Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Snowygerry]

I'm not sure how the Editorial section works in European papers, but in America, the Editorial / Opinion section of the newspaper is separate from the newsroom. It is similar to a lawyer giving a closing argument to the jury. The independent newsroom reports on the facts with independence, fairness, and neutrality. The Editorial team fits it into a closing argument ' what does it all mean'.

Here in continental West Europe it is expected the shareholders do not interfere with the content of a paper, this independence is rather fiercely guarded, such an intervention by the owners would probably lead to a strike here.

Then again it is equally unheard of for a paper to openly support any one political party before an election (in recent times) although most have some political “leaning”.

That is ofcourse we have any number of political parties, not just two, so supporting one party risks alienating the voters of all others.

In the UK things are somewhat different, I believe papers are expected to be partisan there, support one party or the other.

Don’t know about Eastern Europe..

 

[Kyriakos]

I've noticed that Trump lovers never talk about Trump. All they talk and post about is how bad Biden is. I guess that they don't realize that Biden isn't running for president. Perhaps they are not so bright.

It's clearly true that you are talking in general, or about Rubio, duh, but some do write pos posts like that against other posters ^^
I hear you, though, you were always fine with criticism of Biden while he was running for president, so it gives credence to your current attitude.

Trump certainly looks very frail and very old. Cognitive decline is obvious too.
If he was like this in 2016 he would have lost=>if he wins now, that speaks volumes as to the worth of the dem candidate.

I think the assassination attempt did change him (for the worst) mentally-wise.
Better get prepared for a possible potus Vance.

As for Biden's comments, for better or worse they are now firmly in the news. The article by CBS presents the view that the White House has of the incident, where they claim that Biden didn't say "the only trash I see is his supporters" but "the only trash I see is his supporter's". Tbh, one has to doubt Biden by now is ever using possessive forms. But this doesn't mean he meant to say what he said. If I had to guess, he did mean the specific "supporter", but is too frail to be aware of how it'd come across.

"Supporters" or "supporter's"? Biden comments about Trump "garbage" rally anger the GOP

Biden was responding to a joke made at a Trump rally by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, in which Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage."

www.cbsnews.com

So Biden, without wanting to, made the perfect pass to Trump to bring back the "deplorables" comment, and he immediately did.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Trump would never say something mean about Harris supporters.

 

[Narz]

OK thanks. So this is a good example. This friend lives in a Red state and he found Jesus, which is two factors that would strongly influence him to be Republican voter. So I don't think this guy would be voting Trump in response to getting dragged by "the left" online. He's a conservative Republican, in a red state and Trump is the Republican nominee. That's why he, and guys like him would vote for Trump. Incidentally, I don't think its too controversial to say that this is the main reason people are voting for Trump. They are conservative and/or Republican and Trump is the Republican nominee. There may be much more numerous, varied and complex reason why they are Republican and/or conservative, but their main reason for voting for Trump is just his party affiliation.

That's a very cliff notes version & you have causally wrong, he didn't vote Trump becomes he became religious, he dabbled in Christianity because it was trending among right-leaning type young people, he would've been similarly moved by Romney. I'll explain more below.

I don't right now, but I will give it a watch and comment later, thanks for the video.

It was a weird thing to watch in real time (an internet famous person become radical in front of everyone's eyes)

Right, but I'm not disputing any of that. Again, what I am addressing/disputing, is the claim that criticizing people online turns them into Trump voters.

Of course criticizing people changes them.

Back to my friend, he's broke, paying off debt, working full time job plus driving Uber plus in school for massage and for 18 months living in his car. He sees online left culture talking about his white-privilege and being generally impotent/reactionary (picking apart cultural norms as reactionary without having anything solid to offer to fill the void) and then online right culture talking about working hard, embracing masculinity, 'traditional values' and veers right. When he posts about this type of thing in FB he gets a lot of flack (you know how people online are). So this pushes him further in that direction. It happens every day & isn't limited to politics. Think about the things your parents criticized you for, I dunno about you but some of the things my parents judged me for I take pride in now, it's just human nature.

I simply reject the notion that criticizing people on the internet "changes" them into Trump voters.

It's not like a magic wand, more like a repelling magnetic force. You see someone who represents something and they act like a dick so you move farther away from that.

Huh? You are "blaming it on someone else", you literally just blamed in the prior sentence that I quoted right above this and I quote "online leftists" and their quote "extreme in-groupism & purity testing". You don't see that this is you, explicitly blaming "the left", "criticizing people online" for those people voting for Trump?

Description isn't 'blaming'.

Say there's a kid who's a bully in school. You could point to neglect or abuse at home as possible factors for why he became that way without saying "it's all because of his parents".

I think you're missing my point, if someone thinks they genuinely like Trump they're not gonna blame anyone for that. Like if a someone has an abusive boyfriend but think they're in love they're not gonna blame someone, they think they're in a good situation even though an outsider can see it's toxic and be curious about what led up to it.

Are you OK?

What?

My guy, you literally just said, quote " it's seen by you". You can't say that and then try to sweep it under the rug by saying "I'm not saying", what you literally just said. On a related note, this is a pretty spot on example of what @Gori the Grey very articulately and succinctly hit upon. First, I will quote him rather than paraphrase:

I don't know your exact beliefs so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Someone can come off in a way without actually being that way.

If people could see that the world would be a much calmer place.

And on that polarity, Narz is correct: it's the censoriousness of the one side that drives people to the other side.

It's almost like ******* on people as a political strategy doesn't work.

Why did Regan and Obama win so hard? They actually had things to say. They stood out in their own right. Obama wasn't saying "well... at least I'm not Romney, what a schmuck amirite?" he was like "I'm Obama bit**es!".

Clinton, Biden, Harris exist mostly IN OPPOSITION to Trump. I'm too lazy to use Google Trends but in 2021-2023 how many people who thinking about/searching about Trump vs Harris (10 to 1, 30 to 1)? Even tho Harris was actually in the White House (well working there, does the VP live there?). Nobody thought about her.

The vacuum of charisma in politics opened the door for Trump.

Not to say I personally think Trump is charismatic. I find him caustic to listen to. But as a cultural phenomenon he's interesting. And he's absolutely benefited the news media and given us all something to distract ourselves with and given society as a whole an excuse to drag our heels regarding the important issues. When you can spend 70% of your time saying "the most important thing is I'm not this guy" it makes your homework much easier.

 

[Moriarte]

Trump certainly looks very frail and very old. Cognitive decline is obvious too.
If he was like this in 2016 he would have lost=>if he wins now, that speaks volumes as to the worth of the dem candidate.

I think the assassination attempt did change him (for the worst) mentally-wise.
Better get prepared for a possible potus Vance.

Wish I was that frail and old. Running rallies with tens of thousands of supporters every odd day, then a 3h non-stop marathon with the boxer-comedian. I'm a healthy guy, but this sort of energy is on another level, I frankly don't understand where it's coming from at his age. He may look tired at times, but ask yourself how would you, his 30 years younger, handle the swings and life on the road of a presidential election.

I'd like some examples of cognitive decline in that interview, if you can. I've sure heard many instances of vanity, maybe him losing train of thought a couple of times. Lots of cases of weaving the narrative away from the subject he didn't like ... "lemme tell you a story". Most of these cases, ironically, Joe put him back on track after long and winding non-answer. I am curious what people consider cognitive decline.

 

[Snowygerry]

He says everything at least twice, either he considers audience idiots, or he is suffering from palilalia, often seen as a symptom of beginning Alzheimer or other dementia.

​

 

[Strong Reaction]

Garbage day ^^

prompted by Biden, who simply isn't good with words at all:

"I don't know the Puerto Rican that I know, or Puerto Rico where I'm, in my home-state of Delaware, they are good, decent honorable people, the only garbage I see floating there is his supporters".
In other words, Biden very likely didn't mean to phrase it like this.

Lets face it the old boy is not on his A game. Probably needs to go into lockdown mode till the election is over. Also, if you believe all the excuses for the offensive things Trump has said, then you'd believe Biden's excuse for this gaff, he meant supporter (Hinchcliffe) instead of supporters. Kinda believable given his aging issues, all and all it was a dumb miscue by Biden. Good thing he is not the candidate.

Here are the highlights from the MSG rally, one of the speakers called Kamala supporters lowlifes jew haters and degenerates, I suppose that makes it even.

 

[Narz]

OK got it. So like I said, anti-woke censorship and similar. Essentially, like @Gori the Grey says, people don't like being called out for what they say. They want to be able to speak their mind without being opposed or criticized for it

People want to be recognized for having nuanced opinions are don't want to be slammed.

For example, I have another friend who I was discussing politics with and I mentioned I don't like Kamla (I voted for her but I don't like her) and she said flat out "because you're sexist".

This is an absurd leap but this is what happens online every day.

Call out actual racists/sexists/etc but when you use the words willy-nilly you diminish them and people think you're dumb and/or disingenuous.

It's like MeToo. Noble idea, purge predators from society as much as possible. But then you got people like "#metoo, this ugly boy asked me out, grossss, I felt so uncomfortable!"

Call someone slurs enough times and they become numb to them.

 

[Narz]

Wish I was that frail and old. Running rallies with tens of thousands of supporters every odd day, then a 3h non-stop marathon with the boxer-comedian. I'm a healthy guy, but this sort of energy is on another level, I frankly don't understand where it's coming from at his age. He may look tired at times, but ask yourself how would you, his 30 years younger, handle the swings and life on the road of a presidential election.

He loves it (the attention, the energy, the hate). When you love something you can go on & on like the battery bunny.

Biden was the standard bearer and now Harris ("Joe, PR says we should get a female for VP, ideally with more melanin than Hillary, I know you don't like Kamala but that's how it's gonna go"). They're in it but they don't LOVE it.

Also, keep in mind he doesn't have the responsibilities you do. He doesn't have to cook, clean, organize, drive, arrange meetings, pay for flights, take care of anyone, all he's gotta do is go out there & talk some ****.

 

[Sarin]

Yes, we should all aspire to be as neutral as Solomon and cut the baby in half.
Would it be neutral for a newspaper reporting on the Russian army shelling its way through Ukraine to include Russian claims of Ukrainian bioweapon labs and Ukrainian NATO-nazis - in the interest of being neutral?

I'm not sure how the Editorial section works in European papers, but in America, the Editorial / Opinion section of the newspaper is separate from the newsroom. It is similar to a lawyer giving a closing argument to the jury. The independent newsroom reports on the facts with independence, fairness, and neutrality. The Editorial team fits it into a closing argument ' what does it all mean'.

Wow. I've seen quite a few bad faith arguments over the years, but this one earns a special place for cramming so much bad faith into so few words.

I mean, misrepresenting that old tale this way, that takes some willful effort. And in case you didn't notice, many news outlets did report on the Russian claims the way they should-reporting them as unsubstantiated. Just like when Medvedev gets a new shipment of wine and starts his threats, media do mention that too. And same on the other side, when Ukraine reports something that can't be verified, it's usually reported that way.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wish I was that frail and old. Running rallies with tens of thousands of supporters every odd day, then a 3h non-stop marathon with the boxer-comedian. I'm a healthy guy, but this sort of energy is on another level, I frankly don't understand where it's coming from at his age. He may look tired at times, but ask yourself how would you, his 30 years younger, handle the swings and life on the road of a presidential election.

I'd like some examples of cognitive decline in that interview, if you can. I've sure heard many instances of vanity, maybe him losing train of thought a couple of times. Lots of cases of weaving the narrative away from the subject he didn't like ... "lemme tell you a story". Most of these cases, ironically, Joe put him back on track after long and winding non-answer. I am curious what people consider cognitive decline.

Imo Trump does have clear cognitive decline. But it's not unlikely that his almost-death-by-sniper did destabilize him further.
I did try to watch parts of the Rogan interview, but it became unbearable for that reason; at some point Rogan asked Trump about aliens, and Trump said that it wouldn't surprise him if there are aliens on Mars. Typically people go a bit further than close planets ^^

 

[Gorbles]

It's almost like ***ting on people as a political strategy doesn't work.

And yet, that's all Trump does as well. So this analysis isn't correct, and there must be other factors at play.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

At least one of the other factors is, Trump has been normalised. When Trump lies, threatens or s***s on people, well, that's just Trump. That's just how he is. But he doesn't mean that, here's some talking heads to tell you what he really actually did mean.

Take a look at his Enemy Within statement. In a day I have seen multiple people (including the Speaker of the House) saying: oh my god, why is the left overreacting? He clearly meant rioters and illegal immigrants. Even after Trump clarified: no, I did really mean my political opponents, I'll even name some.

 

[Akka]

And yet, that's all Trump does as well. So this analysis isn't correct, and there must be other factors at play.

Trump doesn't **** on his own supporters, he **** on his opponents.

 

[Angst]

See this just sounds like you're owed something for subscribing to a newspaper by having them validate your opinions.

I imagine WaPo would have still given you the same news as always without printing Trump propaganda pieces. But obviously you don't feel that that's as important. Alright then.

they're calling out private takeover of free media interests. i presume you care about the latter (when it's actually happening)?

 

[Gorbles]

Trump doesn't **** on his own supporters, he **** on his opponents.

And by extension, anyone undecided. I don't see how it doesn't apply both ways. But I already replied to Gori's original point (that Narz echo'd), so I guess I'm repeating myself.

 

[choxorn]

It's almost like ******* on people as a political strategy doesn't work.

Literally Trump's entire political strategy from day 1 has been to **** on anyone and everything. Immigrants, the media, gay people, trans people, the education system, places he calls ******** countries, his own cabinet appointees, his own agencies when they contradict him on a weather prediction or whatever else, his own goddamn vice president, literally anyone that doesn't completely bend the knee to him.

Like, the entire single motivating mantra that unites the entire right these days is "fudge your feelings" or "Own the libs" or whatever else you want to call their just general politics of grievance and insisting that everyone else but them is bad and garbage and beneath them.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe Trump isn't actually the normalizer of that?

Maybe he is. I do sometimes wonder how often people actually watch or read the thing talked about. Compared to just the headline. 18 second attention spans?

 

[Ordnael]

Call someone slurs enough times and they become numb to them.

That's me!
And some interactions on this forum really helped me get there...so thank you!...I'm more happy now.
I make a comment you call me __ist and my mind goes like "so what?"
Not giving a fudge about what people think about me or my opinions is so liberating!

 

[Senethro]

What's the difference between a purely hypothetical person who just lets racism happen because they've never really had to think about it, and one who consciously chooses it a little to spite a 3rd party?