2020 US Election (Part Two)

[El_Machinae]

What do we do about having 40% of the population basically abandon the basic tenets of democracy (for whatever reasons and with whatever amount of enthusiasm)?

That's certainly a different conversation, I just have no interest in being tagged during the Lex version of segue. Asking to not be tagged isn't much of an ask.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's certainly a different conversation, I just have no interest in being tagged during the Lex version of segue. Asking to not be tagged isn't much of an ask.

Fair.

I am interested in this new conversation though. My first instinct, honestly, is to ignore them as I think that their ability to do any real damage will have peaked very soon anyway. I also can't really see any option of the form "do something about them" being practical.

 

[Lexicus]

Fair.

I am interested in this new conversation though. My first instinct, honestly, is to ignore them as I think that their ability to do any real damage will have peaked very soon anyway. I also can't really see any option of the form "do something about them" being practical.

My preferred option is simply to win power and carry out the policies over their objections.

 

[Patine]

No, it just starts a new conversation you don't want to have which is: what do we actually do about living in a country where around 40% of the population want to, basically, destroy the country from the inside out?

I know it feels better to dehumanize them. I'd argue they're more stupid than evil.

A complete lack of perspective and proportion. Absolutist, binary, bloc thinking and other related highly toxic and braindead ways of viewing the world. You cannot see the forest for the trees. This is one of many (NOT THE TOTALITY, in case I'm misunderstood, and my message gets pushed to absolutes disingenuously, again) aspects of REAL Fascist ideology - that individual people are not NEARLY as important or relevant as demographics and ideological blocs. The mentality that makes mass stripping of rights, genocide, irredentist wars, etc., easier to pass off. You are just as susceptible to it as anyone else, and you, and a number of others, already show the tell-tale nascent of this form of communal sociopathy. Are you REALLY better than those you so fervently seek to bring down in this area, at heart?

 

[El_Machinae]

I am interested in this new conversation though.

I think that it is concerning enough that it has required an all-hands-on-deck since 2016 - it deserved that people targeted their spending and their donations and their idle time was spent learning and crafting ever-superior memetics in order to sway people. It's why heaping scorn needs to be super-targeted. There's a huge reactance factor, so targeting scorn (or even actual escalation of protest intensity) needs to be done super-carefully.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My preferred option is simply to win power and carry out the policies over their objections.

I agree, mostly. They present a hazard though, in that their monolithic block of destructionists can regain power at any time that disagreement among the people who favor democratic process causes a split.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, it just starts a new conversation you don't want to have which is: what do we actually do about living in a country where around 40% of the population want to, basically, destroy the country from the inside out?

Trump won 46.1% of the vote on a turnout of 55.7%, which equated to 25.6% of the electorate, and 19.4% of the overall US population.

You are hugely overstating the level of popular enthusiasm for either Trump or for the Republican Party.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump won 46.1% of the vote on a turnout of 55.7%, which equated to 25.6% of the electorate, and 19.4% of the overall US population.

You are hugely overstating the level of popular enthusiasm for either Trump or for the Republican Party.

Perhaps. But in context does it really matter?

We are talking about the US, where turnout of 55.7% cannot be just called atypical and thrown out as bad data. Whether it is overstated as "40% of the population" or accurately stated as "the necessary 25.6% of the electorate" changes neither the potential hazard nor the consequences.

 

[Lexicus]

Trump won 46.1% of the vote on a turnout of 55.7%, which equated to 25.6% of the electorate, and 19.4% of the overall US population.

You are hugely overstating the level of popular enthusiasm for either Trump or for the Republican Party.

Fair enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

Trump won 46.1% of the vote on a turnout of 55.7%, which equated to 25.6% of the electorate, and 19.4% of the overall US population.

There's your 20%


It's not fully on topic, but I've long-remembered this thread, where about 20% of people will believe any weird thing.

I don't mind thinking of 40% of the population as being sufficiently brainwashed by Trump* that they'll automatically disregard evidence against him and need various levels of convincing. Heck, Glenn Beck has come around since the convention.

*I have no idea what they actually hear when he speaks.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pizza with the beat down.

 

[Lexicus]

The question simply changes to "what do we do about one-fifth of the population turning against the fundamental values of the country?"
I'm not sure the answer changes much. And "20% of the population" may actually understate the extent of the threat because of the generally low levels of turnout and high levels of apathy in the rest of the population.

I agree, mostly. They present a hazard though, in that their monolithic block of destructionists can regain power at any time that agreement among the people who favor democratic process causes a split.

Can I assume you meant "disagreement" instead of "agreement"?

 

[Takhisis]

COVID is fading

As always, Comrade Eduard Anatolyevich has the answer

 

[Takhisis]

The question simply changes to "what do we do about one-fifth of the population turning against the fundamental values of the country?"
I'm not sure the answer changes much. And "20% of the population" may actually understate the extent of the threat because of the generally low levels of turnout and high levels of apathy in the rest of the population.

It is a very leveraged 20%.

 

[Estebonrober]

Bush and Romney hate Trump but who sent infected old people back into nursing homes in NY? When Trump restricted travel from China the Democrats condemned him and spent the next few weeks dismissing the virus while encouraging mass gatherings. Now they're blaming a death toll they helped produce on him.

This particular narrative is just clear dick move. He was the president at the time. He was getting the briefings that was informing him how severe it was, not democrats in the house. Furthermore he lied to the entire American public over and over again and immediately leaned into the racism that house dems were trying to get people to avoid in the first place.

Your take on this is so typical of the “libertarians” that I know. Which is to say it is Trump defending to the hilt with only a thin veneer of giving two shits about your supposed moral stances otherwise.


The rest of your take is garbage too. But you know that, just like you know in your heart of hearts you’d be defending “property rights” back in 1850.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't mind thinking of 40% of the population as being sufficiently brainwashed by Trump* that they'll automatically disregard evidence against him and need various levels of convincing. Heck, Glenn Beck has come around since the convention.

Then why did less than half of that number actually vote for him?

 

[Lexicus]

Then why did less than half of that number actually vote for him?

Because, only about half the population in the US votes to begin with.

 

[cardgame]

Then why did less than half of that number actually vote for him?

The non-voters and never-voters we can safely set aside for this discussion, they will live in apathy under anybody.

 

[Hrothbern]

A kind of silent centre ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Can I assume you meant "disagreement" instead of "agreement"?

Yeah. Language hard.