RationalWiki:Saloon bar

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - There are no pages marked for deletion
• - and no pages are marked for demotion.

US Election Update: Dawn of the Final Week

Can you believe it, guys? The Election! Just a week away! Anyways, stealing KP's shtick and (possibly outdated) memes aside, what are your thoughts going into the last week of lead up to the election? Any concerns (or positive expectations) about what might impact the final results? Any concerns (or positive expectations) in general? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the GOP might try to go for a second Bush v. Gore decision. They are already pulling a bunch of legal stunts with the hope that it will go to the notoriously corrupt and Trump-friendly Supreme Court. ([1]) Carthage (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely looking forward to American Democrat supporters becoming less of a drain to talk to. It seems every election season the democrats obtain a kind of morally sacred status given the threat of Trump possibly getting re-elected. It would be a bad thing if he got re-elected but I can’t really take folks seriously that they take the threat seriously if the only thing they are willing to do to prevent it is vote and guilt others into voting. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not from the States so I always get confused by this. Shouldn't that be "American Democratic (party) supporters" as opposed to "American Democract (party) supporters"? ^{— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs}

No? They support democrats, who are members of the democratic party? Parses just fine without needing to read it as "that thing republicans do". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to go firebomb a Wal-Mart, then. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

What would that do? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Many Democrats genuinely believe that this will be the final election in this country if Trump wins. That is thanks to the inflammatory rhetoric (such as comparing Trump to Hitler) coming out of the the Harris campaign in the final weeks as they get more and more desperate, but you've been hearing this since he decended the escalators back in '15 so it isn't anything new. As soon as this is over, Democrats will scramble to find someone to run in '28 and forget about the "threat to Democracy" narrative, or more likely resurrect it to use against Vance's or (whoever runs after Trump)'s Campaign 2001:67C:2628:647:9:0:0:181 (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, ever since he got elected, he and Republicans in general have grown more and more authoritarian and fascistic, so it's not like the rhetoric and comparisons are inaccurate. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The recent polls are concerning. Harris has been steadly losing her polling advantage since she began her campaign in late July. A few month ago she was narrowly beating Trump in most swing states, now she is consistently polling behind him. She is now behind Trump in every poll coming out of PA and MI in the last 2 weeks. Gotta remember too that the polls tend to overestimate the Democrats candidate's popularity, so in reality, she is doing worse than what the polling averages are saying. It makes one wonder, how many people were planning to vote for Harris as of August, but by the time the election rolled around, changed their minds and decided to vote for Trump? What's about Trump's message that is resonating with voters who just a few months ago were backing Harris? I am sorry to say, but I think Lichtman will be wrong this year. I don't support Trump, but all signs point to him taking every swing state easily. 2001:67C:2660:425:2C:0:0:181 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The threat to democracy is real, but I think we are at worst more looking at a push from the GOP at a Viktor Orban style "illiberal democracy", which might not even get very far thanks to both factionalism in the GOP (e.g. the Dominionist vs. the neoreactionary movement) as well as United States federalism. There will still be damage done by a second Trump term, though, as there was from 2016 to 2020 -- there's no question Trump wants to go further than that, Trump's incompetence is just likely going to get in the way. The whole Trump/Hitler thing (this week) got started due to a report in The Atlantic in which sources told an Atlantic reporter that Trump said "I need the kind of generals that Hitler had". Now, Trump denied saying this... but that story came out at the same time that Trump's former chief of staff John F. Kelly saying that he fits the fascism definition and prefers the dictator approach. Draw your own conclusions. Many on "the other side" are shrieking that these are the last free elections too (just look at Elon Musk) but unlike the GOP, the Democrat party remains its center-left self; there is no evidence of authoritarianism that I know of, so those shrieking that are doing so without basis. There's plenty of authoritarianism creep within the GOP; it's something that even predates Trump.

As far as the election goes, calling a "coin flip" election with certainty... really can't be done. Sure, Trump was under-counted in 2016 and 2020. But Roe v. Wade wasn't repealed then. It was in June 2022. In November 2022, it was the Democrat vote that was under-counted -- there was much proclamations of a "red wave" from mainstream media pundits and conservative propagandists alike. It ended up being a "trickle". Now, I'd never bet on a "coin flip" election; it could go either way. There are a lot of issues in this election that could affect things one way or another. The typical state polling error is 3-5%, so if you aren't seeing something above this range, it is too close to call. It could be a Trump blowout. But I'd hazard that the "Roe repeal effect" is stronger at this point. We'll see. BobJohnson (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but being able to afford food on my table and a roof on my head is much more important than abortion rights, even though I don't agree with the Dobbs decision. I'm still voting for Trump this year, first time I'mvoting Republican since McCain. 2001:67C:2628:647:8:0:0:181 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@2001:67C:2628:647:8:0:0:181 You might be interested in knowing that in a survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal between the 4th and the 8th of October, most economists surveyed agree that Trump's economic policies would be worse than Kamala's if implemented, then. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trump's tariffs (if actually implemented and not for show) would cause some pretty severe inflation (which is what you are concerned with).

The Economist seems to think that America's economy is "glorious" right now. Feel free to snigger at The Economist if you disagree. :) I actually agree with The Economist, though (well, maybe not "glorious", but not too shabby); I think it doesn't feel that way for so many, though, because:

A) Inflation post-COVID on a *lot* caused a lot of pain (though prices have subsided on many of those things recently). Some critical things (housing, medical care, education, etc.) are still painfully expensive though.

B) America simply is a flat-out more unequal country than the past. Thanks, Ronald Reagan! (1990 was about when America's Gini coefficient started heading up, e.g. more unequal).

C) Media has divided into neat little pockets, most of it all about doom and gloom. Media will find pundits to bullshit about anything. As a result, I am sure many on "the left" will think the economy sucks no matter what if Trump wins, and vice versa. (The solution here is simply not to listen to pundits, as well as stupidly partisan media like your Fox News types. Here is an example of an entire media class that can be replaced by AI and we will not be worse off for it...) BobJohnson (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For plenty of women, being forced to carry pregnancies to term will absolutely affect their ability to put food on their table and have a roof over their head. Children are expensive, especially in a country with a piss-poor safety net like the US. Carthage (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

One additional point... keep in mind that the presidency isn't everything. There's probably too much political focus on the presidency these days. The House of Representatives is also a "coin flip" from what I can tell. (The Senate looks like its heading towards a barely-Republican majority unless there's some major disruption.) A divided government of some sort therefore is not out of the realm of possibility. And, of course, many states are also having their own election cycles. BobJohnson (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously - the weekend after (9-10 November), when 'arrangements for disruption' do not collide with work may be more significant (especially of Putain says something on the October Revolution anniversary parade day). Anna Livia (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

God damn it, the election is actually 8 days away, not 7; The one-off error strikes again! TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While BobJ is correct that the most likely outcome of a Trump Redux is an 'illiberal democracy' as seen in Hungary, Turkey etc we must remember that key attributes of such a system is a) the neutering of the rights to protest/dissent, b) the politicisation of everything and c) attempts to increasingly subvert the democratic process itself to ensure a perma-majority in every election - so yes, it could in fact be the last election where it is genuinely 'fair and free'.

Yes, the 'guard rails' will continue to be, well blocks but prolonged pressure will cause them to eventually buckle. More remote - but still credible - is that an attempt for Project 2025 is enacted, mass protests erupt, the Insurrection Act is invoked and troops are ordered to open fire...

One thing I believe we also need to compute is what a Vance Presidency would look like [which I think is the real goal now]. I am pretty firm in my belief that they would prove themselves a much more determined and ruthless in working the levers of power to do their dreams - and with the Orange One out of the way [for this eventuality to happen, he is either dead or he's been chemical cosh'd due to senility] they will look cement their power past the vagaries of elections [which they most likely wouldn't win if a fair fight]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Karmaolice - I misread it as 'Trump Reflux' - is this relevant or 'creative misinterpretation'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Think more 'Freudian slip'. After all, a lot of his pronouncements could be deemed to be 'reflux'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To some extent one can 'deliberately allow' one's subconscious to suggest such things (along with 'spotting anomalies etc). Anna Livia (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember - when you go into 'stockpiling to wait out the disruption mode' to purchase necessary 'small things' (pencils and paper, candles and matches, sewing needles etc) in sufficient quantities to see you out the timeframe (and to trade if things get worse). Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, Republicans are smashing early voting records now that they've toned down the "early-voting/voting by mail = fraud" rhetoric. Trump's already leading Harris in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina early voting exit polls. In the other swing states, the margin is paper-thin. Sure, exit polls may not be super reliable, but this doesn't bode well for the Harris's chances, since early/mailin voting has been historically a Democrat strong point. This may sound stupid, but I do believe that betting markets are better at predicting results than professional polling agencies, and every single betting market that I can find has Trump's victory chances up around 60 to 80 points over Harris (in 2020, at around this time, Betting markets had Biden at around 60-70 points over Trump.) As a foot note, Trump media stock has been only going up since September, as the election nears and it seems more and more likely that Trumps going to win. Maybe that's why there was such a huge turnout at Madison Square Garden.

I do wonder, what is causing Harris's support to evaporate? Why did she lose her momentum that she had in August? Are there people who were previously voting for Harris as of August now deciding to vote for Trump all of the sudden? What makes Trump appealing to someone who previously supported Harris? Or is Harris losing her appeal? I am not a die-hard Harris supporter (Nor a Trump-humper) but this is is an intriguing trend that I've been seeing lately. 2001:67C:2660:425:15:0:0:218 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I know of at least 5 people in my personal life who were supportive of Harris in the initial stages of her campaign, but have since switched to Trump. When I asked one of them why they changed their mind, they said it's because Harris flip flopped her platform & pretending to be more moderate than she really is. What's even sadder that 3 of these 5 people are apart of the LGBTQ community. 199.119.233.173 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am what you'd call an "old school Democrat." I was never planning to vote for Harris, although I voted for Biden in 2020. In the large pool of Democrat 2020 callengers, Kamala was the least popular of them all. It felt like a slap in the face when Biden selected her as VP but I still reluctantly voted for him. Regretted it shortly afterward when the economy got all screwed up & bungled the covid recovery. It was even more of a slap to the face when Biden dropped out because of one bad debate night. I wasn't going to vote for Biden a second time. mind you; I was either going to sit this one out or vote for Brainworms Jr. I was dismayed to say the least when Harris was declared the new nominee without a primary. So much for being the Democratic party. So if you're wondering why Democrats are voting for Trump, my anecdote might provide some insight. BlueToRedVoter2024 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@BlueToRedVoter2024 While I understand your criticism of Biden dropping out, my advice for you is: If you really cannot bring yourself to vote for Harris, then it's better to sit this one out; A vote for Trump is a vote for Project 2025. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A gap change from about high 2ish percent to mid 1ish percent really isn't "Harris support evaporating". That's a slight narrowing, and all well within the margin of error -- this was and still is a "coin flip" type race, as it was even during Kamala's post-Biden "honeymoon". You sound like you are listening to pundits. BobJohnson (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

And polls always overestimate democrats' support by 2-5 points at least. I dont think Harris had this election at any point in the race 199.119.233.173 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not in 2022. I think the polls have been kind of "blah" since the 2010s -- aggregates like 538 helped cut through the noise at first, but then a whole bunch of shitty pollsters started popping up (some of which got screened out, some of which did not), and then you top it off with people not answering their phones anymore (thanks to persistently annoying spam and scams) and a party realignment making modeling an electorate difficult. A 2-5 point error is certainly not out of the question by any means, but the direction of the error (if any) is up in the air. BobJohnson (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact is, Harris has been losing tons of support lately, I live in a neighborhood in a fairly Blue area. In my suburban neighborhood there was only a handful of houses with Trump campaign material. This year, there are more houses with Trump/Vance signs than ones with halloween decorations. More than a dozen houses within 4 blocks of me who had Biden signs 4 years ago now have Trump signs. Afaik only a couple of them moved. BlueToRedVoter2024 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@BlueToRedVoter2024 Did they consistently vote blue in previous elections? If not, it is possible they are just swing voters. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No clue, I only moved to my current town in 2018. Before that I lived in the deep red boonies (where I grew up) BlueToRedVoter2024 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Blindly trusting the polls is bad, blindly trusting the betting markets is even worse. I don't think we should entrust gambling addicts with the idea that they can actually predict things. A somebody. (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Bets guy does have a point, I remember betting sites more accurately predicting Democrats doing better in 2022 than the polls were saying. BlueToRedVoter2024 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

They are gambling addicts. A somebody. (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

90% of Gamblers quit right before they predict the election results (/joking) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Going on the simple fact that a) policy-wise neither of the candidates have barely changed their offerings since the summer, b) nor have the general background situation and c) the 'two Americas' are incapable of interacting right now I have the theory that there is very little direct Trump <> Harris floating voters about, but there is a lot of voters veering between one of them and not voting or going third Party [the polls got real close once Kennedy quit, which suggests a lot ended up going to the Orange One], despite the crud said above. Put bluntly, Trump needs to get enough Mitt Romney/Dick Cheney voters to turn out while Harris needs the Jesse Jackson/Bernie Sanders ones to do same [or to convince the opposite number to not turn out].

In some respects, Harris has chosen the 'worst of both worlds'; that her mild social progressivism has her labled 'far left' et al by the MAGA-cult [but then again they'd consider even Nixon 'far left' these days] but she appears to have stiffed any real idea about changing the economic structures of America. Thus, she's fallen into the same Third Way trap that Clinton did in 2016 - better DEI policies etc not only fail to move the dial in say, the 'Middletons' of America but actively repulses them because decades of precarious living has deeply ingrained the idea that DEI means 'taking from Us to give to Them'. The inflation issue only made worse the perennial question many low-information voters ask - 'what are you going to do to make my life better?', which I don't think the Democrats have been able to successfully answer to poorer folks in the entire NeoLib era. I know what this feeling leads to; at least a 'what's the fucking point?' apathy and to worst 'they're just the same in My World' which often ends up with a vote for Trump.

Lastly, there's the risks that all the pollsters are overly focusing on what they believe to be key demographics, which sometimes due to lack of data misses some points. A British example is that pollsters were very interested in charting the growth of Reform UK in our 'rustbelt', the crumbling of the Conservatives in well-heeled 'Shires'/'suburbs' and as an afterthought, the ailing of the SNP in Scotland. They were not interested in noting the level of 'left dissatisfaction' with Labour. Result; they overestimated Reform [predicted 13, got 4] while utterly missing the Green/Indies [predicted 2/3, got 10]. Yes, pollsters failed to notice a 4-5 percentage swing from Labour/LD to the Greens/Indies, mainly because nobody looked for it. This might be happening again in small, but key demographics in the vital states.

There is also the possibility that pollsters have 'over-corrected' the underestimating of Trump's support in '16/'20 and in reality the gap is in fact wider. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The 'Dewey defeats Truman' syndrome? Anna Livia (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly. The 'pollsters retort' to my above argument is a fairly simple one; that they didn't really care about the 'left dissatisfaction' with Labour because it was deemed electorally irrelevant [Labour was cruising to a strong victory regardless if a million or so lefties went to minors] but Reform's role was decisive because it directly controlled how many seats the rump Conservatives would end up with. But if I accept this, how come their Reform predictions were way off? Again, their reply is a simple one - that of weighting. To whit; there appears to have been too few Conservative voters in the polls in the first place and secondly, they got the predicted turnout wrong. Thus, the Tory-Labour difference was 10 points instead of 17, the Tory-Reform gap was 9 instead of 6, the electorate was 3.3m smaller than it 'should' have been and the % of voters going for the 'main five' was 3.1% lower than it 'should' have been.

Which is a chronic problem with polling in general - that it usually assumes that previous patterns will continue to occur until they don't. Thus Trump '16 was a bit of a shock because he'd managed to get voters out for him which all the polling told us wouldn't vote. And this might happen again - there's so many knife-edge contests that even slight errors in various polling may when put cumulatively end up with polls being surprisingly incorrect... either way. So America might be able to escape a Trump v Harris decider in the Supreme Court which esp if it goes for the Orange One, will be fairly dicey a situation... KarmaPolice (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anna Livia What do you mean by 'Dewey Defeats Truman Syndrome'? I don't get it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can answer that. Truman was considered a dead man walking in the 1948 election due to an ongoing recession and Dewey's personal popularity. Newspapers even wrote articles in preparation for a Dewey victory. Truman, however, turned it around with some very smart and vigorous campaigning, and he won with over 300 EVs. One newspaper accidentally published its "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline early, and Truman jokingly posed with the newspaper before press cameras after his win was confirmed. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that publication was 'accidental' - if I remember right they'd seen the straw polls etc from the East Coast and assumed they'd follow through Westwards - thus Dewey would have won. However, they didn't replicate so Truman did. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, here's another fun polling miss. A straw poll from the Literary Digest genuinely predicted that Alf Landon would defeat FDR in the 1936 United States presidential election. Landon ended up winning a grand total of 8 EVs versus FDR's 523. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

'From what I understand' the newspaper did a phone poll at a time when there was a strong correlation between 'phone ownership' and 'voting for Dewey' (ie class and income). I was responding to KarmaPolice's comment. Anna Livia (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Turns out we're both wrong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman . The Chicago Tribune basically allowed their DC correspondent to call it [which he did partly from earlier polling] and when it started to be shown it was a lot tighter he stuck to his guns. I don't think this kind of thing would happen now exactly but I do think there is an issue of media feedback loops [which is very under-studied] - where various op-eds stating X opinion to be correct end up influencing each other, hardening the consensus view and reaching out to supporting evidence and causing the commissioning of more, which is then reported in op-eds... I think the most obvious recent American one being the 'Red Wave' in '22 which wasn't. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

My knowledge of psephology is 'basic' - but the phone poll factoid *is* quoted variously, and 'one can see the logic'; but it and the opinionated correspondent are not entirely incompatible (eg such polling influenced his opinion). Anna Livia (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Depending on who wins, I just hope the other party learns the most basic of lessons:

1. That for women, if you take away their access to Abortion that really becomes the only issue that matters to them, OR
2. You can only blatantly lie to the public about a public figure's clear mental decline for so long before they get fed up with you and just assume everything you say is lies. CorruptUser 01:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ FWIW, there are indications the polls are actually underestimating Harris. Basically, as KP stated, this analyst thinks that the pollsters are overcompensating for their underestimation of support for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Carthage (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Words can't describe how much I hope that's true. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The UK Guardian newspaper alleges that a spate of dodgy pro-Trump polls have been done to allow Trump to claim 'fraud' if he loses. It is possible that some of these polls have been getting into various 'poll of polls'. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Favorite scary movies

I don't like the idea of a single favorite anything, so feel free to make your list as long as it takes, but my favorite scary movies are The Thing (1982) Alien (1979) Hereditary (2018) The 6th Sense (1999) aaand... Oddity was pretty good this year. Tremors (1990) is not that scary, but it's top teir.Torrent (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Get Out (2017) is superior as a horror film because it transcends the genre. Horror Noire: A History of Black Horror (2019) is an interesting documentary on Black Horror films that features several of the actors from the subgenre. Bongolian (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

'Get Out' was a little on the nose, I like 'Us' better, and 'Nope' was VERY cool in Imax with friends, but I think I like 'US' most. 'The Blackening' was funny, so was 'Tucker and Dale vs Evil.' Torrent (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to say the Hammer Horror film Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971). Spud (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Mine is Ridley Scott's Alien. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 15:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

not a big horror fan, but for actually scary scary movies, id go for the thing, and for Alien. american werewolf in london gets a mention because although its not really that scary, there a couple of jump scares early on - the nazi werewolf dream he has in hospital was little two much for my 5 year old self and gave me nightmares for week. the wicker man - og not nic cage - is a quality movie in the horror genre. not so much scary but unsettling and strange in a way that its not hard to see how cages version tipped over into parody AMassiveGay (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The mention of werewolves reminded me of the movie Dog Soldiers, which is quite a gem of a film... would recommend. The movie has the best non-CGI werewolves of any movie IMO. Impiricism (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

i raise you the non cgi transformation in american werewolf. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is pretty good I'll agree... but the movie as a whole doesn't seem scary (at least I think... haven't watched it fully, just clips). Impiricism (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As we head into winter, I suggest 'Hundreds of Beavers' as a fun film. Free with ads on youtube, mostly silent so it is very fun to group watch. Maybe even a Thanksgiving or Christmas Family watch if it stays free for that long. Torrent (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity ...

... and, quite frankly, despair; how is it possible that Trump is riding so high in the polls? Indeed how is he in the polls at all? The man's a total disgrace to humanity. If he were to win I'm convinced it would essentially be goodbye to the USA as a world power. Scream!! (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Having lived and visited (cannot be named) US shitholes, I can't say I'm surprised. A lot of the closeness is due to the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College. There's little doubt that Harris is going to win the popular vote by a large margin, but that's moot thanks to the 'wisdom' of the Founding Fathers. Bongolian (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

An idea that I've been musing about in my head is implicit feelings of nihilism perhaps being the underlying cause, or if not then a significant contributor to, recent developments in not just the USA but countries around the world. The rapid advancement of technology has heralded almost instantaneous communication and access to information... people are learning things swiftly or are feeling and getting left behind. Things in the past one believed were rosy are revealed not to be, while learned things about the future can appear incredibly formidable. Present things are different too; sources of reassurance and guidance may not be around anymore, or were never actually around in the first place. I know all of this is vague (and probably wrong) but I don't know how to describe better details for an argument. Maybe the Covid-19 pandemic can be an example. "Can't shutdown the nation because the economy! Because freedom! It's not even that bad anyways!" some people said. If the mortality rate became higher, if it was a life-death coin flip for every person would they have still said that? Do they now how many people didn't even get a coin flip? Some of those people did consider all that, and said it anyways. Impiricism (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe it's a little of that but mostly I think it's either fully buying into a false binary, one party is good while the other is bad, or all parties are bad so vote for the 'outsider' who says he wants to fire em all. Everyone can be an evil dipshit at the highest level of politics. You don't run for president unless there's a little something wrong with your brain, and you don't get the chance without the help of true psychopaths, sociopaths, and sycophants. But it is a role that needs to be filled. I think Harris is the better choice for the safety of democracy, if nothing else. Lots of people think Harris is a danger to American cultural hegemony, big surprise these people live where there's almost no threat to cultural hegemony. There are people who refuse to admit a city like Portland never burned to the ground. You can fucking go to Portland, it's fine. But it's a binary belief set. One party has to be the bad guys, as opposed to both parties really strangling down the idea of a third party. Both can be bad, but one is worse. This is an impossible concept to explain to a GOP voter, and a disheartening one to explain to a Dem voter. Support progress or die mad, I always say. Torrent (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Americans got somewhat more conservative since he left office. One who reads into data may see this, especially for immigration questions. In fact, having known this, I was questioning how Harris was doing as well as she was, previously. Chillpilled (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You may have not noticed, but America is on a bit of a "slow burn" of a decline. It's not like America won't be (barring a shock event) a big important power in the near future, it's just that 2024 America is not 1980 America by any means. Also, there are plenty of other politicians around the world similar to Donald Trump. So some of these factors are everywhere and are not unique to America. That being said...

Part of the fuel behind the Trumpism style ruscism is the baked in two-face society that America has had from the beginning. Despite tooting its horn about "freedom", America has always had a significant sect of society tied to the slavery style economy most notably found in the South, or the Jim Crow system that replaced it. Such has always tended to be massively unequal. The political dynamics of the inequality in that system are still what they always have been even long before Lyndon Johnson observed such: convince someone that they are morally superior to an Other, and they are happy to be financially screwed over by the ruling class, whether the plutocrats at the top or the local "top dogs" in the small town. Such fueled the decades-long success of the Southern Strategy, and the Religious Right is happy to hop aboard, because similar dynamics are in play with them too.

In fact, the differences between Ronald Reagan Republicans and Trumpism aren't really as stark as some would have it. The chief differences I see are: A) a significant change in decorum, where the Washington-class society rules are wrecked and replaced by boorish asshole theatrics (complete with less "dog-whistling" and more overt Other bashing), B) a movement away from neoconservatism towards authoritarian capitalism, and C) far more dogmatic absolutism (which goes along with elements A and B quite nicely, and proves Barry Goldwater right on his preachers quote) The Other hating rubes get quite happy about elements A and C -- for sadly far too many people, being an asshole is a virtue, not a vice. But it's element B that probably is far more dangerous (and certainly will fuck over the rubes yet again). BobJohnson (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to what BobJohnson said, there are three things in US government/politics that have ensured perpetuation of inequality from the beginning, what can be called the anti-Democratic aspects of US government: unequal balance of the Senate (North Dakota has 2; California has 2), the Electoral College 3) no or minimal guardrails on gerrymandering (racial gerrymandering theoretically disallowed since Reconstruction). Bongolian (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Torrent touches on a point I'll explore further; that like here in the UK, there is a certain % of Americans who think the Orange One is 'a great leader' because of his condescending, boorish, dismissive and authoritarian persona [which I also suspect 'the mask has become the face']. I've worked with such people before [though thank God, nowhere as bad] - those who think just because they're the boss they are automatically right, that a good subordinate only asks for clarification or does as I say, that any subject they don't personally know about cannot really be that hard/important, that us plebs can't be trusted with anything ever and that their massive dick-waving rudeness is merely being honest and getting shit done. Problem is, there's enough of this sort about that a decent % of us plebs seem to genuinely believe that this is leadership - rather than the mere 'managerialism' which Democrats display [which they consider a 'part of the problem' of the American position right now].

Impiricism touches on another expandable point; that a lot feels 'unstable' right now [more than usual, that is - every decade is more unstable than the nostalgia glasses allow us to recall] and there is a tendency for us to retreat from the unfamiliar cold winds of newness, back into the comfortable, familiar house of old. Trump represents this; the 'return to traditional American values' [ie a mythologised vision of the 50s, reheated from the 80s] - where everybody 'knew their place' and 'knew common sense', that there was 'respect for authority', that 'things worked right', America was #1 in all things and general development stopped around 1965 - ie no modern 'culture wars'. This painting is so large, so alluring that even folks who would in the whole would be excluded from it buy their own version - for example, a decent % of black men would like to escape into a Pleasantville as long as it wasn't racist. Like with organised religion, the 'traditional way' has a full set of answers on how to live and quite a lot of folks prefer the 'paint by numbers' rather than being given a blank canvas and told to 'get on with it'. Problem is, a decent % of problems are ones where Pleasantville does not have the answers to... and thus, the easiest way to deal with those problems is to simply deny their existence [Covid, climate change] or to pin your hopes on 'Underwear Gnomes' solutions [immigration and everything, apparently].

Shifting levels of party loyalty since the 80s has also had their toll - in short, the Republicans have become more tribal while the Democrats have become a lot less. The latter is easy to explain; Third Way - in the desire to win over the hallowed centrist voter successive major Dem figures ploughed the 'like today, but better-run' managerialism line to appeal for their votes. The Republicans have decided to move the other way; to appeal to particular groups instead in very handwavy terms - 'businesspeople', 'Christians', 'gun owners' etc. Vote Democrat for competence and policy or vote Republican for identity and vibes - it's why debates etc have become increasingly warped because they're operating on two different levels - and before you say 'Trump did this', the signs were visible before this, as this cartoon from 2012 shows. But this also means that each 'side' is finding it harder to poach voters from the other - you can't out-policy vibes and you can't out-vibe policy. Result - stubbornly stuck polls.

Lastly, I will argue that a decent % [as in much more than previous] of the population have become irresponsible. The 'free speech proponent' who fails to accept that actions carry consequences, the complacent business-owner who demands constant spoon-feeding, the rich with the 'fuck you, got mine' attitude believing that they have zero responsibility to anything wider then themselves, the plain idiots who believes it's possible to constantly cut taxes, increase spending and shrink the debt pile at the same time. 'Personal responsibility' has gone from being a mantra for self-help to a cliche to deny any responsibility to ever do anything for anyone else. Except when it comes to them, oh it's all someone elses' fault/responsibility, wah help me! [like with the labour shortages; how about, mate getting off your fucking arse, increasing the pay/conditions of your staff (so you can retain them) and improving efficiency (like investing in plant) so you can do 'more with less'? Why should my taxes go to subsidising your business, for your profit which you will invariably whine about paying a single penny of tax on as being somehow 'evil'?]. Trump, the poster-child of the white Boomer nepo-baby is very assuring to all these that their demands are right and will be satisfied. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent analysis! Scream!! (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘to answer op's question: you vastly underestimate the power of propaganda and personality cults. that, and many tech billionaires are either openly throwing their support behind him or refusing to endorse the democratic nominee as they traditionally have. [2][3] The G (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump may not run in 2028, but MAGA isn't going away, I think. The old GOP is dead. MAGA, however, isn't popular, and the GOP is bleeding support at an accelerating rate. Women voters, queer voters etc. Also, the primary voting base of the GOP, the Boomers, aren't getting any younger. Still, I think the transformation of GOP into MAGA is as substantial as the transformation of the GOP into the party of the Southern Strategy during the Nixon era. Carthage (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

MAGA is extremely centralized around Trump and his cult of personality. The Republican Party has tried to manufacture a figure that could be more easily controlled (e.g. Ron DeSantis) but has failed repeatedly. However it ends up happening, once Trump is finally out of the way, the conservative movement in the US will be heavily damaged. My hope is that, in the coming years, we can finally get past their obstructionism and get things like renewable energy and single payer healthcare done. That said, J.D. Vance now has a spotlight and is extremely slimy, so he might be able to still present a danger. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't see the neoreactionary movement as that compatible with the MAGA movement. A huge core of MAGA is culture war junkies and Dominionism advocates who have been taught by Fox News that everything California is evil. Lo and behold, we have a bunch of rich "libertarian" California tech bros that have shifted towards a fascist viewpoint and want to play National Politics. The hedonism of Silicon Valley staples such as Burning Man to me seems wildly out of step with the pleasure-is-sin culture of so many fundie churches (although, of course, the fundies overlooked Trump's extramarital adventures, so who knows...) The neoreactionaries can "hang on" to Trump's cult of personality but I fail to see them becoming one.

It's hard for me to envision though what the post-Trump GOP is going to look like though. Maybe (following the California GOP) a sort of "in the wilderness" party, but different in that they will still have some power in any place that clings onto culture wars. Or maybe they adapt to something completely different. Marco Rubio's musing about rebranding the GOP into a multi-racial working class party actually makes sense as a direction to me... but boy, would they have to change a lot... BobJohnson (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the GOP changing that much after Trump. I can see prominent GOP figures calling for change, but that does not mean the change will happen. People who think MAGA will just fade into the void a few years after Trump is out of play typically can't answer questions like "where are these new center-right bi-partisan not-culture war obsessed GOP primary voters coming from?" or "why did all of the former qanon adjacent Trump voters suddenly become moderate?" If the coalition of voters that put Trump in the White House is still there-bear in mind "shrinks" does not mean "vanishes"-they will keep voting for candidates with a similar profile.-Flandres (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Or more correctly, senior former GOP figures 'calling for change'. There's a very good chance [in fact very predictable and most likely] that the post-Trump party will double-down on 'Trumpism', in a similar manner of how the British Conservatives keep on doubling-down on Thatcherism, even after it's patently obvious the Big Public no longer believes in the cult. In fact, as they decline [as Carthage's point about demographics being against them is 100% right] they'll become more shitty because there's enough of the cult to genuinely believe 'they are the majority of America!' and thus repeated losing thus must be due to 'Dems cheating'. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

American Thanksgiving, what is the best side?

I don't know enough outside of my own family to create a poll, but a few years running we've had Prime Rib instead of turkey, shout out to uncle my man, turkey is a throwaway poultry. I have seen decals of people who are proud Turkey hunters. Wild turkeys just look you in the eye when you try and get them to cross the road, Who is proud of hunting turkeys? I could do it clean with a rock, I don't care how hard it is with a bow, you're playing with a bow, you're not hunting turkeys. The white meat doesn't taste like anything, anybody who likes a Turkey sandwich must be a really big fan of bread. The fuck do we farm Turkey's for? Basically one day? Torrent (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Leading me to my next question. What is your favorite side? Fuck traditional Thanksgiving sides because what is even the point. New meta everything fusion. Lots of food, all of it bangin, that's the true Thanksgiving 'everyone comes together over food' purpose in 2024. Torrent (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Never did like straight white turkey meat either because yea it's a lil' bland. Quality turkey sausages are amazing though. Favorite "side" would have to be stuffing, boiled carrots, gravy, and mashed turnips all kind of mixed together on a plate... would honestly have the mix as a main honestly. Canadian Thanksgiving was already done; takes place second Monday of October each year due to an earlier harvest season. Impiricism (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue might be not turkey per se, more how the turkey is raised, then what breed type it is and lastly, how it is cooked.

1/ Industrial meat production is a formula of how to get calorie cost as low as possible, calories > meat conversion as efficient as possible while getting growth as quick as possible. The idea of taste is basically an alien concept. Dining on genuine wild turkey [or a slow-bred bird] should be a better because of a better/more varied diet, no hormones to force weight gain and actual exercise to help make the meat more flavourful.

2/ Not all turkey breeds are equal. Modern industrial breeds are ones which have massive breasts, fat legs and not much else because that's what they are told 'sell'. Why? Partly due to historical reasons, partly due to the 'fat is bad' nutritional fad era and lastly the desire for 'boneless' cuts - but also because white meat tastes like zilch and I'm semi-convinced a lot of older Anglos are scared of stuff that actually has taste. Finding a 'heritage' or 'heirloom' breed should be more flavourful because they predate all the selective breeding.

3/ I bet a lot of folks are cooking their meat wrong. Much of this is down to inexperience; a lot less folks work with whole joints/birds these days and/or do cooking for ten. Therefore, a lot more mistakes are made, from 'oven overcrowding' to fucking up timings. Inexperience also can make folks err on the side of caution... which in this case results in overcooking the meat [dry, tasteless] because folks are scared of food poisoning. Sometimes, the recipe being followed is the culprit; yes, I know this is the way 'grandma did it' ever since 1955 but truth be told, she was mediocre at best and the only reason 'folks always swore by it' was because of the fact by the time dinner arrived each adult had a blood alcohol of 0.8 or above. Plus, as it was 1989 most folks smoked heavily and thus couldn't really taste the difference between a bit of turkey or the cork placemat if they both had gravy. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

or 4/ turkey tastes like balls. i am not a fan, not because it is tasteless, but i dont like the taste that it does have. i care not if some breeds of turkey that i have no realistic way of sourcing taste different, if the only turkey i see in the shops or has ever graced my plate at christmas is of the industrially produced variety that the adverts promised was 'bootiful', then thats what turkey tastes like. ive werent born before bernard matthews somehow convinced ukians to eat turkey on days other than christmas, but unless you are watching your weight i know of no one who willingly eats turkey at any other time than christmas. which tells me most people dont like actually like turkey and eat at christmas only as tradition. the turkey people mean when they say turkey is wank. any breeds that actually are not wank must be considered specialty or exotic breeds and if you referring to them when you say turkey you need to specifically say you dont mean the ones found in the supermarket. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think dark turkey meat is actually quite good if cooked right (white turkey meat is tasteless no matter what to me). Never cooked one myself, but based on what I am reading, the right way to do it (from a US perspective) is to go out of the way to get a turkey that hasn't been "pre-brined" (which usually means going to one of those fancy organic / natural food places). Most frozen whole turkeys sold in the US are pre-brined with a solution of water, salt, and mystery spices, and that leaves you with no control over that part of the cooking process. Simply brining in something other than spiced salt water (eg using a stock) probably will result in a much better turkey. You can also "dry brine" and it seems there are proponents of that on the Intertubes.

Of course, everyone's taste buds are different and there are some foods that individuals won't like even if they are at the very best.

The current Thanksgiving turkey is a byproduct of "tradition" (the wild turkey *is* an Americas native that once numbered in the millions) mixed with industrial farming and modern refrigeration (hard to ship frozen turkeys across the country without it). The later makes it not *quite* as traditional as people think. I cannot remember trying a non-industrial turkey to be honest. From the Intertoobs it seems like wild turkey is less fatty but with more flavor (if a bit "gamey" sometimes), especially if cooked properly (since wild turkey has less fat a roast might *not* be the way to go, a nice slow braise perhaps might do). BobJohnson (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The current wild turkey population is estimated at 7 million.[4] I never saw a wild turkey until a few years ago. Nowadays they regularly visit our neighborhood at certain times of year. I've even seen them nonchalantly eating by the side of a semi-busy city street during commute hours. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I see a wild turkey rafter about twice a year. i just looked it up. It's almost crazy to call a group of turkeys a rafter but no joke, I saw a turkey spooked off a power line, it didn't fly exactly, but it flapped to the ground like a cannonball, it was something else. Nobody in the city believes me that I saw a turkey on a power line, but for real, I guess turkeys do the bird thing of climbing high. So it could be, that the turkeys Bongolian and I see are loose from farms. But I don't usually see a Tom without at least three hens. Torrent (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

But the job ain't the meat this month. It's the best side, please. Torrent (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The turkeys that I've seen are definitely not farm turkeys. I've seem them fly a couple hundred feet (from uphill to down hill). I've seen them perching high up in trees. I've seen them raising their chicks. If it counts, the best side is stuffing. Bongolian (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, turkeys fly. I won't be talked down to about the fact anymore. Torrent (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I find that my favorite side is a melange of white and wild rice, properly seasoned. It goes with turkey, ham, or beef equally well (and the first two are traditional in my family, we always have a choice). Kencolt (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Things that both presidential candidates will support.

>The mass cruelty at the border.

>The mass killing and genocide of Arabs in the middle east by Israel.

>protectionism in general (somehow the least offensive thing here.) I'm not saying Kamala Karris is worse than Trump, she definitely isn't, but my soul has been slowly draining to think that cruel, inhumane things will continue to happen unimpeded no matter who wins this Tuesday. A somebody. (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

True but not accurate, there's a lot more to politics than what we all agree both parties are fucking up. Republicans cannot run on Trump after this year. I cannot stand the basic idea that the president is the one shouting down orders. If Biden isn't doing that, Trump isn't either. Man, get your shit together, the president isn't isn't American God, people are so weird about that. The REASON to vote against Trump is because you've got an awful two party system that stays in power by virtue of being the two parties, and the worst option is to dismantle it in favor of a more authoritarian system. One is lame like a dog's leg, another is stiff, and third is trying to chew both legs off, we gotta put a cone on this dog if nothing else. You can vote however you want, and a choice not to vote is cool enough, but I think it would be silly to vote for Trump and to not vote against, believing both parties are equally bad and negligent is also silly. There is one vote that isn't silly and dumb, and it's Kinda a pill. Torrent (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

They technically didn’t say they were equally bad. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What I find funny is when people are told not to protest vote and to vote for Harris and the lesser evil (which is not what either of you is saying but you reminded me of that). In reality, for many the Harris vote IS the protest vote. They protest an actual fascist possibly coming to power, they may not like it, but pragimatically speaking they really do not have a choice. There is many times where I would have encouraged people to vote for a 3rd party or even to not vote, but not this time. It's not hyperbole to say that the Republicans might actually destroy what's left of American democracy so it is more a vote of whether you want to keep that bit of democracy or not. I also hate it but I guess this could be considered my type of "Realpolitik"?. NastyNugget (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As a Brit, the concept of 'tactical voting' is fairly familiar with most of us - that if the polls are close for your own constituency, you need to work out which the two main candidates [ie the ones with the real chance of winning] you 'dislike the least' and if you can live with the worse one winning. Only vote for a no-hoper 'conscience vote' [I prefer this term to 'protest vote'] if you genuinely feel both sides truly suck [something I would have felt this time around if I'd been living in a place the main options were either Tory or Reform] and/or there's zero chance of anyone beating the incumbent.

The cynical part of me [the bit which serves me fairly well when it comes down to politics] suspects that at least some of the leftish 'fuck both their houses' music coming out of social media etc is astroturfing from pro-Trump orgs. As I've said before, I think there isn't much flipping between Trump <> Harris happening, which means the main thing which is turning the dial is one of the pair vs a third party, as well not voting. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Even the "things both presidents support" angle to me is balance fallacy in action. True, none of these parties will resolve the issue per se. But Trump is going to be far worse on all three. On the ever contentious Israel/Palenstine issue, for instance, at least the Democrats acknowledge Gaza's right to exist (not a hard thing here!) Jared Kushner by contrast wants to wipe out Gaza and turn it into hoity-toity waterfront property.

The problem with using massive social media as a metric for anything is that there is so much troll farm / bot / etc. that seems out of step with reality. Famously the Russian troll farms target the Trumpism, but on more lefty places like the Reddit, even just browsing casually on occasion, one finds some suspicious political karma farmers there too (usually targeting the "fuck the USA" over-simplistic and pessimistic type of hard left). That's on top of the other general karma farming where garbage out-of-context bullshit is posted again and again. That being said I'm sure there are many American voters out there who are disappointed with their options; that's the nature of first past the post, you tend to get "Big Tent" parties that often handle several groups that sometimes are at odds with each other. BobJohnson (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of a strawman fallacy happening if you automatically assign this as being a ballance fallacy. The ballance fallacy is something like "we should platform those who think climate change is overblown with climate scientists because they both have arguments of comparable scientific merit" but even then, that is more so just straight up a false premise. I don't think OP has made it explicit that they think Trump and Harris are equal or of comparative merit. They just suggested that there is a set of "bad" things they both support and that's unfortunate. We shouldn't be so reactive to any all comparsions between Trump and Harris as to suggest any and all commonality suggests an argument to equivilance. Although, it is for sure worth mentioning that there are relevant difference in the details about what both sides "support" here which for sure you are right to highlight. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In theory the Democrats have recognized the need for two state solution, the problem is that they haven't taken any meaningful steps towards it and continue to send arms and shield Israel from any international consequences. By 'Democrats' I don't mean people like Rashida Tlaib who is by far the best democrat currently serving in the house, I mean your generic Representative whom you probably can't even name who keeps voting to send Israel more, and more, and more arms to commit genocide with. If the democrats were serious about a two-state solution at all they would recognize Palestine, start an arms embargo, and sanction the hell out of Israel until they stopped doing apartheid. A somebody. (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and IMHO this will change only if either: A) The (typically non-Orthodox) Jewish-American Democrat vote starts significantly moving towards Trump / GOP / Benjamin Netanyahu ass-kissing, or B) said bloc tires of Netanyahu's tactics to the point where things like limiting military aid to Israel is acceptable. This bloc is quite significant in parts of the Northeast US, so this is not a trivial matter. Such is probably the biggest "Big Tent" problem for the Democrats. BobJohnson (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu is a symptom, not the problem itself. A somebody. (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So what is "the problem" in your terms then? BobJohnson (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The larger political culture of Israel and of course, the apartheid it is currently doing. A somebody. (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. So... what would be your message to Democrat Jewish voters? BobJohnson (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with my point, also not every Jew supports Israel. A somebody. (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It has everything to do with my point: that as long as there is a significant Democrat Jewish vote, and as long as most of them support Zionism in some form, the Democrats probably will continue on this wishy washy path (since there is a significant Arab Democrat vote too) of still defending Israel, but maybe pushing back on the hard-core settlers a little. I would hazard throwing terms like "genocide" and "apartheid" at these Jewish Democrat voters would be... counter-productive (even though there is truth in those words). It doesn't help when some of the pro-Palestine protesters have been, er, rather "far left". "Fuck the USA" type attitudes certainly make my eyes roll. Lots of countries engage in messed up shitty behavior. It's always worth a chuckle when prominent "fuck the USA" types end up turning into vatniks, as has frequently happened in the last decade.

(The "politics" incidentally affects Republicans too; some Orthodox Jews are moving "Trumpy" (see Libs of TikTok), but the Republicans are also home to the neo-Nazi and antisemitic white supremacist sect. It's why Ron DeSantis had trouble condemning groups like the Goyim Defense League outright; he didn't want to offend the racist vote.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Something that's being left out here is that there is a growing divide in the Jewish-American community over support for Israel, principally along generational lines ([5]). Likewise, a study done in 2022 showed that a majority of Jewish-American respondents did not identify as Zionist when presented with a definition of Zionism that favors the rights of Jewish people over non-Jewish people in Israel ([6]). There are also major anti-Zionist Jewish activist groups that have played a major role in the pro-Palestine movement, like Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now. Carthage (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, anyways there has not been any meaningful repercussions in relation to the settlements, and Israel likely will not face any meaningful repercussions when they fully dismantle the UNWRA and prevent any aid at all from reaching the Palestinians. A somebody. (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As long as MAGA exists, the Dems will feel no need to go left, because they know the left has no option but to vote for run-of-the-mill "this is how we got here" corporate centrists because the alternative is literal fascism. Carthage (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Recently learned about William Blum and his books... even found that Rogue State and Killing Hope are available for free as PDF from the CIA website of all things (supposedly they were found in Osama Bin Laden's hideout, and so are made publicly available along with other information? He did endorse the book.) But yea fuck the USA. I hope Kamala wins, but the country is going to remain messed up and complicit in crimes against humanity; I don't have any belief that things will get better in the foreseeable future. Impiricism (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gotten to the stage now where I don't take anything on social media serious anymore - at least the FBs/Instas/Twit side of things. Reddit was better, but that seems now to be dying on it's arse and is [as noted] kinda echoey. Most of the old-school forums etc are either ideological belljars [due to accident or design] or have a shit-hot 'no politics or religion' rule in place in an attempt from keeping the community from fracturing down sectarian lines [talk about fucking Freudian slip - sectarian like the The Troubles in Northern Ireland, which says were I am thinking the American head-case is at right now]. Anyway, this siloisation is perhaps part of the problem; not only are folks being wound up etc by shit actors online, but they're also losing the ability to have something approaching a civil discussion with somebody who don't agree with you. Yeah, the simplistic shit being pumped out 'for karma' [as BobJ accurately puts it] is another problem - big social media simply isn't really capable of articulating anything past a soundbite and shit like Gaza is complicated.

But back to the election. I personally think the issue with the Democrats is that as Republicans have leaned in hugely to identity politics [as in, 'if you're X you'll vote for us' shite] Dem strategists have come to the conclusion their 'only path to victory' is to try to be as politically greige as possible so folks 'don't find a reason to not vote Democrat' and hoping there's enough of the 'non-identies' for victory. This, coupled with the fact that in Pres elections the possible electorate is so large they want the vaguest vanilla candidate which they feel would be 'easy to sell' to as much of the people as possible. We also need to recall that Harris was not the choice of the Dem inside operators - it was Biden. If he'd been forced out six months earlier, I'm about 85% sure they would have picked another person for the ticket.

From a foreign perspective, the truth is there isn't really much difference between Administrations - for everything said about/against Bush regarding foreign policies etc they were basically continued under Obama. Even Trump is not that different - for example, his bitching about 'NATO free-riders' has been something which basically every Pres since I'd guess Kennedy has bitched about - the only difference was that Obama couched it in measured tones about Europe needing to bolster her own defence capabilities while the Orange One whines and frames it in terms which imply that the other members are deadbeat payers for American protection. Along with the Israel situation, you can expect the general 'policies' regarding world economics to be roughly the same - ie the use of American official power to back up American corp power and continued dominance of world finance etc. Even the Orange One's stance on China isn't that different from previous - Corp America has been complaining about 'unfair' trade issues for decades now [from IP theft to product dumping] and Obama chose the 'Confront China' national focus in 2012 [which is why the NATO bitching; more Euro forces means a stronger draw-down on American forces in-theatre]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll give another example of "Big Tent interesting politics" for the Democrats. Because of Trumpism, the Democrats are starting to capture the "college educated" vote... in particular, women college educated voters. (In fact, the "gender voting gap" is shaping up to be a major factor in this election, no matter which way it goes). Now, the college educated sector of society is the one that has probably done the "best" out of neoliberalism, although even in this sector I think there is some awareness that the real winners of neoliberalism are the ruling class plutocrats. Still, that is going to affect some of the economic policies; methinks the urban white collar probably will reject any economic reform proposed that sounds too radical. One wonders how/if Democrats will "square the circle" with their traditional "union vote" on this angle. (Though these days some working class unions lean a little Trump-y (in membership at least) and one wonders how/if Republicans will square *that* circle. Well, probably they won't...)

All of this, however, is "thoughts for another time". If one believes the media mob noise (a perilous belief, but all one has to go on), the biggest "trending" election story seems to be a third-rate insult comic in Joe Rogan's circle that made racist comments about Puerto Ricans at a Trump rally. Another big story is the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being in Trump's circle, with Trump musing about maybe banning some vaccines and water fluoridation. And of course, the "college educated women vs. uneducated men" motif. Identity shit (including the War on Science crowd) seems to rule the roost. (At least in the headlines! Maybe we'll see what the *actual* issues were post-November 5th.) BobJohnson (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

American politics for the top 10% is pretty 'heads I win, tails you lose' situations anyway, and have been for aeons now. And I don't think the Democrats have really given much of a fuck about blocs like the unions for forty years now - I remember recently reading an interview a Michigan union rep who believes a lot, perhaps a majority of members within his patch are to varying levels supportive of the Orange One [the union guy wasn't]. Why? Mainly on economics - they believe that Trump will 'bring Good Jobs™ back home' and 'protect them from Chinese dumping' which successive administrations declined to do when, for example Japanese and German automakers ate Detroit alive in the 70s-90s. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

48hours to go

Before the arguments begin.

Some say if Trump is elected this will be the last election. (While he cannot run again himself in 2028, if surviving until then, and not too incompetent, he can interfere). Anna Livia (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a wisdom tooth extraction under general anesthesia scheduled for tomorrow. I wonder if I'll wake up to just another day or a society gone to hell. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You'll wake up to an empty city, with rabid Trumpers lurking in the shadows. Impiricism (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)