Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Sarin]

Allow me to put this in terms that are extremely, incredibly simple.

I am not an american so when I see american politics I see two camps of people. Let us call them camps A and B to underscore the point.
A is a bunch of people calling their political opponents in A baby murdering traitors who want to ruin the country and should burn in hell. Where as camp B is calling their opponents in A a bunch of fascist traitors who want to ruin the country and should rot in prison. And frankly those talking points sound all the same to me. It's just the same "my enemy is the devil" but in mildly different coats of paint.

And as an observer on the sidelines all I see is that. And it makes me ill inclined to dig further than simply rejecting them both as being the same. Because the tools you use define you more than the cause you deem to espouse.

You have to understand that it's a neat arrangement to uphold the duopoly that protects corporate interests over the people's while maintaining the pretense of democracy.

Both sides are, on purpose, presenting themselves as threat to a significant subsection of population, thus inducing them to vote for the other side. They maintain this balance on purpose, that much is obvious if you realize how little would either side have to change to break this and become, at least as long as they can uphold some of their promises, the only viable party. This creates a political landscape where very few dare to vote for third party that could disrupt this arrangement.

 

[Akka]

I think that is besides the point. You will have a very hard time get people to join you who consider your ideas wrong or undesirable. But that is not what it is about. It is about people who don't disagree with the ideas in principle, but disagree with specifics, are not willing to go that far or have problems expressing themselves clearly. Stamp them with a label long enough, and they might embrace the label and hang out with the people who have no problem with that label.

No, I don't think I'm beside the point. The point was about people being driven out from a party to vote for another party due to being exposed for a long time to an ideology they find noxious enough for one reason or another (be it the fundamental of the ideology, or how its proponents act, or how it affects society).
Not adhering to an ideology doesn't inherently mean you will oppose the whole political spectrum where this ideology resides, just like you won't necessarily adhere to a political spectrum just because they share one important ideology with you. It's a web of lots of factors.The discussion was about how "woke ideology" and its proponents managed to push out previous democrat voters (who don't necessarily agree with it) and entrench Republican voters (who more often than not don't agree with it), and the fact that it typically displays a mindset where there is not even the possibility of being wrong on the fundamentals, is definitely a strong part of both what makes it unpalatable for many voters, and in fact how the specifics are going to be approached (so linking back anyway to your argument).

Reverse case in point (but still illustrating the concept), many Republicans have actually pushed to vote for Harris DESPITE not sharing most of its ideologies.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I could go at great length on the subject, but that would probably makes the discussion too messy and drown many main points.

Thank you for your extensive response. I too have been thinking that this topic may need its own thread. It's just not a great time in my own life to be starting and managing one. For as long and wide-ranging as my post was, I thought of it as being fundamentally on topic because it is all centrally trying to account for Trump's appeal.

If I do start a thread on this separate issue, the first order of business would be for us to establish conditions by which the underlying claim of those who believe society systematically advantages some groups (and disadvantages others) could be established.

But even at the scale that you did choose to respond, your response is valuable to my own thinking.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I would think that a party driven by the ability to attract most individuals along one or two main points, and not mere dissatisfaction with the other party, would be the one that prevails in the long term.

In opinion news, Mickey Kaus, for example, has one such idea for Kamala Harris. Alas, I don't think she's talented enough to do it:

Kamala's Hail Mary

There's still time to try it ...

kaus.substack.com

Here's my suggestion for Kamala Harris’ Winning Last Ditch Closing Desperation Play: A FOUR-YEAR PAUSE ON IMMIGRATION, both illegal and legal. Harris could say this would give time for Congress to debate a legislative solution--which it would. A stronger policy justification is that it would give the nation time to absorb the 7-8-9-10 million or so unauthorized migrants

 

[Gorbles]

I would think that a party driven by the ability to attract most individuals along one or two main points, and not mere dissatisfaction with the other party, would be the one that prevails in the long term.

In opinion news, Mickey Kaus, for example, has one such idea for Kamala Harris. Alas, I don't think she's talented enough to do it:

Kamala's Hail Mary

There's still time to try it ...

kaus.substack.com

A conservative recommending a conservative policy, how new and original. I'm sure it'll work this time.

 

[Farm Boy]

And imperials will argue local control is just racism. Unlike racism, which is antiracist if one's friends are getting paid. <shrugs> Oh boy, oh boy, what winners.

Whole zeitgeist is stacked poop.

 

[Joij21]

I'd call that a nominal republic ^^ States can self-identify as they wish. And Iraq probably was (also) called that to be distinct from a theocracy (because Middle East).


No country would self-describe as an oligarchy, though (of course most are just that, by and large). I wouldn't say that an (ancient, as in what gives the name to a system) oligarchy is functioning "on the principal of a" democracy/republic. Oligarchies typically didn't have voting beyond the actual oligarchs.

Anyway, I think that it is a settled matter; here is the dictionary on this:

Democracy or Republic: What's the difference?

And which is the United States?

www.merriam-webster.com

Spoiler :

View attachment 707913
View attachment 707914

In this context (modern politics), democracy and republic are synonyms.

Except they can be distinct if say you have a democratic monarchy, in which the people elect a monarch to rule over them for life. Elected monarchy whereby the monarchy is elected by representatives or some kind of aristocracy. Or a crowned republic whereby a monarch essential sets one up via the powers of devolution.

 

[Senethro]

And imperials will argue local control is just racism. Unlike racism, which is antiracist if one's friends are getting paid. <shrugs> Oh boy, oh boy, what winners.

Whole zeitgeist is stacked poop.

The guys in favour of school segregation said pretty much the same thing, so I don't think you're necessarily making your desired point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Indeed they did.

They were them, this is this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I would think that a party driven by the ability to attract most individuals along one or two main points, and not mere dissatisfaction with the other party, would be the one that prevails in the long term.

You would be wrong. It has been a political truism for some years that people vote against rather than for (lamentable though that may be):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/05/why-u-s-elections-are-all-about-voting-against-something-and-not-for-it/

And Mickey Kaus' mickey-mouse idea for Harris would be particularly ineffective. Congress has already decided what to do about the border and Harris has committed to signing their legislation into law should she be elected.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

You would be wrong. It has been a political truism for some years that people vote against rather than for (lamentable though that may be):

Populists around the world beg to differ. People only vote against until such a time that a sufficiently charismatic person appears to make them vote for. Therefore the winning move is to be that charismatic person.
That is how Trump won the first time too. You can say what you want about the guy but he was a reality TV personality and knows how to work a crowd.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Maybe*, but it's how he lost the second time. People turned out to vote against him.

(* but 2016 could also be characterized as a voting against: against the establishment--for whom Hillary was the poster child)

Trump will be voted against this time too, incidentally, and in possibly greater numbers than 2020.

 

[Akka]

People vote "against" when there is no party that actually fulfill enough of what they want that they can identify with or at least support.
I'd say the lamentable part of having people voting "against", is the implied situation where there simply is a lack of democratic representation, and the loss of confidence in politics (and the rise in conspiracy mindset) that it entails.

 

[Birdjaguar]

NYT article about how the internal moving of USians is affecting polarization.

Millions of Movers Reveal American Polarization in Action

A detailed look at how — and why — voters who move are widening the gap between blue neighborhoods and red ones.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't know who is the bloke on the top picture... but I wonder what is the intended message of the bottom meme.

The top guy is Stephen Miller, Trump's immigration architect for policy. He was a full partner in Trump's last term. He designed the the plan to separate children from their parents at the border and send them off to new US families. Oh, and they did not keep good records of who they sent where. The parents were deported. He is part of Project 2025 and made that statement at a recent Trump rally.

The Indian in the lower picture is commenting on the Native American experience with the incoming Europeans.

 

[Samson]

NYT article about how the internal moving of USians is affecting polarization.

Millions of Movers Reveal American Polarization in Action

A detailed look at how — and why — voters who move are widening the gap between blue neighborhoods and red ones.

www.nytimes.com

NYT hates anti-paywalls, and have now paywalled their onion server.

Still you can get the text and some of the charts. I am amazed their is such a difference, does not everyone only move for work? And if you are moving for work, does much else matter other than if there is someone who will employ you? Are there really that many people who are moving because they like the area they are moving to?

Spoiler Some charts :

Why people want to live near a Trader Joes is a question.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

You seem like a fun decent sort (not joking, not disparaging). I did read you saying that there is a difference between a 'republican' government vs a 'democratic' government. The "founding fathers" of the USA did not see it this way. Dictionaries of their era had about the same definition for both. They saw no difference, it is right wing canard that some use lately. The two concepts of government completely intermingle in the US. The USA is a very political country due largely to how it was founded. A great essay on this: is America a democracy or a republic.

I grew up in a staunch Republican household, my very first vote was for Reagan, but I quit after GWBush won the New York State primary in June of 2000. Always progressive, the very next day I registered into the world's oldest political party (USA Democratic). (fun fact: the world's next oldest party is the UK Tories, followed on by the USA Republicans.) I have never looked back!

Heh. I AM having fun in this thread. Poking at things with a long pointy stick.

I notice that you seem particularly unbothered by the Dominion of Canada being officially a Dominion of the British Crown; but were rather interested in pointing out how America is officially a 'Constitutional Republic".
Surely in a Dominion of the British Crown, the son of old Betty Windsor is of more importance than a mere local minister.

It is more of a tradition, but no, it doesn't bother me at all. Of course, I swore an oath to the crown when I joined the army way back.

I point out the difference between a CR and a D for a few reasons. (stirring the pot of course, is one)

Flat out democracy, majority rules. (aka popular vote)
The framer set out to prevent just that. (or tried to)

Congresscritters allocated based on population. (arcane formula I don't wanna get in to. it's... convoluted)
Senate: 2 per state. period.

Electoral college: set that way so that a few very populous states don't end up stomping all the wee states.

That's how it is *supposed* to work.

Remember: "supposed to" and "reality" are not always on speaking terms.

Trump out here looking like he wants to blockade Ottawa because he doesn't like the Canadian government's COVID policy

A lot of us didn't like the covid policy. (stupid and pointless is what it was, at far as stopping the spread.)
Of course, I don't like the bozo in Ottawa, so a blockade there.... /shrug.

Oh yes, seeing a moderator use the term "Maga facists", well. I had to jump in and put in my 2 coppers.

(and after 35 years of tech, I really am enjoying poking at those that In my opinion (see prev definition), are
entitled, whiny, progressive, reality denying, < SELF CENSORED> ... , people.

("Yes ma'am, your remote does use batteries and they do wear out. No, I'm not sending a tech to bring you new ones.
You have to go buy them yourself. Just like filling the tank of your car." ... Yes, I'm not kidding. I had to tell that to a customer.
This kind of thing is why I hold a lot of my 'opinions'. )

I'll poke right back at the various name calling, no problem. I'll have fun with it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump will hold a rally Thursday in Albuquerque, a departure from visits to the seven close-fought battleground states where the outcome is expected to determine the winner. He is due to start speaking at noon. It is 11:45 atm. And, no, I will not be there. He is holding the rally at an airport hanger and everyone is being bussed in. He still owes the city over $400,000 from his last tally here in 2019.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Yes ma'am, your remote does use batteries and they do wear out. No, I'm not sending a tech to bring you new ones.
You have to go buy them yourself. Just like filling the tank of your car." ... Yes, I'm not kidding. I had to tell that to a customer.

How did you work out her politics?

 

[Farm Boy]

How did you work out her politics?

He can answer for him, but just wading out here in assumptions, I thought I would pull a study about assumptions: https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...gns-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/

Of the six red/blue line graphs at the top <starts to hum Seasame Street> one of these things is not like the other.