The 2024 US Presidential Election

[Core Imposter]

Yall need to bloody chill. I am the enemy here, not each other!

 

[Lexicus]

Yall need to bloody chill. I am the enemy here, not each other!

Prequel memes are pretty chill tbh

 

[amadeus]

Trek is the superior franchise.

 

[AdrienIer]

Trek is the superior franchise.

Having differing opinions on politics is one thing, but there are debates that will shatter all politeness in discourse. It cannot end well.

 

[EvaDK]

Trek is the superior franchise.

The worldbuilding in Trek is more boring than George Lucas' plaid shirt.

 

[Gori the Grey]

More boring than Lucas' one non-plaid shirt.

 

[amadeus]

Having differing opinions on politics is one thing, but there are debates that will shatter all politeness in discourse. It cannot end well.

I’m not going to be berated by some fifties West German chancellor, no siree.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't use the word hell lightly.

And I've stated it directly before, probably in a conversation you missed. On the balance of evils, the Democrat is worse.

I fundamentally don't understand the idea that Democrat's saying it is not government's right to make the decision is a worse in the balance of evil, compared to Republicans actively creating policies for the purpose of causing the deaths of people, children in particular.

 

[Farm Boy]

That is always the line, and it's a good line, but it's the party that's best mastered toxic care and owned problems. It's the party of skin deep diversity. Once you look past the shine and smell the tires on the road, it's all horse****.

There is always a chronic shortage of foster parents. Which makes sense. That situation is hard for everyone and often thankless. The system is populated by better people than me. But, as is, recruitment and motivation for those willing to do it is among primary needs. It may even be the primary need. It's where the system is most deficient. Its lack is where most of the addressable harm in the process happens. Simple lack and absence. In our Midwestern righteousness, the largest recruiting network of foster parents in the state was eliminated from the process. The Roman Catholics are far from perfect, but at least on this issue, they showed up. They didn't work with unmarried people(they wouldn't touch me now, for example), and they didn't work with LGBTQ couples, but they did refer those people who asked them to work with them to the Lutherans, who would work with them. Functionally, none were excluded. All hands on deck, despite being adversarial groups. And the need still was not met. But that wasn't good enough. We need a soundbite about how much we care for children, and how universal and awesome we are on people of diversity. So, using the Catholic's own limitations against them they have been excluded from the show. The foster system is purer. It meets less needs. More children do not find forever foster families. And that's a win. Because they weren't the right sort of people anyways. I see the victory and all I hear are echoes of "better dead than a ******." But of course applied to some kid and not the speaker. But such is the way of the ideological home the Self Is King.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right here:

Which is a reference to this post:

If in reading a post, you* are not going to bother acquainting yourself with all content appended thereunto through clear and unambiguous back references, that's hardly on me, now, is it? That's more of a you problem, Sommer, wouldn't you* say?





*the swerdal you

So the post I responded to didn't say what you claimed... and the other post that it referenced also didn't say what you claimed... "he likes" is not the same as "he loves it--loves nothing more" for example , but that's besides the point. Your post said "as I said to Lex" and then you made a statement. Its not reasonable to argue that I should have to go searching for some other random previous post (that you didn't link) to figure out what you said to Lex at some point in the undefined past.

Again, your post said "as I said to Lex" and then you made a statement... it was reasonable for me to rely on that statement, in that post, to make my response. I get that you are essentially saying that the post I responded to wasn't a full/complete representation of your statement in the prior post to Lex, but its not my fault that you misquoted/misrepresented yourself is it?

In any case... all of that is a sideshow anyway. The real point here, my point anyway, is that it is incorrect to say that Trump is only incidentally or indirectly malicious. He has demonstrated, on many occasions, that he is quite direct in his malice and it is a mistake to argue and/or imply that he doesn't have malicious intent, but only achieves these disastrous, calamitous results a, due to recklessness, stupidity, laziness, etc. So both of your posts are missing part of the story. Sure, Trump likes and/or loves, for people to incidentally commit violence in his name... but Trump also directly invokes violence intentionally... and Jan 6 was just one example of him doing both.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You're right, of course. I didn't look at exactly which post you were citing, so I was just generally remembering all of my recent comments on the matter.

And citing myself from memory.

Here, what I said is a little closer to what I told you I'd said:

other people committing violence on his behalf is what provides the biggest rush to him of all.

Edit: Let me just take this as the occasion to note the profound, well-nigh crippling, disappointment that comes upon learning that my posts are not read, re-read, carefully copied into notebooks (for later rendering as illuminated manuscripts), digested, indexed, cross-indexed, committed to memory for recitation during idle hours, passed on to children as the treasured wisdom of the ages, and made the texts for needlepoint samplers. A fellow begins to wonder what he has been doing posting here all these years. What does adorn your throw pillows?

 

[Lexicus]

To the extent that Trump has any ideology, it is a kind of ambient Boomer white supremacy and misogyny and jingoism.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

To the extent that Trump has any ideology, it is a kind of ambient Boomer white supremacy and misogyny and jingoism.

I thought it was "vote for me because I want to win". Kind of like literally every other politician out there.

 

[Cutlass]

That is always the line, and it's a good line, but it's the party that's best mastered toxic care and owned problems. It's the party of skin deep diversity. Once you look past the shine and smell the tires on the road, it's all horse****.

There is always a chronic shortage of foster parents. Which makes sense. That situation is hard for everyone and often thankless. The system is populated by better people than me. But, as is, recruitment and motivation for those willing to do it is among primary needs. It may even be the primary need. It's where the system is most deficient. Its lack is where most of the addressable harm in the process happens. Simple lack and absence. In our Midwestern righteousness, the largest recruiting network of foster parents in the state was eliminated from the process. The Roman Catholics are far from perfect, but at least on this issue, they showed up. They didn't work with unmarried people(they wouldn't touch me now, for example), and they didn't work with LGBTQ couples, but they did refer those people who asked them to work with them to the Lutherans, who would work with them. Functionally, none were excluded. All hands on deck, despite being adversarial groups. And the need still was not met. But that wasn't good enough. We need a soundbite about how much we care for children, and how universal and awesome we are on people of diversity. So, using the Catholic's own limitations against them they have been excluded from the show. The foster system is purer. It meets less needs. More children do not find forever foster families. And that's a win. Because they weren't the right sort of people anyways. I see the victory and all I hear are echoes of "better dead than a ******." But of course applied to some kid and not the speaker. But such is the way of the ideological home the Self Is King.

I fully understand that you are a single issue voter.

It's really the whole of the reason that the anti abortion movement was created in the US, you know. To make people like you into single issue voters. To present something as so abhorrent that it simply overpowers all other matters in the decision making of many voters.

Which is, of course, why the white supremacist movement created the anti-abortion movement.

To convince people of the absolute moral imperative to vote for a raft of true and absolutely evil policies, on the premise that that is what is necessary to to This One Righteous Thing!

Of course, there will be fewer children born in the US because of the abortion bans. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

Of course, more women will die of reproductive related problems, problems which proper medical care could have prevented. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And more children will die, because of lack of proper medical care, proper nutricean, proper housing. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And more children will be gunned down in schools. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And Black Americans will lose the right to vote. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And other minorities will be persecuted. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And trans children will be bullied to death. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And gay marriage will be banned. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

I could go on all day.

But I understand. You are a single issue voter. And even though voting to ban abortion will have harmful consequences in every single other part of American life, you can't see how anyone would consider a million other issues worth stripping women of a right that they fought for a century to get.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not a single issue voter, though*. Children were at issue in the conversation and I am trying to use an example that I think will translate(you had requested earlier) so that I don't wind up with a new infraction.

*gerrymandered supermajority after gerrymandered supermajority, my judgement is universal

 

[Narz]

I fully understand that you are a single issue voter.

It's really the whole of the reason that the anti abortion movement was created in the US, you know. To make people like you into single issue voters. To present something as so abhorrent that it simply overpowers all other matters in the decision making of many voters.

Which is, of course, why the white supremacist movement created the anti-abortion movement.

To convince people of the absolute moral imperative to vote for a raft of true and absolutely evil policies, on the premise that that is what is necessary to to This One Righteous Thing!

Of course, there will be fewer children born in the US because of the abortion bans. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

Of course, more women will die of reproductive related problems, problems which proper medical care could have prevented. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And more children will die, because of lack of proper medical care, proper nutricean, proper housing. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And more children will be gunned down in schools. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And Black Americans will lose the right to vote. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And other minorities will be persecuted. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And trans children will be bullied to death. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

And gay marriage will be banned. But that's OK, because abortion was banned.

I could go on all day.

But I understand. You are a single issue voter. And even though voting to ban abortion will have harmful consequences in every single other part of American life, you can't see how anyone would consider a million other issues worth stripping women of a right that they fought for a century to get.

In the long run (even the short run) the right pivoting more towards anti choice is harming them.

 

[Cutlass]

In the long run (even the short run) the right pivoting more towards anti choice is harming them.

Not enough. The right has had the balance of power in the US for over 40 years now. And not it's the extremist right that has the balance of power. So they're only getting stronger.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not enough. The right has had the balance of power in the US for over 40 years now. And not it's the extremist right that has the balance of power. So they're only getting stronger.

See what happens in November.

 

[Lexicus]

See what happens in November.

This is pretty much meaningless because if Biden loses you'll conclude it was because he "went too far left".

 

[Zardnaar]

This is pretty much meaningless because if Biden loses you'll conclude it was because he "went too far left".

Not really in USA that's a recipe to lose though.

He has to carry the purple states by default that means you can go to far left as what works in sapphire blue NYC or California won't work there.

You bury the unpopular left wing stuff on page 18 online on your policies page on your website. Ask forgiveness after you win. In 3 years time electorate won't remember or care if you pass social policy.

Much like the right usually doesn't campaign on there slash and burn screw you over policies.

Find out the top 3 concerns of the electorate are and campaign on that. Point the tight as corporate types and Trumos tax cuts for the rich.

Let Trump shoot himself in the foot.