American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by devo22

meanwhile, Trump sycophant Dan Scavino is tweeting about how Biden is about to return to the race because he's oh so pissed at the Democrats for making him drop out.

A lot of MAGA is full of silly fantasy and wish fulfilment. It's just Qanon stuff. Remember, a bunch of these idiots thought that Biden was going to get arrested at his inauguration and they'd swear in Trump instead. There are some very unbalanced people out there.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

A lot of MAGA is full of silly fantasy and wish fulfilment. It's just Qanon stuff. Remember, a bunch of these idiots thought that Biden was going to get arrested at his inauguration and they'd swear in Trump instead. There are some very unbalanced people out there.

It suits Trump very well to some distrust in the process and make it seem like there’s dark forces behind the scenes. The fact he feeds that beast is part of what makes him so dangerous.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He didn’t, not in the way Mathgod is positioning it.

Both sides DO run campaigns based on fear, that’s a “both sides” that’s true, so the hypocrisy is either side (or a supporter of either side) positioning themselves against a fear-based campaign.

If Side A says “Trans people are a danger to society, they must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”

And Side B says “Campaigning on fear is ridiculous and I am against it. And also, climate change is a serious threat to our world and must be stopped! We will stop it, vote for us!”

Side B is a hypocrite. It doesn’t matter that Side B’s concern is valid and side A’s isn’t, because the hypocrisy comes from the approach, not the content.

You can’t be against “fear mongering” as a concept while ringing alarm bells (fear mongering) about climate change and fascism.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Good God. Fine.

In post 18127, FlameOn noted that far right politicians campaign on fear. In response, I said, that it's not just right wingers that do it, and even the democrats are campaigning on fear (i.e., fear that there will be a national abortion ban or that democratic freedoms and voting rights will be eroded or removed). It's just that in this particular case, they're right to promote those fears. In MOST elections - that is, not ones that involve a candidate who actively cozies up to dictators while selling out to people who write documents like Project 2025 - the people campaigning based on fear will still say the fears they're exploiting are justified warnings, such that it's really just a matter of perspective whether someone is stoking fear or "pointing out a real danger".

Everyone always thinks their side is "pointing out a real danger". In 2012, people suggested Romney wanted to turn the USA into a theocracy - that was a talking point. That was not a real danger. The McCain campaign suggested that Obama would turn the IRS into a massive wealth re-distribution agency. That was not a real danger. Usually, the "you should be afraid of what the other guys will do" arguments are over the top and not real.

This time they're real. Trump really will do this stuff, or more accurately, will allow it to happen.

Hopefully that helps.

Genuinely thanks both of you for responding. The reason I pressed it, and it ended up being where mathgod went as well, is how we can distinguish between legitimate fears and just plain fear mongering. It seems like the point you are making is that legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. But like you mention, there are times like now where the fear seems to be substantiated. It would be nice if the rhetoric was toned down so it didn't seem like both sides are always crying wolf. Then if they used it as a campaign issue we would know its authentic. But that will never happen unfortunately.

With the specifics of your examples, the one thing you mention from the left is Romney and the US becoming a theocracy. With how the last decade has played out and the continued rising influence of christian nationalism, can you really even say that was fear mongering?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Ok, so if I tell people that climate change is a real threat to society, and it will cause huge amounts of human suffering, damage to property, and yes, lost lives, if swift action isn't taken now... is that fear mongering, or is that just sharing truthful information about the inconvenient reality of the world we're currently living in?

The problem I have with the term "fear mongering" when it's used against those who communicate warnings of real dangers, is that it implies an accusation of emotional manipulation to provoke irrational responses.

Because that's what actual fear mongering is - fabricating or exaggerating dangers to try and provoke responses that are not rational. (Tuco in this thread for example.)

So in terms of the Harris-Walz campaign, are they using fear mongering in any of their messaging, or are they just communicating real dangers? Looking at Trump's threat to democracy, for example, how do you tell people that he wants to dismantle American democracy, without causing negative psychological impacts?

Because that is conjecture. The affects of climate change are not known. We do know that it will have a dramatic effect on our lives, but we cannot quantify it yet. We also do not know if swift action will even reverse the changes that are occuring. We can surmise this, but it is not a guarantee.

Climate change is real. Climate change is also a fear mongering tactic. State the facts on it and not the percieved conclusions. Come up with solutions that the average person can continue to afford to do and make in their lives and quit terrifying people about it. Is it a scary situation, probably, but don't keep telling me how dire it is without telling me what I, as a normal person, can do to change it.

Problems without solutions IS fear mongering.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by dobbles

With the specifics of your examples, the one thing you mention from the left is Romney and the US becoming a theocracy. With how the last decade has played out and the continued rising influence of christian nationalism, can you really even say that was fear mongering?

Yes. And you've kind of made my point here - "no, this thing that my side of the aisle was worried about was real, look at what's happened". The reality is that Romney, while obviously a religious mormon, has never given any good reason to think that he would have implemented anything remotely similar to a theocratic agenda, any more than the many God-fearing presidents who preceded him did. In fact, his actions since then have done more to demonstrate that to the contrary, he would have adhered to the norms of the presidency and been a pretty typical Republican occupant of that office. American Stephen Harper, essentially. Now, you could for example reasonably argue that he would have been an extremely bad president for reproductive rights (although there was a lot of confusion on that point since he'd previously been pro-choice in Massachusetts), but hell, George W said he believed God spoke to him directly. That's insane. Yet no theocracy was instated.

The essential difference is that whatever the rhetoric that's used to win votes, literally every presidential candidate up until Donald Trump, or since Donald Trump, has an ingrained respect for democratic norms. Even Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich, as contemptible as we might find them, have that understanding that the rules are important. There have been plenty of other politicians who have lacked that characteristic - take Michelle Bachmann for example - but they tend not to get very far in terms of power within their own party and they certainly don't get nominated for President. The concern is that now that Trump has broken that dam that those sorts of people will have an easier road.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Good lord these people are ####ing idiots.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...testers-rally/

I'm a bit confused here.

They are idiots for believing that US is supporting genocide? Or in the way they are protesting?

I mean I get it is disrespectful to sit there and squawk from the back row while the VP is talking, and she has every right to tell them to shut up, but these protesters have been nothing if not consistent in standing up for what they believe. I did see that they were escorted out afterwards which is likely the correct thing to do, because again, if someone is giving a speech, let them talk.

The fact that they would not vote for the Democrat ticket because of the supposed Democrat support for genocide in Israel / Gaza is unlike most Americans who won't change sides because their side is better regardless of their policy stance.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's simply a binary choice. It's a trolley problem and they're actively pulling the switch in a direction that leads to more people getting run over by the trolley. If their actual goal is to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the harm to Palestinians in Gaza, they are acting in a manner that is counterproductive to that goal.

I don't think anyone in that group would have the first clue as to whether they're actually motivated by that sort of utilitarian thinking, nor would they bother to reflect on what the actual justification for their actions is supposed to be. Unless Bonded is right and they're plants, I guess, but that reeks of conspiracy thinking and the Ockham's Razor explanation is that they're just dumb.

[PepsiFree]

Well, they’re likely going to vote Democrat, but it doesn’t sound very smart to protest their stance on the Israel/Palestine war by chanting “Genocide! Genocide! We’ll still vote for you so no big deal but GENOCIDE!”

If we’re bringing Mr.Razor into this, it’s fair to say you’re both over-complicating their intent and motivations.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think it's overcomplicating things to say, "if you don't like Netanyahu's tyrannical regime and its oppressive treatment of Palestinians, don't take active steps to help someone come to power who thinks Netanyahu's regime, and tyrannical oppressive regimes in general, are an example to aspire to".

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm a bit confused here.

The fact that they would not vote for the Democrat ticket because of the supposed Democrat support for genocide in Israel / Gaza is unlike most Americans who won't change sides because their side is better regardless of their policy stance.

It is because the Republicans are even worse for their goals and the Democrats might actually put some pressure on Israel towards an end to the war.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

This man might be the most aura-less person to ever enter the public consciousness. Also, he's obviously Turtle...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1821271841538998643

Every character in Entourage is a dirtbag.

And I liked Entourage.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think it's overcomplicating things to say, "if you don't like Netanyahu's tyrannical regime and its oppressive treatment of Palestinians, don't take active steps to help someone come to power who thinks Netanyahu's regime, and tyrannical oppressive regimes in general, are an example to aspire to".

OK but this is vaguely similar to the “Don’t criticize Biden or Trump will win!” sentiment from the last election.

It’s fine to acknowledge that one is better than the other but that doesn’t mean they should be above criticism.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Don is holding a press conference later today. They are still trying to get him out of bed.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Don is holding a press conference later today. They are still trying to get him out of bed.

That’s the result when you golf all day and are up very late watching the news channels to learn what people are saying about you then rage posting your bull$h1t.

That’s another Hitler-like trait, except it was movies instead of television and instead of rage posting it was maneuvering fantasy armies.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK but this is vaguely similar to the “Don’t criticize Biden or Trump will win!” sentiment from the last election.

It’s fine to acknowledge that one is better than the other but that doesn’t mean they should be above criticism.

Sure, they aren’t above criticism. But saying you won’t vote for her because you feel she is too pro Israel or disrupting her campaign is gonna get you something worse for your cause. She has zero room to move further on this unless she just wants to hand over the keys to the White House.

Their best bet is to get behind her and work the issue from the inside and hopefully with the winner. I know my analysis is purely a political one, and asking a major concession from someone.

This is one of the differences between the two parties. Republicans are slewing to the right to their most extreme elements. They accuse the dems of being too progressive and beholden to their extremists when the evidence is pretty clear they don’t do that.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

That’s the result when you golf all day and are up very late watching the news channels to learn what people are saying about you then rage posting your bull$h1t.

That’s another Hitler-like trait, except it was movies instead of television and instead of rage posting it was maneuvering fantasy armies.

He is also old and fat, and eats crap so he likely has no energy either.

They made a cocktail of drugs to keep Hitler going. Diet coke probably isn't cutting it anymore for Donny, he needs to borrow real coke from Jr.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Sure, they aren’t above criticism. But saying you won’t vote for her because you feel she is too pro Israel or disrupting her campaign is gonna get you something worse for your cause. She has zero room to move further on this unless she just wants to hand over the keys to the White House.

Their best bet is to get behind her and work the issue from the inside and hopefully with the winner. I know my analysis is purely a political one, and asking a major concession from someone.

This is one of the differences between the two parties. Republicans are slewing to the right to their most extreme elements. They accuse the dems of being too progressive and beholden to their extremists when the evidence is pretty clear they don’t do that.

Again, when push comes to shove, do you actually think they’re not going to vote for her?

What are they supposed to say? “There are no consequences for not listening to our protest! But please listen to us anyway!”

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK but this is vaguely similar to the “Don’t criticize Biden or Trump will win!” sentiment from the last election.

It’s fine to acknowledge that one is better than the other but that doesn’t mean they should be above criticism.

If you care about Palestinians, and lbgtq rights, less racism, access to healthcare, social programs, competent administrations, etc, there is a binary choice now as there was in 2020 and 2016. One of those choices is overwhelmingly better than the other in regards to the above issues.

Criticize and protest them all you want when there are competitive primaries or while they are in office. But unless there is a foreseeable window to remove him (like there was in Biden), then supporting and voting for the current candidate is the one most effective thing most people can do for all those causes, and to not support them is turning your back on all those people who are affected by all those issues.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

He is also old and fat, and eats crap so he likely has no energy either.

They made a cocktail of drugs to keep Hitler going. Diet coke probably isn't cutting it anymore for Donny, he needs to borrow real coke from Jr.

He's also a convicted felon due to be sentenced later this month, and he has more legal issues to deal with in the future if he doesn't get elected. His new political opponent is surging in the polls. Even someone as narcissistic as him has to be struggling to cope. I'd be in bed all day if I was in his situation.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, when push comes to shove, do you actually think they’re not going to vote for her?

What are they supposed to say? “There are no consequences for not listening to our protest! But please listen to us anyway!”

Yes, but interrupting her gives potential sound bite for the republicans to use plus you are taking positive energy out of the room and campaign. My calculation is that has to be hurting her and not helping her whether they are going to vote for her or not.