I asked ChatGPT why Benjamin Netanyahu poisoned Ariel Sharon and here is the answer:

There is no credible evidence or reports that Benjamin Netanyahu poisoned Ariel Sharon. The claim that Netanyahu poisoned Sharon is a conspiracytheory that has been circulated, particularly after Sharon's stroke in 2006, which led to his long-term incapacitation until his death in 2014.

Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel, suffered a massive stroke in January 2006, which left him in a coma for the remainder of his life. The stroke was widely attributed to his previous health issues, including a history of heart problems. Some conspiracy theories, especially those from political opponents or certain circles, speculated about foul play or sabotage, but there is no substantiated evidence to support these claims.

In politics, especially involving prominent figures like Netanyahu and Sharon, rumors and conspiracy theories can spread, but they are not based on verified facts. Sharon's health issues were most likely a result of his medical history, not any external attack.

I asked ChatGPT about Michelle Obama dancing zumba and this is what I got :sweat:

Michelle Obama has been known for her strong advocacy of health and fitness, particularly during her time as First Lady. One of the key aspects of her "Let's Move!" campaign was promoting physical activity for children and families. Zumba, a high-energy dance workout that combines Latin rhythms with fitness moves, became one of the fun activities she would engage in to encourage exercise.

She was seen participating in Zumba events on multiple occasions, and in 2012, she even led a Zumba class at the White House with a group of children. It was part of her efforts to make fitness fun and accessible to people of all ages. Michelle Obama’s enthusiasm for dance and fitness made her a role model for many, demonstrating that staying active could be enjoyable, not just a chore.

Her public appearances dancing or promoting healthy living helped to normalize the idea of making fitness part of everyday life, especially through enjoyable activities like Zumba.

I asked ChatGPT why did Farncois Mitterand Kissed Vladimir Putin on the left cheek, and this the answer I got :rofl:

François Mitterrand, the former President of France, kissed Vladimir Putin on the left cheek during a meeting in 1999, but the context behind it is quite significant. Mitterrand, at the time, was known for his diplomatic approach and had a long history of engaging with various international leaders, including those from Russia. The kiss was symbolic of the warm and somewhat personal relationship that Mitterrand and Putin had developed during their interactions.

At the time, Putin was already a key figure in Russian politics, serving as Prime Minister before becoming President in 2000. The kiss itself was seen as a gesture of respect and diplomacy, particularly in a European context where cheek kissing is a common greeting among politicians and dignitaries. Mitterrand, a seasoned leader, was also known for his ability to build strong personal ties with other leaders, often blending personal rapport with political strategy.

The gesture was not only about personal affection but also reflected the growing importance of Russia in European politics, especially as Mitterrand sought to balance relations between France, the European Union, and the emerging Russian Federation post-Soviet Union. It was a moment of warmth, though the political and diplomatic dynamics were always present in such encounters.

While it certainly garnered some attention at the time, it wasn't necessarily out of the ordinary in the context of international relations where gestures like this are often part of the diplomatic protocol.

From a political perspective you should be against illegal immigration whether you are a right-wing conservative or a left-wing liberal. As a right-wing conservative having millions of illegals in your country is translated to something like "lawlessness". As a left-wing liberal having millions of illegals is translated to something like modern slavery, extreme inequality and less democracy. Hence, politically speaking, legalizing or deporting these people are both correct. What troubles me with these current deportations is that Trump administration (out of convenience) seems to target mostly young males from Central and South America. It is more easy, I guess, for the administration to deport these males from neighbor countries, than deporting whole families to other continents (where there may be still wars and the administration will have to fight with the courts, NGO, lawyers, and so on).

But I am wondering, now, how all this scheme is going to play out for the US economy and the cost of living. All these years I have been living in the US, I have come to believe that these males from Central America are the most hard-working people out there. I don't see them becoming burden to the government, like some other asylum-seekers who may come to USA/UK/EU just for the benefits. I hope someone tells Trump this.

I don't know about you guys, but I do believe that these people from Central America work hard in the US and I doubt that the jobs they will leave will be filled by poor Americans :roll: Maybe those HB1 jobs may be filled by American graduates, but tomato picking and pizza making (twelve hours per day)? Will Trump really reduce the cost of living?

Thank you for the info. In many scandals like the one you mentioned, big tech pays a small price (our fellow citizens pay the biggest price). Here in the US we got 30 million SSN stolen (from government computers) and the biggest data outage in history (July 20th 2024). I never heard Microsoft being punished for those two gifts. On the contrary, Microsoft's satellite company, OpenAI, is going to be rewarded with 500 billion dollars for the Stargate Project.

This is what Stanley Kubrick and his Sillicon Valley admirers got wrong: they thought (or want us to think) the machines will get loose or mad, when we know that governments and the people who put algorithms on machines get free, loose and mad, and at the end of the day these humans will blame the machines for their human (intentional or unintentional) actions.

The reason why all these tech bosses keep splitting from each other is not because they've lost control of the machines. They are splitting on AI because they don't seem to agree on how they will manipulate all those Kubrick/Hollywood fans. These tech bosses come up with different algorithms and updated versions, and this is the reason why they pull different ways and you have hundreds of AI startups in the US only. The best manipulator and speculator from these startups will get more funding from the US government and will start buying and copying other AI companies till there is one big inconclusive AI mentality/umbrella imposed on all.

It's matter of time. Electricity is the future, let the trumps drill to their death :sweat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

If for the first two millennia the precondition was putting your trust on the Catholic Church, for the next two millennia of dark age the condition will be putting your trust on AI.

The US and Chinese governments are doing whatever they can, investing trillions now, so we put our trust on the new god (i.e. supercomputers that tell you everything you need and know).

Be ready, my friends. I like Stanley Kubrick, but he got a few details wrong. Elon Musk, Altman and Hinton are using Stanley Kubrick to fool all those people who see too many movies. We have some of them here.

Yeah, but your name is like, RogueAI. — Arcane Sandwich

Good point. Some commentators here sound like theater/Kubrick students, not like philosophy students. What a shame for philosophy students to take for real all the manipulation/speculation going out there for stupid folk who are going to give their taxes and money for supercomputers made from Microsoft & co.

The most funny thing is that all 500 supercomputers out there are all running on Linux (even those paid by Micriosoft), though there is not a single computer in the US/UK/EU administrations that Microsoft did not bill for its windows.

This is the world we live in. You have the third-world-IT-army writing, fixing and archiving stuff, and you have the US and Europe kids believing that these devices are thinking and not doing something else (like obeying commands, updating info, following algorithms, updating again, new algorithms again, corrected again, and so on).

Thank to guys like Gates and governments like the USA and China, we are doomed, we are entering a new dark age for the next two thousand years or so.

Hinton is a dumb cognitivist who confuses mechanical processing (AI) with chemical processing (human beings).

The more people believe these AI speculators, the more money will go to their companies, more federal funding for total manipulation and surveillance of human beings.

These human haters/exploiters convinced already the US government to launch Stargate Project. The more we take them seriously, the more we will get manipulated and surveiled.

I have been working on fingerprints the last 20 years. If the things Altman, Gates and co tell you were true, I would have been out of work already. But I can see that their AI is just trying to learn from me and 20 years were not enough for these computers to learn what I know and what I see :scream:

What matters to these people is to make you believe and invest, till the day you surrender to them everything you have (your freedom, your money, your imagination, your knowledge).

The pandemic has already revealed that most of the so-called “liberal democracies”, are at best illiberal, but at worst they’re fascist and totalitarian. — NOS4A2

The democrats are convincing young girls that being a liberal means that you have an higher IQ than the rest of the society/world, though all the data show that since 1975 (when the liberals and pacifists took over the western world) IQ has dropped sharply, like never before in human history :rofl:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/health/falling-iq-scores-study-intl/index.html

From all the bullshit this classical old American guy said in his inauguration, what struck me was the claim that the whole world is ripping off the United States. Since I have heard many Americans repeat this bullshit (or the other bullshit that no country in the world has done more than the US in order to reduce carbon emissions :lol: )

As we are witnessing in former communist countries (where all property belonged to the state) and as we can read in history books, almost all wealth accumulated in the hands of the few started with some kind of injustice. Call it a war, occupation, genocide, theft, bribery, corruption, fraud, slavery, usury or whatever you want, there's not a single nation in this world that can convince me that its wealth started with fair work and fair distribution. Though there are hard working individuals and hard working nations (and the opposite to these), there was a chaotic age in the history of every nation when some people benefitted a lot and others were used, ripped off, oppressed and murdered. The wealth accumulated by the first and the poverty/woes that burdened the second in one or another way have been inherited by their descendants to this day (though there are exceptions for every norm). Hence, Trump's statement that the US is the only country ripped off by everyone is contradicted by both reason and historical facts. If Trump was right, the US should have been the poorest country in the world (but that's not the case at all). Trump being surrounded, also, by the same billionaires who flirted with Biden and Obama says a lot on how wealth was made by these billionaires and why the best capitalists in the US do not want big government for the people, but they are always looking for big contracts with the US government. Who is ripping off whom?

This country is going towards civil war and I don't dare to say that it is all Trump's making. The Democratic Party is less democratic in its internal structure than the republicans. The democrats showed that when they sidestepped Bernie Sanders and Biden in order to make Hillary Clinton their front-runner; they showed it again when they made Kamala their front-runner.

The democrats also do not believe in democratic culture. For them "culture" means to do whatever your gut tells you; it suffices that you obey the (democrats') laws. If they believed in democratic culture, they wouldn't preach diversity, destruction of family, and other things that humans have used like tools (in the last 5000 years or more) in order to divide roles, responsibilities, labor, etiquette, and so on, without the interference of money, coercion, patrol and violence.

Now we have two parties which are unwilling to make any substantial reforms in the judiciary and electoral systems. The only things democrats and republicans are good at is to point the finger to each other and infuriate their supporters. In these circumstances (without the necessary judicial and electoral reforms), I won't be surprised at all if in the future we have a second civil war in this country. The only thing that surprises me are these Americans who can't see that both parties are contributing in making America a less free, less democratic, country.

I detect curious amounts of resentment towards men in the comments. :chin: — Tzeentch

That's something dems have to deal with. If you apply feminist and black rhetoric in an election, you should expect patriarchal and white identity responses.

I have no idea how democratic countries can be run with women or men assuming to be different from the rest, but there's definitely going to be a lot of resentment if countries become California and promise people reparations (because 8 generations ago some of their ancestors were slaves).

Did anyone tell these liberals that serfdom in Europe ended with the French Revolution? Who is going to pay for reparations when 90% of the world population are the descendants of peasants who (till two centuries ago) used to be either slaves or serfs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

I've heard that people used to call "moma" Catherine the Great, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel (though I don't know if that is correct).

Finland and New Zealand were able to elect female liberals as their leaders. Both women received a lot of attention, but their stardom didn't pass the 12 month threshold :rofl:

Kamala is no deal. She made Trump look genius.

Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to vote Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, but I would love to vote Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Ocazio-Cortez.

However, I agree with you on that sexism does play a big role. Telling from UK, Germany, Israel, and Italy, there's only one path for women to lead countries: they need to be (very) conservative women.

It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, than the liberal ones. So, either Ivanka or Tulsi might become our first female president :rofl:

We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.

Nonetheless, you don't need to be enthusiastic about the future. I mean, Donald Trump and his voters have my respect right now, but I doubt that this country is going to get any better.

My problem with the democrats are not big spending and high taxes. My problem with them is that they use this money in order to divide families (when you promise 1.7 trillion US dollars to single mothers, in order to buy groceries, is like you are encouraging women to get divorce and their children to be cared by the government), make young people less productive (cause truth be told if someone asks me why I never married I would tell her/him that in the years when I was more fertile like a man, I was looking to get my PHD, instead of making some kids), help out corporations, enable genocides and civil wars, and so on.

Four years with Trump, if we are really lucky, we might see less wars, but there's nothing revolutionary in him. The guy is still promising people cheaper oil & coal (because this is what his friends want him to do in the 21st century, when countries like China and South Korea are leading the total electrification of a new fusion-energy-oriented world), and I am wondering what will happen when his friends in the farming and various industries tell him that with 20 million illegals being deported some of these businesses and industries may collapse. I mean the guy may build a wall and have his ICE officers look tough in front of the cameras, but he won't stop the diversification of this country (which will make USA, UK and Western Europe look like the Balkans or Brazil for centuries to come), he always will have an ear for his rich friends, and he won't transform news outlets, social media, schools, corporations, the judiciary, etc.

In the best case scenario, you will have less wars in the four next years and a big, beautiful wall in the border with Mexico, but you shouldn't expect anything else to change in this country. Inequalities will keep rising, media outlets and social media will keep brainwashing the youth, higher education will make US population older (like is already doing in Europe, where Italians are the nation with the most diplomas and with the less kids), the judiciary will be controlled by the two major parties, our planet will become warmer, dirtier and less habitable year by year.

Elections make many Americans feel better (through releasing some of the anger they have been experiencing), but nothing will get better till we see a real/big revolution in this country and/or in the world. MAGA is not a revolution. MAGA is just a trend to release anger and keep life going on, till the day when the real problems will become irresolvable and will hit all of us in the face.

The lesson:

Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha.

I saw that June debate between Biden and Trump and to tell you the truth I saw Joe being too old, but I sympathized with him for the reason that Joe Biden was putting effort to answer the questions of the journalists, whereas Donald Trump was not answering any questions.

Kamalahaha believed that "kindhearted democrats" need good vibes, not answers. That was a big mistake and I hope Pelosi, Clooney and Kamalahaha fire themselves from the Democratic Party, cause they will be complicit in this crazy comeback of climate-change deniers, gun-loving, god-fearing, republicans.

Stop blaming middle-class Americans for this ugly outcome! Democrats should blame themselves and their corporate media only. One of the very few things I came to agree with JD Vance is that corporate media are the biggest threat to American democracy on this day.

I believe that too. In Europe people should understand that it is matter of time till they get divorce from the US. Trumpists are isolationists, but a diverse (democrat led) America will also lose its interest in Europe and Middle East. If that won't happen, then it will not be normal & democratic at all.

Just being supportive to Palestinian-Americans (and human dignity in general) who aren't going to vote for Democrats this year.

I would love to vote the Green Party, but in NYS we have only two parties in the ballot and makes me wonder: why should it be this way?

Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly).

God, help us with these politicians! (Praying, I guess, is the only thing I can do now :confused: )

In this article you can read the reason why I decided to not vote this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/palestinian-us-friends-job-opportunities-humanity-gaza

The fact that you give him a pass while criticizing the Democratic ticket, and yet claim you care about climate change, shows how unserious you are — or how fake. The choice is clear for anyone truly concerned about that issue. Should take about 10 seconds. — Mikie

I wish they win, not because I have high hopes in them, but I do fear Trump may make things worse.

However, I think Democrats' strategy is not working. They are trying to be appealing to the majority (people who don't want the second amendment to change, people who don't want to make sacrifices for the environment, people who think USA should stand by the side of Israel, etc.), but in this way Democrats will lose the support of grassroots groups: those who want to end the war in Middle East right now (mostly American Muslims), those who take environment seriously, those who want stricter gun laws, etc.

I am afraid that in their attempt to sound moderate, Harris and Walz will lose support among some groups, and they will try to stick with an economic plan that does not sound popular to the majority (middle class) they are trying to appeal to in other ways.

So, I wish Democrats had taken the opposite route: they didn't stick with that "opportunity economy", and they were radical on things like gun control, environment, and ceasefire now.

November 5 will show whether I got everything wrong.

That conclusion from JD Vance was a masterpiece tonight!

I am very frustrated with a democrat candidate who supports more local oil (Harris), and a vp who was an NRA supporter (Walz). I don't know why should I vote them.

I am just glad that Vance did not refuse global warming; he even blamed democrats for not having done enough with renewables :rofl:

I live in a state (NY) governed by the democrats the last 40 years or so, and I just see the mentally ill and the homeless increasing in numbers every year.

So, living in a progressive town, I can't help wondering: how is it possible for these people to defend progressive taxation, all kinds of handouts to single moms, to never stop attaching "tax the rich" stickers on every car and window, and at the same time these (progressive) people will propose nothing about the mentally ill and the homeless who increase in numbers every single year?

Seeing how the homeless and the mentally ill are becoming more and more (making this town look like taken out from a zombie movie), I can't help thinking that the problem will not be taken seriously by the democrats for the simple reason that democrats cannot classify the mentally ill as a voting bloc. So, they are deaf to their plight for the reason that whether you help or you do not help a mentally ill person, he/she won't vote for you. In contrast, the democrats have an ear for struggling single moms and students burdened with stupid debts, because they see the latter as voting blocs.

D) a 78-year old former United States president — Mikie

That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people?

He used to be advised by Ivanka and Jared when he was in office, but now I am not sure whom he listens to. (If I remember well, when he was president there were a couple of times when Ivanka made him deactivate his Twitter --but I am not very sure on this).

Three days before the presidential debate, a columnist in The Guardian wrote that Trump is so sure about himself that he won't bother to prepare for the debate with Harris. I laughed when I read those things, only to find three days later that the columnist was 100% right.

Maybe it's their right to do so.

To tell you the truth I think we will be better without Trump. But I do worry for our journalism. Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc., will turn people away from liberal media outlets. These media do not sound serious or sincere every time that election approaches. There is a bigger probability to read something negative about Trump on conservative media, than reading something negative about Kamala on liberal media. The latter are really making Trump look like a victim in the eyes of millions of people.

I like to listen to NPR in my working hours, but its producers can't stop promoting Kamala and insulting Trump. They even called a psychology professor to explain Trump's narcissism. I wonder if someone would have paid that professor to explain Kamala's negative traits, how easy would have been for him to invent some "psychological science" on Kamala also :grin:

NPR is supposed to be a public radio, but since August it has become like another democratic parrot. With this kind of daily coverage, many public and private media will keep making people suspicious that this country is really controlled by the democrats and anti-Trump billionaires.

Most of the liberal media (viz. the majority of the US media outlets) have found nothing wrong with Kamala the last two months, and they won't bother to fact check her. The same media are implying that the election has been already decided from the presidential debate on Sept 10th, though very little substance was seen on that debate (i.e. Trumps' constant rambling on immigrants, Kamala's strong support for cheap groceries and US made oil, and the candidates' views on Israel & Ukraine.... all other issues were left to the imagination of the voters).

The guy who lost his job because he called Trump incompetent is now saying that Kamala may be even more incompetent lol

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/trump-likelier-winner-unless-harris-tackles-two-failings-says-ex-ambassador

With regard now to what are you saying about eliminating overtime taxes, it seems that you have missed the point. The point is not preserving inequalities, the point is making people to work more.

A Green New Deal promised by the democrats would have brought more jobs and innovations to the USA and to the whole world, but since the democrats spent more money in covid relief and armaments, the only countries that have really seen some kind of green/electrical revolutions lately are China and South Korea. Harris seems to have totally forgotten the democratic green hive of the previous elections and her only pledge about improving economy is to help single mothers with the groceries.

Kamala started very poorly, but she was the winner tonight.

Her "opportunity plan" is a disaster in the making (a big blow to the already tortured middle-class Americans). Nonetheless, since Trump did not offer any other plans apart from deporting immigrant slaves, she had a greater appeal.

The big loser tonight was ABC News. That Fbi report the journalist mentioned, about lower crimes on national level, is a total bs if someone keeps in mind that liberals tend to make legal many things conservatives make illegal (so when you legalize cannabis and abortion you definitely may have 40 million less "criminals" in the whole nation). Definition is also the reason why US looks much better than Europe when it comes to corruption (cause in some European countries if a mayor receives a sandwich from a voter that's called corruption, whereas in the US you may receive millions in donations and you may be considered the most ethical mayor). In short, Americans do not care what Fbi and Abc will report. For as long as they see armed robberies and murders in their towns, they do think that crimes are a serious problem.

Thanks to ABC bad journalism and Trump's irrelevance, too little attention was paid to Kamala's "opportunity plan" (that as I said here is not directed to the middle class, but to the poorest people and single mothers). Urban living, farming, life expectancy, food industry, general health issues, labor ethics, AI, education and infrastructure were not mentioned at all. Crimes were not taken seriously by the ABC. The national debt was not mentioned, whereas on environment Kamala Harris said the biggest lie: i.e. Joe Biden and she have spent trillions on stopping climate change, when the truth is that they spent 3 trillion on covid relief, they passed a bill of 800 billion on infrastructure and to this day less than 20% of that bill has been invested by the US government. Surely, the ABC journalists did not bother to fact check Kamala's big lie tonight. She even promised to produce more local oil.

I won't bother to vote, but it would be unfair to blame only republicans or democrats if this country becomes less democratic and less thriving. A lot of blaming should go to our journalists as well.

By the way, in UK there's no limit how much to give to the parties, but there is a clear limit on what the parties can do with all that money. This is why many won't bother to donate in UK lol (cause they know that 70 million are enough for palm cards, billboards, and this kind of stuff).

https://qz.com/1743234/the-three-main-differences-between-us-and-uk-elections

So now, I come with this question: let's suppose that we know the people who give X money in the US, what do we know about the way X money is used?

Can Pier Morgans, to take an example, receive X money in order to write a good article about Trump? Another example: can Kamala use D money in order to pay "volunteers" to attend an event?

These laws against foreign inference in US election make little sense in a country that spent 7 billion in 2016 election campaigns. We are 6 times bigger than UK, but in 2016 we spent like 100 times more then UK in electoral campaigns.

The biggest problem in this country are the money from NRA, Oil Industry, Pharma, all kind of CEOs, the Zionists, and so on.

It doesn't make sense anymore to vote for candidates who take billions from people you and me do not know at all. The only thing we know about the "legal" billions is that they come from US citizens (though their hearts may belong to Izrael, to Texaco or to some utopia).

If democracy has a circus, USA is that circus nowadays.

And most of your claims amount BLM, etc., are straight from right-wing media. Worth analyzing. — Mikie

That's true. But, as you say, some claims need more analysis (before you dismiss or approve those).

I don't wish Trump to win. Another thing that bothered me back then was that almost all of his family members became advisers in his Oval Office (that really made this country look like Saudi Arabia). Even fanatic Republicans were bothered with the culture Trump brought into the White House. Clint Eastwood, to mention one of them, got really nuts when Trump posted those Goya-cans pictures from the Oval Office lol

Anyway, right now 36% of males in this country despise both parties. Kudos to them! It is time for independent minds to make their voices heard. They should leave behind the notion that the least bad is the best choice for independents. Cause none can predict the future, and what you make the least bad right now, in the future it may turn into the worst choice.

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/featured_data/young-men-distrust-both-parties/

Independent men and women who still care for this country should push for judicial and electoral reforms. I do hope that judicial and electoral reforms may make us less independent on the two major parties. Reforms may help both republicans and democrats, also, to become more sensible and less Machiavellian.

As hinted to, many institutions and standards in the US (I am adding UK also) for a few centuries were based on (unspoken/unwritten) conventions. But we see a cultural/mental shift in the US (and UK) lately --and for this reason reforms are becoming indispensable. Nothing should remain unwritten and unforeseen anymore.

You might be right about Trump, but after Biden's victory all BLM protests in the US stopped and we got some peace from the fireworks craze. Since none in this country believes that black lives improved with Biden, the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks. These things may resume again if Trump wins and that's one good reason to not wish a Republican victory. Nonetheless, there is so much evidence that the democrats may be behind BLM, women, and Muslim protests. It is not surprising that the millions given to BLM & diversity issues came from the same billionaires who sponsor the democrats.

Democrats pretend to be saviors and angels and for this reason they should not compare themselves to the Republicans. Democrats are supposed to abide by higher standards lol

Pledging 1.7 trillion to the very poor, as Kamala did ten days ago, turns the US into a kind of charity organization that gives without expecting any worldly things in return. It is not that I am against helping. Morally speaking I feel a duty to help the incapable. But here again you have some moral dilemmas: What vision do I have for a country where inflation is taken more seriously than climate change, wars and violence? Should we bill the future generations for misfortunes (covid and inflation) that happened to us? What kind of culture you create when you nourish a whole nation with the idea that for every hardship you can bill future generations with more debt? What is the best way to use debt? Is it better to invest in progress and development or to use it for food and leisure? Do democrats have any visions for our children and the future? If so, how they will materialize those visions if this country becomes bankrupt and people are encouraged to abstain from family and work?

In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. Their aim is to take power regardless of the means and the people they use. I decided to vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's ridiculous response to covid19 and, mostly, because Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it is morally advisable to vote for third party candidates or to not vote at all.

I’ve never heard one woman say that. — Mikie

You don't read The Guardian.

After the MeToo movement, there are many articles on The Guardian which supposedly show how (white) men have started a campaign of revenge against women. White & old men are taking revenge and punishing intelligent women (according to The Guardian columnists) simply because white men hate the truths and injustices exposed by the MeToo movement.

In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women and their anger towards women is an inborn thing that all women should be aware of:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo

PS: am I the only one to suspect that Kamala Harris and democrats are targeting single mothers with their 2024 ticket, and whenever Kamala speaks about middle class she doesn't mean American families/couples with median income and small businesses, but she speaks about single mothers (like those she used to advocate for when
she was involved into CA politics and activism)? If I am right in believing that democrats target certain groups in their 2024 campaign, aren't they therefore investing in divides in order to hold power? If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?

Gender division is one of the many gifts we got from the Democrats.

Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans, but that would not be a strong argument at all (since it is essentially saying that from birth men are inimical towards women, when I am more inclined to believe that all humans are born equal, unbiased and free, till they are manipulated by "educators" and politicians).

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/

It's easy to blame Republicans, since they had the majority in the Senate, in the last 40 years or so. But the problem seems to be the laws and standards pertaining to the judicial system.

Most of European countries do not appoint judges for life, but only for ten years. There are countries like UK where judges are appointed by some non-political commissions and countries like Germany, Spain, France, etc., where judges are elected by politicians BUT only if they get the 75% of approval in local parliaments/assemblies. So, in these countries there is only one way to become a judge: you should be almost apolitical, cause no party ever controlled 75% of parliament seats and the only way these countries can have judges is through wide consensus and through making sure that the judge is almost impartial.

From history books and legends this is what we are told: you can become a judge only if you are impartial. In the US judicial system that's not the case anymore.

There is always a hierarchical top to society where all the political power accumulates, and therefore, also pretty much all the wealth. — Tarskian

This notion was widespread among French, Italian, and Austrian economists and social theoreticians at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of these theoreticians (though not their fault) became popular among fascists, nazi, and communists, who took for grounded that societies always are hierarchical/patriarchal/dominated etc., and for this reason the solution is not to go against a natural trend/inclination of humanity (they thought democracy and liberalism were doing that), but to choose the last worst outcome through placing the group who deserves it the most at the head of these ("inevitable") societal hierarchies.

I don't know what's going on in Asia, or wherever Tarskian lives, but the USA seems to be more a chaotic kind of society, than a well-thought hierarchy.

We have a poor class in this country that may decide who will govern in 2025 and can hope in some money (through tax reforms) to be transferred from the rich to them. We have single mothers who have become Kamala Harris' primary target. We have the zionists who take every congressman to travel to Israel and "see" what perfect democracy Israel is. We have NRA which organizes gun festivals in evangelical churches, and at the same time is in big love with Israel and whoever pays well in the Middle East. We have SCOTUS. We have Elon Musk who takes money from Obama in order to save the US from carbon emissions and then gives Trump 45 million a month (though the latter wants more carbon emissions). We have media outlets, the Catholic Church of America, BLM and LGBT groups.

At this moment the zionists and NRA seem the strongest groups in Washington DC. But in other circumstances, you may see other groups to exercise more power. So, I am more eager to believe that this country tends to be chaotic (like most of the countries in this continent), more than hierarchical.

Whoever wins, this country needs to reform its outdated judicial system. Americans take very seriously the thoughts of the founding fathers, but Europe has developed a much more functioning judicial system due to the interruptions/failures of European democracies in the past (something that has not happened in the US so far).

It is a shame that in the US judges and district attorneys are party candidates or independents supported by parties and billionaires like George Soros, when democracies are supposed to have three independent branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Since in the US the judicial branch is not independent from the executive, US justice is flawed and divisions have become more difficult to heal.

It is a shame also to put the blame on the Republicans (who control SCOTUS) only, when the real problem are the laws and standards pertaining to the US judicial system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/how-european-countries-create-ideologically-balanced-courts

No doubt he is stupid and very anachronistic (in order to balance the cost of foreign tariffs, he thinks to reduce the prices of local energy, through making coal and oil cheaper, at a time when the rest of the world is trying to free itself from carbon emissions and countries like South Korea and China are leading all other nations in batteries and electrical devices), but Kamala is not better.

Price gouging is not coming only from big companies, is coming mostly from small and medium businesses. Many of these businesses will close or file for bankruptcy if the government tells them how to limit prices. (Walmart and Amazon will profit again.)

This is going to be a very difficult election. You have to choose one of the two extremists. The one is the extremist of the rich and evangelicals, the other the extremist of the poor and identity politics.

If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.

By the way, why every time I open Youtube I see ads from democrats only?

I just removed my party affiliation with democrats, and I never plan to vote climate-change deniers (republicans), but I am just trying to better understand how democracy works in this country and within the social media. This is why I am asking about Youtube.

Thank you.

For me no big difference between democrat politicians and republicans, apart from appearance (republicans dress and look trendier than democrats, democrats are better orators).

Trump reduced taxes in order to satisfy his voters. Harris says she will give handouts to those in need. Is it not the same thinking, with different targets? Trump targeted businessmen and self-employed people, Harris is targeting those in need, mostly single mothers and minorities (though she uses the word "middle-class" for promotional purposes).

In contrast with republicans, I believe in government spending and government intervention. But I don't see why there are no other ways of doing it, apart from just giving money to people.

Trump did that too (he told people "vote me, so you save money" and he kept his word). Most of my friends were happy for saving from their taxes during Trump's presidency, and Biden did something similar in a time of urgency.

It is not an accident that 2020-2022 coincide with the US cryptocurrency craze. Just from the people I know, I may tell you that many of these relief paychecks ended up in crypto investments (wasted money, which in one or another way our children will have to repay).

But you should see it that Kamala Harris is doing the same thing with Trump: vote me, so I give you money. I, Kamala, speak about USA and Americans, but in the way and in the moment I do it, I don't care for the future or the role of this nation, I just want you (my potential voter) to know that money is coming for you.

We have some moral dilemmas now:

Should the voter consider money and personal benefit as the foremost criterion in casting his vote? Democrats and republicans will say yes. (Truth does not matter to them.)

Should our generation borrow money that the next generation will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say yes. (The only future they know is from one election to the next.)

How should we use the money that our children will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say these money should be used in the way that satisfies best those voters which brought us to power. (Again, the only future they know are those periods from one to the next election.)

To conclude, we are not talking only about debt and sums here. We are talking about the morality of doing politics and spending money in this way. You don't blame your neighbor who takes a loan to upgrade his old house and buy a car, but you will definitely blame you neighbor if he takes loans to pay sex-workers, buy drugs, go to see Dubai, etc. In this country so much money is paid, but the results are poor and some people will always pay the bill (without a detailed receipt). I can't vote republicans when they reject science, but I have lost faith in democrats too. Either they have to be frank with Americans and tell them some big sacrifices are needed to save our country and/or the whole world, or they just will keep satisfying their voters every four years and always will blame their opponents for that never-happening-revolution.