties, and of course they get the kind of policies they want at a very reasonable price, considering the returns. This is most transparent in the US. No matter who wins this election, this will continue. It's a fundamental problem of capitalist democracy. With Bernie Sanders you had an attempt to counteract this with a grassroots movement, millions of dollars raised. It still wasn't enough and the piddling reforms that Sanders proposed caused the wealthy party donors to freak the **** out. In fact getting some more money in people's hands would have been a net benefit for them, but that's in the aggregate and you're only supposed to look out for yourself.

That's a real problem while astroturfed culture wars are just a spectacle to distract you from real problems.
 
Money in Elections and Voting

Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements
ForAgainst
Reps039 (100%)
Dems59 (96%)0



DISCLOSE Act
ForAgainst
Reps039
Dems590



Backup Paper Ballots - Voting Record
ForAgainst
Reps20170
Dems2280



Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
ForAgainst
Reps838
Dems513



Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections
ForAgainst
Reps042
Dems540


They all failed because Republicans keep killing them.

With Bernie Sanders you had an attempt to counteract this with a grassroots movement, millions of dollars raised.
Sanders lost despite raising more money than Biden. He lost due to the vote (and by a landslide), not due to disparities in campaign finance. Say it with me: praxis ? is ? voting ?
(half-joking)

Also, where lies the value to the conversation in anecdotally comparing me to islamists anyway?
Point out the defect in the rationale. I didn't like manner, but that's me.
 
Last edited:
Money in Elections and Voting

Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements
ForAgainst
Reps039 (100%)
Dems59 (96%)0



DISCLOSE Act
ForAgainst
Reps039
Dems590



Backup Paper Ballots - Voting Record
ForAgainst
Reps20170
Dems2280



Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
ForAgainst
Reps838
Dems513



Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections
ForAgainst
Reps042
Dems540


They all failed because Republicans keep killing them.


Sanders lost despite raising more money than Biden. He lost due to the vote (and by a landslide), not due to disparities in campaign finance. Say it with me: praxis ? is ? voting ?
(half-joking)


Point out the defect in the rationale. I didn't like manner, but that's me.

Wanting to place a limit on the amount of money spent on politics if it's in their interests is not the same as not being beholden to moneyed interests. As Biden said at a fundraiser in 2019 to his donors, the party's actual constituents, "nothing would fundamentally change".

It's besides my point that Sanders did not win the election. The response to a grassroots challenge and call for reform was hysterical, and it just goes to show that wealthy elites will refuse to take their medicine. It's whatever though, I'm not from the US and neither are you.
 
MwxLB.png

For the record, this is very dishonest.

Wanting to place a limit on the amount of money spent on politics if it's in their interests is not the same as not being beholden to moneyed interests.
This sentence means nothing. Breathing air does not mean I want to breathe air. I mean. Okay. That's technically true. Now what?

Democrats are literally trying any venues they have available, both BIG like actually trying to amend the constitution to get the money out of politics, to taking incremental steps like simple disclosures in finances, but they get ****ed by the Republicans every time. You very willfully, and ignorantly choose to ignore the vast body of evidence to justify your conclusion. If you already have a result in mind, then any route we're going to take is going to end up in you trying to justify your prior without regard for our premises. It makes my blood boil how dishonest this **** is, but you do you. Your life.

As Biden said at a fundraiser in 2019 to his donors, the party's actual constituents, "nothing would fundamentally change".
Rhetorics are really ****ing important. Words have meaning. But you know what has more meaning than off-comment as to elucidating a president's beliefs? Their policy positions and body of work. Despite populists crying ''cRimE bILL!'' Biden has consistently voted progressively and has THE most progressive presidential platform in the history of the US.

It's whatever though, I'm not from the US and neither are you
The US presidency has an enormous effect on Europe. Is the US going to intervene in Syria or elsewhere in the ME? Is it that going to trigger another refugee crisis? Is the crisis going to trigger populist and reactionary sentiments? Are the reactionaries going to form coalitions with conservatives and enact backwards legislation like banning abortion? Are we going to see a return of American war culture? How is that going to form the discourse in Europe, given that US cultural forces like the BLM movement shape our conversations? Is the US going to retract and go an isolationist path? Is the power vacuum going to be filled by Russia, who will be emboldened to intervene in European elections? Is intertwining our trade with China instead of the US going mean we're going to be more dependent on China? Is that a security risk?

It's besides my point that Sanders did not win the election. The response to a grassroots challenge and call for reform was hysterical, and it just goes to show that wealthy elites will refuse to take their medicine.
Yeah, the hysteria was that Sanders is a democratic socialist not representative of the democratic electorate base. Him winning the democratic election would've made no sense.
 
This sentence means nothing. Breathing air does not mean I want to breathe air. I mean. Okay. That's technically true. Now what?

Democrats are literally trying any venues they have available, both BIG like actually trying to amend the constitution to get the money out of politics, to taking incremental steps like simple disclosures in finances, but they get ****ed by the Republicans every time. You very willfully, and ignorantly choose to ignore the vast body of evidence to justify your conclusion. If you already have a result in mind, then any route we're going to take is going to end up in you trying to justify your prior without regard for our premises. It makes my blood boil how dishonest this **** is, but you do you. Your life.

The current rules give them a disadvantage, why wouldn't they try to change that? But even if successful that would still not change the fact that the wealthy still have much more power to influence politics than regular people, and thus generally get what they want. Even in less dysfunctional democracies, that's still the case.

Rhetorics are really ****ing important. Words have meaning. But you know what has more meaning than off-comment as to elucidating a president's beliefs? Their policy positions and body of work. Despite populists crying ''cRimE bILL!'' Biden has consistently voted progressively and has THE most progressive presidential platform in the history of the US.

Of course, I'm not saying he means anything he says. I'm sure the most progressive platform in history, speaking of things that don't mean anything is legit though, and isn't already too little waiting to be watered down. It was a shame what happened after his friend Barack Obama's 8 years in
office even if it was a total fluke.

Yeah, the hysteria was that Sanders is a democratic socialist not representative of the democratic electorate base. Him winning the democratic election would've made no sense.

So much the worse for the hysterics.
 
Back
Top Bottom