2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Blaze media is waaaaaaay worse than MSNBC and probably reaches more people but conservatives gladly eat up their biased slop while pretending that MSNBC is evil for being biased towards Dems.
It's incredibly gratifying to watch real americans act like this despite Trump and Vance attempting to get them to act the opposite way.
https://www.tvfandomlounge.com/solidarit...
Solidarity Overcomes Hate as Residents Flock to Haitian-Owned Restaurants in Springfield Ohio Amidst Trump’s Baseless Claims
In Springfield, Ohio, a wave of support for the local Haitian community has surged ever since former Presiden
It shouldn't be necessary.
People with millions of followers, ideological movements and enough political oomph to move nations (at least diplomatically) who use that clout without regard for individuals, small groups and communities are a menace. When they do so with lies for political gain and popularity, it is a special brand of evil.
Meanwhile, ordinary people become powerless against people with social media clout, because they can whack you with a proverbial freight train of hatred, after which your life becomes an endless misery of bullying, death threats, bomb threats and unwanted attention. We shouldn't be serfs to social media influencers, and people who run for public office who behave like this certainly aren't aware of the term "public servant". This is feudal behavior, not democratic behavior.
It is good that there are people who are not like that and who just want to be decent, but I think it says a lot about 2024 that simply being a decent human being makes you look like a god damn hero next to two people who might very well become the next president and vice president of the US.
bruh, you came in here with a straight face and tried to argue soes were given less governmental support as american car manufacturers
not even pinko commie victor would have attempted that kind of mental gymnastics - he'd just keep it simple and instead say the american car companies were more evil
Right, and you haven't provided a counterargument, so no amount of "commie" calling is going to make up for that.
To argue that foreign companies are competing unfairly against a domestic industry that wouldn't even exist without the US government's intervention is the height of not just hypocrisy but of being hopelessly uninformed.
Republican official now under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Mayor steals voting drop box.
interfering in a Federal election
You have the commission of a crime, photographic evidence and admission of guilt.
People with millions of followers, ideological movements and enough political oomph to move nations (at least diplomatically) who use that clout without regard for individuals, small groups and communities are a menace. When they do so with lies for political gain and popularity, it is a special brand of evil.
I wonder if people who have been in this forum for a long time would say that they have observed some posters becoming more extreme (in a negative way), or less connected or concerned with objective reality, than they were previously. And if so, would they attribute the changes in part to our modern social media environment?
The evidence would be LOL sample size and purely anecdotal, but I am curious about whether people think they have noticed a change.
Trump - "Turn the clock back to 1860 and Make America Hate Again."
a clear line between the racist chants at a recent Trump rally,
led by the former president himself, and the deep history of
anti-immigrant racism exemplified by KKK Grand Dragon Louis Beam
looks like trump gave his black guys the day off
You're missing the point. Everyone knows trump was never there lol. Because he wasn't the 'real' President--just the guy doing the media stuff etc. Pence was. And Vance will be if they win this time 😀
Kasich(their initial choice iirc) claimed he met with trump's people and got that exact offer. You run policy and I'll maga it up.
This overstates things quite a bit imo. It's true that Trump had less interest in governing than he did in campaigning. But it doesn't follow that Trump imbued his VP with unprecedented authority. To the contrary, the general incompetence of Trump's first term had Trump's personal stink all over it. If Pence had really been running things, the policies of course would have been terrible, but the operation of government almost certainly would have been less chaotic.
Right, and you haven't provided a counterargument, so no amount of "commie" calling is going to make up for that.
To argue that foreign companies are competing unfairly against a domestic industry that wouldn't even exist without the US government's intervention is the height of not just hypocrisy but of being hopelessly uninformed.
i did provide a counter argument
one one hand you have private companies who were bailed out
on the other hand you have enterprises wholly owned and operated by the central gov
it's really that simple
this is like asking me to prove that steak is not vegan
I wonder if people who have been in this forum for a long time would say that they have observed some posters becoming more extreme (in a negative way), or less connected or concerned with objective reality, than they were previously. And if so, would they attribute the changes in part to our modern social media environment?
The evidence would be LOL sample size and purely anecdotal, but I am curious about whether people think they have noticed a change.
In these days of reading statistics like the devil reads the bible, anecdotal isn't that bad.
I think it is clear that most of us are becoming less skeptical. I think the sheer mass of news from social media plays a big part, because we start relying on mental heuristics to judge a headline or article, rather than researching that particular piece. I stepped away from news on social media, because it feels mostly about attention-grabbing.
I also see on the forum more people people who are just convinced everything is gone to hell and that there are no solutions to anything. I think that social media carries a lot of the blame for that, because there is nothing easier than writing about how wrong everyone and everything is, and it is catchy stuff too.
Beyond the forum, but perhaps a somewhat connected phenomena. I also think social media and digital mass communication does this weird thing where it brings geographically and culturally distant people closer to each-other, because we see them in ways we would never see them otherwise. However, it also creates more of a gap between people who live in the same community, because we hardly need to interact with each-other anymore. I don't know what to call it. Digital detachment? I think it makes many of us less grounded.
In these days of reading statistics like the devil reads the bible, anecdotal isn't that bad.
I think it is clear that most of us are becoming less skeptical. I think the sheer mass of news from social media plays a big part, because we start relying on mental heuristics to judge a headline or article, rather than researching that particular piece. I stepped away from news on social media, because it feels mostly about attention-grabbing.
I also see on the forum more people people who are just con
I think that the modern evolution of skepticism is a bit more nuanced. A lot of people are more broadly skeptical of the mainstream media than they were 30 years ago and less skeptical of alt media that is firehosed into their brains via social media.
I agree that we have seen an uptick in lazy nihilism.
Beyond the forum, but perhaps a somewhat connected phenomena. I also think social media and digital mass communication does this weird thing where it brings geographically and culturally distant people closer to each-other, because we see them in ways we would never see them otherwise. However, it also creates more of a gap between people who live in the same community, because we hardly need to interact with each-other anymore. I don't know what to call it. Digital detachment? I think it makes many of us less grounded.
We aren't just fomenting detachment. We are fostering a world that places a higher priority on whether people are listening to you than on why they are listening to you.
i've definitely noticed a change, a lot of really smart people have been going off the rails and posting subjectively about nonsense
it's become less about having a genuine discussion and more about most people view the opposite side as not their preferred candidate losing but rather evil incarnate winning (although you could make a compelling case that's the reality in this situation)
but as a result people are mostly concerned about owning the other side and not so much about having a reasonable discussion - hence you have purportedly liberal people screaming like chicken little that trump is reversing policy on his evil and punitive salt plan despite that bernie endorses that trump salt plan as a good thing and opposes the movements by new yorkers to dial it back
I wonder if people who have been in this forum for a long time would say that they have observed some posters becoming more extreme (in a negative way), or less connected or concerned with objective reality, than they were previously. And if so, would they attribute the changes in part to our modern social media environment?
The evidence would be LOL sample size and purely anecdotal, but I am curious about whether people think they have noticed a change.
I think it's social media but not for the reasons usually stated. Not because of misinformation campaigns and whatnot.
It's social media because people have always been extremists but they thought most other people weren't and most people don't like being too contrarian of society, so the gatekeeping of media kept them closer to the center than they would have otherwise been.
When an extremist discovers millions of people actually agree with him, and they form a community (so a parallel society) where he is NOT a contrarian being an extremist, the price of being an extremist for people who want to be socially accepted drops very very fast, and so you have more people admitting they are extremists.
Why do i think that's the dynamic? because that already happened in cities and areas where being an extremist was socially acceptable. Social media generalizes that to every place. In university campuses it was normal to be an extremist (compared to the general population). In rural racist areas it was normal to be racist.
Social media allows the person living in a centrist area (which is most people actually) to find extremists elsewhere and connect with them, so if he had any extremist view which he just kept to himself, he doesn't anymore.
Then once extremists connect with themselves, it's normal people further radicalize. You have a market for extremist views, you connect over extremist topics so you study them more, in the extremist version, and so on. Think of "defund the police" people talking among themselves about police atrocities (and exaggerating them grotesquely) or people racing over who has the most antisemitic take of the week and so on
MAGA mouthpiece Kellyanne Conway just got called out on FOX by her very own daughter.
mom exhibits a strong sense of self-righteousness and narcissism,
both personally and professionally, and attempts to gaslight her own daughter
every time Trump says something stupid all his supporters have to explain what Trump really meant
I think it's social media but not for the reasons usually stated. Not because of misinformation campaigns and whatnot.
It's social media because people have always been extremists but they thought most other people weren't and most people don't like being too contrarian of society, so the gatekeeping of media kept them closer to the center than they would have otherwise been.
When an extremist discovers millions of people actually agree with him, and they form a community (so a parallel society) w
This is going to be a rare occasion where I agree with Luciom. I don't think social media has the capacity to change human nature, but it certainly has the capacity to tap into (usually negative) aspects of it which have traditionally been suppressed.
But that is not to say that misinformation on social media isn't a massive problem, and I hope that you'll agree on that point.
Have you considered the possibility that these people were never particularly smart in the first place?
it's hard to say, we only have official sklansky ratings on 3 users
but i can tell you with deep certainty, if i'm indeed the smartest person on 2p2, we're all in for a world of trouble
i did provide a counter argument
one one hand you have private companies who were bailed out
on the other hand you have enterprises wholly owned and operated by the central gov
it's really that simple
this is like asking me to prove that steak is not vegan
It's that simple yet you haven't provided an argument as to why it's material to your argument regarding fairness of competition. If an industry has an implicit government backstop when it gets into trouble then it is competing with the financial backing of that government. And the US government did actually take a large equity stake in the companies it bailed out that it later sold. Having a government taking ownership only when the companies get in financial trouble is no different than if the company were government owned - both allow the companies to compete with the unlimited financial backing of their respective governments.
So I'll ask again, why is it unfair when China does it but not the USA?
Vance’s private criticisms of Trump reportedly extended into 2020
4th of July, 2016,
Donald Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit.
But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.
an easy escape from the pain. To every complex problem, he promises a simple solution.
He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t.
Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein.
The author of the piece was a young man by the name of JD Vance
Vance wrote in February 2020,
“Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism."
Around the same time, Vance also claimed via direct message
that he’d “turned down” an undisclosed job offer from Trump
It's that simple yet you haven't provided an argument as to why it's material to your argument regarding fairness of competition. If an industry has an implicit government backstop when it gets into trouble then it is competing with the financial backing of that government. And the US government did actually take a large equity stake in the companies it bailed out that it later sold. Having a government taking ownership only when the companies get in financial trouble is no different than if the
i don't know how to further elaborate the difference between an soe to a private enterprise which received a bailout any further without being overly insulting and patronizing
i know you're not an idiot, so instead of asking me to treat you as such, why don't you specify what aspects of how drastically different they are is confusing to you?
i leaned on gpt in the meantime
Donald Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit.
But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.
an easy escape from the pain. To every complex problem, he promises a simple solution.
He never offers details for how these plans will work, because he can’t.
Trump’s promises are the needle in America’s collective vein.
The author of the piece was a young man by the name of JD Vance
Vance wrote in February 2020,
“Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his
Oh, I get it, Trumpism is like a really addictive drug, like an opiate, for the simpletons who support him, the masses if you like.
It's that simple yet you haven't provided an argument as to why it's material to your argument regarding fairness of competition. If an industry has an implicit government backstop when it gets into trouble then it is competing with the financial backing of that government. And the US government did actually take a large equity stake in the companies it bailed out that it later sold. Having a government taking ownership only when the companies get in financial trouble is no different than if the
there are big differences but the fairness argument is still bogus.
we should protect consumers not producers, and if the Chinese government subsidizes our consumers (by subsidizing uneconomical production fo goods and services we consume) in the west we should happily take that subsidy, while we shouldn't subsidize failing companies ourself.
there can be exceptions linked at goods and services which are vital which we can't depend on foreign alien entities because they could shut us off at any time or blackmail us about doing that, but certainly cheap cars and many other things don't qualify
It's that simple yet you haven't provided an argument as to why it's material to your argument regarding fairness of competition. If an industry has an implicit government backstop when it gets into trouble then it is competing with the financial backing of that government. And the US government did actually take a large equity stake in the companies it bailed out that it later sold. Having a government taking ownership only when the companies get in financial trouble is no different than if the
Yeah the funniest part of MAGA is on one side we're all supposed to come together and pay nigher prices across the board so we can help up low end American workers. But on the culture war side they say I'm a communist baby killer that wants to mutilate children because I'm fine with letting individuals, parents and the medical establishment make medical decisions rather than right wing politicians. If these tariffs are necessary for your livelihood, maybe tone it down on the culture war crap?
This overstates things quite a bit imo. It's true that Trump had less interest in governing than he did in campaigning. But it doesn't follow that Trump imbued his VP with unprecedented authority. To the contrary, the general incompetence of Trump's first term had Trump's personal stink all over it. If Pence had really been running things, the policies of course would have been terrible, but the operation of government almost certainly would have been less chaotic.
I'm going off of what Kasich said happened when they met and it would be a really bizarre lie to make up out of thin air(I'll make you the most powerful VP ever--was the money shot). I think Pence got the same deal. Of course trump was going to tommyboy it up that's what he does lol And I would not be surprised at all if Thiel/Vance scored something very similar. A lot more fits the idea that's what was happening than doesn't imo.
it would be bizzarre for trump to make up a lie out of thin air just to boast?
Wow ICE released numbers that 500,000 illegal immigrants released have criminal records and approximately 15,000 for murder and 15,000 for rape
