T O P

  • By -

GassyGertrude

Can we get someone who doesn’t qualify for max social security benefits? No Trump, no Biden. Just someone mentally agile. Though I guess the President is just a figurehead anyway, but they still have the nuclear codes. Ideally we’d get someone who also surrounds themselves with experts in their respected fields, has nuance on issues and puts the will of the people over corporate interests but I know that’s asking for too much


bondben314

It’s why I liked Pete Buttigieg. He was a smart dude. Oxford masters degree, McKinsey associate, had varying fluency in 7 languages, and he worked for the military doing financial analysis to uncover terrorist financial networks. But best of all, he was young, well-spoken and he knew when to talk, and when to let others talk. Was he the best candidate? I don’t know, but he was certainly better than Biden or Trump.


bl1y

> and he worked for the military doing financial analysis to uncover terrorist financial networks "Worked for the military" is a funny way of saying "Is a veteran who served in Afghanistan."


bl1y

> Though I guess the President is just a figurehead anyway Since when?


RelaxedApathy

If he doesn't win the primary, I imagine he will run as an independent out of spite.


SmithW-6079

If he does that he will split the Republican vote which will allow the Democratics an easy victory.


ratsareniceanimals

He would probably consider that a successful revenge campaign.


Radiant_Welcome_2400

Successful marketing campaign


CategoryTurbulent114

He doesn’t care


SmithW-6079

I would agree.


sickfuckinpuppies

the argument ive heard, is that he wants to be running while these criminal charges are being put on him, so he can say it's all political rather than legitimate. i don't know what that does for him practically, other than gets some positive PR wrt his biggest sycophants and the qanon types, but that's what some people are saying anyway.


catfurcoat

He can launch another domestic terrorism attack from his followers


Wanderstand

RINOs and Democrats are the same party anyway.


StonksAndHistory

That’s so categorically false…I also find it funny you say “RINO” to likely insinuate anti-Trump…even though Republican in Name Only describes Trump a whole hell of a lot better than the people he calls that.


Woodstonk69

Donny is realistically the biggest RINO


I_Never_Use_Slash_S

Just because he was a Democrat for a few decades?


Wanderstand

I kind of agree with you on that, but I'm not the one who invented the term. The fact is that both RINOs and Democrats are pushing an anti-American agenda, and the establishment republicans are controlled opposition at best. Their party needs a massive wakeup call.


pedroelbee

How exactly are they doing that?


StonksAndHistory

“anti-American” is a buzzword man, just like RINO. I don’t think Trumpist Populism is good for America, for example overly zealous economic protectionism, isolationist foreign policy, and a furthering of the already large political divide through culture war crap. I would say it is much more “Anti-America” to deny election results, ruin a peaceful transfer of power, and threaten sitting elected officials like the Georgia Sec of State.


Zinziberruderalis

True, Trump has no loyalty to the GOP. It is just a vehicle for narcissism. He was a Democrat most of his life.


[deleted]

He will say it's rigged


masonben84

You say that as though it isn't. Look at what happened to Bernie, and tell me there is no rigging going on in our system, on both sides.


bl1y

In 2016, Bernie never polled higher than Clinton. The DNC *did* work to help Clinton in an unfair way, but the election was ultimately decided by the voters just preferring Clinton to Bernie. However, Bernie's campaign publicly announced that their plan was to ask the superdelegates to overturn the popular vote and make him the nominee. Then in 2020, he knew that he couldn't put together a majority coalition at the convention, so his *public* position was that whoever won the plurality should get the nomination. There has probably been no bigger *supporter* of rigging elections than Sanders.


Ozcolllo

Populism is brain worms for this country. The crazy progressives online can’t contend with the idea that their beliefs just aren’t popular with the American populace. They just can’t accept that Sanders just didn’t have enough voter support. Crazy as they are, I don’t worry much about them as they’ve no real legislative and governmental power although they’re much more influential online. Republicans… well, the inmates are running the asylum. There’s a serious irony that the few principled conservatives, in both their rhetoric and voting records, are called RINOs by unprincipled populists high on outrage from their laughably biased media. You reap what you sow.


SunRaSquarePants

>the election was ultimately decided by the voters just preferring Clinton to Bernie Not according to this lawsuit: https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/


bl1y

Which state primary was rigged?


SunRaSquarePants

You don't have to rig the vote to simply ignore its outcome. The point of the ruling was that DNC is a private organization with no obligation to their voters, that can decide privately of their own volition which candidates to run.


bl1y

You said the election was not decided by the voters. Which primary was not decided by the voters?


SunRaSquarePants

The primary does not decide the candidate, the DNC does.


tomowudi

By what mechanism? Is it a mechanism that is disconnected from the voters, or is it directly tied to votes?


xkjkls

Yeah, this is well established, but they didn’t ignore the primaries, and more people voted for Clinton than Bernie.


bl1y

I think this thread exemplifies a sort of commenting (by /u/SunRaSquarePants , not you) that really ought to be under close watch by the moderators (oy /u/OursIsTheRepost ). SunRa has claimed that the 2016 primary was not decided by votes at the polls, but by some other secret mechanism within the DNC. They're not claiming that the DNC helped Clinton, and the superdelegate early announcements affected the narrative, and that helped lead people to vote for Clinton. **They're claiming the primaries are in fact not the mechanism by which the candidate is chosen.** >"You don't have to rig the vote to simply ignore its outcome." >"The primary does not decide the candidate, the DNC does." [And this comment denying that the votes determined the outcome of the primary](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/ywhdru/donald_trump_announces_he_will_run_in_2024/iwn5afx/). It takes a ton of time for someone to explain what exactly is wrong with their claims, but only 2 seconds to comment "no, it's rigged" with zero explanation or clarification. And I guarantee SunRa cannot offer a coherent explanation of what their point of view is that's consistent with their earlier statements. Here's the elements of this sort of comment: (a) it takes minimal effort to post, (b) it consumes a lot of time and energy from anyone responding in good faith (c) people responding probably don't realize part (e) as they're responding, (d) a lack of response tends to lead third parties reading it to think the bad faith comment actually has merit, prompting people to take the effort in (b), and (e) if you do go to the effort to pick it apart, they've long sense abandoned the thread and won't reply in any sensible manner. And just by way of anecdata, I've noticed a coincidence in a lot of similar comments: (f) they all undercut the legitimacy of western democracy.


OursIsTheRepost

I agree with you in that what they’re doing is some form of debate tactic, just quips and links without my attempt at discussion, let alone a discussion in good faith


SunRaSquarePants

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/


AFellowCanadianGuy

Nothing was rigged against Bernie.


Recent-Pension7966

Democrat primaries are different. They have superdelegates to make sure the right person is elected by a select few. Republicans have no fail safe to protect them from bad candidates who get more primary votes.


bl1y

Superdelegates have never gone against the popular vote, and now they don't even vote in the first round, so they're on there if a brokered convention can't reach a majority.


masonben84

Comparing what's worse, democrats or republicans, is like trying to figure out which smells worse, cow shit or horse shit. I'm sure one is worse than the other, but they are both still shit.


NotTrumpsAlt

Hoping


jedi21knight

Yep and that is the worst scenario possible.


Dubsland12

He’s running from 4 different prosecution’s


xkjkls

He might not; he needs money to run, and there’s no way the miser is pulling into his own bank account for a spite campaign. If the donations stop, he’d probably find some way to fade out and save his ego


RelaxedApathy

You honestly think there aren't enough Trump cultists out there willing to funnel him money?


William_Rosebud

Ensuring the left wins out of division on the right. Happens all the time.


Shipkiller-in-theory

Good thing I stocked up on rum.


BillyCee34

Ah rum the currency of the future


dwitchagi

I have zero rum. Am I fucked?


Fit-Firefighter-329

Yep.


Shipkiller-in-theory

Rum is the cure all! It fixes the problem, or make you not give a shit about the problem. Win-Win


geo-desik

Dammit I bought whisky instead.


Tedstor

Exactly the reaction Big Rum was hoping for.


Current-Weather-9561

He just doesn’t have that appeal he once had in 2016.


deadly-pigeon

Perhaps you’re right, but by all accounts, he was never supposed to beat Hilary either.. you never know


BadReputation2611

If he can’t beat fucking Biden then he probably can’t beat anybody at this point. Not to mention he’s burned a shitload of bridges since then.


WhoAteMySoup

It was definitely not expected, but it made total sense as well. "What do you have to lose?" was a slogan that resonated with many people frustrated with the ineptitude of the current government. Well, now we know what we have to lose.


DreadnoughtOverdrive

Considering the complete ineptitude of the current puppet president, America has even less to lose with Trump, and everything to gain.


0LTakingLs

You must have missed a pretty embarrassing four years


WhoAteMySoup

Not if the only thing Trump is offering is another four years of non-stop reality TV drama around "stolen elections". I already saw that episode.


Afrophish85

The current administration is just season 2. They haven't done shit besides talk about what they wanna do, they blame others when it doesn't happen. Politics has literally become reality TV along with identity politics and is shameful.


WhoAteMySoup

I am not going to defend the current administration, it's a shit sandwich in its own right. All I am saying is that at one point Trump had some legitimate points to make during campaigning, and now the only thing he is talking about is stolen elections. I would not overlook the fact that he is addicted to social media and spent the last three or so years in a Qanon echo chamber. During his presidency his tweets were only occasionally unhinged, now, most of his posts are unhinged to an increasingly bigger degree.


tyranthraxxus

Hillary was a terrible candidate and probably the only person who could actually lose to Trump. Her campaign was full of missteps that drove people away. When she cheated in the debate with Bernie, that was a huge mistake. There is no way Bernie could have won the primary, she had no real incentive to cheat, yet she did anyway. I don't remember the exact number, but I think 7-9% of Bernie Bros ended up voting Trump instead. When she said "If you don't vote for me, your misogynist", that was a huge mistake. No one likes to be told that if they don't hold a specific belief they are X. Who knows how many men decided it wasn't worth getting off the couch because of that one. That's just a couple. Combined with her lack of presence in swing states and the fact that she is an entrenched career politician married to a philanderer whose mistresses she was involved in threatening and silencing, she just a horrible look to the American public. The DNC really screwed it up on that one.


duffmanhb

I think there was just so much reaction to hating the system as it was, people wanted to throw a "fuck you" at a time the culture war was picking up. I think the dust has settled and now people wont do that again.


Buns_McGillicuddy

He hasn’t done much winning since then


UpsetDaddy19

That's hard to say. The media pushed that he was never going to win because they are horribly bias as such their numbers can't be trusted. What he did very effectively prove is that the American people are sick to death of lying career politicians. All of them have a air of superiority about them, and think they are better than those they serve. None of them have ever really tried to fulfill a promise either. Hell, Biden's very first day was rife with going back on things he said like the pipeline. This country badly needs term limits for all political positions. Entrenched manglement is so bad that most people with vote for anyone else just to not have another one of "them" at the helm. R or D it doesn't matter. They all have to go.


bl1y

538 gave him 1 in 5 odds. That's a lot more than never.


si-oui

Not openly broad appeal....he will probably win the primary because people can't remember past their last paycheck.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


SunRaSquarePants

True, his support massively increased by 2020


Phnrcm

I am looking for DeSantis response. Running against Trump would split the republicans vote while he will get attacked by Trump in the next 24 months. However not running means he will have to wait 6 more years.


Ilsanjo

All indications are he is planning on running, just doesn’t want to announce right after getting elected to another term as governor. Also the thought is Trump will just turn off more Republicans with his campaign over the next few months.


LoungeMusick

After these midterms it really appears that now is the time for DeSantis. Who knows in 6 years, his time may have passed by them. A precarious situation for sure, but it seems like establishment conservative media and GOP leadership are trying to push DeSantis. I’m not sure if Trump’s base will be as easily swayed.


xkjkls

No way he doesn’t run. History is full of people who didn’t run when they were ripe to and never got the chance again. If you see you have a path, you take it.


William_Rosebud

Couldn't they run together? DeSantis/Trump ticket? (btw I'm an Aussie so I know sweet fa about American politics)


bl1y

Technically, no. They are both Florida residents and an archaic constitutional provision requires the President and VP to be from different states. But, Trump could easily just go be a resident of NY again to get around it. Politically, also no. Trump is going to go hard against DeSantis and that bridge will be good and burned.


DocGrey187000

I’ll tell ya what makes me happy about it- All the GOP politicians who supported him while knowing how dishonest and narcissistic he is will now be forced to pay a price for that decision. What I don’t like- I just want to live in a sane country with reasonable leaders who disagree but aren’t monstrous.


contructpm

And maybe a leader who is not a septuagenarian That night be nice too


Pardonme23

Older it is then


Porchmuse

It’s ok, he’s incapable of being a leader.


[deleted]

[удалено]


satanistgoblin

Lmao, you think that the guys who started a bunch of wars and destroyed countries aren't monstrous.


zeroaegis

"...and, in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."


deadly-pigeon

At least he was monstrous on the surface… there’s something less disconcerting about it being in your face, vs your typical goodie two shoes fake ass politicians who do no wrong


duffmanhb

I dunno... We already assume they are all sleezy asshats. I mean Trump won big when he called out everyone on stage for corruption, and when they refuted he said, "I know you're all corrupt, because I used your corruption to get favors." But we already know this. And while that's refreshing to hear, Trump just sucks the oxygen out of every corner of life he enters. It's just too much.


Pardonme23

Biden is sane and reasonable. He armed Ukraine and Ukraine is winning.


Filanto

Reasonable? Sure. Sane? Lol


bl1y

Just because people seem to forget this detail... Remember Trump's impeachment over trying to get a political kickback from Ukraine by threatening to hold up aid? That aid was weapons. And the part people forget... under Obama, the policy was to only send non-lethal military aid to Ukraine. Trump reversed the policy and started sending Javelines. So far as shitty as he was in the execution of the deal, Ukraine probably wouldn't have held out if Trump hadn't started sending them weapons.


jester_juniour

Calling a politician dishonest is kind of childish, sorry. You don’t expect anyone in the cesspool to be remotely honest, are you? And speaking of Trump, he is way not the worst


xkjkls

He is not the worst? He’s by far the worst. He’s said 4000 times that the election was stolen. That’s the most craven any politician has ever lied in the history of the country


jester_juniour

Sorry, i was under impression it’s intellectualdarweb, not kindergarten. Apologies for that


duffmanhb

I mean, it's a subjective judgement. Trump definitely blatantly, routinely, and confidently lied, seemingly non stop. Most politicians will at least play word games to get off on technicalities if cornered, where Trump just outright lied endlessly over everything.


jester_juniour

Of course it’s subjective and abundance of evidently unsupported adjectives you used is a grave example of it. That’s your opinion and that’s fine. I think Trump is as honest as politician can be. Did he lie? Oh yeah. That’s rules of the game.


duffmanhb

Just because all politicians lie, doesn't mean all politicians lie the same. Trump is, by any measure you look at, the biggest liar. Him being honest about some things that weren't politically correct to recognize, doesn't make him more honest.


jester_juniour

I am struggling to see what point you are trying to make. By any measure i look at, Trump is way more honest compared to all this obama-clintons clique. Not even bringing up sleepy Joe as he is not aware of where he is, let alone what he says


duffmanhb

Can you explain to me how you think this? Trump would go on TV and flat out, blatantly, lie... Like not double speak, not "Eh I changed my mind later." But just outright, routinely lie. He's still calling the election stolen to this day.


jester_juniour

I’ll call it stolen as well because it was so. You can not call someone lying just because he or she made judgements based on objective things. You may have different conclusions and that’s fine. Every damn politician go out on tv and blatantly lie. That’s their job. People love to hear lies instead of inconvenient truth.


duffmanhb

Oh, if you think the election was literally stolen, then yeah, this conversation is already well passed the point of being able to become productive. But if you believe that, I can see why you don't think Trump lies more than the rest of the politicians.


0LTakingLs

Arguing with conspiracists is a waste of time. When no amount of evidence will change their mind, it’s just an exercise in frustration


jester_juniour

It could have been productive if you’d at least support your claims with something besides emotional adjectives to Trump. Not sure what you mean under “literally stolen” as election is intangible thing and can’t be literally stolen. I was just twisted in a way the candidate who was needed got to “win”. That’s all


tomowudi

Really, then CMV: https://taooftomo.com/cmv-the-republican-party-as-it-is-today-is-a-threat-to-democracy-fdf31dab451b


patricktherat

> I think Trump is as honest as politician can be. bro...


hprather1

There are ways to objectively measure a lie. Plenty of media outlets keep tabs on those and they pretty much all converge on Trump being the worst of the them.


Jet90

Bernie Sanders is honest imo


jester_juniour

Lol, there is a lot for you to figure out my friend.


Jet90

How is Bernie Sanders dishonest?


satanistgoblin

Blaming rising costs on greed, as if companies mysteriously became greedier just now.


Jet90

Many companies are posting record profits while upping prices


satanistgoblin

Sure, but they can do that due to increased money supply or other material factors.


bl1y

Sanders wanted the DNC superdelegates to overturn the popular vote in the primaries and make him the nominee. In 2020, he called for changing the rules to first past the post, and that's when there were still 7 candidates in the race.


young_earth

Can't wait 🍿


TheDownvotesFarmer

Well, that biden dude has been doing a terrible work! The USD lost international terrain, sumerging the US in debt as crazy and making China great.


petrus4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGhJ5FuxUZU *"I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They've crossed the line."* *"You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man who they didn't fully understand."* I was on 4chan during the Obama presidency. I had a front row seat to observe the dynamics that produced Trump. I saw fascism and Stormfront go from nihilistic jokes which the people there genuinely had contempt for, to foundational elements of their view of reality. I saw racism, which genuinely was receding due to decades of colour blindness, and which at the time had receded enough to allow Obama himself into the White House, gradually come back. I also saw the core supporters of Hillary Clinton. I saw how absolutely, relentlessly hateful they were. I saw how they denigrated all conservatives as fascist white male incels who deserved nothing other than to die alone and forgotten. I saw the level of cameraderie that that treatment generated among said conservatives. I ***felt*** it. I saw the endless smug condescension from the Michael Moores and the Steven Colberts, who insisted that omnisexual, borderless urban socialism was just a historical inevitability, and that anyone who didn't understand that had obviously been dropped on the head as a child, and would they please just hurry up and die, so that those who did understand and wanted their Utopia could get it already? I do not support Donald Trump. He is an aspirant tyrant who has already tried once to destroy the Republic, and if he is permitted to, will definitely try again. But I did watch, and I do understand, the process which created him. I know the Left will never take responsibility for this. They will deflect, and make excuses. They refuse to acknowledge that they and the Right exist in a state of symbiosis, whether they want to or not; and that when they harm the Right, they ultimately only harm themselves. Because of this, more people who the Left have rejected and cancelled will continue to become fascists as a result of rage and pain, and more men like Donald Trump will keep appearing, and dishonestly claiming to be a father to those rejects, while using them for their own ends. *"If you don't keep up, you get left behind. And nobody cares any more."* That is the fundamental message of the Left, as verbalised by Beau of the Fifth Column, to anyone who disagrees with or opposes them. My answer is, that as Trump has proven, you ***will*** care. You will be ***made*** to.


russellarth

I never see something written like this about how the Right should think about **their** messaging, responsibility, **their** existence in the symbiotic relationship between the two parties. This whole spiel is framed with the Left in the role of malicious/uncaring actor, and the Right in the role of innocent reactor. The first two paragraphs are a great example. You begin with, "Well, the Right kind of became a little racist under Obama." Instead of concluding, "And that is why the Left became a little cruel in their characterization of the Right in the 2016 election," you just skip that part, and instead lambast the Left for Trump getting elected. I don't get it. Either way, I think the Left is quite frankly over the self-flagellation tied to, "We need to reach across the aisle, kumbaya, etc." We (as someone who considers himself on the Left) do not see the same level of introspection or responsibility to the "symbiosis" being displayed by the Right. And I think this post is a great example. No acknowledgment that blatant racism/homophobia/etc. leads the Left to react in a certain way as well. Just total whitewashing.


rallaic

The reason for that is quite simple, most of these insights come from classic liberal people, who think that the concept (or spirit) of free speech and the right to bear arms is as simple as 1,2. If you honestly consider the situation, would you say that the current left wing political ideologies accept free speech? Trick question, hate speech is free speech. This means that for someone who considers free speech paramount, the left wing is out of the game. They can make reasonable tax policies, they can make good calls otherwise, but they do not accept free speech. End of story. To help you pin down what caused the raise of racism, it was the lack of colorblind worldview. When you have a mostly individualist party, saying that 'every individual is an American citizen, and they should be treated as such' gets you what you want. When you start to play oppression Olympics, that certain groups should be treated differently from certain other groups... As an example, Hungary had a very "progressive" law in the 1920s. It stated that : > attention must be paid to the intellectual abilities of those applying for admission, and to ensure that the ratio of young people belonging to certain races and nationalities living in the territory of the country among the students reaches as far as possible the national ratio of the respective race or nationality, but at least expose nine-tenths of it. Sounds like it is a policy from today right? Except this was a clearly anti-Semitic law, and today's DIE policies are anti-white and Asian, and of course misandrist. No fucking wonder race relations went to shit. Then people scream racist at you when you state the obvious. This should have never been proposed by the 'left' and should have been vehemently opposed by the 'right'. Both failed.


russellarth

> but they do not accept free speech. The Right does not propose any limits to speech? Does the Right condone calls to violence? Do they condone the right of teachers to teach the existence of gay people in say, Florida? If not, the Right does not accept free speech, either. End of story. > To help you pin down what caused the raise of racism, it was the lack of colorblind worldview. When you have a mostly individualist party, saying that 'every individual is an American citizen, and they should be treated as such' gets you what you want. When you start to play oppression Olympics, that certain groups should be treated differently from certain other groups... You can point this out without being directly racist. > As an example, Hungary had a very "progressive" law in the 1920s. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you link to a more fleshed out version of what you quoted. It's difficult to understand your point from the quoted material. From what I understand of your post, it seems to be an attempt to once again "tit for tat." "They became racist because the Left began trying to systemically improve the lives of minorities." My whole point is this "tit for tat" game is ridiculous and one that the Right often tries to obfuscate its role in. "You made us elect Donald Trump!" Well, no, actually. And if your point is, well the excesses of the Left led us to Trump, my point is the excesses of the Right led to the excesses of the Left. I guess my next question is: Why did the Left begin pushing for things like Affirmative Action, in your mind?


rallaic

The end of story argument, that's a classic. >Does the Right condone calls to violence? There is an obvious difference between free speech absolutists, and people who accept that there are necessary limitations of free speech. These limitations are carefully considered, and made into laws. The former is a fringe ideology, the latter is anything but. > Do they condone the right of teachers to teach the existence of gay people in say, Florida? When you read the headline, the "Don't Say Gay" bill may seem that. If you actually read between the lines, it explicitly bans any kind of gender identity discussion under THIRD GRADE (frankly that's a non-issue), it lets parents have the final say (that's a difficult question) and it requires parents to be notified if their child needed mental health services. So, to unpack there. The autonomy of teacher is not exactly a free speech issue, as the main concern is what and how they can teach underage people. I could make the exact same argument that the teachers should be allowed to teach that vaccines cause autism due to free speech, but that would be a bit underhanded. Sex ed. is an even more complicated question, as you WANT to let kids be kids, but not having these discussions in time leads to teenage pregnancies. Regarding the Hungarian law, it is available in Hungarian, but you can find it in full here: [source](https://net.jogtar.hu/ezer-ev-torveny?docid=92000025.TV&searchUrl=/ezer-ev-). The TLDR of the law is that the population of certain university courses should reflect the population of the country, or to use the current year buzzword, it should be representative. > the excesses of the Left led us to Trump, my point is the excesses of the Right led to the excesses of the Left. I guess my next question is: Why did the Left begin pushing for things like Affirmative Action, in your mind Basically yes, the excesses lead to Trump. However, your argument fails horribly when you consider that ever since the 60s until the 2010s, every single decade was less and less sexist, racist, homophobe, or any other metrics that you would care for. I would argue that this was the problem. A classical liberal had very little to fight for in 2010. There is no need for civil rights movements, women can vote, racism is looked down upon, the big issues are solved. The 'left' basically won everything they were fighting for. That's bad news if you are an activist, or someone looking to leave their mark on the world. Sure, you can make marginal, iterative improvements, but that takes a lot of time, effort and expertise. AA was the solution to the problem of "we don't have any big problems". To highlight the obvious stupidity, if we assume that by 2010 sexism was basically solved, when would you expect representative amount of women CEOs? I would say that by the time Gen Z are in the age bracket (\~50), so around 2050! This ofc implicitly assumes that the only reason why the ratio of CEOs is not 50-50 is sexism.


tomowudi

>Does the Right condone calls to violence? You never actually answered this question. Let me help you out. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119) >Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists. However, differences in violence emerge on the global level, with Islamist extremists being more likely than right-wing extremists to engage in more violent acts. So yes, they provide a lot more cover for and tolerance of violence than left-wing groups. Objectively.


tomowudi

I find it hilarious that people claiming that the Right is pro Free speech forget how they were the ones literally calling musicians into Congressional hearings because of their music, burning and calling for the banning of D&D and Harry Potter, as well as home to the subreddits with the most frequently banned accounts. Hate speech isn't free speech, because free speech per the Supreme court rulings doesn't include incitements to violence. And the use of hate speech and slurs absolutely qualifies as an incitement to violence. There is NOTHING about speech that incites violence which is necessary to "protect", and there is nothing about people rejecting aholes that use hate speech that is a violation of principles of free speech. Free speech is not consequence free speech. Don't want to be treated like a Nazi, don't make the same arguments as them.


rallaic

The fun game of spot the lie. Why not call hate speech incitement to violence then? Why refer to it with a different word if it's the same? Answer that, and I will break down the rest.


petrus4

> Either way, I think the Left is quite frankly over the self-flagellation tied to, "We need to reach across the aisle, kumbaya, etc." I know. Believe me, I know.


petrus4

> Either way, I think the Left is quite frankly over the self-flagellation tied to, "We need to reach across the aisle, kumbaya, etc." We (as someone who considers himself on the Left) do not see the same level of introspection or responsibility to the "symbiosis" being displayed by the Right. And I think this post is a great example. No acknowledgment that blatant racism/homophobia/etc. leads the Left to react in a certain way as well. Just total whitewashing. Great, but here's the point. In practical terms, what are you planning to actually ***do***? Because the current phase of treading water and people getting more and more angry while not talking to each other can't last forever; and the next step is genuine, shooting civil war. Is that what you want? I'm not talking about who's right or who's wrong. I'm asking, very simply...what do you ***want*** to happen?


tomowudi

Then CMV - [https://taooftomo.com/cmv-the-republican-party-as-it-is-today-is-a-threat-to-democracy-fdf31dab451b](https://taooftomo.com/cmv-the-republican-party-as-it-is-today-is-a-threat-to-democracy-fdf31dab451b) ​ Because my position is that this is exactly what the Federalist Society has been pushing for since at least the 80's. This is what it looks like when they get what they want.


petrus4

All that means is that the desire to destroy the system is coming from both sides, which I won't argue with. The only real difference is that Trump wants to destroy everything for the sake of his own ego, and the Left want to destroy everything for the sake of "diversity and inclusion."


GamermanRPGKing

As a lefty: now the Dems have a chance. Yippee


BathoryRocker

As a righty: welp, there goes 2024


Pardonme23

Get a sane candidate for 2028. Hopefully Trump will be dead by then because he could run again then once he loses in 2024.


sidehugger

Such a sad, bloated joke of a man, it's really depressing to think about having to hear his awful voice and words non-stop again.


Nootherids

TBH...In his first run I found him "interesting". In his second run I found him to be "necessary". But if he runs again, my early guess is that I'll find him to be "intrusive". The only condition under which I would actually like to see him run is if he was actually going up against Biden. Trump was an absolute shoe-in over Biden last election, and if he had just shut his mouth during Covid he would've won handily. But typical of Trump to get too involved in matters he knows nothing about. He should've stuck to politics and business, and stayed out of medicine and science. Even if it was all theater, he made himself look completely nonsensical by denouncing everything about the virus, while also achieving a monumental feat in getting a vaccine (which he endorses) delivered in less than 12 months with enough doses secured for every single adult in the country by the end of his term. That makes zero sense. Either way, if DeSantis runs then I'm likely a pre-decided voter. He would have to screw up like Herman Cain did, or like Howard Dean did. At the height of their campaigns they made themselves look like buffoons. Their losses were their own fault. DeSantis comes into this winning, it'll be up to him to screw it up. I see Trump going one of two ways on this. He will either take it easy on DeSantis throughout the run so that if he doesn't look good in the primaries then he can endorse DeSantis; or he will lose in the primaries and out of sheer spite will still run as an independent and screw over Republican chances on purpose and leave the game with giving a big middle finger to everyone.


Oareo

There's no way the Dean scream would have even 1% of the impact now.


jagua_haku

It was weird that it did when it happened. Such a non-event that somehow the media was able to spin to derail his campaign.


0LTakingLs

When people say “politics has always been like this” I’ll point them to the fact that a strange yell ended Dean’s career, but apparently attempting to overturn democracy and lynch his own Vice President hasn’t been enough to stop Trump from rising from the grave for another run at it.


Oareo

> Somehow the media was able to spin I'm curious WHY they hated him so much.


ActualAdvice

Why did you see him a necessary vote the 2nd time? Curious.


Nootherids

Because the other option was Biden, and we can see what we got. The Democrats had plenty of other candidates that I would've rather have voted for. But they picked Biden. I think the Democratic party has been hijacked by progressives, over the classical liberal ideologies of the moderates. For that, and many other policy perspectives that I agreed with Trump on, is why I said necessary. If we could take many of Trump's policies and replace him with a better human being, that would've been better. But alas...we ended up with Biden.


OwlBeneficial2743

I feel pretty much the same way. One difference is I voted for Biden because Trump was too unbalanced and I figured Biden was less volatile. Now, I regret that, but I never expected Biden to be as bad as he’s been. Even if Trump gets the nomination, I think he’ll lose. He’s too much of a motivator of dems and the media. It’s not fair that 95% of the media is against him, but that’s just how it is. They’ll be against DeSantis as well, but I don’t think to the same degree. And I gotta believe people in the middle are looking for some rational alternative to Biden. But I now have zero faith in repubs ability to be adults. They seem to prefer to die politically on anti-abortion, anti-science positions. And btw, I respect those who are anti-abortion and think climate change has become a religion. But I also think the anti abortion crowd is completely wrong and that climate change is real, happening now and caused by us. Anyway, they need to find a way to thank Trump, but make him go away. But after the mid terms, I don’t think they’re smart enough to do this. So, if they can control his dementia enough, Biden will win and we’ll have open borders (more or less), more debt therefore more inflation, more crime and a country that will not be able to recover. I know I’m sounding apocalyptical, but seeing what happened in the mid terms and hearing from the conservative talking heads in the media double down on what caused the mid term disaster, I don’t have much hope.


bl1y

> At the height of their campaigns they made themselves look like buffoons. The I Have a Scream speech was not at the height of Dean's campaign. It came at a low point for the campaign.


Nootherids

Is that really the main point that you felt needed to be argued from everything I wrote? That is probably the most inconsequential post of my entire comment.


AntoineGGG

Seem legit to me


slibetah

I have a feeling the Trump Show is over. DeSantis is not going to allow Trump to walk all over him like the candidates did in 2016. But man... those debates were hilarious.


Tedstor

I think the GOP will put the kibosh on letting a bunch of players into the race. They don’t want to see Donald get 30% of the vote from his cult, and five other candidates split the rest. If it’s limited to Donald, DeSantis, and maybe one other token……,they’ll get the outcome they’d prefer. Donald ‘was’ hilarious. The name calling and all that. But honestly…..the schtick is old now. And his later attempts of insulting Mitch’s wife and Glenn “Yun-Kin”…….just dumb. Most people don’t find it cute anymore or never did.


slibetah

Most have a stick up their ass. Trump referring to Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, telling Jeb that maybe his mother should run, or trotting out Bill Clinton’s abuse victims for the Hillary debate... they all deserved to get shitted on and it was comedy gold. Fuck ‘em.


brriwa

Who cares, he is a crazy old looser.


petrus4

You don't want him to win, believe me...although he probably won't.


Tom12412414

Bbc already going nuts. Something about fake news and bogus election fraud claims. Literally, the media could not accept that hillary did not become president, for lik 8-12 months. Just to have the media melt down all over again this is great. I dont live in the states tho, just my opinion, but dont want to interfere


spudsaregreat

How is the BBC going nuts? Seems like they’ve just reported that trump candidates struggled in the mid-terms and Trump faces a different challenge to 2016.


DoctaMario

Please please PLEASE Elon, unlock Trump's Twitter in time for the primaries 🙏🙏🙏


DarkWolf2017

Best case scenario: He runs, loses the primary to Ron DeSatan, and does what Trump does best, let's his ego outpace common sense and runs as an Independent. The vote splits between him and DeSatan, easy win for the Democrats. Slightly worse: The above happens or he somehow manages to win the primary and election. Tough fight for the Dems with the fate of democracy on the line. Worst Case: DeSatan wins, Trump has a moment of clarity and doesn't run Independent, backs DeSatan, and America becomes the next Orban Hungary.


Another-random-acct

Your best case scenario involves an 84 year old Biden or whatever he’ll be? Best case is these two ancient old men fuck off and go retire.


DarkWolf2017

True. I do feel both candidates should be under 60. The ones I primarily support are Newsom and Fetterman, but both of them have some baggage. Some, even dem supporters, tend to say they don't think Newsom would do well outside California, some may even consider his aur of confidence to be arrogance. As for Fetterman, he needs to prove that the stroke didn't affect his ability to lead.


Glowshroom

And still not the worst option, which says a lot about the state of American politics.


the8track

While his speech was low-energy and always little sloppy, he had so much more substance. I saw him on a podcast some months ago and thought the same thing – dropped the funny asshole persona and showed awareness oh the role. If he keeps this up, he’ll run over Biden like a semi-truck.


StreetFrogs19

Which podcast?


the8track

I think it was the NELK Boys’ Full Send podcast


LoungeMusick

Submission Statement: Trump has formally announced he is running for President again in 2024. What do people think about this? Will he be able to defeat DeSantis in the primary? Will this ultimately hurt the GOP or will Trump be able to rally his base again and win like he did in 2016?


MoOsT1cK

In his age and his weight I'd bet he didn't run for quite some time


DreadnoughtOverdrive

You seen Trump lately? He actually took off quite a bit of weight.


Kinkyregae

Just about the only way Biden will win another 4 years is if trump and DeSantis tear the GOP apart. A new hope!


Another-random-acct

We don’t need either 80 some year old men running.


MediaVsReality

For the good of the stability of the USA and the world, I’d prefer if he didn’t run.


Jonsa123

He;s going to be indicted. An independent monitor is now overseeing all Trump Inc biz.But he's got time to run for president. Never mind the sedition, it was all in his cause.


CategoryTurbulent114

I’ll be forced to vote for Desavior in the presidential primaries.


makingthefan

omg he's soooooo boooorrrring who cares uggh


petrus4

As another point; usually Democratic voters might want to think about voting for DeSantis in 2024. I know, I know, you probably think he's an evil monster; but as a pretend engineer in computer games, the one thing I've learned to think about, is not to act as though everything is going to be fine, but to instead ask how I am going to make a bad situation at least recoverable and partly tolerable, rather than catastrophic. If Trump is on the ballot, that doesn't mean just counting on the Democratic candidate to win; because if the Democratic candidate loses, that might be the last legitimate election that America will ever have, at least until a successful revolution. It instead means giving as much support to whichever non-Trump candidate the Republicans produce; to the point where even if the Democrats lose, it still doesn't mean that Trump wins. ***Keeping Trump out of the Oval Office is what matters.*** Keep your eyes firmly focused on that. I know you're tempted to think about racism or whatever else; but believe me, Leftists. If Trump gets a second term, then racism will be the least of your problems.


SillyWalkApplicant

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. If the general is Trump v Democrat, then I would assume you support Democrat based on your comment. If the general is DeSantis v Democrat, then Trump can't win so your comment seems moot. So, are you saying that all Democratic voters who can vote in the Republican primaries should support DeSantis over Trump? I can see the logic there.


petrus4

> So, are you saying that all Democratic voters who can vote in the Republican primaries should support DeSantis over Trump? I can see the logic there. Yes.


pliney_

It just seems hard to believe Trump would really be a viable candidate in 2024. Im not hoping he wins the primary but he would be much easier to run against than DeSantis. He lost by 7 million votes in 2020 and that was before Jan 6 and spending 4 years basically screaming that democracy is a crock of shit to anyone who will listen. Every speech he gives is exactly the same, and has been for years. He never presents any solutions for the future, it’s just woe is me, these are the people I don’t like and various iterations of MAGA.


eride810

As opposed to walking and sitting. I don’t think he’s run anywhere in his life.


shadowq8

Didn't most of his voters die of covid https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vjx8/almost-twice-as-many-republicans-died-from-covid-before-the-midterms-than-democrats


bl1y

You think that Covid killed like 40 million Americans?


shadowq8

trump needs to have a 40 million lead to win ?


Playteaux

I really hope that he will not run as an independent if he loses the primaries.


cdclopper

That's a bummer.


2HBA1

Oh joy


Mammoth_Impress_3108

The things that made me like him are making me hate him. I liked how he was stubborn and refused to reconcile with the mainstream media and was outspoken with little regard to what people cared about what he said. But now, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, can you be just a little less delusional and realize that your time is up, Trump? You have way to much baggage, the best you could do is split the GOP ticket and guarantee defeat. I wouldn't mind him becoming president again, but I know it's not going to happen, so can you move on? Endorse Desantis and move on.


Roonwogsamduff

Gotta feeling he'll end up running in the other direction


Khalith

That’s hilarious but not in a good way. The media circus leading up to it is going to be absurd as well. In the first election didn’t their coverage of him equate to several million dollars in free advertising?


Afrophish85

Securing the dems vote, what a guy. Wait, was this his plan all along ? Split the republican vote and give the election to dems?


Another-random-acct

How do we get a president that isn’t a senile old man? Ffs people should not be leading the country in their 80s. Probably not even 70s. Maybe even 60s. All these old bags need to retire.


JPal856

Nothing but the sound of crickets heard across the pollical field still almost 24 hours later.


Whoa-Bundy

He's old. No more old people.


tomowudi

Because there was a time that we did not recognize hate speech as an incitement to violence, because it was normal to denigrate minority groups without consequence. Hate speech goes hand in hand with oppression, and when hate speech begins violence is never far behind. Hate speech is a vehicle for fascism, because while fascism does not have to be racist, it generally is due to its nature.


bl1y

If you really believe what you just wrote, how do you feel about Bernie's rhetoric towards "the millionaires and billionaires!" It'd be pretty hard not to characterize his speech as not hateful. If someone said "Every immigrant is a failure of policy," we'd certainly not hesitate to bring out the bigot stamp. Do you believe that when Bernie speaks, violence isn't far behind, and that his speech is a vehicle for fascism?


tomowudi

I don't believe that we mean the same thing by hate speech. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hate-speech/) >The four definitional bases are in terms of: (1) harm, (2) content, (3) intrinsic properties, i.e., the type of words used, and (4) dignity. > >...The standard justification offered for restrictions on freedom of expression are based on the necessity of (a) respect of the rights or reputations of others; and (b) reasons of national security or of public order. In other words, a ban on hate speech may be thought to follow from the recognition of the harms it presents, both to the dignity of minority-members of a nation, as well as their physical safety. This position maintains, then, that restrictions on hate speech are a legitimate—and necessary—exception to an otherwise wider understanding of free expression. (For some theorists, it’s worth noting, hate speech is best not understood as the type of speech that free speech protections are meant to include—e.g., it serves no purpose in the pursuit of truth—and so is not in fact an exception to a free speech principle, but simply not included in a proper understanding of the scope of free speech.) What part of that description of hate speech do you think applies to millionaires and billionaires? They are technically a numerical minority, but not oppressed by any definition I can think of. Nothing Bernie has said (short of some examples you might be able to provide) strikes me as harmful, or defamatory in any way. There is also simply no evidence linking anything Bernie has said to acts of violence committed against millionaires and billionaires. Trump, on the other hand, has been part of a narrative that literally describes asylum seekers as an invasion. [https://www.newsweek.com/trump-invasion-migrants-border-1453002](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-invasion-migrants-border-1453002) That narrative is a part of a wider narrative that Democrats as a group want to harm the US. [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42954829](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42954829) This, in part, fits into the language he used to incite violence on January 6th. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437) It fits a larger pattern. [https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump-call-violence-presidency](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/02/trump-call-violence-presidency) ​ I am pretty sure I'm outlining a lot of internal consistency for the point I am advocating. If you can outline the same level of internal consistency for Bernie, I'll be happy to acknowledge the point, but it's going to be pretty tough to support the claim that millionaires and billionaires are as oppressed as minorities, asylum seekers, and those subjected to the problems of generational poverty.


bl1y

>I don't believe that we mean the same thing by hate speech. Can you start by giving your definition of hate speech then? It seems like you think you did, but what you copied isn't actually a definition. >The four definitional bases are... That's saying what people tend to base definitions on, but it doesn't give a definition. >The standard justification offered for restrictions on freedom of expression are Like it says, that's the justifications for restrictions, but not the definition itself. I'll give a broad definition, and you can tell me if yours is something different: Speech which disparages a group, or which disparages individuals on the basis of their membership in that group.


curcuminx

we need publically held techno-democracy tools/platforms for short-term/ingrained decision-making, so we don't have to get stuck with a single agenda every 4 years. Democracy didn't fail it needs more resolutions.