I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included. — Eros1982

The definition of a "far right" protest is anger at the stabbing death of three little girls as young as 6. Apparently if you're against stabbing little girls, you're a right winger. So says Keir Starmer, new PM of the UK.

Don't try to gaslight me. You used that word and it was the wrong word to use. I point that out and you keep using it, I point it out again and then I'm the one hung up on the word. No mate, you were simply wrong and your interpretation of the whole situation along with the pundits you like to quote is wrong and dumb for the reasons I've stated.

Any comments on JD Vance's philosophy credentials? :gasp:

I heard he studied philosophy. Will be be a philosopher king? :rofl:

But of course he did. You might as well argue the sun rises in the west. — fishfry

You're telling me you're very, very sure that's what happened but you haven't told me why I should believe that - i.e. what the evidence is for someone who doesn't already believe what you believe.

Yes. Fourteen million voters. Many Biden supporters were reported even in the MSM right to the end. Clyburn and many blacks in fact. I am not sure why you're questioning widely reported facts. — fishfry

I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support.

All I'm sayin' is I'm not payin' the ransom till I see proof of life. — fishfry

But you did. You're just dismissing the evidence as insufficient. What further evidence do you require? A personal meeting with Biden?

Having a competitive 2024 primary so that BIden would have been exposed, and a strong, popular candidate, nominated by democratic means, would have been chosen.

The Dems pulled off their swaparoo. But don't call it democracy. It's anything but. It was a coup -- pardon the word -- by the party insiders. — fishfry

I'm not calling it democracy. But if your only remedy is a retroactive plan that can't possibly be executed without a time machine your complaints sound kind of hollow.

Trump was nominated in a spirited and competitive primary. You're just flailing with the rest of it. "But he's ORANGE HITLER, whatabout that??" — fishfry

Don't put words in my mouth please.

That all you've got? — fishfry

No. I've got a whole list.

When Mitch McConnell declared that the republican party would do everything to stymie Obama, that was undemocratic.

When republicans under his leadership refused to allow Obama to fill a SC seat, that was undemocratic.

When Trump claims that every election he is or was in (regardless of outcome) is rigged against him, that's undemocratic. Arguably you can't blame the rest of the Republicans for all of this, but you can blame them for supporting it to the point of ostracizing his opponents.

When Trump refused to make an official concession in 2020, that was undemocratic. When the republican party, after some hand-wringing, ended up wholeheartedly backing it they became complicit.

Those are just the obvious, highly public events. I'm not including any of the "controversial" events. I'm also not including all the lower level procedural steps like gerrymandering (a "both sides" issue that republicans pioneered).

So even if I accept all your claims as to this "coup", it merely moves the democratic party closer towards the republican party in terms of power politics.

Liberals should be ashamed of supporting this charade. — fishfry

US politics has moved far beyond being ashamed of your side several cycles ago. You're asking liberals to sabotage themselves in favour of an ideal that their political opponents have long since thrown by the wayside. That is at best naive, at worst it's a cynical attempt to get your chosen candidate into power with less of an opposition.

5August24

Uh oh, even MAGA media has begun to wake up and smell the gourmet black coffee:


https://nypost.com/2024/07/29/opinion/trump-and-vance-need-to-woo-women-voters-to-win/

Roevember is coming, @NOS4A2 :kiss:

@fishfry @Mikie @Wayfarer @Benkei @Fooloso4

I would very much like to believe its over, but I don't. I doubt that the continued focus on Trump will sway voters. Outside of the MAGA cult most who will vote for him will do so despite who he is and what he says. The Dobbs decision will play a role. Beyond that the key factor will be the voter's own financial well-being, both in fact and perception. The case can and I think will be made that Trump failed on his economic promises and Biden did more and Harris will continue to do more for American industry, small business, infrastructure, and jobs.

I’m beginning to think Tim Waltz is the best choice for Harris after hearing him interviewed. — Mikie

Wow, she actually made the best choice. I’m surprised, but I’m happy she did it. Now I can spell his name correctly (Walz).

Republicans are not copying with UK and European conservatives who, although not so alarmed as the progressives, do not dare to say in public that climate change is not happening. Many polls show, also, that even in conservative voting states like TX and FL, the majorities think that climate change is happening. — Eros1982

Because some of the biggest donors to the Republicans are fossil fuel giants. Not only that, but they own think tanks and election infrastructure as well. The propaganda was so strong that it lingers even today, when we’re seeing the effects of a warming planet all around us.

Because it was associated with “liberals” (thanks in part to Al Gore’s involvement), it’s become politicized and thus Trumpers would rather die, literally, then face the reality. So goes US politics.

How is Musk's behavior explained?

The most educated people in this country buy his very expensive Tesla cars, and Elon Musk says now that he is going to give a 42 million check per month to a climate change denier. :vomit:

How is Musk's behavior explained? — Eros1982

My running theory is that Musk is just chasing the adulation of the most willing sycophants, and those just happen to be in the Trumpist camp.

That’s part of it. He’s also very Twitter-minded, and the biggest voices on there are Trump trolls and the alt-right. If it were SNL, it would have been different.

The more cynical view is that he wants to sell cars to the Trump crowd. Which as you see now, Trump has changed his tune on EVs a bit, and was just recently gifted a Cybertruck by some online influences— which he praised. Good publicity for Tesla.

The most simple theory is that Musk is basically an idiot, and always has been. That’s the most likely case, I think.

kind of crazy when you compare VP choices. Kamala’s choice is smart and strategic. Trump picked a phony sycophant, presumably only because he intends to surround himself with weak yes-men.

There is an article in the NYT: "JD Vance Just Blurbed a Book Arguing That Progressives Are Subhuman" Until recently the book, Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) could be be dismissed as too far to the extreme right to be taken seriously, but with Vance's endorsement and a forward by Stephen Bannon, it has entered the Republican mainstream. The author, Jack Posobiec, promoted the conspiracy theory that Democrats ran a satanic child abuse ring beneath a popular Washington pizzeria.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as:

... a political operative and internet performer of the anti-democracy hard right, known primarily for creating and amplifying viral disinformation campaigns ... He helped lead the “Stop the Steal” campaign ...He has also collaborated with white nationalists, antigovernment extremists, members of the Proud Boys, and neo-Nazis in his capacity as an operative.

6August24

Roevember 2024:

VP Kamala Harris & Gov Tim Walz
("pro-democracy" Democrats) :victory: :mask:

versus

The Criminal Clown & MAGA Mini-me 
(neofascist "weirdos") :lol:

A five star review of the book on goodreads.com:

Past Marxist revolutions are reviewed to provide a better understanding of the cultural Marxism of the Left in America today. While the history lesson is important, the real value of this volume is a discussion of why the radical Left needs to be defeated and effective measures to take to end their scourge.

From what I gather the book glorifies Franco. Not sure if the suggestion is that his way is the way to end the scourge. In any case, I don't think MAGA is big on reading books.

Don't try to gaslight me. You used that word and it was the wrong word to use. I point that out and you keep using it, I point it out again and then I'm the one hung up on the word. No mate, you were simply wrong and your interpretation of the whole situation along with the pundits you like to quote is wrong and dumb for the reasons I've stated. — Benkei

I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.

I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.

I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you.

I respectfully exit this interesting conversation. Thank you for the chat.

But to change the subject:

Hey man aren't you watching this wild election? Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. She's been tacking to the center and now Walz pulls her back to the left, ties her to the Antifa/BLM riots that she supported.

That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years.

But either way, Biden's exit from the race (but not from the presidency) is yesterday's news. Although he is still allegedly the president, as war is breaking out in the Middle East. But never mind all that.

My meta-point is that I am wondering if anyone here likes to talk politics! Not just argue semantics or yell partisan talking points at each other. This is the craziest election I've ever seen.

I'm questioning your claim that he "still has" many supporters. The public support of Biden got progressively weaker. And even that support was of the "well it's better to not create chaos" kind. I don't see how you can be confident that this indicates a large amount of internal support. — Echarmion

Seems like a trivial thing. If you search around you can find Democrats discussing whether this was the best process they could have done. Of course everyone has gotten into line. The Democrats have indeed shown tremendous party discipline. They turned on a dime and all got marching in the new direction. So when you say support, of course they're all on board the Kam train in public. It was a brilliant political operation, the Kam switcheroo. Biden's gone, Kam's coronated, the media are swooning, the past is being digitally retconned in a manner that Orwell can only envy.

So the Dems pulled it off.

But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point. That if you support the guy who ends up losing, you line up behind whoever the party chooses. But still, you support your guy and maybe dislike the extreme hardball politics that have been played on them.

Some of them might even be resentful. It's only human nature.

You seem to be denying all of that, and saying that overnight what was in their hearts changed in lockstep with what's on their Kamala signs. I hope you'll clarify this point.

But you did. You're just dismissing the evidence as insufficient. What further evidence do you require? A personal meeting with Biden? — Echarmion

Saying I'm not paying the ransom is a way of drawing attention to his obvious near-death condition, in a slightly humorous way. Not payin' the ransom. I suppose humor, if there was any at all, does not translate over this medium. No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to.

It's unusual, and suspicious, when a political leader disappears from public view for days at a time, then posts this fishy letter, then disappears for more days at a time, then gets wheeled out to mumble and look like a standing corpse for a few minutes, as he did the other night.

It reminds me of nothing so much as Chernenko and those other end-time Soviets, guys who were alive in strict biological terms only, very little actual life left in them. They'd sit in the big chair, or be propped up in it, till they died, and the next near-corpse was put in charge.

Will you assert to me that you have not seen this, that I am lying, that I am the victim of Republican propaganda? That when you saw Biden at the hostage presser, you thought to yourself, "That guy looks fit as a fiddle, probably beat me at chess while running the world." Is that your view? Or do you see the same far gone man I do?

Will you grant me the right to call out the massive swindle being played by the Biden administration and the Democratic party: to pretend that the president is fit to do his job; when everyone in the entire world knows he's not.

I have the right to call that out. I am calling that out. And if my saying "I wouldn't pay the ransom," doesn't strike you as a light-hearted reference to the entire issue ... well, I guess not everyone appreciates my fine sense of humor.

But still. You have to say that, partisanship aside, this is a very dangerous state of affairs, with war breaking out in the Middle East. Who is in charge of the country? Who is commander in chief of the military?

So yeah. I ain't payin' the ransom.

Franco and Pinochet are regarded as heroes.

The article quotes from the book:

Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,

Of course if the "unhumans" are not regarded as human they need not be treated as human. As such things go, it is likely that just who is or will be counted as unhuman will be a growing group that will include everyone that does not support their revolution.

Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. — fishfry

Actually, he’s a great pick and the one thing she’s gotten right so far.

Maybe lay off the Fox News.

Kamala just screwed up her vp pick. — fishfry

Idk, seems to me like Madame VP just took another page out of Obama's winning campaign playbook. :smirk:

Maybe lay off the Fox News. — Mikie

:smirk:

Walz speaks Mandarin. I guess that will be handy. Still wish it was Shapiro, tho

Actually, he’s a great pick and the one thing she’s gotten right so far. — Mikie

Wow, she actually made the best choice. I’m surprised, but I’m happy she did it. Now I can spell his name correctly (Walz). — Mikie

Let me explain why she hurt herself with this pick.

I am not making a partisan point. I'm just analyzing this as I would a sporting event that I don't have a rooting interest in. Or, if I do, I'm not allowing that to bear on my observations. I know you are a bit partisan, but you're the one who claims she made a good choice and I disagree, so I'll tell you why. I'd say this if I were for Trump, which I am; but especially if I were for Harris, which I'm not. But the analysis goes either way.

Or to put that another way: I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say. But perhaps someone else will.

Kamala made the exact same mistake that Trump did!

A few weeks ago, Trump was asked his position on abortion. Many of his supporters are rabid pro-lifers. But Trump did something he rarely does, think strategically. He simply said he'd leave it to the states and he'd say no more. That angered his pro-life base, but where else are they going to go? And he was smart enough to realize that he blunted the worst attacks of the left. They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states.

So Trump makes this clever strategic tack towards the center; something every politician has to do after they win their primaries. (Well, assuming one is in a political party that actually bothers to hold primaries, unlike certain UNdemocratic parties I could name).

Then what does he do? He selects Vance, who is in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion, wants to arrest women who cross state lines for an abortion, makes snide remarks about women in a highly gendered election.

His VP choice completely undermined his own clever strategy! So he screwed up with Vance.

Now Kamala has been doing the same thing, tacking back to the center. Her MSM minions are busy scrubbing the Internet so that she was never a leftist, was never against fracking, never supported a bail fund for violent BLM/Antifa rioters, never wanted to defund the police.

The Dems have been brilliant at this. Most people don't really follow politics, they don't know that she was named the most leftist Senator in 2019, especially because that Web page got taken off the Internet. Orwell would be proud.

So the Dems have pulled it off. They solve their Biden problem, they coalesce around Kam, they rebrand her as a centrist.

Then what does she do? For veep, she picks a leftists who is tied to the BLM/Antifa riots. She puts the very issue that the tacked away from, right dead center in her path. Now her role in bailing out violent felons who went on to offend again will come out. Now Walz's 48 hour delay in calling out the National Guard will come out. Kamala was trying to paint herself as a centrist, and Walz reminds everyone of her leftist greatest hit.

That's the exact same error Trump made. They both tacked cleverly to the center, then picked veeps that undermined their own strategy.

There's a quote from Walz's wife.

I could smell the burning tires. That was a very real thing, and I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,”

https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/06/tim-walz-gwen-smell-burninig-tires-2020-riots/

Pardon the Daily Caller link, the New York Times didn't deign to report this information to their readers.

In other words she sat in the safety of the governor's mansionm protected by armed guards no doubt. And she play-acted in her mind being a great revolutionary, inhaling the smell of the uprising of the people; when what she was doing was fetishizing a poor black neighborhood being burned to the ground to give her a little thrill.

Believe me, Walz is going to wear that quote, and his delay in getting control of the situation, for the next three months. And every day it's going to remind people that Kamala supported a bailout fund for the people who set the fires.

It's all the rest of Walz's extreme liberalism. He supports abortion up to the moment of birth. That's an extreme position supported by a small minority of Americans. He has said "socialism is like neighborliness," a lie that will not play with the very same midwestern voters he's supposed to appeal to.

In short, Kam rebranded herself as a centrist, then picked a leftist that undermines her rebranding. It shows she has bad judgment. She just stalled the two weeks of momentum she'd had, and she's given Trump and Vance a potent avenue of attack. Many such avenues.

You might think you like Walz's politics. That is not at all the point. I hope you can see that. The point is that from an electoral standpoint, Walz shines a light on the very leftism that Kamala was trying to hide.

That's why Walz was a bad pick.

Not to mention the talk, true or not, that she couldn't pick Shapiro because it would upset the Hamas wing of the Democratic party, especially in Michigan.

Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign.

ps -- A GOP never-Trumper just wrote a piece in The Hill making the same points I did, but with better writing.

Rather than counterbalancing the narrative that suggests Harris is a “San Francisco liberal,” Walz’s selection reinforces that left-wing brand.

Picking Tim Walz was Kamala Harris’s first campaign mistake

Terrible pick. Kam[ala Harris] just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign. — fishfry

:clap: :rofl:

They can't say he's against abortion. He just said he's agnostic and to leave it to the states. — fishfry

Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future.

As far as words go, Trump said women who get abortions should be punished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-SgCndBWE

Actions speak louder than words (and who, outside MAGA, believes Trump anyway?). People will remember it was his judges that got Roe overturned and know he will pick the same kind of judges in the future. — RogueAI

Not disagreeing. Just saying that he wisely tacked toward the center, at least in rhetoric. Talking campaign tactics, not abortion policy. His VP pick undermined his centrist move. I mentioned that to compare it to Kamala doing the exact same thing ... tacking to the center and then undermining herself by picking a leftist. Remember in 2008 Obama was a leftist trying to brand himself a centrist, and he picked Joe Biden, a Washington fixture everyone thought of as a centrist. Obama didn't pick Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. That's my point.

I was wondering why she picked Walz, but then I watched him speak, and he's very talented on the stump, very folksy and much better than she is, so I think I know their strategy now. The whole point of Walz is to take the focus off Harris. Democrats, for all their DEI talk, would be thrilled if Harris could morph into a liberal Mitt Romney-esque white guy. They didn't want her in the first place. Black women are risky in American politics. White guys are safe bets. Dems think Trump is an existential threat, and they want to beat him more than they want to check off racial boxes. They don't want risk. If they could get away with Harris and Walz trading places, they would do it in a heartbeat, but they're stuck with Harris.

One thing Tim Walz immediately brings to the campaign is JOY! He just looks so darned happy to be there. He radiates joy. As opposed to The Other Guy, who scowls, mocks and ridicules, and is also looking increasingly miserable as his rating points sink slowly (or actually, not so slowly) in the west. Again, it's a simple campaign theme: hope v hate. Let's hope for hope.

I absolutely understand that you believe, deeply and powerfully and to the ends of the earth, that I am wrong.

I acknowledge your right to feel this way. I'm very pluralistic about ideas, and favor free expression.

I reiterate my use of the word coup. A lot of online commentators are talking about it. It's an interesting touchpoint of political conversation. It's not a religious war. I could even argue that it wasn't a coup. It's such a small thing. I have no idea why this is important to you. — fishfry

You haven't even begun to address the points I raised so you reducing this to mere opinion reflects your inability to actually have a converation. It's not just semantics, which is a ridiculous reduction of the discussion. You are claiming to analyse the situation but in fact are just repeating dumb shit from Fox News. No power has transferred, no rules were broken. No coup. Having actually lost this discussion since you fail to provide a rebuttal to actual arguments you first try to gaslight me and now pretend it's just another opinion. Only reason you're doing it is because you're incapable of investigating and challenging your own opinions on the matter.

That's what I find interesting. Joe's coup, or non-coup -- you haven't actually told me what word you prefer. Someone suggested that it was all Biden's idea. That is false to the point of hilarity. Biden hasn't had an idea past licking his ice cream and smelling prepubescent girls in years. — fishfry

I've repeatedly stated what it was: he withdrew his candidacy. And no, it doesn't matter who's idea it was.

It's quite clear, also in your interactions with other posters you don't want to talk politics at all. You're only here to display your unswerving loyalty to a buffoon. That's fine but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.

They turned on a dime and all got marching in the new direction — fishfry

I don't see how they turned on a dime when they spend weeks publicly agonising what to do.

But surely you can't actually believe that the millions of people who did support Biden to the end, aren't personally disappointed that things didn't go their way. You can't seriously tell me that you don't understand this point. — fishfry

I just don't believe Biden ever had much personal support. He was the incumbent and the default choice with no serious opposition.

No matter, I enjoyed it even if you didnt. I don't literally think Biden's dead. I do think he is in terribly bad shape, and that we are being lied to. — fishfry

Well I am glad we agree on the basic facts.

Terrible pick. Kam just blunted the momentum of her terrific last two weeks, and breathed new life into the Trump/Vance campaign. — fishfry

I've always wondered how Republicans would try to run against a Bernie like figure, which Walz does remind me of. He's a progressive who not only supports but has enacted a number of left policies and more importantly doesn't seem to shy away from it. Hell he even kind of looks like him. The only difference is that instead of a being a grumpy old man he comes across as a relatable dad (plus being more on the large side).

Of course the problem for the GOP is that once you get into the details of his ideas, they're actually pretty popular based on most polling I've seen. I mean the right will still try to paint Walz as a "radical" who would try to turn the Midwest into Venezuela but then again they would literally say for any Democrat even if the VP pick were Joe Manchin. I think there's a good chance such a move could very well backfire on them if they're gonna try saying that popular policies like free school lunches are a bad thing.