US Presidential Elections - 2024 edition

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.rawstory.com/kamala-harris-assassination-attempt-trump-mar-a-lago/

Trump talking about de-escalating rhetoric

"I can use it too — far better than they can — but I don’t."

Lmao

[BruceVC]

14 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.rawstory.com/kamala-harris-assassination-attempt-trump-mar-a-lago/

Trump talking about de-escalating rhetoric

Unfortunately both sides are guilty of this. And even though I support the idea  of " deescalating the rhetoric " that ship sailed a long time ago and its now part of the established campaigning and slogans from both candidates

But I dont find it funny because the US has a reality with gun violence, access to guns and untreated mental illness 

And you can find numerous  examples of a small number of mentally unbalanced people believing " candidate x is going to destroy the US  if they win" and then they act on it and often with tragic consequence 

 

 

 

[uuuhhii]

yes every side fanatically support gun violence gun access and refuse to offer treatment for mental illness

does the pretence of enlightened centrism ever get tiring

[BruceVC]

49 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

yes every side fanatically support gun violence gun access and refuse to offer treatment for mental illness

does the pretence of enlightened centrism ever get tiring

No it doesnt get tiresome when we talking about a reality in the US 

You not going to solve gun violence in US during this election  period but both candidates can control what they say and how they say it knowing there could be consequence around mass shootings caused by mental illness 

 

 

 

[Lexx]

I'm really curious how people are able to keep doing this "both sides" mental gymnastics day in and out. Like, if I imagine myself to write every day ridiculous stuff like that... it would probably drive me crazy. Not even sure if I could do it if someone pays me a lot of money for it.

Edited Tuesday at 08:56 AM by Lexx

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Lexx said:

I'm really curious how people are able to keep doing this "both sides" mental gymnastics day in and out. Like, if I imagine myself to write every day ridiculous stuff like that... it would probably drive me crazy. Not even sure if I could do it if someone pays me a lot of money for it.

It doesnt really require much effort or mental gymnastics when " both sides " are guilty of something. But they not  always doing the same thing so you need to look at each allegation or concern  separately and be specific 

So in this case  its easy to understand and see where both candidates are exaggerating to gain votes and support around   what the other candidate wants to achieve and what will happen to the US if the candidate wins. And they basically  saying this 

Harris : Trump will destroy  US democracy, he is the greatest threat to our Democracy  and freedoms we have ever seen 

Trump: Harris is a Communist\Socialist. She will destroy our country with her liberal and progressive policies 

 

 

 

[Chairchucker]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

It doesnt really require much effort or mental gymnastics when " both sides " are guilty of something. But they not  always doing the same thing so you need to look at each allegation or concern  separately and be specific 

So in this case  its easy to understand and see where both candidates are exaggerating to gain votes and support around   what the other candidate wants to achieve and what will happen to the US if the candidate wins. And they basically  saying this 

Harris : Trump will destroy  US democracy, he is the greatest threat to our Democracy  and freedoms we have ever seen 

Trump: Harris is a Communist\Socialist. She will destroy our country with her liberal and progressive policies

Trump being a threat to Democracy should not be a particularly controversial statement, unless you're particularly dedicated to the gimmick of enlightened centrism. He repeatedly refused to accept the result of an election, up to and including inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol, he tried to convince his VP not to certify the election, he said that maybe his VP deserved to be murdered for not overthrowing the election, he said he'd be a dictator, (but only on day one!) he's repeatedly cosied up to and expressed admiration for dictators, including suggesting that maybe America should have a President for life like China has, he told people that after they voted him in they'd never have to vote again. I know for some reason you are relentlessly dedicated to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe his seemingly infinite bounty of statements that reveal what a corrupt, horrible person he is actually mean something else, but just once, why not listen to what he actually says, over and over and over again?

Edited Tuesday at 11:21 AM by Chairchucker

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Trump being a threat to Democracy should not be a particularly controversial statement, unless you're particularly dedicated to the gimmick of enlightened centrism. He repeatedly refused to accept the result of an election, up to and including inciting a terrorist attack on the Capitol, he tried to convince his VP not to certify the election, he said that maybe his VP deserved to be murdered for not overthrowing the election, he said he'd be a dictator, (but only on day one!) he's repeatedly cosied up to and expressed admiration for dictators, including suggesting that maybe America should have a President for life like China has, he told people that after they voted him in they'd never have to vote again. I know for some reason you are relentlessly dedicated to giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe his seemingly infinite bounty of statements that reveal what a corrupt, horrible person he is actually mean something else, but just once, why not listen to what he actually says, over and over and over again?

Ostensibly that might not be a  controversial statement based on the examples you have given. You make some valid points here

But I am  assuming you dont think he should be assassinated because of what  he has  said or done? Do you think Trump getting killed would somehow be better for  US Democracy? Some people do believe that but they would  never act on it 

Because thats the point Im making, when presidential candidates publicly say those things that can influence mentally unbalanced people in a country where gun violence and mass shootings are common

Its fine if you and I say that on the Internet because we dont have any real influence 

I just think both candidates need to tone down the rhetoric 

 

[Chairchucker]

20 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Ostensibly that might not be a  controversial statement based on the examples you have given. You make some valid points here

But I am  assuming you dont think he should be assassinated because of what  he has  said or done? Do you think Trump getting killed would somehow be better for  US Democracy? Some people do believe that but they would  never act on it 

Because thats the point Im making, when presidential candidates publicly say those things that can influence mentally unbalanced people in a country where gun violence and mass shootings are common

Its fine if you and I say that on the Internet because we dont have any real influence 

I just think both candidates need to tone down the rhetoric 

 

Paradoxically, while I think Trump being dead (or just, removed from the public consciousness and discourse and with his tiny sex offending hands kept well away from the nether regions of women everywhere) would immediately make the world an immeasurably better place, I don't think politically motivated assassinations are a good precedent to set. I also don't think we need to avoid criticising fascists for being fascists just because the fascist gun loving country they've helped create might use any excuse to shoot someone.

 

Also, while we're on the subject of gun violence, there have been 527 mass shooting deaths in the USA so far this year, and if you picked any of those 527 victims at random, I would cheerfully and without hesitation swap them for any one of the predominantly Republican law makers who consistently refuse to pass legislation restricting the sale of firearms, because maybe if the violence was happening to them they'd feel it was worth taking action.

[Lexx]

Nobody says that political assassinations are good (in case of Trump or similar). Interestingly, I believe that Trump getting assassinated would actually be worse for us, since then someone more competent will very likely replace him and votes would go back over to the elephant party. At the end of the day, Trump is just the face of this madness. There are still more than enough crazy people on the republican side.

[Hurlshort]

Trump would be worse as a martyr, for sure. 

In his words, "Some people say I'd be the best martyr, maybe even better than Jesus."

Edited Tuesday at 03:08 PM by Hurlshort

[rjshae]

7 hours ago, Lexx said:

I'm really curious how people are able to keep doing this "both sides" mental gymnastics day in and out. Like, if I imagine myself to write every day ridiculous stuff like that... it would probably drive me crazy. Not even sure if I could do it if someone pays me a lot of money for it.

What I do find is that tends to end meaningful discussion, which is probably one reason it is used. "The other side does it too," just affirms confirmation bias because then neither side is doing anything wrong and you don't have to question your own beliefs.

[Pidesco]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Ostensibly that might not be a  controversial statement based on the examples you have given. You make some valid points here

But I am  assuming you dont think he should be assassinated because of what  he has  said or done? Do you think Trump getting killed would somehow be better for  US Democracy? Some people do believe that but they would  never act on it 

Because thats the point Im making, when presidential candidates publicly say those things that can influence mentally unbalanced people in a country where gun violence and mass shootings are common

Its fine if you and I say that on the Internet because we dont have any real influence 

I just think both candidates need to tone down the rhetoric 

 

I don't think pointing this out will help any, but if one candidate is stating facts, or at least well founded opinions, and the other is just stating bald faced lies, someone saying both candidates need to tone down their rhetoric strikes me as either ignorant or just dishonest. And specifically dishonest in favour of the liar.

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, rjshae said:

What I do find is that tends to end meaningful discussion, which is probably one reason it is used. "The other side does it too," just affirms confirmation bias because then neither side is doing anything wrong and you don't have to question your own beliefs.

Sometimes yes, it depends how its used 

But in this case its something that is getting raised on the likes of CNN which is a  centralist media house with more left leanings but they try to be in the middle of the political US spectrum. And they raising " tone down the rhetoric from both sides  " 

I do agree that the words " but both sides are doing it" can be counterproductive and is abused, its about the context

 

Edited yesterday at 05:22 AM by BruceVC

[Bartimaeus]

Quote

“He was so nice to me yesterday. In one way I sort of wish the call wasn’t made, because I do feel a little — he’s so nice. ‘I’m so sorry about what happened,’ and all that,” Trump said at a campaign town hall in Michigan, recounting his call with Biden on Monday.

“Same with Kamala today. She could not have been nicer,” Trump added. “But the fact is, we have to have people that are respected by the opponent.”

Earlier in the event, Trump referred to the “very nice call” he had with Harris, eliciting boos from the crowd.

“No, it was very nice,” Trump said as the crowd jeered.

I always love it that whenever Trump has a very rare moment in public decency, his crowds are always there to immediately tell him "no, don't do that". Trump and the hate-filled right are an interesting chicken-or-the-egg situation: on one hand, the latter definitely existed before Trump came along, but usually a lot quieter and more on the fringes of political discussion; on the other hand, without Trump legitimizing and bringing them to the mainstream, they may have well kept to the shadows and never reared their ugly head in public to be able to convert 40% of the population to their way of thinking; on the third hand, moments like quoted above make it pretty clear that despite everything, Trump is just a symptom, a manifestation of these people's hate and rage, and now that they're fully out of the closet, it seems quite certain they're going to be legion for a long time to come.

Edited 16 hours ago by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

10 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I always love it that whenever Trump has a very rare moment in public decency, his crowds are always there to immediately tell him "no, don't do that". Trump and the hate-filled right are an interesting chicken-or-the-egg situation: on one hand, the latter definitely existed before Trump came along, but usually a lot quieter and more on the fringes of political discussion; on the other hand, without Trump legitimizing and bringing them to the mainstream, they may have well kept to the shadows and never reared their ugly head in public to be able to convert 40% of the population to their way of thinking; on the third hand, moments like quoted above make it pretty clear that despite everything, Trump is just a symptom, a manifestation of these people's hate and rage, and now that they're fully out of the closet, it seems quite certain they're going to be legion for a long time to come.

I think that Trump would have happened without Trump, so to speak, but it is pretty funny that the guy who seized the growing nationalistic reaction to NeoCons and Neoliberalism is a New York real estate weirdo rather than someone like Meatball Ron or Lying Ted or one of the other GOP "up and comers" from the early-mid 2010s. But it does make sense, the in-house Republican (future) leaders hadn't really broken with the quasi-libertarianism and interventionism that had been party doctrine for decades so someone outside the party machine was needed to break in and realign things to where the base was going.