RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive466

This is an archive page, last updated 30 November 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

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 ([1]). 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 ([2]). 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)

I think there is something awfully reminiscent of this alt-right playbook video [3] 'the cost of doing buisness' in how both supporters and critics of the democrats talk about Trump and the current conflict in Gaza. Like yes, that will be worse under Trump. But we shouldn't see human lives as negotiable here to simply get a political victory from a (presumed) zionist Jewish voting base. There is something kind of gross and exploitative about treating people as a means to power. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Those that defend Israel see this as (put in a simplistic manner) defending Israeli human lives from attacks from Arab adversaries and terrorist organizations like Hamas. This is what makes the situation, er, complex politically. There are some extremely angry people on both sides shouting vile and bile. Lots of hyperbole all around. I mean, "alt-right playbook", what the fuck?

It's been fun when some of these pro-Palestinian politicians turn... a wee bit differently on other conflicts. Jill Stein is probably the most pro-Palestinian politician this election cycle. Yet... on Ukraine? Well... she's not quite a vatnik... but she can't quite bring herself to blame the war launched by Vladimir Putin on Vladimir Putin. Funny that, another example of a "fuck the USA" type that ends up donning Russian colors, suffering in Ukraine (as well as shitty Russian human rights) be damned. So it goes.

And yes, the nitty-gritty of politics (well beyond Israel/Palestine) often treats people as pawns for a means of power. The Southern Strategy is very much another example; the ruling class exploits racism and other shit that makes the rubes angry to keep the ultra-rich in power. You can find plenty of other examples. A lot of humanity sucks. Sorry you are just figuring this out. BobJohnson (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think a big problem here is that some people are not approaching this issue from a position of good faith. If someone points out that this behavior is the exact type of behavior described by Martin Luther King as the "territory of the white moderate," these parties will instead focus on the title of the video being used to support this point rather than the actual message imparted by that video. Certain parties will result to both-sidesing the matter, and painting an entire social justice movement as being irrationally anti-American and fundamentally the same as extremist Kahanism. If you point out that Israel is committing genocide and apartheid, you are gonna get met with accusations of hysteria, or that this will alienate voters of a certain demographic. When you point out that voters of a certain demographic aren't a monolith, you get met with "this situation is extremely complex politically." At some point, you just have to realize it's not worth engaging with certain people. Carthage (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that it is not worth engaging with the Hamas boot lickers on this wiki anymore. Toodles! BobJohnson (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob, I mean this sincerely, who the fuck is a Hamas bootlicker on this site? Where has anybody apologized for or expressed support for Hamas? It's a brutal mass-murdering terrorist organization, and accusing any of us of being a "bootlicker" for them is both offensive and dishonest. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

'If you think we should stop sending arms to a rogue state currently committing genocide, you love terrorism.' A somebody. (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Bro, OnlySortaDumb implied Democrats were using the alt-right playbook; where the fuck was anyone being a literal neo-Nazi on this thread or in the political sphere on this issue?

Of course no one here is really a literal Hamas bootlicker, but there are some people "in the cause" that are using unwise hyperbole. What a large portion of the pro-Palestinians on this thread fail to understand is that there is another side and the Israel / Palestine conflict is politically complicated. I think Netanyahu is committing atrocities, at the same time I understand why the politics from the Democrats are more muted than they want. Just bringing this up the politics on this Wiki seems to be a problem for some reason. This really honestly really deters me from expressing anything on this issue; apparently if I'm not willing to regurgitate 100% support for Gaza all the time, apparently a bunch of people will give me shit. Some of the "shit" honestly has been uncomfortable too, like A somebody blaming Israel and its political culture in its entirety for the Gaza atrocities. I know what sort of shit this implies (even if A Somebody doesn't) but I won't say it here.

What I also know is that a significant portion of the pro-Palestinian movement has spent a significant time literally shitting on the Democrats (like above) while putting very little energy into protesting the Republican party. Fair enough, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. If Donald Trump wins the election today, may they be happy with the Trumpy approach to Israel. We know what that is too. BobJohnson (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons engaging with OSOD is completely pointless. He seems way more interested in virtue signaling about how much he cares about things the Democrats don't and how bad they are, rather than discussing how we can actually work on the issue. He wants the perfect to be the enemy of the less bad - and what the fuck does that accomplish? Yes, I would like Harris to be much more aggressive in pursuing Palestinian human rights, but taking the best of two bad options is absolutely the humanitarian choice. Voting is a chess move, not a love letter, and "more leftist than thou" bullshit should go back to tankie groups where they belong. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think progressives are harsher on the Democrats than the Republicans on this issue because we expect more of the Democrats. They're the party that supposedly represents queer people, ethnic minorities, the working class, and the left in general. We know what to expect from the GOP. What Bob leaves out is that a significant portion of the pro-Palestine movement is voting for Harris anyway. They know that Trump is worse than Harris on Palestine. That's a no-brainer. That's also a really fucking low bar. Harris could be better, and activists are trying to pressure the Dems to be better. "Better than a literal fascist" does not equate by any means to being good on an issue. To say that we are saying Harris is functionally the same on Gaza as Trump is a strawman. Carthage (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My only real concern in this discussion is just ensuring that everyone understands that none of us here are terrorist supporters or neo-Nazis. Let's not start spiraling into accusations and personal attacks and shit, right? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to be factored in that Biden very well might have been 'going easy' on Bibi because it was an election year and he wanted to avoid pissing off the Israel lobby/bloc. It's possible [though admittedly unlikely] that by tomorrow his tenor will change. Whats's more, safety in numbers - that if Bibi does go through with the threat and attempts to kill off UNWRA I think nations like several of the Europeans will finally find the splinters in their arses from fence-sitting too much to bear [say in the UK; Starmer very well might get a significant MP rebellion over it if he tries to do fuck all]. Personally, I think the main 'protection' Israel has had so far is that while the situation in Gaza and now Lebanon is clearly shit there's not much else policy-wise that could be suggested without being an obvious Hamas/Hezbollah apologist [though there is some, like stop fucking blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza]. 'Trying to destroy UNWRA' and 'settlers seizing even more West Bank land/resources and killing folks who protest it' 'is something which is a lot more clear-cut.

Anyhows, did we have any Hamas apologists here? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

To some people, any criticism of Israel or of American foreign policy WRT Israel counts as "Hamas apologia." It's a smear tactic. Actual Hamas apologia wouldn't be "Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza and no matter who gets elected, it's going to continue," it would be "October 7th was justified and Hamas are anti-colonial freedom fighters." This little side-discussion here started because a certain party accused the OP of committing the balance fallacy, when in fact the OP stated that Trump would be worse than Harris on Gaza. This party also insinuated that calling a spade a spade is bad politics because it could alienate the voters of a certain demographic. I pointed out that demographic is far from a monolith, and that got promptly ignored. Another party to this discussion stated that certain party's conduct runs the gamut of the behavior described in the Innuendo Studios video "The Alt-Right Playbook: the Cost of Doing Business," which said party then used the title of that video as an excuse to dismiss the comment that critics and supporters of the Democrats are using Jewish voters as bargaining chips to curry power outright. I pointed out that this certain party is not approaching this discussion from a point of good faith, and so isn't worth engaging with, and the other party rage quit with the parting gift of calling their opponents in this argument Hamas apologists. Carthage (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Carthage. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:33, 6 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)

@BobJohnson That was really uncalled for. I'm not the most regular person on the bar, but has Carthage ever shown anything but contemp to Hamas? Acknowledging that there is a genocide going on in Gaza doesn't mean that you are denying that Hamas have their own genocidal intentions. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting very close to calling it genocide [and folks will know I've resisted this for over a year]. Mainly on the UNWRA issue, but also the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in Gaza. Hamas is good-as neutralised as anything more than a series of low-level gangs now - what the fuck are you hoping, Bibi - to kill not every single member ever but anyone who in the future might raise a rock against the glorious IDF? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Genocidal intent is really the only compelling explanation for why Netanyahu and his cabinet are keeping the war going even though multiple IDF generals and national security advisers have been calling for it to end since July. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Are the Hamas apologists in the room with us right now? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You can call me that if you want. What is your point? What would you like to say? Torrent (talk) 08

45, 6 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)

You will wake up to just another day of society gone to hell. :) ULTRACOMFY (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As I have mentioned 'somewhere above' - the UK General Election occurred on US Independence day and the US election is taking place on UK Bonfire Night. 'Make of that what you will.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You will not wake up. Nobody will wake up. The country will have been overrun by the soul-eating minions of Cthulhu.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I woke up and nothing has been decided yet. Disappointingly mundane results! IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Kind of an anti-climax really.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

it is funny, which is unusual for right wingers. Big swing, home run, I do think a lot of people who voted same as me feel a little lost. But you have worked yourself into your own point. Trumpers are the zombies. Fascism is always conformity, zombies are always fascism. Torrent (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's another cool time to be a white man

Man, what a bummer. It's not about trump it's about evangelicalism. I am not bad at the bible, I will be OK, I was raised with the idea that the Bible is a bunch of important stories Torrent (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be literate about the Bible, because most evangelicals don't know a fucking thing about it. As long as you say "Jeheezu saves" they'll be happy. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And that is the truth, but I would never because Exodus 20:19 says I shouldn't bear false witness. Torrent (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Duce's 2024 Election Night Bingo Card

Just a little something to hopefully make Election Night coverage a bit more enjoyable.

2024 Election Night Bingo

Trump flips a state	MAGA riots at polling places and/or elections offices	"If you're in line, stay in line!"	You go to bed before Pennsylvania has been called	Results from Miami, Florida causes Democrats to panic
Either you or one of your friends starts drinking	A reporter on the network you're watching decides to interview voters, finds the dumbest fucking people imaginable	Trump declares victory without having 270 projected EVs	Musk tweets about voter fraud and/or election rigging	Margin in Iowa is R+3 or less, vindicating the Selzer poll
Hillary Clinton is visibly bitter while being interviewed	Harris flips a state	Trump claims there was massive voter fraud (FREE SPACE)	Field reporter on the network you're watching has audio problems	You go to bed before anyone has hit 270
Nevada fails to beat the allegations, takes days to count votes	"Here's why this is a bad sign for Harris."	"We've never seen anything like this."	A pro-choice ballot measure passes in a state Harris lost	Someone from either campaign calls in to Fox News to yell at them for calling a state too early
Either campaign confirms they'll demand a recount before the night is over	You go to bed before Georgia has been called	Someone mispronounces "Kamala" on TV	Record-breaking female turnout	You make popcorn

proudly produced by the RationalWiki Bingo Card Company

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And if there is a 'Trump 2028 campaign': NOTA/write in campaign results in a tie between Cthulhu and Boaty McBoatface. Anna Livia (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You could have added "Reporters interview each other". But I guess that's just inevitable.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That happens during the multiple hours where the pundits just jingle keys in front of the viewers while waiting for returns from the swing states. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting anxious. But need to go to bed in about an hour. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's two fill-ins on the Bingo Card. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I live in Europe and aren't American anyway, so do I really count? Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 21:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I made the card, so I make the rules. And I say anyone can play! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 22:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Going to bed now, so take your points friend. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Still might postpone going to sleep by an hour. Hella short rest, but Wednesday is usually the easiest day at work. Might be able to catch a nap or five. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 21:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have one more beer left anyway Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also forgotten the wikicoding during my absence. Sorry about that guys. I'm predicting Trump will take Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. The other battleground states will go for Harris. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 22:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Already heard "If you're in line, stay in line!" Vital Forces (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoever wins, should win by a large margin so there's less "it was rigged" bullshit this time around. CorruptUser 01:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like if Trump wins (Which I presume) I am going to be more like Aladdin towards Jafar when he became the genie where it’s more of a “Be careful what you wish for” for the voters than the liberal screaming collage that I see from time to time. It’s an opportunity to start buying Leopards Ate My Face stocks. Patty Pat 03:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Democrats NEED to learn that you can't put up a moldy vegetable for years, harass anyone that suggests your candidate is a moldy vegetable, when it gets so blatantly obvious that your candidate is a moldy vegetable you simply ignore the democratic process and replace the moldy vegetable with the cheese and grease covered tin foil that once wrapped old pizza, and then get upset when people vote for Turd Sandwich. CorruptUser 05:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

harass Trump as a moldy vegetable? good idea. What a wreck of an election. Torrent (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Bingo tally

My score:

Trump flips a state - TRUE
"If you're in line, stay in line!" - TRUE
You go to bed before Pennsylvania has been called - TRUE
Results from Miami, Florida causes Democrats to panic - TRUE
Either you or one of your friends starts drinking - I DRANK
A reporter on the network you're watching decides to interview voters, finds the dumbest fucking people imaginable - ARIZONA STATE KIDS WHO VOTED TRUMP BECAUSE OF JOE ROGAN
Trump claims there was massive voter fraud - TRUE
You go to bed before anyone has hit 270 - TRUE
Nevada fails to beat the allegations, takes days to count votes - TRUE
"Here's why this is a bad sign for Harris." - TRUE
"We've never seen anything like this." - TRUE
A pro-choice ballot measure passes in a state Harris lost - TRUE
You go to bed before Georgia has been called - TRUE

Result: no bingo Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Has Trump claimed voter fraud recently? Of course he was talking about it before the election, but I'd have thought he'd stop when he started winning. Christopher (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Asia News International is suing the Wikimedia Foundation

Apparently, this lawsuit is so extreme that the Foundation had to institute a "black lock", completely barring anyone, even admins, from editing that article. Tavantius (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Similar to what RW had to do with They Who Must Not Be Named... anyway, I'm gonna ding you for reporting this news without providing any context, which is here. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Could WP do something similar to the English Language main page blackout 'a long time ago'? Anna Livia (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thought it'd be easy to find it due to the media coverage. Tavantius (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP is being sued by ANI in India for defamation. The judge in the case is apparently an internet newb who called WP a "dangerous tool" and said, "Anybody can edit a page on Wikipedia? What kind of page is this if it is open to anybody [to edit]?"[4] ANI has been accused of being a propaganda tool of the BJP (Asian News International § filiation with Indian government). Bongolian (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Three quotes

War is Peace/Freedom is slavery/Ignorance is strength.

Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks

Make America Great Again

Any more to add to the narrative? Anna Livia (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No quotes, but some thoughts...

The previous time that Trump was elected, in 2016, my feeling (as a non-American) was that the American people had elected the ultimate "Mr. America", someone truly embodying American values to the fullest, their ideal in real life terms more so than the fictional Uncle Sam. But back then said character hadn't yet gone through the development that followed, in which he developed into quite a character on a whole different level. (Back then he mainly represented greed, narcissism, and the art of BS, while in the 8 years since, a few other key qualities have risen to the fore alongside these.) This time it's not only about the American people sniffing out those qualities and voting accordingly, but also much more about Trump's new team, and the causes it champions, and the popular appeal of much of it all. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Here's a quote. When Trump was elected in 2016, the headline on the German newspaper Hamburger Morgenpost was Bitte nicht den Horror-Clown! A Mexican newspaper had the headline Oh, fuck! in English, but I can't find which one. Spud (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pennywise?

I was implying with the three quotes (the middle one is probably the least familiar but easily identified). Anna Livia (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Republican reaction to winning the election

I've noticed that a lot of Republicans are celebrating their victory by gloating about how Democrats are "seething and coping" (Someone I know already found a video about people's "meltdown" over this), apparently completely forgetting what they did in 2021 after Biden won in 2020; I'm telling you, they're in 2024 physically, but they're in 2016 mentally. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump declared on twitter early on that there was cheating in PA (which he went on to WIN). Naturally he won't investigate this cheating he is so concerned about but it does suggest that Republicans were seething and coping before the election even got underway. Namako (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The new "bread and circuses" in a sense is the enshitified Internet with its manipulated algorithms, silos, and demonization. It's easier to overlook the wasteland of neoliberalism's replacement, authoritarian capitalism, when you've got an Other caricature to blame all your problems on.

So it goes -- in the enshitified Internet, the underclasses on the Internet log on to duel and sling shit at each other. One may cheer and gloat, one may cry. Meanwhile, the capital class will continue gutting the labor class as much as they can. There will be schadenfreude on the left that will inevitably happen when Trump voters get screwed by their decision. But... this schadenfreude feels to me in some ways wrong. One wonders if something would happened if the dueling tribes came to their senses and learned to both sling their shit upwards. BobJohnson (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's usually when revolutions happen. But in the more immediate term, the good thing about this is that there's a very good chance this will go right to their heads, they'll overreach politically and squander much of the advantage [remember how cock-a-hoop they were about Roe/Wade, to the point Trump was boasting about 'how he did it' and key minions implying a national ban was next, and some even more fuck-headed folks saying it's time to go after sex ed and contraception provision too?] KarmaPolice (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't politically aware when that happened, can you elaborate on how that squandered their advantage? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Overturning Roe/Wade [ie allowing State abortion bans] was a minority project within the Republican party - getting rid of it [and the resulting loss of that right over a decent % of the country almost overnight] pissed off a lot more folks than made happy [and the latter ones were already supporters]. This, the close association of 'doing it' to the Republicans and then floating all sorts of fucked up ideas [and doing a few of them, like wormbrain abortion bans which insist you 'carry to term' a pregnancy which will literally kill you] created a massive nasty smell which hung around enough to seriously dampen the bigged-up 'red wave' in '22. Two years ago, Orange One was taking all the credit for 'saving lives' [ie the unborn]. Two weeks ago, one of his minions was assuring us that all it did was 'remove a bit of judicial activism', the 'moral debate' on this issue should be had in each individual state and no, none of the wormbrains was remotely linked to Orange One and actually, he was ambivalent on the issue...

It is almost certain that within weeks of his installing that Orange One and his minions/controllers [I am not sure who will be the master this time around] will have done enough 'minority interest' crap which will have horrified perhaps the majority, which if channelled right might really spur active resistance. To paraphrase Machiavelli; that the wise Prince should avoid becoming hated, because when a person hates you they become motivated to actively resist you. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The pissing and moaning and gnashing of teeth in the media indeed may lead one to forget a few things:

A) The election was still pretty close. Among those who voted, the margin of Trump's victory was a shade over 3%. The Republicans may pick up a few seats in the House and Senate (though at the moment the former is not quite certain). But the margins are still pretty thin. Obviously a good night for the Republicans but not a blowout by any means. The "mandate" is not strong. (Note also that voting turnout is still rather meh -- about 42% of the voting eligible population didn't even bother to vote. Apathy rules the roost.)

B) Many issues far out-poll Republican politician support. Florida is an excellent example this time around. An amendment to basically neuter Ron DeSantis' abortion ban got 57% of the vote (to 43% against). An amendment to legalize marijuana got 56% for to 44% against. Rick Scott and Donald Trump, however, won the state by 12-13 percentage points. (Florida Republicans of course are aware of this discrepancy, which is why in 2006 they drafted a ballot measure to raise the ballot measure threshold to 60%. This sadly passed... with just 57.78% of the vote. So the above measures "failed", even with a clear majority in favor.) BobJohnson (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's note a) from the looks of it the Orange One's 'raw vote numbers' are 1.2m lower than in 2020 [despite the total American possible electorate being about 3/4m larger] and b) if we look at places like Illinois [for example] the Orange One's vote share went up 4.5% on a slightly smaller raw number count [2.44m and then 2.39m]. Therefore, coupled with the apparent sluggish turnout, the strong lack of enthusiasm for Harris [I mean, nobody was bigging her up here in the Bar] and the general 'mood music' I got from several sources is that in some ways your '24 election was a bit like my [UK] '24 election - in that a decent % of the ruling party's usual voters decided to 'sit on their hands' and let the opposition win. This also tallies with my comments from over a month ago - that Trump's campaign was mainly about 'keeping the band together' and it worked because perhaps a sixth of the Biden band decided to stay home and get wasted instead due to disliking the new bandleader/choice in tunes. This would explain why the polling was off - they were using incorrect weightings re: turnout.

One thing I've noticed is that American conservatives don't seem to really notice/appreciate this nuance, similar to how British conservatives didn't really appreciate that their 'amazing landslide victory' in 2019 was won on only a 1.2% swing [less than 350k people]. For them, it seems 'BIG WIN!' is all they see and think it means 'all the people are for us!' Result: they go overboard, get high off their own supply and normally end up engaging in minority wankery projects only they got off on [here in the UK it was 'Brexit being great', 'small boats' and 'attacking woke'.] KarmaPolice (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The 'creative misreading' came up with 'Reptilian' in the header. Anna Livia (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I already think I know why Harris lost

If you take a look at where the popular vote stands right now, it looks like Trump is on track to meet or slightly exceed his 2020 popular vote (71.2 mil right now, was 74.2 mil in 2020). Meanwhile, Harris stalled at 66 million whereas Biden won 81.2 million. This paints a pretty clear picture. While Trump genuinely did win over some support from the Biden camp, the big story of the night was Democratic turnout plummeting in areas they really needed it to be high. Even New York and New Jersey jumped at least 10 points to the right.

Meanwhile, @Carthage and I were both discussing with each other how frustrated we were during this campaign because it really seemed like Harris was doing anything she could to convince us to not vote for her. When Arab-Americans begged her for any excuse to think she would be better on the Gaza War, she didn't even let a Palestinian speaker appear at the DNC and kept her rhetoric in line with Biden's. She dropped her support for popular Democratic policies like Medicare for All, and she decided to pivot further to the right by touting endorsements from the Cheneys and other Republicans. She failed to differentiate herself from Biden with the exception of creating the appearance that she'd govern further right than him, especially after she started talking about putting Republicans in her Cabinet. Walz, a pretty good VP pick, had to stay silent on a lot of his more populist policies in order to be consistent with her campaign strategy.

The Democratic turnout issue strongly indicates to me that other Democrats found her just as uninspiring as I did. When I went to my polling place, I voted against Trump far more than I voted for her. It is once again obvious that trying to win over moderate Republican voters is a lost cause for Democrats, and just as people had been saying for a while now, a winning Democratic strategy would rely on turning out the Democratic base rather than trying to win over independents and moderate Republicans who had already broken for Trump twice now. She ran a terrible campaign. Pivoting to the right doesn't work, and she proved it yet again. Frankly, I hope her campaign advisors get fired, and I hope Harris retires from public life and never shows her face again. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Having the Cheneys be apart of your campaign almost certainly didn't kill it, but it didn't help either, and I have a very, very strong feeling that the democrats are not going to get more left-wing after this election, they are probably going to get even worse. A somebody. (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the state of the economy was a much more fatal issue than it had to be because Harris failed to differentiate herself from Biden. The enthusiasm for her was real when Biden dropped out; it just died down because she pivoted to the right and decided to run a "same old, same old" campaign. At the very least, I think she could've avoided complete humiliation by running a better campaign. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

She should have openly and suddenly broke from Biden and begin saying that she is far more progressive than him and that she will do things radically differently. But I think she would have still lost in the end even if it wasn't such a landslide. A somebody. (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think avoiding total humiliation would've been worth more than it seems. Trump's won both the popular vote and almost certainly swept every single swing state. As far as he's concerned, he has the mandate to do whatever he wants. And it looks like Casey's lost in Pennsylvania, putting the GOP at 53 seats. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the 'Democratic base' in 2024? From my POV, the MAGA attacks that the Democrats now represent the 'librul elite' and 'the wokes' are in some ways more accurate than the Democrat's attempts to portray themselves being for... who, exactly? I blame Third Way for this - for them 'populism' is a dirty word and by association, they don't want a mass party lest it becomes less controllable.

I have an element of schadenfreude about this defeat because it is conclusive proof that Third Way is dead as a viable ideology. It hasn't been able to really win since 2012 - Biden in 2020 can be seen in this respect as a electoral fluke caused by being in the middle of a pandemic and Trump proving so incompetent. Harris was a decent enough candidate, didn't really fuck up on anything and followed the DNC playbook - therefore, I argue that any other mainline Dem candidate would have done about the same [with the only caveat that a white guy might have scraped dead heats in places like Pennsylvania]. Therefore, the issue is the playbook, not the player or even the condition of the pitch the match was on.

Yes, I think economics is the key issue here. To quote a talking head I heard earlier today - 'I don't care about DEI policies if I can't make my rent this month'. Even with a significant % of minority voters. What's more, this is deeper than simply the overhang from the Covid/War/Inflation issues - that there's a lot of folks who genuinely believe that Trump is 'going to bring those good jobs back', 'get people buying American' and 'give Americans more money in their pockets'. I don't believe more social progressivism in this case would help one bit - in fact, think would make things worse. But again, Third Way - no, we can't outright say 'everybody who earns ~$60k a year or less is our core demographic and our policies will be focused on making your lives better'.

Lastly, the very 'guardrails' might have caused this. Trump v1 was constantly blocked in, hamstrung or denied in their crappiest policies which meant ultimately his rule was not that bad. It's like that shit person at work - if the good workers constantly carry the slack and hide the skidmarks on the carpet, the boss won't notice how shit that person is. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What I don't get is how people still think that Trump is good for the economy. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They remember the much better economy of 2017-2019 and the fact that gas prices were so low. They think that COVID was a fluke that was beyond Trump's control, and they blame Biden for the aftereffects of COVID still dragging our economic performance. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How much the "he's rich so he must know how to make the economy grow" myth is to blame for the idea that Trump is good, or at least better than Kamala when it comes to the economy? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s also worth considering the combination of hope and desperation among significant sections of the electorate, which means that the Democrats’ “nothing will fundamentally change” slogans seem to be an even less viable approach than Trump’s pies in the sky. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I wanna know what Trump's pies would taste like... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be a Paula Deen pecan pie. Impiricism (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

1/ Economic protectionism, 2/ mass crackdowns on illegal labour to push up wages, 3/ 'cutting waste', 4/ 'tax cuts to put more money in folks pockets so they spend', 5/ 'drill, mine and pump' to make energy prices come down further and 6/ feel-good memories of Trump v1. And we need to be careful, Gee - when we talk of 'the economy' we're thinking of the macro when most 'normal folks' talk about 'the economy' as in 'what is happening in their personal micro. And Third Way is all about 'nothing will fundamentally change economically' policies. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Most Republicans will never vote for a Democrat. It's that simple. They'd rather vote for a candidate they despise than a liberal. I know I could say "I told you so," but outside of some sense of schadenfreude being right here doesn't actually feel that good. Carthage (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

From interacting with many Texas voters, I saw exactly one "not voting for anyone Dick Cheney endorses", but several "I'm voting for the felon". I did not see "I'm voting for the rapist" though — must have been too far even for the GOP. However, I did see a few forms of "I'm not votin' for no woman.", which would explain the trump election pattern (overperforming against women but not men, and getting the misogynist vote). As long as economic perception in the immediate is a major influence on voting patterns, the doom-loop will be: GOP inherits a good economy, tanks it at the end of the term, and then blame the Democrats for the economy if they get elected. Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally recommend blaming the 'hard left globalist deep state' for ruining our 'Totally Wonderful, Glorious Economics™', like Truss did back in Sept '22... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This reflects a fascinating divergence in development within our big two parties since 2016. Two populist uprisings took place that year. One was crushed and the other won. Ever since then, Democrats have built their brand on telling their base they can't have what they want because that would be bad oh but vote for us anyway and the GOP has based their brand on promising their base the next GOP government will fulfill all their fantasies, no matter how depraved or stupid they are. We have also learned that the west wing types would rather ruin their own party than admit the "childish unpleasable doomer unpragmatic crypto-kremlin lefties" were right about literally anything.

Let this be a lesson. Sorkinite "adult in the room/trust the process" politics DOES NOT WORK.-Flandres (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... which is a similar situation the whole Brexit fuckup was here in the UK - 'vote Leave and just perhaps get something' or 'vote Remain and surely get fuck all'. I suspect a decent % of lower-class Trump voters don't believe he will help them in their frankly modest personal econ dreams, but putting a fiver on a long shot is a better bet than simply flushing it down the crapper. Third Way has tried to paste over this with DEI policies etc but it's ended up not really delivering [so fucked off minorities] past making white guys feeling 'under attack' [so fucked them off even more]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe, for the axe was clever and convinced the trees that because his handle was made of wood he was one of them." Carthage (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

As others have suggested, it seems like, at least to me as a foreigner who can't observe the situation directly (things are not necessarily better in Europe though), the defeat is linked to the 'soft left' approach of Kamala Harris, in order to be 'consensual' and convince the moderate right-wing to vote for her. At least giving US-Americans the chance to vote left-wing might have been better than trying to defend the right-wing economic policies the far-right can use to attract masses. This also shows the uselessness of polls.

For comparison, in the 1930s, in France, the centrist social-liberal to moderate right-wing governments, often supported by rather soft centre-left parties, were very unpopular and led to the rise of far-right leagues who questioned the republic and parliamentarianism. These leagues campaigned 'For bread for true French people'. As a reaction to this, the left energised and after 1936 the Popular Front, an alliance of the Stalinist Communist Party, the reformist Socialist Party-SFIO, and the social-liberal centrist Radical Party, formed a government. I am mentioning this because this shows that a different way is always possible, especially since the election of the Popular Front was, like the rise of fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, the consequence of the crash of 1929.

Centrist and right-wing voters might have been discouraged by the two party system in the United States making Trump seem like a normalised ordinary right-wing candidate against the left-wing Harris. New world (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it be put more glibly; Harris failed because her strategy revolved around promising the fat their dinner wouldn't be 'stolen' to feed the thin, only to find both heads were turned by Trump holding up a sign outside promising all-you-can-eat buffets and availability of free muumuus when obesity kicks in.

When put like this, you fucking wonder why anyone voted for Harris in a positive manner... KarmaPolice (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like what the Democratic Party is doing is akin to trying to fulfill the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, while completely ignoring the bottom. Honestly, what is the point of closing the gender/racial pay gap and stopping workplace discrimination? Even if they were to close the gap to 0 and achieve absolute social equality, how the hell are those people going to afford groceries and rent? The Democrats are giving us cherries, but there's no fucking cake to put the cherries on. MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You should think about what you said a bit. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Exhibit A: Exit poll: Nevada, minority breakdown.

Harris only decisively carried the black vote, and even then it's 5-7 points lower than Joe in '20. Another poll I can't be fucked to find now said Trump was getting about 45% of the women's vote. When we recall that Trump was strongly anti DEI ['woke far-left Marxism'] this tells you that DEI is not high on the list of their concerns right now - and the 'Marxist' within me tells me that it's because a lot of these minority voters voted on class lines - aka the poor and lower-middle believing that Trump will help them 'get on' economically without DEI [some are even mildly anti-DEI regarding quotas and affirmative action because they believe it creates the suspicion that minority hires are only there because of their 'status', not their talents].

But let's cut to the chase. DEI policies etc in their modern form were cooked up by the Third Way as part of their efforts to create a meritocracy, believing that 'if only' we could crack open some of the 'higher slots' to Them and 'promote education' we could get equality without actually having to change the economic layout of our capitalist system. Guess what, they were wrong - in fact, stratification has gotten worse. Fuckers like Vance and Trump make a legitimate point when declaring social security etc is 'just a give which keeps people glued to their couch' and 'the American Dream is dead'. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden should have not perused a second term AT ALL. He should've allowed an open primary. By the time that he dropped out in June it was too too late. Kamala Harris was never going to win this (she flunked out pretty early back in 2020). Though do be very honest with my criticism of Harris, there was a load of misogyny directly against her by Trump's camp. Ψ (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

While I agree on the former bit, I'm not sure on the latter - I have a strong suspicion that 'different candidate' but 'same playbook/policybook' would have garnered roughly the same results. If the DNC critters had allowed Waltz, Cooper or Whitner to 'be their own person' and actually have some decent immigration/economic policies different from the orthodoxy, then perhaps. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

When Republicans repeatedly attacked Harris for completely changing her views, she had no good answer. She dodged that question whenever it was brought up. The only conclusion is that she definitely did abandon her previously stated values for perceived electoral gain, and voters picked up on that. I picked up that. It's part of why I've never liked her. I've always felt that she was phony and insincere almost every time she gave a speech, and it turns out that she definitely was. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's termed 'aligning with the playbook'. You see it here in the UK, where politicians suddenly abandon their own opinions to 'follow the party line' in all things. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot less tolerance for that kind of thing in the US, especially since parties here are much less capable of controlling their elected members. Kerry's another guy who got effectively attacked for being a 'flip-flopper'. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's not a huge amount of tolerance for this either - it normally ends up with said MP etc being derided as nothing more than a souless careerist who'll end up floating along whatever the main current is [qv: Grant Shapps], normally done under the banner of being 'a party loyalist'. Part of Corbyn's appeal was his 'authenticity'; that he had positions and didn't abandon them even if they were electorally unpopular [similar can be said about Farage, though he is a very constructed persona]. Folks often have more respect for politicians who are clearly not 'on the make', for example members of minor parties like the Lib-Dems or Greens [as your chance of actual power is very slim and even getting/keeping elected is a dicey affair].

I argue that this bit is important because a lot of voters are vaguely-conscious of 'off manifesto issues' aka situations and topics which it's either impractical or impossible to articulate a position on. If I feel I have a 'general grip' on your guiding principles etc and also believe you're fairly solid on keeping to them I can vote on that. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘i really had to drag myself to vote this year. if you all recall, i've repeatedly stated that the border crisis and their latin america policy would potentially cost them the election (i even wrote to my senators warning this). ultimately, i think it was a failure on multiple fronts (latin america and the southern border, the war on gaza, inflation, pandering to the right and ignoring the left/progressives, biden refusing to retire sooner and hold an open primary, etc.). a friend of mine told me last night that this was a vote of no confidence on biden's presidency, and i honestly could not have said it better. as with hillary's loss in 2016, the democrats have themselves to blame for this one. The G (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel vindicated by the fact that Bernie Sanders is basically saying the same thing I was

Albeit he put it more a bit more eloquently (see here):

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right. Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

His brother said very similar on the [British] radio earlier this week. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Silver linings

So I've got one silver lining ready: Trump's inner circle is extremely fractious. I highly doubt Musk and RFK, Jr will be able to hold Trump's ear for a full four years. Trump is extremely petty and vindictive, and goes through advisors like he goes through McDonald's happy meals. Trump's also extremely ableist. He may just end up finding RFK, Jr and Elon too annoying to deal with for four years. Carthage (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

By some accounts, chaos is a feature not a bug of fascism (Fascism#McNeill). Bongolian (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Once he's actually got his team together we should start a pool on who will be the first to either jump or pushed out a window.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a decent chance that Trump won't finish the term - that he might go so wormbrained he's either 'persuaded' to resign or merely 25th'd and shunted into a quiet corner and kept entertained while Vance takes over [and who's his VP... Trump Jr, of course!]. Normal physical incapacity [he'll be 82 by the end] is also an ever-climbing risk. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The 25th is not as easy as it sounds. Vance would need a majority of the Trump-appointed Cabinet to support his defenestration. If Trump got word of what was going on before a vote, he could fire the whole cabinet or anyone who might be disloyal. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

António de Oliveira Salazar might be a model. Anna Livia (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Finally. When he was last in power and the typical refrain on here was to call him a "Hitler", I used to try to point out that he and his "Make America Great Again" was more akin to Estado Novo. Let's hope there isn't a new take of Aginter Press Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not me! I've often compared him to Herman Göring. I often put the 'Hitler' points down to the fact a lot of folks don't know any other 'evil' dictatorial persons. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always seen Trump as a caudillo.-Flandres (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps more akin to say, the final years of President Hindenburg. If not actually senile, clearly knackered in body and mind and is a combination of being so 'hands off' they might as well not actually exist or so clearly 'guided' by Trump Jr into doing their bidding [this is something like a Trump tradition; Orange One did this to his senile father in the 90s]. But 'getting the Cabinet to agree...' well, if they can see that Orange One's 'star' is almost splutted out, most will be selfish/self-serving enough to transfer their loyalty to the obvious successor.

The 'avoiding getting sacked before signing the document' is like the final test. If he's 'so far gone' that he's capable of being tricked, it means he's no longer sharp enough to deserve to retain power... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if this comes under "silver lining" or not - but here goes.

One of the reasons that Trump's first term was so tragicomically incompetent and erratic was that he had never really expected to be President. In consequence he had no real idea how the thing worked, no concrete thought-through plan, no real preselected group who would help him run the presidency.

Presumably he has learnt from that (because even he must have some sort of limited capacity to learn). So one would expect his second term to be "better" than than the first. Of course "better" for whom and in what way remains unknown. (Though now I think about it, assuming that he personally has some "thought-through" plan this time around may be a bit optimistic.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Damage Control

As for the US itself, what can be done here to mitigate the damage for at least the next two years and prevent fascism from taking hold? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

By calming down. CorruptUser 04:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Start taking things seriously. If you have already, continue. Make statements you can back up, challenge core points about their lies and ideology and do it loudly and often. Do not be silenced by attempts to create chilling effects, do not be discouraged by the use of oppression in court rooms, do not focus emotionally on the situation. Compartmentalize and treat the situation as it is, and accept that it is bad. Try thinking of things in terms of an emergency responder, someone may have a terrible wound, but you have to put this aside and address the wound. The fundamental job of the democratic party is that they didn't win votes, why did they not win those votes? Do an objective analysis, when possible, look for testable hypotheses about voting behavior and apply that knowledge. I recently pointed out in an edit that the primary motivations underlying republican voters by statistical analysis were economic, immigration based, and about foreign policy. Voters believe Biden's criticism, however their solution proposed (trump) did not register as being a worse alternative. We have to ask ourselves the question, why? And to genuinely approach it. Because we need them to change their minds. This is going to result in long 'debates' and showmanship that appeals to emotions and uses fallacious logic, so be sure to get credible sources, check that the source doesn't have controversial histories so that an attempt to poison the well doesn't happen, hold people to their fallacious reasoning when it is detected, but do not aggressively attack them as that will make their heels dig in. Agree that problems exist, however redirect attention away from tu quoque style engagements to direct their attention to the central topic at the time. Its going to be hard work. Same as usual. If you feel you are in danger, take a moment to think about it, for example buying a gun in reaction is an irrational decision which also undermines the democratic point that gun ownership can't protect you. Take care of your mental health, you will need it to argue. Pick your battles wisely, never engage in something when you aren't fit to. Doubt can be pernicious in itself, so try to reduce it. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If the ACLU gets shut down by the upcoming administration, what else can be done? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

My instincts are still spot on

I was picking up drinks from the local convenience store. I was back at my car, and a lady threw her door open and waved me over. I didn't go over, I said loud enough 'can I help you?' She said 'can you come here?' And I said 'I can hear you well enough from over here.' She stumbled out of her car and came up to me, Phone out in classic speaker-phone horizontal, like somehow perfectly level despite this lady being up and down and all over the place. 'Can you tell me where I am?' She asked me. Ooooooohhhh, this lady is blackout, so I responded responded kinda confusedly with the closest intersection, and I heard through the phone 'where?'. So I gave some easy landmarks and did a visual check of miss lady. 'Are you okay?' Came over the phone 'I'm okay but I crashed my car' she said. She was Ok, so I said 'yeah, she's OK.' She asked when he could pick her up, he gave her some time, and she came back to me and said she crashed her car. I said, 'well, let's take a look at it,' and she did that thing where she grabbed my arm arm laid her head on my chest and gave a pouty sigh. She had cracked her grill on a safety pylon, just cosmetic. I said 'It's not too bad but I wouldn't drive it out of here.' She asked how bad it was, there was a big dent in her driver side door, so I said 'a little worse than that dent' and she said 'that's only there because my ex husband is a psychopath' so I without thinking said 'was that who we were on the phone with?' And she said 'pfft, no' so I said 'cool, you're in good shape, just hang out.' and turned to leave She stopped me and asked if I could 'help' her buy cigarettes, that's literally the word she used. Mind you I'm not young and this lady was by my eye older than me and we are in a convenience store parking lot, so I said 'pfft, no.' And she did the puppy dog eyes and said 'I have money' and I remembered I had a stale pack of American Spirits Yellows in my center console, so I said 'I got a cig for ya' gave her two, said 'by the time you're done with the second you'll either get picked up or be ready to buy cigs on your own' and she just immediately went back to her car and lit up. I said 'no more driving tonight,right? You're just gonna hang out?' And she said 'Right!' And took her keys out of the ignition because cool news her car had been running the whole time. And I said 'Perfect! Thank you!' And she shouted back 'Thank you!' And then I got in my car and drove home. I been thinking about it, and I could have done two things better. I think she was blackout, I could have written her a note to not drive, because she had a guy coming to pick her up. And I could have told somebody in the convenience store what was going on, 'helped her buy cigarettes.' But lady, I was tryna get home too. Torrent (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If she was still visibly intoxicated, it might have been a good idea to have discretely gotten her license plate #, then called the cops after leaving. Bongolian (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, like, drunk drivers are a massive problem and even under socialism, we'd need to have cops deal with them. They kill a lot of people. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason I disagree with that is Cost of crimes that don't put people away versus future crimes. of course I believe its bad to drink and drive, but I do not think it is my job to police skunked people who I never saw drive. That's not my job. I have seen a kid laid out on the street dead by a drunk driver, I'm not saying it isn't a huge danger. But keeping them off the street is a thing, people drive without a license every day, I'm not gonna call in every dipshit. I do not think calling the cops on this lady would lead to any benefit. She was spooked, she had real minor damage to her vehicle and nothing else, lucky, I have been through a DUI and it taught me very little except that a DUI is crazy expensive, they don't care about rehab or rework, they just want to put you in the blow and go interlock payment program. If you fail an interlock test, it closes your ignition until you pass it. If you fail it, you have 5 days to reset, which costs 150 bucks. If you fail it, the only repurcussion is the reset fee, paid to the interlock service. It's not a serious system. Torrent (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The interlock service doesn't care, the parole office doesn't care, the courts don't care. It's either find the money or get wrecked, and I'd rather keep somebody who seems surprised at their first bad drunk driving off the street because that's what THEY were communicating than narc them into an entirely unproductive system. Recidivism for busted DUIs is like, 30 percent. Shit being fucked up for a DUI with no harm to others is dumb. 'You're safe, you're uninjured, somebody you trust is coming to help you, no more driving tonight' is the extent of my responsibility. If I met her on the road and she was swerving all over the place, that's one thing. But I met her after she made what I believe was the correct decision before she caused harm, which was to park somewhere, ask for help, and stop doing what she was doing. She could actually be in jail if her friend didn't get there, cops roll in and out of that store. It's literally legally bribes but they get free fountain sodas and coffees. Who cares? Torrent (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Intrepid's right; the above example is exactly why even under 'full communism' we'd need somebody to do 'the policing' [and by extension, 'abolish the police' is stupid]; that we as a society have decided that drunk/drugged-driving is bad, to operate certain vehicles requires licencing and that said operation is within defined parameters. As breaking these rules aren't inherently caused by having a capitalist framework it's safe to deduce they'll continue into a socialist society. Therefore, some form of police shall always be required - that the discussion should be instead of who does the policing, how are they trained and who do they answer to. Same goes for the justice system; the moment a society decides 'X is wrong' and decides to appoint person(s) to stop it happening, there needs to be some form of 'judge' to dole out punishments etc.

As for the point in question... if that was me I wouldn't have called the fuzz on them; like Torrent points out a) that's not my job and b) a situation like that could very well fuck up that person's whole life. I would have pressed them to call someone to pick them up [but if this was me this would have been in the UK which meant they could have got done for drink/drug driving even if they were asleep in the rear of the car and I bet there's some jobsworth coppers about who outright look for such people]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I know someone who got home an hour before the cops knocked on her door for an illegal lane shift, she's through it so fine, she did the shift while drunk, but did not evade or refuse to pull over because the cops didn't attempt to pull her over, cops just sat outside her house for an hour. Because she was drunk when she answered to the cops knockin and admitted she was driving her car, she got tagged with the DUI charge. And nobody gets out of a DUI charge. Torrent (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The other thing is, if cops showed up, I wouldn't lie to the cops to protect this lady. I'd have to say exactly what I've said here about it to the cops. So, yeah, best of luck drunk lady, I did what I could. Torrent (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

'Emigration Plans

The election seems like it has ended with Trump winning. And I can only imagine the worst case scenario that will unfold over the next four years (or possibly for decades later) [5]. America's no longer a safe and free country anymore, and I can only imagine it turning into an authoritarian regime with Trump as president for life. Anywhere else to escape to safety, and anywhere that will provide asylum for Americans fleeing the impending persecution? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not just for me. This is to get help for all US-based editors who could potentially end up in concentration camps if nothing is done. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh calm down. He didn't set up the FEMA concentration camps when he literally had that chance, he's not going to do so in the next 4 years. CorruptUser 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The snap reaction is always leave the country. I made a joke during the McCain v Obama, that if McCain got elected, I'd get my passport and if Obama got elected I'd buy a gun. (the joke is Obama was supposed to take all our guns, not that I was gonna use it) I didn't buy a gun, but I did stand up to the Obama administration when they tried to pull some unregulated bullshit. We will once again have to hold our government to account. What is this stupid idea that the federal fascist hold is going to work? Federal law has been systemically broken down, with intent to just plain remove it. The plan doesn't survive the death of Trump, even if it lives 4 years, which it will have to because what the fuck is a JDVance?Torrent (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The guardrails from 2016 are far weaker and likely gone. Look at what SCOTUS said in July. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's going to be more difficult and things are going to be harder. Torrent (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have talked with my family. They say that either British Columbia or Costa Rica are on the table. Patty Pat 07:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Costa Rica? Very cool that you can up and leave to a Banana Republic. White flight draws suburban sprawl, but this is nuts. Why not just fucking deal with it? Everyone else has to. Torrent (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Torrent Dude, why are you so aggressive over someone not wanting to be there to experience the shitshow Trump will cause? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patty Pat British Columbia has a cost of living crisis currently. Also, American-Republican Pierre Poilievre is incredibly likely to win Canada's federal election next year. Impiricism (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I question the OP's assumption that America was a 'safe and free country' two days ago - it wasn't. Personally, I think the most realistic threat right now is that all sorts of big corps/orgs start to self-neuter in an attempt to 'learn to live with this new reality' - for example, the big bosses at A.Corp deciding now that being a transphobic shit is 'free speech' at work now, their health insurer falls into line by scrapping any family planning provision and hire/fire policies have silently but pointedly pushed back into hiring cis white men over everyone else again. Expect a lot more Bezos-NYT / Columbia anti-Palestinian situations happening - censorship and climbdowns in fear of the costs of sticking to guns. This won't surprise me for one moment but I fear/suspect a lot of liberals are going to get the life lesson that a lot of what they considered 'support' for social progressivism turned out to be shallow and only mandated by the board [who have now decided they can 'cut the librul crap now'.]. More saddening will be the amount of previously supportive individuals who'll quietly quit fighting because they feel the personal cost has become too high to continue with.

Anyway, while I do agree on Corrupt's 'calm down' point, I think you can throw the rest of that line into the bin labelled 'It can't happen here!'. I get the feeling that if Trump is the ocean attacking the American beach, the 'Red states' will be the clay bays while the Blue states the chalk headlands - ie they will resist the wear a lot more. Therefore, the first port of call would be said places. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea of leaving is cowardly. The United States is my home, and I will not concede it to Trump and his pack of idiots. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone is an American Patriot, Duce. Or is willingly to go under another 4 years of a Mad shitbag. It's TheEternalOutsider's choice and I would do the same if I was American. I'd argue that someone is an idiot if they still believe that America can change into a Centre-left nation (something it never was). The Dems didn't learn from 2016, why would they learn now? They'd probably be thinking the same shit as back then: "we didn't campaign hard enough", "we should've kept Joe in charge", "we should picked a Centrist/Liberal/Moderate instead", ect...

Although, I do wonder where they got the whole "concentration camp" shit from...Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not even about patriotism. It's about the people from marginalized communities who don't have the resources to escape. If we concede full and lasting control of this country to Trump, those are the people who will suffer the most. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those were already suffering before the elections, if they lived in die hard red states like Florida and Arkansas. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm less judgemental, partly because while I know history [and that some folks do need to 'stay and fight'] there's also the fact there's folks who did just that and ended up in a shallow grave in woodland for their pains. What's more, some folks are less able to 'fight', for various reasons [such as dependents, health conditions, career etc]. But once again, I'll say this - unless you truly are a 'designated Other' chances are if you simply became politically inert and turned inwards into 'OwnLife' chances are you'd survive most shit [qv: Putin's Russia before Ukraine]. If it actually got to the position where 'other countries were accepting asylum cases' well America has become seriously fucking fucked. I can't criticise at least 'wargaming' on how to leave the country if needs be and perhaps even putting in some prep-work to make it easier to do so if needs be. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Different people will have different risks and escape abilities, so I'm not automatically judgmental about this. At a minimum citizens/permanent residents should make sure to have an up-to-date passport. It's doubtful that any country will want to have a large influx of fleeing Americans. Bongolian (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is part of the above 'prep-work' - deciding that now is the time you need to outright leave the country is not the time to apply for your passport. Having accredited in-demand skills and a bit of your own cash also helps - it means that often you'd be able to get into places on a tourist visa and then 'decide' you like it so much you'll get a job here. But again, this is less 'fleeing the country' and more basic 'deciding to emigrate'. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I may end up being labeled a designated Other by the administration and by RFK Jr. given my autism. That's a crucial thing I have to bring up as it could lead to me being persecuted and detained. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arcadium Trancefer

Elon Musk, Obviously CorruptUser 22:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

In the worst case, such as millions being designated as Other and draconian exit visas and passport cutting being imposed to imprison minorities and the poor, anywhere else that may accept asylum seekers ahead of time? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're planning on fleeing to some no name country somewhere, there's nowhere to run. The problem, like everything else these days, is global. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So what now?

Trump is going to win the 2024 presidential election. He's gonna have a docile Senate and he's might even have a GOP House as well. So what do we do now? Ψ (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's never been an easy fight https://youtu.be/6fzLSGWVC3k?si=iR9mlDk7evoXMBNk but we aren't the first to fight it.

Maintain the fight, but courts are the real horrorshow from now on. Torrent (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing. The Democratic Party is in ashes right now. The Obama and Biden coalitions are destroyed. Harris did worse with women and minorities than any Democrat since Kerry in 2004. The only real option now is to do what the Republicans did after 2012 and the Democrats did after 1988: reinvent the party. I'm sure a lot of Democrats are going to come to the same conclusion. Our real hope right now is that progressives end up with the right people in the right places at the right time to shape the direction and identity of the new Democratic Party. Being the party of neoliberalism didn't work. Being the party of women didn't work. Being the party of LGBT didn't work. Being the party of the center-right didn't work. The Democrats needed to figure out a new identity for themselves, and they preferably need to do it before 2026. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d move the break in the continuum even further back: This could be the (long overdue) end of the “Clinton Era” in the Democratic Party. This is the second time the combination of old Clinton hands and the “Clinton babies” have royally fucked up a presidential campaign (the first time was Hillary’s).

These are the kind of Democratic operatives who thought Bill’s two terms was the “normality” that everything had to return to (and they seem to think that Obama’s two terms was the vindication of this approach).

Just as in 2016 there was plenty of warnings long before the actual election, but these Democratic Leadership Council type apparatchiks have steadfastly refused to acknowledge any fundamental problems with either their overall ideology, their general approach to politics, or their campaign strategy and tactics.

Sadly, I don’t think this will break this clique’s dominance over the Democratic Party, because I’m almost certain that they will view this defeat as just as much of an accidental fluke as they pretended that Hillary Clinton’s defeat was. And I’m fairly certain that the “liberal” press and commentariat will encourage this lack of introspection, just as we saw after 2016. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more a death blow to the concept of Third Way being a viable method of electoral success in general. The earlier success with Starmer in the UK might have given American DNC critters hope that said policies 'still worked', which only works as a theory if you take off your specs and don't ask any Brit for actual confirmation. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have some hope that this defeat won't be considered as much of a fluke as the last one. Harris outright lost the popular vote, and she's on track to get less than 52% of the vote in goddamned New Jersey of all places. She's up by eight in freaking Illinois. I really hope this sends a message, because dismal results like this cannot be explained as a one-off or just "the economy." Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that the narrative will be that the defeat was merely due Harris being hamstrung by Biden’s late withdrawal (without recognising their own role in not putting the squeeze on Biden at a far earlier date), and that if they had thus just switched horses a bit earlier, then she or some other Third Way candidate (e.g. Buttigieg) could’ve/should’ve won.

This kind of notorious and pathological lack of critical introspection among the Clinton nomenklatura never ceases to surprise or depress me. It is as if they are a combination of aristocracy and technocracy which both consider themselves the natural governing class while at the same time view governance as basically custodian tinkering and getting fresh flowers from time to time. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at CNN's live updates, and Harris' advisors are already doing their best to spread the "it was all Biden's fault and we did the best we could" narrative. Fuckers. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I saw them too... However, I do believe the latter bit, if we tag on '...without actually changing anything like policies or mentality'. Look, if you do everything the playbook says and your candidate doesn't fuck up and you still lose, chances are it's the damn book which is the issue. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I really think it's because she shifted her message to the right. By doing so, Harris proved to voters that she doesn't stand for her own values and will say anything if it's politically advantageous. She told the Democratic base to go fuck itself and instead pandered to right-wing voters who were always going to vote for the right-wing party. It was so fucking stupid. And I agree with you, by the way. It was the Democratic playbook that was the issue. Once again, the party ignored what its voters actually wanted to hear and decided to run on neoliberalism again. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I just want it to be known as an update to an earlier comment of mine here that she's down to 51% in New Jersey. Even Hillary finished with 55%. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, the BBC has decided to lean fairly heavily into the “Democrats just weren’t right wing enough on immigration and are all DEI weirdos” interpretation in this “analysis” by citing… a Republican strategist(?!?) WTF, Auntie Beeb? Only at the very end of this quite long piece does the Beeb’s US correspondent manage to get around to considering that, just maybe, the quite lacklustre Democratic performance on “bread and butter” economic issues, compared to the grand promises and even greater expectations of both Obama and Biden, might be a pretty likely explanation. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been planning to ask this for a few days. How are we going to protect the wiki from being shut down by Trump’s dictatorship? It’s obvious he’ll try and go after people who say the truth against him like the Nazis did. We need to figure out a way to protect this site and all the valuable stuff we provide from project 2025Yacob01 (talk) 14:39 12 November 2024 (AEST)

From my perspective, the best method is just as described with the lawsuit from He Who Cannot Be Named: relocate RW corp into a state that is more friendly to small media freedom, with anti-SLAAP suits and whatnot. A silver lining is the nature of this sort of beast: whenever prominent Republicans have tried to stiff media (see Ron DeSantis's attempts), it usually becomes enough of a story that more pro-bono type help is possibly available.

One of the greatest challenges the Democrats will face is that the enshitification of the Internet and social media has, in general, led to quite a right-wing drift in the last several years (at least in the Anglosphere). Twitter is the most obvious example, but it's certainly very noticeable in other places (YouTube algorithms have particularly seemed to drift toward right-wing grift garbage). Of course, there's still a few more big social media sites whose algorithm hasn't drifted this way (Reddit is an example of a more leftie biased algorithm at this time). Regardless of bias (Reddit's full of shit too), misinformation reigns supreme on social media, and one of the key dividing lines in this election is: "Do you believe the bullshit on the Internet?" Those that believe the bullshit have tended to vote for Trump. Incidentally, a significant portion of Silicon Valley VCs have also drifted towards that neoreactionary movement libertarian-cum-fascist movement... not a coincidence in my view.

By the numbers, the United States economy did quite fine during the Biden administration. There certainly were pain points, though...the significant post-COVID inflation being one of them. In addition, several things in the United States have been, and will continue to be less affordable, whether due to under-supply (housing) or monopoly (health care). There is also no doubt that some of the pain points are just the result of a widening inequality in America that begin under the guise of Ronald Reagan. So voting Trump under the guise of "the economy" fails to note that Trump is essentially a continuation of Reagan plutocrat voodoo economics, now with more of an authoritarian shine.

On the subject of inflation... if you did just the *slightest* research into Trump's planned economic policies (Trump wants biggie tariffs)... and if you knew just the *slightest* amount about economics (tariffs can exasperate inflation!)... and if you even remember just the *slightest* amount about Trump's first term, or even looked the fuckin' 2018 Trump tariffs up on Wikipedia... why would you vote Trump in if your chief concern is inflation?

Even on immigration, there is some fun for the "lesser informed racist vote", in that the H-2B visa is becoming the replacement tool for labor markets who rely on cheap illegal immigration. Sources that lean into "the racism" aren't going to let their racist clientele know this. The Propublica story on the Republican politician/farmer that railed about illegal immigration as a candidate while quietly using H2-Bs for his farm was just rich. The rubes will continue to get angry, the business will still have their cheap foreign labor.

At any rate, for the above reasons... I think that in order for the Democrats to "push left" successfully, they need a great communicator that can cut through the social media bullshit, especially the culture war trivialities. If Bernie Sanders' economic thrust was combined with Barack Obama's charisma, that might do it. Maybe. (A lot of people will gladly empty their pockets if they think of themselves as more uppity than an Other, as Lyndon Johnson astutely observed. It's why the Republicans lean hard into culture war bullshit, it unfortunately works. But you never know. Even Joe Rogan is a bit of a Bernie bro.) BobJohnson (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I would advise people to stock up on non-perishables before the tariffs hit. Carthage (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Deep Breaths

Abortion?

Everyone, please remain calm. You all survived 2016-2020, you can survive 2024-2028.

Trump isn't exactly a good president, but this is not the end of the world. Life will go on, tech will advance, etc.

No, the US is not going to turn into a dictatorship, at least no more likely to do so than if the other candidate won. Trump was already in office before, and didn't become dictator then.

Yes, it's entirely possible Trump will have Alito and Thomas replaced with 30y nutjobs, ensuring that it's his SCOTUS for the next couple decades. That sucks, but it's relatively simple to use the pill and condoms, as well as have a plan to travel to another state if need be.

Yeah, he's not exactly a pro-environment type of guy, but the good thing is that it doesn't really matter at this point; the MAGA guys are apparently Musk fan-boys. Creating the electricity is a bit more complicated, but even coal is better than gasoline...

Sometimes you have to stop worrying about the "big stuff" that you can't control, and worry more about your day to day lives. CorruptUser 05:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The dumb shit will happen again. There will be unaccounted police killings and protests again. If that's what you consider civil war, it's gonna happen. If there is a push for solar and wind over coal, a I'm not against it, but coal versus gasoline is what, EV argument? Full EV, how far do you get without the ability to charge? And what if you rent an apartment, can you charge at home? I would love full EV with structure, but there's not even a way to charge at home if you don't own a home. And I doubt Musk would be the first to altruistically install proprietary terms chargers in places that would need them in order to own Tesla Deals vehicles. Torrent (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

but you are also fucking stupid if you think these nonsense abortion bans are nothing. I also use condoms,but rape is real. And drugging drunk girls is real. And drunk girls who blacked out is real. And not new, not knowing you were raped is real, and not knowing how to prove you were raped is real. But irresponsible 'I dunno why I'm pregnant' pregnancies are the fucking thing, that's qwhere we want to hardline no stop, must carry? Dipshittery. Torrent (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC) 07:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

you're being a dipshit by saying abortion rights are states' purview and travel is fine if you get knocked up. You are actually a dipshit on the topic of reproductive rights. Torrent (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Republicans are also actively seeking to restrict access to contraception and criminalize out-of-state abortions. Carthage (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

'But it's the States Rights' is a bad-faith argument from fundie supporters, but unfortunately it's a correct one - that [if I remember right] anything not directly tackled by Washington devolves down to them, and as Congress has declined to vote on any act regarding abortion access... The complaint that Roe/Wade was an example of 'judicial activism' is also, I suspect true. 'You can just travel' is also very classist because it means the poor people will have to bear it to term while the rich ones can simply 'have a short vacation'. This shit used to happen between the UK and Ireland for decades. Plus, a lot of the anti-abortion crowd are also anti sex-ed in general which makes the situation worse... KarmaPolice (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. Cory is off the mark. We cannot have a country where some states allow abortions and the rest allow women to bleed to death in hospital beds. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That is somewhat different - that's not due to abortion bans per se, that's due to said bans being written so fucking stupidly that it is forcing medical staff into utterly stupid decisions. Which is why even if they can't get abortion sorted out on a Federal level through legislation, they should at least write a law which allows medical interventions on shit like non-viable pregnancies and situations where continued pregnancy will kill the mother. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Abortion is permissible for risk to woman's life in every state. If women are bleeding to death in hospital beds, that sounds more like medical malpractice than a problem with the law, and that law has numerous problems (I firmly believe, for example, not including a rape exemption is a huge mistake). CorruptUser 04:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Except... a) due to there being almost nil case law to assure lawyers of precedent, b) a [somewhat justified] belief that some of the judges they might face might be bigoted idiots and c) the risk-adverse nature due to everyone constantly being lawyered up and very litigious I can see a lot of doctors/hospitals deciding to err on the side of caution to the stupid extent ie indirectly letting people die. If you're bleeding out on my hospital bed, I as your attending MD is in a shit position either way; act and perhaps lose my licence/insurance [or worse] or not act and have similar. You know what I'm gonna do on this case? Document to the hilt, CYA and kick it upwards. So if you die [and this is a much bigger 'if' if you're in a shittier hospital or with poorer coverage] I can say a) 'I did everything I could' but also 'I didn't do anything illegal here'. Plus some of the bans are written so fucking stupidly I can't even treat 100% non-viable pregnancies because 'that counts as abortion'. I've heard reports that some 'ban' states are starting to have problems with recruiting/retaining gynaecologists because of this huge 'fear to act'. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

5 in 6 Gyno's don't provide abortions to begin with. If states are struggling to find gyno's, it's because they are struggling to find doctors in general.

As for non-viable pregnancies, yeah, that law is fucking dumb.CorruptUser 07:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about then? Anti Planned Parenthood, which also provides, for one, condoms, which you are in favor for, and STI testing and treatment which is a net good, and even little coloring books for kids that teach them not to let anyone touch them where their bathing suit covers, but they are so bad because they can find the doctor that does the abortion, that you are not even apparently against, that it must be dismantled? Dipshittery. Torrent (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4721173-draconian-abortion-laws-are-driving-ob-gyns-from-red-states/

https://www.wired.com/story/states-with-abortion-bans-are-losing-a-generation-of-ob-gyns/

https://www.aamc.org/news/fallout-dobbs-field-ob-gyn

Okay, it's not the only reason for a 'gyno drain' but it didn't make things fucking easier! And as Torrent hints at, the vast majority of states with abortion bans are also having assaults on doctor-patient confidentiality in regards to minors, in sex ed and access to contraception. The main 'next target' is the morning-after pill and choking off access to out-of-state abortions [so your 'just travel to another state' glib advice is in fact in some places suggestion to commit an illegal act]. Again, this is something Congress really needs to do - to sit down, write a law which protects the rape/incest/medical threat/nonviability clauses, clearly defines morning after pills as 'not abortion' and lays out in black/white physician protections. Get it up there, challenge the Republicans to shoot it down - if they do, it's proof they're lying cunts. If they don't, it's a small win for American women. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Point 5 is my hope. If Musk manages to convert Republicans to the climate cause, then I think we can forgive all his drama so far. I don't really care if he does it for selling more Teslas or out of the crusader mentality he has developed recently - what matters is he should do it. Then there will hopefully be a long-awaited bipartisan consensus on the one issue that really matters (apart from nuclear war). Meow^Purr 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Coal?

In what way is coal better than gasoline, provide more context. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty weird as well. I had a look at few sites and they all said that coal was the worst fuel under almost all circumstances, but I couldn't be bothered picking up on it - and maybe there is some strange very particular set of circumstances where that is not the case. As usual, with we are back with "citation needed".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A single gallon of gas produces 19.64 lbs of CO2, PLUS the CO2 used to drill and refine the oil. Coal typically produces 8 KWH per kg of coal, and 2.6 kg's of CO2, or roughly 5 lbs of CO2 to travel 35 miles. So basically, electric cars powered by coal produce 1/4 the CO2 of a gas car. CorruptUser 15:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the heating value of bituminous coal, btw (lignite is half that, anthracite about 8% more). Coal produces 8kWH of HEAT ENERGY from being completely burned. The most efficient coal plants average generally something like 42% (that is, 42% of that heat energy becoming electrical energy), going up to 48% for some super-new designs. So that's actually 3.36 kWh per kg of coal in an electric plant. I presume you're saying 8kWh gets you 35 miles, so that's 14.7 miles for 5lb of CO2, PLUS the CO2 used to mine, refine and transport the coal, which you seemed to forget. Anyway that gets you about 12lb CO2 for 35 miles in the better power plants of the world, minus the transmission losses (proportional to the distance to the nearest power plant if you're using good ol' wires). Let's say 0.34lb/mile, then. To be less efficient than this electric car powered by the best coal power plant right next to the charging station, your car has to be doing 58mpg against your 4.375 mpkWh car, which are both pretty optimistic, frankly. Most electric cars seem to get more like 4mpkWh at best, getting down to 53mpg for equivalence. But wait, that's 4mpkWh charged! Charging losses (generally 5-10%) will jump that down to 3.8mpkWh, so we only need 47.7mpg, which is well within the ability of my mother's old Toyota IQ. It does kind of suggest that EVs ultimately powered by coal might be marginally better on CO2 than actually decently efficient cars, but it's far worse on other pollutants (and radioactive fallout, hilariously - per kWh it's worse than the whole production line of nuclear power). That said, you can half all those for lignite powered coal stations XD Namako (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh you're talking about an EV compared to a gasoline car, in that case why not just use a gasoline power plant since it has less emissions for the same energy generated that way? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. To make a like-for-like comparison wouldn't you need to compare a gasoline burning power-plant to a coal-fired one. But as nobody would ever consider building a gasoline-powered plant it's probably not a very realistic comparison. It's like comparing a car with an onboard coal-fired engine to gasoline-powered one.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that's the point being made [kinda] - that 'green' electric cars aren't if the juice comes from coal plants [though it might be a better choice if you take into account urban smog]. In a similar vein, it's possible that the carbon price of using coke to fire steel mills may turn out to be less per ton [of output] rather than using electric arc furnaces ultimately powered by coal and gas [with the resulting loss via conversion and transmission]. You then have the one-step-removed issue that the 'total carbon price' of an electric car could be higher than an ICV if the former was made by coal power in China and the latter using green/nuke power in Europe. Coal can also be considered a 'less worse' fuel if supplying folks with bags of coke stops them stripping local forests for fuel. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think my point was that even if electric cars were using the most inefficient of electricity sources, which is what basically happens when you add demand to the grid, they'd still be a massive improvement over internal combustion engines. CorruptUser 04:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So roll out charging stations. I do not understand the major fuel industry's reluctance to own renewable energy. Nobody complains about their price hikes in earnest. A ship full of crude goes down, welp, gas prices go up 50 cents until the cleanup is done and then they go down 25 cents. Gas is not sold anywhere near cost, it shouldn't cost less in the middle of the country where it literally costs the most to get it to. But I benefit from that, so that's cool. Home solar panels and wind turbines aren't going to kill the power grid's need for energy. You would think the greedy fucks would start leasing renewable energy infrastructure like cable companies do with boxes. it's fucking beyond me why chevron won't pivot, with all the money they have, to find a way to own sunlight and wind. Torrent (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Four words: sunk cost and path dependence. The oil companies have all this infrastructure to pump, ship and refine oil and that's gotta be paid off somehow, the whole transport fuel distribution network already exists, selling a generic product which by over a century of habit is ingrained in our minds of 'how we fuel up our motors'. It becomes a chicken/egg situation - that fuel 'needs to be supplied like this' is because that's what folks are used to, and folks are 'used to this' because the tech pushes us into accepting the supply method.

The two main issues with EVs now are this. One, they are not yet fully standardised. Not all charging stations are compatible with your vehicle, the charging current is not the same, the pricing varies wildly and perhaps most importantly, 'pay as you go' versions don't really exist and there is not one app which allows access to all charging points. Just imagine for a moment how driving your petrol car would be if 'half the fuel nozzles didn't fit your tank', 'some stations supply only incompatible fuel', 'supply price variations are crazy' and 'you had to have a dedicated app to fuel up with each different company filling station'. A clear example of where 'government is the solution, not the problem' - step in, set national standards and then make everyone follow them.

The second bit is the costs of building a national charging network. Yes, home chargers are much more common and private enterprise has constructed quite a lot of public chargers [here in the UK our 'big oil' people like BP are refitting their fuel stations to also have rapid charge points] but like anything left to private enterprise, there will be 'gaps in provision' where due to belief or actuality, rollout is considered uneconomic [lack of demand, costs of upgrading local electrical supply to construct points, cost of land to put points, public bodies can't afford to put in points etc] and thus, won't happen. Another job of the state.

Lastly, and the most obvious; the likes of Cheveron aren't really in the business of electricity generation and I don't believe they intend to go into this. Therefore, the conversion to EVs is turning them from a 'well to tank' supplier of fuel to merely a retailer via Cheveron station charge-points [though gas power generation is also a thing, but in many respects that's a byproduct of oil production]. Guess what's hugely less profitable [in fact the only two 'Big Oil' I know is 'getting into electricity' is Shell and BP, and the latter is seriously rolling back on it]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Future?

A lot of people didn't survive four years of Trump, and the few institutional guard rails that were in place to restrain Trump's worst impulses during his first term won't exist in a second Trump presidency. It's denialism to pretend that a second Trump term will just be a repeat of his first four years. Now, I do agree that people shouldn't panic and that there are silver linings here, but I also don't think we should be spreading false hope. Part of "dealing with the situation" is recognizing just how dangerous a second Trump presidency actually is. The first Trump presidency saw a marked up-tick in white supremacist violence and general societal instability, and also resulted in a general degradation of American institutions that we are still dealing with today. A second Trump presidency, if nothing else, will only compound these issues. Carthage (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The US was messed up before 2016 even (as the meme goes - visit hospital, go bankrupt. Go to school, get shot. Be black, get shot. Etc), but it seemed as if there were tiny slivers of improvement… just had a black president after all. But now? Holy shit. There’s Project 2025 of course, which is just one example of the hateful insanity ahead.

I personally dislike it too when people react emotionally - like on the floor wailing; I don’t know how to deal with it. But if one is doing so now thinking about what’s ahead for the country they have their livelihood in, I empathize. People in my own community, not even in the US, are expressing disbelief and exceptional concern over Trump getting re-elected to one of the most powerful offices in the world. The US is fucked. Impiricism (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But, also, remember the chessboard. Anna Livia (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

'Stating the obvious', nothing more. Anna Livia (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think there should be an element of realism to this discussion. No, this isn't the end of America or the end of our democratic system by any means, but no, everything will not be fine. Instead, it's time to recognize that this is the beginning of four years of fighting. The future of the Democratic Party is more uncertain than it's been in decades, and I think there's a real chance to push it back to the left. Trump's presidency is also a danger to uncountable numbers of our fellow Americans, and massive pushback against him will be necessary. Both of these facts should be calls to action, not reasons for despair. The fight isn't over. It's just started. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

One, the fight should have started eight years ago, two how many of you actually fucking did anything to fight in this round? You want politics to go your way? Cool. I invite you to take the fundies playbook and use that - because it works. You write a 'core values' sheet, you circulate it amongst your planned 'core'. You all agree it's sound and you fan out to recruit others 'like us'. You build a proper organisation, with some resources behind it. You meet frequently, for both 'social shit' and to provide training in propaganda etc. You make your org a local political machine, all the while trying to recruit more. You make yourself known. Then, when an election comes along, you tell the Dem candidate that if they pass your interview, you will endorse them and deploy your machine to help them win. Rinse and repeat. If enough folks do this, the upper echelons of the political critters will start to feel 'the political sands shifting' and a lot will move with it. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The fight did start eight years ago. The problem is, a lot of people got complacent after Trump lost and then made a fool of himself in the aftermath. We were actually talking on the RW Discord yesterday about how the Dems had built very effective online campaign infrastructures in both 2008 and 2020 and then immediately let them lapse into nonexistence. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is normal. Every election cycle, they build up a 'political machine' to campaign, to get out the vote etc but the moment the election is ended, they go out back, burn all the files and metaphorically shoot the organisers [UK Labour does this too]. This means that every cycle they have to start effectively from scratch - the amount of times Dems have gone into races and what passed as 'local knowledge' was utterly ignored by the DNC critters parachuted into 'take command' of the operation. On the other side, generally speaking Republicans keep their political machines in good working order and they continue to campaign even if there's no election due for a bit. Lastly, 'republicans' don't rely on the Republican party to make or maintain these machines - yes, the Kochs of this world help fund such things to the point they've become semi-astros but quite a lot of folks donate their own time/resources to make it happen too.

This is why I keep on saying; Democrats need to build their own political machines, and because the grassroots is so out of sync with the professional politico class now, it will have to be independent from them but clearly in sympathy with them. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What's up with Douglas Macgregor?

I thought Republicans generally lined up on Israel's side - this guy seems to be an outlier; most of his stuff seems to be pro-Palestine... Meow^Purr 16:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You sure you have the right person to the name? The guy is 77... so I assume he's more blunt about his views, which yea openly saying that Israel is paying off top US officials for war support would be an example; haven't read additional info to get the full context, though I would imagine he's upset with the fact that "honest hard-working" Americans are taking Israeli bribes than he is with Palestinian genocide. Impiricism (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The wiki page is rather outdated, his more recent views are... curious (TL;DR - pro-Russian and pro-Palestine). Meow^Purr 17:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be more consistent, if one is truly anti-imperialist, to be pro-Ukraine and pro-Palestine. But to a lot of people, politics isn't about principles. It's a football game, and my team is better than yours. Campism is a plague, and don't think that only tankies are campists. There are plenty of pro-NATO folks who salivate at the genocide in Palestine. Carthage (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For me the weird part was that he is not a tankie but a GOP guy... and a GOP guy supporting Palestine (and railing at Bibi) was quite the surprise. Meow^Purr 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

it would be weird if it werent for all the antisemetic stuff hes said in the past. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would like to remind you this guy has blamed America's problems on "rootless cosmopolitans" so I think we know why he doesn't like Israel. (Also, I did not know people in the 21st century still earnestly use the phrase "rootless cosmopolitans.")-Flandres (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This is purely anecdotal, but I've heard of pro-Trumpers who thought Trump was antizionist, and were shocked to find out that he was rabidly pro-Zionist. Carthage (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Average voter in Hamtramck, Michigan. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Dems need a kick somewhere

If the Democratic party doesn't understand its base, more progressives need to register as independent voters. And if you're not happy with the democratic run, go back and fix your registration as independent. It will do one thing to you, you won't be able to vote in the democratic primaries. It will do more to them to learn they are not winning when they are not being progressive. I vote blue no matter who because that actually lines up with my morals, but I really don't like that Dems think they own that. I have been registered independent since I registered, and wow, everybody kinda likes Bernie Sanders, and I really think the Dems need to see a big independent exodus to stop tryna get baby birded our chewed up support. Leaving the Democratic party doesn't mean you're gonna go red, it means you aren't promising your vote anymore. Register independent at large is my proposal. Torrent (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Why does 'registering' as Democrat matter? This is a wierd American thing I don't get. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The biggest thing is the parties are semi closed systems. You can't participate within the party if you're not registered to it, and to the normal voter, that means primaries. Which is stupid, and has never helped anything but the two party system. I'm not joking, when I registered as an independent, the lady who took my form tried to hand it back to me, saying 'if you do this you can't participate in the primaries.' Ooooh, scary, my vote for an asshole propped up by a party I'm not in control of won't be counted. I've never found an independent registration to limit my ability to do anything casually political beyond that. Both parties want my support. Keep em guessing, but no, progress, culture wars are nonsense lies. Torrent (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Still, this comes over as 'wierd American thing I don't get'. Here in BritLand, only party members get to choose the candidates [though often HQ has a strong say] and well, if I'm not an actual paid-up member of the party, why should you get a say? But I'd say from the British experience, a lot of folks 'not registering as Democrat' won't move the dial one iota - the British Labour party has lost about half of it's members since Corbyn [and this is more important because these are the folks who do canvessing, fundraising for you etc] and official HQ response seems to be somewhere between 'so what?' and 'good fucking riddance'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in America registration has become a false analytic. It did used to be hardline, one party or the other for voters, but registration doesn't equate to voter turnout anymore. So I would rather see people divest from the fake idea that registering for a party as support if they won't vote for it and just register independent and vote their conscience. It is way easier for us as voters. The problem is, yes, Republican registered voters are hardline, which is why I think liberals, leftists, and progressives need to be more united as an independent voting bloc (hear me out). The Dems will kowtow to centrism leaning right and lose a huge part of their base every time they do if they don't think they have to fight for left and progressive votes. And they won't until their analytics get actually fucking wrecked. Registering as a democrat because you don't like right wing policy is incorrect. Voting democrat is fine. You don't have to register democrat to vote dem, you just don't get to pick the candidate from the candidates, which... I mean... Did you get to do that? Torrent (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure any Democrat really thinks they've 'got those votes in the bag' because they've self-ID as 'democrat' [perhaps at best it shows them that you're more inclined towards voting for them than Republican, but this can mean the 'you=Democrat' axis gap is 4cm but the 'you=Republican' is 4.1cm] and demolishing that concept thus won't hurt. From the looks of it the Dem leadership is blaming 'too left wing' and 'Biden' for their loss, which means if they had their way the Dem '28 candidate instead of being neolib economics coupled with mild social progressivism it would be neoliberal economi annd zero social progression. And that leads to the point where you're asking 'what's the fucking point of you then?'. But this shows up the critical issue with Democrats these days; their polcy since 2000 has been basically 'I'm not that guy [Republicans]' and the only win they've had [Obama] was done off the backs of the Iraq drag-on and the banking crash and with a guy who comparatively oozed charisma which helped to disguis the fact it was about 90% 'here comes the new boss, same as the old boss' situation [and guess what, we won't get fooled again]. But then again this seems to be a tendency for Third Way politicos - to always be too timid to actually 'do stuff', to constantly stiff your old friends because you're too busy chasing the affections of folks who won't ever be your friends.

And I've already made clear what I think American socialists and social democrats should do; steal the fundies playbook, copy it exactly [ie build up a political machine outside of the formal Democratic structure and use it to inflence Dem candidates, all the while practicing entryism on the party itself and hijacking locals and start getting your folks on boards etc]. A lot of Dem politicians don't give a fuck what folks think/need and even more in thrall to the professional pol operators view that 'there are zero votes on the left' but they will believe 'this shit is popular' if they actually see it with their own eyes. Which is the point I'm going to leave with; what are you folks gonna do about this? Bitch and whine, or actually get off your arses and start doing the legwork to build the orgs etc for the next electoral round. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

why would you have to register as independent if you dont register as dem or rep? is picking a team required to register to vote? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

When you register to vote there, you have to tick 'Republican', 'Democrat' or 'Independent' too. Thus my 'This is a wierd American thing I don't get' comment at the top. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

id always assumed people had to register with party off their own bat. its no wonder there is no 3rd party. it kinda locks in the parties where 'engagement' is by default, but artificial. no effort required and you get to choose pres candidates. im disappointed america. i thought folk were genuinely involved with the political process. to get the same sense of engagement, but real, with a third party must require being actually motivated to get involved. actual activism. if they dont, then rep/dem is all you going to get. i guess those two dont wanna share the obscene amounts of campaign money AMassiveGay (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's wavy, so I get it, and I agree, the amount of money spent on a commercial/advertisement could be better spent doing public works. I recently saw an AT&T commercial that was just 'look at how good AT&T is' and I been thinking about it. 'Plastics make it possible' from the American Plastics Council. And now, plastics are considered not great, I have a hard time when a company advertises for nothing. Torrent (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mikemikev's 10-year banniversiary

On this day ten years ago, Michael Coombs was permanently banned from RationalWiki, and guess what that loser still has nothing better to do than to continue to sock up this wiki. You'd think he'd get a hobby or something. Trollhunter (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that is his hobby. As opposed to being a hate-filled loon, which is his career. Kencolt (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

How much is the hourly rate for a hate-filled loons these days? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Must be reasonably good. He's been doing this for years. Kencolt (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a career. Might be more a 'calling'. My alleged father felt this calling all his life, but alas he couldn't find anyone to pay him to do it. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Paywalls request

From now on, can users, whenever they link to articles hidden behind paywalls and subscription services, link to archived or non-paywalled versions instead, please? Carthage (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's been a pet peeve of mine for years. CorruptUser 20:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Same. Especially for those happy fun "newspapers" that most of us really don't want to throw money at. Kencolt (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

How long is 'a reasonable quote' for copyright purposes (or a summary if need be)? Anna Livia (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright law is vague on this, the fair use doctrine. Generally, a paragraph from a moderate-to-long news article is acceptable, or a couple of paragraphs from a book. Bongolian (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Infowars will now be at war with itself.

As noted by Cosmikdebris on the WIGO, The Onion bought Infowars. The sole advertiser during the relaunch will by the gun safety group "Everytown for Gun Safety". The Onion CEO stated regarding their successful auction bid:[6]

“”The Onion is proud to acquire Infowars, and we look forward to continuing its storied tradition of scaring the site’s users with lies until they fork over their cold, hard cash.

Bongolian (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It will probably become more credible.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Here's why I decided to buy Infowars." Carthage (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

'Infinite growth forever' is the best 'yours truly' I've ever read. Torrent (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The takeover by The Onion has been at least temporarily halted as of late yesterday by the bankruptcy judge over concerns about the bidding process.[7] Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No matter how it turns out, it's a hilarious moment, it should be enjoyed as irreverent. infowars sold as serious bought by satire, what an actual moment. Torrent (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I often hate wishing the downfall of people, always wanting redemption. But Alex Jones 100% deserves what is happening. SomeAutisticAce (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Silver lining?

Yes, we've had a crazy week, and things like "drill baby drill" are not good auguries - but I was wondering, what if Musk manages to convert the Reps to the cause of climate? Trump seems to be less critical of EVs these days, and maybe solar will follow (and they have generally not minded nuclear even in their anti-environment mindset).

Sure, maybe it's just me looking for something to be hopeful about, and maybe it is Musk who will get converted rather than the Reps. But if a bipartisan consensus is achieved, it would be golden... Meow^Purr 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You have the situation completely reversed, given The Boer's recent comments on Fossil Fuels it's probable that he somehow gets even further pushed to the right on that issue specifically. A somebody. (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the most likely situation will be like the Third Reich; as in all the major players will be singing their own song which clashes with others and Trump will only be fucked to intervene and 'settle the dispute' when he personally gives a damn but let the 'kids' piss about when they don't. And while Hitler did have 'a plan' of sorts [conquer the world, exterminate whole peoples] which required some reasonable prior thought/planning Trump kinda doesn't apart from 'more money', 'more ego-stroking' and 'silence the hecklers'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My thought is "invest in popcorn" because ultimately there are a *lot* of competing hard-line opinions in Trumpism, and some of his cabinet picks are "out of left field" even for the GOP. A "silver lining" with the crazy Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pick, for instance, is that he's pro-choice (so he's unlikely to push a national mifepristone ban like the fundies want). RFK Jr also wants to take on ultra-processed foods, additives, and industrial food in general (a rather reasonable position in theory, though Kennedy Jr.'s unscientific bonkers approach won't be helpful and will lead him astray). None of these override his anti-vaccination / conspiracy theory stupidity, of course. Still, both are angles which conflict with "the Republican party norm"; I'm curious how this conflict will be resolved. BobJohnson (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that conspiracism and the antivaxx movement conflict with the norms of the modern Republican party. It used to be that (as Innuendo Studios covers here) at most Republican politicians would throw a bone or two to the fringe right but not much else because they knew that the fringe right had nowhere else to go. Nowadays, the GOP has become the party of the fringe right, which is subsequently much less fringe as a result. Ten years ago the rhetoric around immigration coming from the GOP wasn't "Mexicans are criminals and rapists coming to spoil the blood of our country" but "border security is jobs security." Carthage (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I was talking about RFK Jr's pro-choice stance and anti-processed food stance not fitting in with current Republicans. The modern Republican party certainly fits in with the anti-vaccination movement and the conspiracy theory crowd these days.

Which is ironic, because on vaccines and conspiracies -- if we use the 1950s as a backdrop for the era "Make America Great Again" wants to take us back to -- those sort of idiots were essentially shoved to the side. Sure, you had crazy John Birch Society members babbling about water fluoridation and other supposed Commie plots, but they weren't anywhere near the wheels of power. In contrast, Jonas Salk (much to his chagrin) became elevated to the level of a folk hero when he developed the polio vaccine. The people in those "good old days" had living memory of some really nasty diseases. These days, many of these nasty diseases have been practically eliminated in the Western world (or, in the case of smallpox, *completely* eradicated world wide) thanks to vaccines. It gives cover to anti-vaxxers babbling idiotically about being anti-vaccine; they not only seem to have zero clue on the science, but they also seem to have zero clue on what life would have been like without them. BobJohnson (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The Southern Strategy doomed the GOP to become the party of Trump, I would say. When you court the votes of bigots, eventually the bigots will demand that you put up or shut up. Carthage (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the spectre of the 'senile King'; where Trump is simultaneously present but not present, and as such decisions aren't being made and disputes aren't being sorted. There is also the question of competence; Trump is hiring from a talent-puddle and if any variant of Project 2025 is attempted it will a) shred the 'institutional memory' of the orgs [so will be semi-inoperable for at least a year] and then b) stuffing them with MAGA-hats [which is hardly a promise to competence when the main hiring criteria is 'loyalty to the Orange Idol']. It's quite possible we end up with a Federal Govt which is effectively in the 'old man yells at cloud' zone; because between the infighting, incompetence, passive-aggressive resistance, politely-aggressive resistance and fucked-up hobbyhorses not a huge amount of shit gets done. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's really difficult to see how all these mad egos with different axes to grind could work with each other. It's even more difficult to see how they will work with the Trump super ego.

On a slightly different point. Based on Trump's recent cabinet appointments I have a prediction for Treasury secretary. Sam Bankman-Fried - he would fit right in.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘silver linings include democrats winning senate races in swing states trump won (nevada, michigan, wisconsin, and especially in arizona) and rick scott losing the senate leader race [8] in a blow (or multiple blows) to maga. The G (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They still won the senate. A somebody. (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a silver lining, but I still think it's worth asking why Harris lost those states while Dems still won down-ballot races there (and no, it's not because Trumpism is suddenly super popular among demographics who would normally vote Democrat. While there has been some demographic bleed, a vast majority of Black voters (83%) for instance still voted Democrat in the 2024 election. Youth voters are also still more likely to vote Democrat, even with the gender gap accounted for. Even a majority of Latinos (albeit a slimmer one than usual) still voted for Harris, despite the clickbait headline there. As I have argued elsewhere, the 2024 electoral results weren't a vindication of Trumpism, it was a condemnation of the Democratic establishment.) Carthage (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy the 'Trump became super-popular with certian demographics' line. He only got 2.4m more votes nationally, while Harris got 7.6m less [than Biden] and Chase [Libertarian] got 1.2m less while the max electorate was something like 5m larger. I accept there's been a little bit of a shift [young males circling the 'Manosphere' shit, minorities hating 'abolish the police', working classes hating the underclass a la Vance, Hispanics responding to the 'communism' dogwhistle etc] but until I see explit stats that show otherwise my theory is going to be that most of the dial-shifting was Libertarians going to Trump and the biggest slide was folks simply declining to vote for Harris, staying home instead. Why? Occam's Razor suggests they stayed home because they saw zero appeal for Harris. A lot of those would have been 'low information voters' [experience tells me they're most often the ones to sit it out - 'high information voters' are normally too invested in it all to then sit it out] which suggests that one of the issues the Harris game failed in was to reach out to niche/micro inflencers [not the online shit, merely folks in local groups who have a bit of influence] who then persuade said low voters to turn out. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I’ve seen has changed my thesis from last week that Harris fucked herself by running a shitty right-focused campaign, and Democratic turnout bombed as a result. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure it was the campaign, and not that she's a shitty candidate?

Would you seriously consider voting for her in the 2028 primaries? CorruptUser 08:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

She won a grand total of zero states during the 2020 primaries. Carthage (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Harris was a reasonable, viable candidate. She had the paper qualifications and experience [think the only thing which would have helped here if she'd been a Governor], had an okay stage presence and communication skills, had no serious minuses [unlike say, Clinton did in '16] and judging from the Orange One's silence on the topic, had no real skeletons in her closet. What's more, she didn't make any major fuckups in the whole campaign [though admittedly a few minor ones], successfully avoided appearing like she was the one who knifed Biden to snag the position and followed the Third Way playbook provided.

The results spoke volumes. She lost perhaps six million Biden voters to apathy and failed to make any headway with either '24 'new voters' [some 4/5m] or '20 non-voters' [perhaps 60 million] [I'm aware this isn't technically correct but the general thrust is true]. Trump didn't grow hugely more popular [a narrative which we must all shoot down wherever it raises it's head; he managed to increase his votes by about 3%] but hell, Harris proved to be pretty unpopular.

Like I said before, if it appears the person did 'most of it right' and still failed, it leads to the suggestion the playbook provided was at fault. If Harris had any 'personal failings' as a candidate, it was her not oozing charm so she could coat turds with candyfloss and give it out to the proles and to have a complete lack of ethics to allow her to directly lie to their faces with a warm smile while handing out the turds. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

worth noting that many people who voted for trump also voted for aoc in her district. sure, this is borderline anecdotal, but it's almost certainly part of a wider pattern: this election was more of a referendum on (read: repudiation of) biden/harris (and possibly establishment d.c. democrats in general) than anything else in the same way the last election was a vote against trump. The G (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see more numbers before making grand statements. The "mainstream media" pundits seems to be making this into The Reddest Wave Of All Time when... the Republicans gained, what, 3 Senate seats? And the House of Representatives seems to be heading to very close (maybe exactly) to the exact same numbers they got in 2022. All very narrow. In addition, Donald Trump won by (last count) under 3 million votes -- not that biggly. So, "red wave" my ass... it's increasingly clear that the pundit sector of media is a bunch of useless bullshit that can easily be replaced by AI without repercussions.

The real "trend of the day" for the presidential race is the Harris to null votes. It may have been a repudiation of Biden/Harris... maybe. With most analysis being done by the "vibes" crowd, I can't be certain of that... yet. Probably there's some of this, or maybe some contentious issues like the Middle East damping things "just enough". I'm going to wait for actual *data*, personally. BobJohnson (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There is the risk that in some respects, said data shall never exist because the answers it provides are ones that neither the MAGAs, the unsinkable 'experts' nor Third Way Dems want to hear. But enough exists normally to make you think. Take, for example the pres election in Michigan;

2020: Trump 2.64m, Biden 2.80, Jorgensen 0.06, Hawkins 0.01 = Total, 5.51m, Population 9.96

2024: Trump 2.81m, Harris 2.73, Oliver 0.02, Stein 0.04 = Total 5.60m, Population 10.04

So... in '20 the pair got 5.44m, while in '24 they got 5.54m, so turnout was a little better for the Orange One. Let's re-jig the Thirds on the assumption 66% of Yellow went Red and similar Blue > Green.

Trump 2.77m, Harris 2.74m.

My theory is this - that in the case of Michigan, it was a combination of 'Harris apathy', Musk's 'get out the [MAGA] vote' and shifts in third party voting which flipped the state. But you can't have 'a landslide' on 80k voters in one state - my guestimate is that this is a relative voter shift of about 2%. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually do wonder if the Musk "futurism to fascism" pipeline is one part of that subtle shift. (Little seems to be said about that angle or the general Silicon Valley shift, a narrative complicated by the fact that it's certainly not all of IT types, even all of SV VCs.) Musk does have a wee bit of a cult of personality around him, and though some Muskheads definitely jumped off that train as Musk has increasingly become more bigoted and neoreactionary movement-adjacent, some have not. This ties with the rise of the "bitcoin bro" (Miami flipping Republican actually is *not* surprising considering just how deeply that town intertwined itself with crypto over the last few years. That + Cuban expats still hating commies is probably enough to explain the Republican-ess of that town this cycle). Part of the "puzzle", I guess. BobJohnson (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is. One of the very few differences electoral-offering wise between '20 and '24 is Trump's courting of the manosphere-finance-gym-techy-bro demographic; one which traditionally would have veered Libertarian or cynicism-induced nonvoting. Take as examples the Orange One's lean into crypto [bigging up the concept, not just as a grift], doing sit-downs with manosphere YT'ers, attending the Libertarian convention and so on, as well as the hiring of Vance, Musk, other Thiel creatures etc.] I've also heard vague talk that this is much more Junior's viewpoint, while the previous strong lean into Dominionism was Jared's - suggesting that his daughter and in-law has lost influence in his court [I obviously don't believe Orange One has any guiding ideology apart from 'fuck the rules', 'worship me' and now 'save my ancient arse'.] I think this was perhaps missed by pollsters because traditionally, they've not been active in either major party as a faction, and thus they got missed. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

This will be our new maker of health policy. And this will be our director of "government efficiency". Chillpilled (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Does America give "political immunity" to people that go into politics? If so, then Twitter will never cease to exist and Musk will be able to do what he wants. Also, you're joking about those positions, right? Right?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. See: 1, 2. Chillpilled (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't they need to be confirmed by the Senate? I know they'll have a tiny majority there but have all the remotely sane Republicans been purged now? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They have anticipated that and intend to make RFK Jr. a "health czar", in charge of health policy but only de facto. Chillpilled (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've heard that they're planning on forcing Congress into a recess to force these batshit cabinet appointments through. Carthage (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing though: yes, a lot of these appointments will need confirmation. The Senate majority will be slim, and it will only take ~4 Republicans to object. This actually will be a good test of just how far Trump ass-kissing extends in the Republican party. I expect folks like Marco Rubio to be confirmed easily, but it seems like even many conservatives are pissed off about "Matt Gaetz for attorney general" or "WTF Fox News guy for secretary of defense". I mean, the carnie-show nominees aren't surprising to me at all given how much of an ungovernable circus the modern Republican party has become, but I am guessing more than 4 Senators care a little bit about actual governing, and might have some cover given that the more sane end of conservatism doesn't seem happy about some of these nominees either. We'll see.

Trump 1.0 was a shitstorm of chaos, but Trump's deepening brain rot seems to be strengthening this future shitstorm into a Category 5 wrecking ball. With the nominees so far (barring a few exceptions), it's making the presidential cabinet of Idiocracy look like Rhodes scholars in comparison. This is what America elected, folks. BobJohnson (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is that more or less powerful than 'a supremo'? I mock because here in the UK announcing 'a czar' on anything 97% of the time equates to a powerful-sounding position with little/no actual power and is usually used to either 'kick upstairs' an now-inconvenient ally and/or to reward a crony. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What I’m fairly certain we’ll see in the Trump 2.0 administration is the most massively, nakedly and unashamedly corrupt administration in US history. Even if it manages to bungle everything else, Trump will try to squeeze and grift every last cent he’ll be able to wring out of the US coffers. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Quiet you! If you speak too loudly, they'll hear you and see it as a competition to be even more venal than during the Gilded Age... KarmaPolice (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do indeed think the next Trump administration will be more (and more openly) venal than the Guilded Age spoils system. Not because it’s a competition (yes, I did spot the irony, but bear with me), but because Trump seems to think that this is how everything does and should work: That the key reason anyone seeks any kind of power is to grab what they can and line their own pockets.

Unlike the Guilded Age politicians, Trump basically doesn’t even seem to realise that his venality might be honestly considered to be wrong and thus takes any criticism to be merely sanctimonious posturing, not least because he has seen remarkably few serious personal consequences during his lifetime of grift. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you a "germ theory aficionado"?

"HIV Denial in the COVID Era":

Kennedy even flirts with outright germ theory denial, discussing “terrain theory,” the idea that if one’s body is health enough, it cannot be damaged by microbes (referring to it as “miasma theory”). He explains: "Germ theory aficionados, in contrast, blame disease on microscopic pathogens. Their approach to health is to identify the culpable germ and tailor a poison to kill it. Miasmists complain that those patented poisons may themselves further weaken the immune system, or simply open damaged terrain to a competitive germ or cause chronic disease…When a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus."

Would seem to dovetail with his proposal to stop funding infectious disease research for ~8 years to focus on chronic conditions. (Wonder what the virologists are meant to do in the meantime.)

I think Trump will in fact hire Kennedy, but I don't expect him to stick around — competing egos. Chillpilled (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

without covid lockdowns and pandemics making health policy the no1 focus of national and global politics, there probably isnt going to much that would pull focus from trump or directly contradict or challenge whatever shite hes going staking presidential credentials on. hes not going to clash with kennedy over health policy the way he did with fauci because health policy probably lower importance to trump this time around. indeed, if there is a clash involving kennedy, it would probably involve officials of the type fauci was that and trump and kennedy can combine to undermine the expertise and trust in vital government organisations. probably.

trump certainly not going to push back against dogshit health advice unless hes promoting dogshit health advice from somewhere. egos, for sure, but not competing. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Without pandemics? Of course. It's a good thing no bird flu has hopped into pigs recently... or has it? Chillpilled (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

New germ guy dropped: meet your Defense Sectretary, Pete Hegseth. Good news, soldiers! "Germs are not a real thing". Chillpilled (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's American Royalty. I cannot imagine how gross dorks think Elon Musk made an artsy divorce baby for fun with GRIMES,

and still think of him as daddy, but American Royalty is weird and horrible. Remember when it was Beyonce and Jay Z? It's gross, but germs aren't the cause of illness, being poor is a legitimate selling point of all ills to American Royals. Eww, the poor. Torrent (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, check out this cool quote from Mike Huckabee

“I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria,” said Huckabee, using the Biblical terms for the West Bank. “There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.” (source)

Anyways, don't mind me, I'm only bringing this up because Huckabee is Trump's pick to be the new US ambassador to Israel, while Israel's finance minister is already talking about annexing more of the West Bank. Great job to all the people who stayed home during this election because of Gaza! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of asking farmers if they were enjoying 'their Brexit bonuses' from loss of market access and Brussels money... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and many Muslim voters approved of this policy, voted for Jill Stein (!) or didn't vote.[9] The Biden last minute strategy on the war was clearly outplayed by Israel who clearly favored the felon/rapist. A more proactive view would have been: clean up the humanitarian crisis two weeks before the election or I'm sending all the earmarked military supplies for Israel to Ukraine instead before I leave office. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Basedgolian doesn't miss. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaza probably could not have singularly swung the 2024 election, unless it alone had a really outsized impact on liberal (especially youth) turnout in general. It clearly didn't hinge on Dearborn. Chillpilled (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I blame the majority voter for being stupid as much as you do, but it's still a reality. Who do you think voted for Trump? A keyed in politically minded econ major? It's not great, but IF you're asking a bloc why they are not politically savvy or informed, you are shouting that into a void. I get it, they will never get it, the economy is probably going to become the stock market, which is a really bad idea, but Republicans are the party of Lincoln, so wage slavery shouldn't have a color, religion, or anybody challenging it. Torrent (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Lest we forget Biden condoned and sponsored Israel's war crimes for the entire year up to the election and Harris undoubtedly would have continued to do so. Apparently Israel also has title deed to the US treasury and arsenal. I did not and will not vote for any of them. Accumulator (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not anything I argue against. You are allowed to withhold your vote. In a lot of places, voting is like hammering the crosswalk button, the light will change whether you press it or not. Torrent (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A humble prediction.

To preface things, I'm not the best at making predictions, I thought Kamala Harris would win pretty handedly at least in the electoral college department, but I do have one prediction I'm almost completely certain about, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not be remembered well either by the general public or historians. Now I think this will happen for two main reasons. Reason number one, they failed to beat Trump, this is fairly obvious and when Trump fucks up majorly and everyone comes to regret their vote (hopefully) they will look back on the people who failed to prevent him from becoming president of the United States of America and look on with disgust. Reason number two: Palestine, this one is also fairly obvious, sending bomb after bomb after bomb to Israel with no strings attached while they actively commit genocide is not going to be remembered fondly, at least I hope it isn't going to be remembered fondly decades from now. And so that is why I believe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not be remembered well decades from now. A somebody. (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Biden will go through a phase of being remembered as an absolutely awful president, then opinion will be revised to "had some good points but was overall inadequate" when our current era is in the rearview mirror. A lot of comments will be made about the rough situation he inherited, and a lot will be made about his rigid marriage to "politics as usual" in unusual times. He's probably going to be another Taft, another Arthur-people have to be reminded he was a president. He's not going to be remembered too well but he won't make "worst president ever" lists. Harris, honestly, is going to be subject to a lot of hate in the next 4-8 years then be forgotten.-Flandres (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I kind of sense that Biden's a Jimmy Carter to some extent -- a middling president (who in the public eye was later redeemed by good works, but the Republican cult bots still like to shit on him) of whom the Republican propaganda machine is going to make out as the Worst President Of All Time!!, but really isn't. I agree that some of the commentary will be about how "sticking to the Third Way" may have hurt both Harris and Biden. There's certainly plenty of positives in the Biden presidency, though. Beats Dubya for sure.

Donald Trump stands a good chance of being *the* worst president in American history, with only a couple of Civil War presidents below him... maybe. However, Donald Trump also represents a significant portion of American society. I see the better history in the future exploring why this is so, rather than focusing on just the figureheads. BobJohnson (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The third significant strategic error of Biden was accelerating arms and capabilities to Ukraine much sooner. There's another significant similarity between Carter and Biden is that both were subverted by foreign governments colluding with presidential candidates, a violation of the Logan Act (Reagan with Iran and trump with Putin) to 'fix the problem' (Iran's embassy hostages for Reagan, and 'peace talks' on Ukraine for trump). Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That [Flandres view] rather sounds like Orwell's opinion on Neville Chamberlain;'he was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights' - the 'stupidity' being his continuing belief in Third Way, while the 'dim lights' being not realising that ideology was dead [or at least no longer really functional]. I got the feeling from him that his mind was groping a bit towards the latter conclusion, but he never really got to it. The electorate itself has a bit of blame for this; I likened Biden's election in '20 being a desire for 'smooth jazz, Budweiser and baseball' levels of stability/predictability over Trump's 'metal, whiskey and MMA' [politically speaking] of the last four years [esp Covid]. I suspect he will most likely end up like another Carter; 'decent man, but fought against the tide and lost'. I think he'll get respect for effectively 'coming out of retirement' in '20 but then he loses it for not accepting he was simply too knackered for another term and allowing enough time for an open primary.

The view on Harris shall, I fear be solidly tied to Trump 2.0. I try to be a wet blanket on this kind of thing, but the 'steps from dictatorship' are much fewer than any time since... not sure, really. Much of the survival of [semi] democracy and freedom now relies on such factors as 'Trumpian incompetence', 'inner circle cross-purposes' and 'MAGA SCOTUS actually growing a concience' than anything actually legal, organisational or political now, and that's a worrying place to be in. If all this turns out to be hyperbole... I think she'll be forgiven and forgotten. If not... I think her memory shall be dammed. That she could have Stopped All Of This Before It Started [whatever This might be] but she fluffed it [but she's still young, a political comeback isn't impossible].

I get this the above is depressing. But I'm a fair student of history and if that's taught me anything it's that when a person of Trump's temperament gets power and is not presented with strong checks/balances they will have a tendency to try it as far as they think they can get away with. So if anything, this is a plea to keep faith, motivate others and prepare to fight all the fucking way down the line. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a glimmer of hope that a small number of GOP Senators will show a spine occasionally. Some have expressed repulsion at trump's choice of Gaetz, and Speaker Johnson has now credibly covered up allegations of Gaetz's interstate sex trafficking.[10] Interstate sex trafficking is a Federal crime (Mann Act), so this is a much bigger deal than if he had kept his behavior confined to Florida. Enough GOP Senators might even demand confirmations if they think their power means anything. Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Harris' loss, one explanation that seems to not have gotten much notice is the effect of the sophisticated false-flag/black-propaganda operation conducted by Musk,[11] which Timothy Snyder traces to Putin if only indirectly.[12]

Eh, I don't think Progress 2028 had much to do with it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet I lived through a decade of Tory MPs 'expressing repulsion' for various shit Tory Govts were doing but lining up to vote for them anyway. Again, and again and again. There comes a point you need to quit believing that there's this mythic 'sane Tory' [or 'reasonable Republican', in this case] actually fucking exists anymore who will for unknown reasons will ride in and save you/us all from the excesses of Trump. They won't.' The ones who would stand are now out of power [with perhaps a few notable exceptions; I'm not au fait with American politics to blithely announce 'none'] and a lot of those who hand-wring are often only bothered about tone and not fucking substance of MAGA, and most of them don't have the balls to stand against the MAGA-cult. I think the 'forces of resistance' should expect zero assistance from that quarter, and perhaps regard them all as an enemy unless proven otherwise.

So what, Musk lied. I almost dropped my monocle in my drink! I now expect these folks to do anything and say anything to win now. It's why they win; you tell fuckers what they want to hear even if it flatly contradicts what you told the last person or even the limits of actual physical reality. Democratic politics only reasonably works if all the major players abide by the rules [even if you play fast and sharp with them at times] but a lot of politics now is like playing Monopoly with someone who openly steals from the bank, cheats die rolls and threatens overturn the board if you deign to accuse them of cheating. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Harris will be remembered at all, since she didn’t win and any blame for the loss is more likely to stick to Biden (for clinging on far too long) and you can already see the narrative shaping up around Harris “simply not having the time to win” due to becoming the top candidate too late in the process.

And no, I don’t think Harris will make any meaningful political comeback on the national stage. She’s not a particularly good campaigner (as we’ve seen both this time around and in her 2020 primary) and few are likely to back a “loser”.

Biden’s reputation will largely depend on exactly how awful and disastrous Trump’s second term will be. If Trump is awful but not catastrophic, Biden will likely end up in the “ineffective nonentity” category, but if Trump is worse than that, Biden is more likely to be put into the “late Weimar leader” category.

As for GOP Congress critters voting down even such abysmal candidates as Gaetz or JFK Jr., I don’t have high hopes. The bigger issue is whether Trump will be able to browbeat GOP Congress critters into taking a “fake recess” to allow him to make these appointments without consent at all. If they fold on this, the question will then be if the SCOTUS will accept this blatant skirting of constitutional processes. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The surprising thing about Musk is that he once admitted he was wrong (in 2018) about a major fuckup he caused — attempting to totally automate a Tesla factory.[13] He even said "Humans are underrated."[14] The incident and tweet are probably long forgotten by himself and his minions by now, as he's gone back to his life of various facets of misanthropy: eliminating humans wherever he can, trying to automate everything with AI, and colonizing Mars with billionaires and bots. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Harris is an ex-VP, so it's not like she'll vanish into the ether entirely. And while I said 'a political comeback', I don't mean 're-run to be President'. What are you saying she must do; buy a farm in California to retire to, wave away journalists and never ever comment on the political developments, regardless to how shit they get? To never use what platform she has to 'continue the fight' as the lights go out, even as she will see the chilling effect creeping over America? To not breathe a word as she sees a full-blown cult of personality develop alongside mass political purges? If she genuinely believes her rhetoric about Trump being a serious danger to democracy itself - and I was her - I would throw myself after Jan into building up a pro-democracy political machine [a proper one with proper funds and paid workers] to help 'the fightback against MAGA' at all levels of politics.

And to answer Wombat's questions; yes, I think the MAGA Congresscritters will accept that and the MAGA SCOTUS will rule this as fine. Which is why if I was a talking head interviewing the former 'hand-wringers' about the shittiness of the situation, my retort to their repulsion would be 'so what are you gonna do about it?' ad nauseam until they either a) nail themselves into openly opposing it or b) me simply saying 'okay, so nothing really' to their waffle. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure that the Senate will knuckle under, if they can avoid doing so by choosing a different way of grovelling to Trump. If they end up doing so, I’m not quite sure what the SCOTUS will do, either, because if there’s one thing the whacko majority in SCOTUS can agree on (and get the minority to support to some extent) it’s to ensure the power and some degree of status of the SCOTUS itself.

As for Harris, my point was that she’ll become a relative political nonentity along the line of other failed presidential bids (including those of a lot of ex-Veeps). Who really speaks of Dukakis today (outside of the history of POTUS campaigning, of course), though he was once hailed as a new breed of “Atari Democrat”. Sure, Al Gore carved out a niche for himself, but it wasn’t in electoral politics.

This doesn’t mean that Harris will just retire, because there are plenty of sinecures and the like for has-been national politicians (academia, think tanks, punditry, the speaking circuit etc.), though I doubt she will, say, re enter the senior ranks of California politics.

Furthermore, Harris doesn’t even seem to have a clear political project or some key policy that she champions. Gore had already demonstrated his interest in climate change and policy while he was an “active politician”, but I have a hard time pinpointing some kind of similar “cause” that Harris might champion. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

With the Senate, you tell me the ultimate difference between a Senate which arselickingly sends through bills with peans of praise stapled to them or one which comprises of them whining and hand-wringing but then passing the bills anyway? Functionally none. They're 'white moderates', people who sooth their souls with nice-sounding words which ultimately mean sod all - at best, they hold off the 'insult' but assist in the 'injury'. But Third Way types hold off on saying this because they think 'they may eventually come to us' so be nice. Fat lot it's done for them so far.

With Harris, I think we're agreeing to agree here; my point was that she could do my suggestion if she really wanted, but you're quite correct in that she kinda showed nil 'cause interest' while VP [don't know about her Senate record] and she'd also have to believe in 'grassroots machine politics' which I do [don't think she does]. Another option is for her to lick her wounds and be determined to make a 'comeback' formally later - after all, this was how another VP turned failed P-candidate did in the last century [no prize for who this was...] but again, hits the motivation bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that whether the Senate knuckles under and goes into a “Trumpcess” or finds some other way of pandering to Trump makes a difference right now, and I definitely see the GOP senators actually blocking any of the unqualified, venal, toadying whackos that Trump wants in his cabinet.

Where I think the concrete appointment process might make some difference is in how much Trump manages to openly break the constitutional order. If he manages to get his nominations through a “senate Trumpcess” and the SCOTUS backs him up (which, sadly, is a very real possibility), the GOP will have established a precedent for their future presidents to use. It’s always easier to follow such a precedent than to break new ground — unless you’re a “no limits” narcissistic wrecking ball like Trump. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe they will - I hope they will, but hope makes nothing. Assuming Trump doesn't resort to some shit-pulling to sneak them past, those 'nail Senators' [who at best might be 2-3] will come under massive pressure from all fronts to 'allow to be nailed down'. And judging from the sickness rating of American politics right now, this very well shall include real threats of physical violence against them which will then be minimised by their 'Republican colleagues' as nothing more than 'banter' or some shit. The whole party now has been submerged by Orange Führerprinzip and it's not likely they'd develop a backbone after his 'amazing, huge' election victory which has scared the professional career politico into silent obedience - I mean, they have basically walked down the MAGA path until this point, the folks who refused to have been purged.

Again, I'm speaking of British experience, where I saw a somewhat similar metamorphosis happen to the British Conservatives over fourteen years. Yes, we had Tory 'nails' but as each iteration of Tory Govt arose they became less and less [retired, purged, defected] and the internal Overton Window also shrunk to the point the Party only got rid of the shitshows which was Johnson and then Truss because of widespread Big Public anger and revulsion against 'all of it', not that they'd had actual criticisms of actions, policies or style [people forget that Sunak supported 'Trussanomics', only he felt she'd gone 'a bit too fast and hard']. Alas, I suspect similar will have happened to your Republican Party - that the careerists and remaining closet 'moderates' will only put the boot in when the Orange One is visibly crumbling - like those 'anti-Nazi' generals only pulled their finger out to do Hitler in when it was obvious the war had been lost.

As for 'making precedent'... that's the most worrying aspect of all this. Trump wants this because he's an old-school shit boss with an ego the size of the Pentagon and inability to listen to honest advisors - but it's going to have crossed his mind at least once that he very well might be building the gallows which say, President Whitmer strings him up on in 2029 [because I could see Trump 2.0 being so shit the public seriously turns against MAGA]. Therefore, we need to assume that not only do they [I think it will be a Vance / Trump Jr ticket] intend to win in 28, but they also plan to use every day to make sure they win. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The latest bad sign is MAGA showing they prefer a coup to winning an election, ignoring all the transition rules (which theoretically work for the incoming administration's favor under normal times), meaning among other things ignoring all security clearances. Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project said, "He should not trust the politicized and weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies that hobbled his presidency the first time. It’s a hostile takeover on behalf of the American people.[15] Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump is definitely trying to ensure that parody is well and truly dead: Now he has announced that he’s putting a wrestling boss in charge of education and a quack in charge of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to go along with his anti-vaxxer in charge of health and the alleged criminal as AG. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Linda McMahon actually was in Trump term 1 as Small Business Administrator the first time around. Her lone education resume credit (aside from a degree in education) is that she previously was on the Connecticut Board of Education, appointed by Jodi Rell, from 2009-2010. Why did Rell appointed McMahon back then? Search me; degree aside, she certainly hardly seems qualified for an education board job due to no experience. I can only find a rather generic press releases emphasizing her understanding of "the skills and education needed to succeed in businsess" on The Google. Er, okay.

I do know that Republicans have *always* tended to have some "celebrity naval-gazing" in their politics even before the Trumpism days, where how famous you were mattered more than competence. It just seems to have gone into hyperdrive under Trumpism. I guess the silver lining is that I imagine McMahan will be better than Betsy DeVos though; it's another sign that maybe Trump is leaning less on the Dominionism side of his coalition.

Note that there are multiple sex scandals going on right now with the WWE. There's the Vince McMahon sex trafficking scandal which is ongoing. There's an ongoing recent re-opening of an old 1990s scandal where a longtime ring announcer named Melvin Phillips (and other wrestlers) would target "ring boys" for hire and then later sexually assault them. This is, what, the third Donald Trump nominee (the other two being Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth) who have some form of sex assault / trafficking scandal swirling in the background, right? (Not counting, of course, the Orange Cheeto's conviction of a sex crime as well.) Meanwhile all those QAnon idiots who worship Donald Trump are probably still blaming Democrats for whatever sex crime malaise pops in their heads. Gotta love propaganda... BobJohnson (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Trump has quietly pushed the Fundies off his boat - or more correctly, relegated them to working in the galley and engine-room, not on the bridge. I have zero proof of this, but I think he didn't hugely like the fact they were not 100% loyal to him as a person [they were loyal to Dominionism] and as such he didn't feel he 'could trust them'. I think the 'Pence treachery' bit deep into his massive, soft ego - he'd hired him and he's not fucking done what he'd been told to! - and as a result that whole wing is on the 'won't get fooled again' list [though it's also possible that he felt he needed to ally with them to shore up his voting-blocs in '16 but by '22 felt fairly sure he'd managed to usurp that faction's base for himself, and thus didn't need their leaders anymore].

Now, I think Trump is 'hiring' on three criteria only; one is 'unwavering loyalty' to himself personally. Two, people who will never outshine his greatness. Three, people who will not be a threat to him. Now, who do I pick for my team? A bunch of people who due to personal, legal and/or viewpoint 'minuses' would never get even a sniff of power if I'd not given them it, who shall do whatever I order them to and shall never steal my limelight or generate any comparisons which make me look bad in any way. Lastly, I think Trump is hiring 'people I get' and as such, we are seeing a hit parade of people who are at least semi-Trumps psychologically and man, it's ugly.

It's also why I think Musk will be gone by this time next year. I think he is the only person in the circle now who is 'an ally' than 'a hire' and this is not going to last long because the Orange One is supremely narcissistic being colliding with another narcissistic being who doesn't need Trump. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is one nominee that seems to stick out (at least to me), namely Doug Burgum. Or does he have some sort of skeleton in the closet that I’ve missed? ScepticWombat (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, he does appear to be a more 'generic shit, rich white guy' Republican than a real whacko. I'm going to suspect he's not hugely charismatic and passed the test the Orange One put to him: ['Q3: The Boss has made a decision which is incorrect. What do you do?' Correct Ans: 'The Boss does not make 'incorrect' decisions.'] Want to see him with Musky, though! KarmaPolice (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

GradeAUnderA is a Trump supporter now

So apparently after making a Harris roast video before the 2024 election, Grade decided to wait 2 weeks to upload his Trump "roast" video which turned out to just be a Trump dicksucking video Sympathy5010 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"GradeAUnderA". Who? Impiricism (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A YouTuber ranter notable enough for Wikitubia but of little importance outside that scene. First impression: seems to be a bit of a drama llama. (Also a British-born and residing Indian, why the fuck he care about American politics?) BobJohnson (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is obvious: what happens in America affects the rest of the world. Carthage (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Someone I have never about and certainly don't care about supports some idiot. You learn something every day!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is his news. I remember him making a video explaining his preference for Trump over Hillary back in 2016. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The atmosphere and the Flood

I have seen a post at r/exchristian, in Reddit, wondering if Noah wouldn't have suffered altitude sickness as water levels rising above the Everest would have put the Ark in the Death zone, where humans can't live without oxygen supply.

Since Reddit is working erratically today, I'm unable to see the responses but even if we know besides it having not happened (and being physically impossible) I wonder if that's what would happen or if the atmosphere would have expanded. Just as a curiosity. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that - if the oxygen wasn't dissolved into the water - that it would be compressed and that might keep the level around the 20% necessary for human breathing. The real problem would be the atmospheric pressure rising and the body not being able to adjust to it. Vital Forces (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Genesis Noah flood essentially belongs to a collection multiple rather similar ancient flood myths in the Mesopotamian area, as I understand it. I generally find it silly to rely on any of that Bible narrative (you're talking the same Bible book that regularly has people living to nearly 1000 years old), but if one must, one has to remember that the "world" of these storytellers was the region between the Tigris and Euphrates river. The mountain which Noah eventually comes to rest on is the mountains of Ararat region. (Genesis 8:4) Mount Ararat, the highest mountain of this range, is only ~3900m. Mount Judi, the "traditional" mountain Noah landed on, is only ~2000m. So "15 cubits" (from Genesis 7:20, whatever the heck a cubit is) plus this most likely isn't near enough to get one in the "death zone". So far, I'm having difficulty finding what ancient civilization knew of "Mount Everest" (which most certainly was not known as "Mount Everest" then) around ~1000-3000BC; all I can say is that I'm pretty sure that Mesopotamians would have known little, if *anything*, about it... and vice versa.

I think the "Occam's razor" of why there are so many flood stories in that region is that there must've been a pretty big river basin flood at some point (of seemingly unknown conclusive origin, though there are many hypothesis) that spooked enough people to inspire legends and mythmaking. Not thousands of meters (which would be impossible)... but enough meters to inundate everything and wreck serious havoc. Just reading up on this basin, floods are a fairly regular occurrence in this river basin (even today). A really nasty flood there at some point certainly is not out of the scope of reality. I see the Biblical retelling of this myth as a wildly exaggerated telling of such (with a crap-ton of inconsistencies in a mere three chapters). No need to really go further than that IMHO -- the evidence for a "global flood" of any sort is, as I understand it, nilch. BobJohnson (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy of Wikipedia: "the cubit is an ancient unit of length based on the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger."

There are actually a lot of flood stories around the world. Some of these stories have been conclusively dated to the end of the last ice age. In some cases, the details of landscapes described in these stories eerily match landscapes now underwater ([16]).

As for the Mesopotamian flood story... well, we don't really know where the Sumerians came from. They spoke a language isolate in a region predominantly populated (even then) with speakers of Semitic languages. It's possible that the Sumerians came from a land that's now underwater. To a bunch of refugees fleeing sea level rise, the inundation of the Persian Gulf (where it's been hypothesized the Sumerians came from, specifically from what is now modern day Bahrain) must've seemed apocalyptic. Carthage (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Goddidit. Either He in his infinite wisdom changed Noah and Co's lungs so the death zone didn't happen, He removed the death zone or it's something He put in later just out of perhaps spite. There's no damn point theorising 'how' because there's no real space for actual facts in organised religion. Did you know that all those fossils were simply put there to test our faith in THE LORD, for example? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You need to accept a whole string of other impossible things before you even start to discussing this. And if those other impossible things were fixed by miracles - why not this one?

Wholly apart from the fact that it's evident that none of it happened anyway.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading the article about the Flood, I have noticed more issues with it, at least in global scale (a highly exaggerated local one as suggested above is still a serious possibility) besides strong submarine currents that would have destroyed fragile rock formations, as those present in areas rich in granite when it erodes away: the thick sediment layer such event would have happened, with some remain of it that should have been present even thousands of years later at the very least in some zones and how the pressure of so much water should have left some evidence too, not to mention what about abyssal fauna that would probably have been killed by still more pressure on top of what they already have to endure.

But, yeah, there's no way to rationalize this moreso after having heard as proof of the Flood arguments as this one on top of the standard apologetic BS from people ignoramus of even the simplest science. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking from an archaeological perspective, there are plenty of civilizations that were around during the supposed date of the Flood, and they just kept trucking on. Apparently they didn't get the memo. Carthage (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone identify where this image was taken? / location of place (bar or diner) in photo

https://i.ibb.co/sy7pxm9/Photo-bar.png Need help identifying location of this place. Is there any technology that can show place in the photo? Anti-eugenicist (talk)

Google image search (https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&ogbl) can sometimes work, but nothing relevant turned up when I searched. Identifying the artwork on the wall might help. From the bare light bulb, I would guess a café in Europe. I haven't seen these much in the US anymore. Bongolian (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC) The white neon sign on the right appears to say "Bay", indicating Anglophone. Bongolian (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can the poster or the image thereon be identified (may help in dating the photo)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a cover for a 1983 magazine? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185544203098 - there's a photo of the original photographic poster too. Namako (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't figure out the shops outside. The bar style seems to be common in Italian and Irish bars. If it was taken with a phone the original might have location metadata attached to it. Namako (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for help everyone. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The wide shot isn't really anything that would be easy to do without a panoramic lens, which would mean, most likely, this taken on a phone and edited with a filter. Why, exactly, are we locating this photo? Cool photo, don't get me wrong.Torrent (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Artifacts and trash

What's the difference between an artifact and trash? Is it aesthetics? Class? Function? We prop up big monuments like Hammurabi's legal code in museums, but that's not the kind of artifact archaeologists are most interested in (obvious generalization is obvious). It's what's in the middens, the junk ancient people threw away. We can learn a lot from piles of literal shit. Ancient peoples evidently didn't value the discarded bits of bone and shell they threw away once those bits of bone and shell had served their purpose, but archaeologists do. But the products, the lives of everyday people aren't really the ones that get memorialized. Not really, and while there are exceptions like Onfim's drawings, we remember Hammurabi much more than the poor schmucks who worked his fields. The poor bastards chosen for the substitute king ritual aren't remembered beyond their function as the substitute king. And what does this say about today's society, and how people in times distant from our own will relate to us? The technical answer to that question is "it's ultimately subjective, but to an archaeologist nothing is trash, as even literal piles of shit can reveal tons of valuable insights," but archaeologists are not wider society. What archaeologists value is not necessarily what wider society values, and archaeologists themselves are not separate from society. They are still people subject to bias. The scientific method does a lot to mitigate the effects of bias, but it ultimately cannot tell us what to value, and valuation is really how we distinguish between what counts as an artifact to be preserved and what counts as trash to be thrown away. Carthage (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek scene in which something like this was mentioned; the takeaway was that for a human, an antique, an ancient thing, is seen as a connection to the past, a memory of continuity. So we would retain things that a more utilitarian species might have thrown away long ago - and it turns out to be wise when "that old thing" suddenly becomes useful, like an antique used for historical comparison. (Not directly related to your points, but I took the words "Artifacts and trash" into my head and decided to pour out my thoughts.) Meow^Purr 13:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

And, with museums etc, it is often the 'ordinary little objects' which are the most collectable because nobody saw any reason to keep them (and often what is marketed in the usual places as 'collectable (hence the price) and will retain their value' are never worth what was paid for them (partially because most survive, tastes change, people were paying for the hype etc - eg some of the 'Coronation of Charles III gold coins - which differ little in size or weight from a coat of nail varnish).

There is also the saying 'One person's trash is another person's treasure' - and sometimes it is the specific association/because someone has made a collection of the items/the fact that the items have faded out of common usage that makes them interesting. (examples might be as trivial as carbon paper or floppy discs.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The history of things sometimes gives them more or less value - and sometimes for not very logical reason reasons. An old guitar once played by Eric Clapton has a lot more value than an identical guitar previously owned by someone who is not famous. Houses previously owned by murders or serial killers have lower prices. In art, a forgery can be so good that only a highly trained expert can differentiate it from the real thing - artistically they are essentially identical, yet one is worth far more then the other.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend reading Provenance by Ann Leckie. The book's storyline does an entire deep dive on everything already mentioned here and more. Impiricism (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of museums, there is a literal piece of shit on display at the Jorvik Viking Centre. Carthage (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That link failed by the way. But, we have images of a coprolite and a urolite on our bullshit page. Regurgitalites — ahem — also fall into this category! Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. It should be fixed now. Carthage (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There really is no difference. When archaeologists discover an old shithouse, it's like winning the lottery. They've just found a way to tell what people's diets were and how they may have changed over time. There is even a sub-field of archaeology devoted to the study of trash, "Garbology". The term actually comes from the guy who regularly raided Bob Dylan's trash and reported on the contents. Archaeologist William Rathje pioneered the serious garbology field by excavating active landfills. Another example comes from Britain, which due to the Nazi naval blockade and sources of pulp from mainland Europe no longer being available, there was a great paper shortage during World War II. There were campaigns to collect unwanted paper across Britain for recycling. Did people donate their Shakespeare, their dictionary, or high-brow books? No, they tossed their dime-novels, probably once bought at newsstands — we're tossing the newspapers, why not toss the newsstand books too. Guess which books are hard to find and valuable now. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I question your latter example. If the UK had book shortages [true], why would Brits surrender readable books to be pulped for toilet paper? There was in fact repeated drives for folks to donate unwanted books; not for pulping, but for re-distribution to the Forces etc. What's more, books in reasonable condition still had reasonable resale value [more so due to war shortages] - so chances are unwanted books would have been sold off to a bookshop, even if it was only as kiloware. No, the issue was that cheap paperbacks a la Penguin were to some extent designed to be Ephemera - that the major reason they cost less than a coffee does today was due to cheap paper and slapdash binding which doesn't bode well for them lasting generations. Your Shakespeare, dictionaries, high-brow tomes etc were more likely to survive not because 'people didn't want to pulp them' so much, but the simple fact that they usually cost five/six Penguins and therefore, their build quality was much higher. So I think this is more a case of survivorship bias; that folks used their Penguins as firelighters not because they discounted their value as literature, but because they'd ceased to be functional as books [the cynic within me might also suggest that not many people were reading the Shakespeare which kept it in good condition!]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Penguins are (slightly?) higher-class of books than what I'm talking about. The newsstand books from what I've seen tended to be a bit more 'racy' (appealing to prurient interests without being too explicit), probably not something the government would have wanted to distribute to soldiers. I don't know of anyone who has admitted to this behavior, so I'm basing it on deduction from what can be found today from that era. Also, the person who sent the book to pulping may not have been the person who purchased it, but someone else in the household. Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We didn't have those so much because there was formal censorship until at least the early 60s - Lady Chatterly's Lover, Gay News, Life of Brian all encountered legal issues and a lot of the books you're mentioning would have hit the moral guardians of the age or the timidness of the retailers even if they'd somehow managed to clear the censor [traditionally, a lot of British 'banned books' were printed in France/Netherlands and then sold via mail-order; Orwell once got raided for 'illegal literature' when he bought books via France and customs noticed]. And while early Penguins were perhaps better content-wise, they weren't when it came to literal construction quality. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with KarmaPolice — and there’s a good reason there’s a word like “pulp literature”. I think we tend to forget just how cheap (often in all senses of the word) some physical books used to be. I have a couple of old pulp detective novels and they’re basically falling apart (and not from getting reread a lot or similar wear and tear). Or consider the hundreds of millions of Little Blue Books produced and sold between 1919 and 1978. Then again, the oldest book on my shelves is a decently bound encyclopaedia whose first volume was published in 1916 (and no, it’s not a reprint)… ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We forget, 'pulp novels' were as revolutionary to the book trade as 'fast fashion' was to the clothing industry - that before the likes of Penguins books were printed on glossy paper, often with separate picture inserts, in hardback and often cost a half-crown each. In the 1920s, you could get a decent restaurant lunch for two on that [so in modern purchasing power is hovering about £40-50]. Books were a luxury product; that's why the Victorians so often had each of their books bound in leather and safely kept behind glass to protect from dust, soot and mould [so there's a chance Wombat's 1916 encyclopaedia have an 'aftermarket binding']. The advent of the sixpence ['cup of coffee'] Penguins turned books into a commodity product; which means in many ways they're treated worse. Over the decades, I've leant them out and never seen them again, left them on trains, dropped them in water, got splashes of food/drink on them, read them until the spine broke and it started to shed it's innards [which happens quite quickly], allowed them to be jostled about in a rucksack with other items and at times store them inappropriately.

Those 30s/40s/50s Penguins and Pelicans I own are already well beyond their expected lifespan. Some have pages so yellow you need to read them in very good light, others are threatening to strip themselves. Almost all have lost their dust jackets [before I got them] and have varying levels of paper brittleness which means you have do be careful handling them. Even 60s/70s Penguins have fared worse than OUP/Longman paperpacks of the same vintage, suggesting they were produced to higher standards.

To tie this back to the main point [midden diving archaeology] is that you can tell quite a bit about the society 'doing the throwing away'. A modern variant of this would be if you worked in charity shop which took donations from the public. I did this with a bookshop and I learned quite a bit on what folks actually want/read vs what they actually buy. For example, the sheer volume of disowned, near-virgin cookbooks we got suggests very few folks actually use them, while the massive lack of Terry Pratchett books [esp for the size of print runs] suggests his readership is pretty high. As commercial second-hand bookshops don't really exist anymore, perhaps a charity bookshop is the only place you'd really get to see this. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

OKay, but Consider Henry Darger and The Vivian Girls. Some people kinda love it. Or the Voynich Manuscripts. Curio et cetera does not equate to trash. So I would ask, instead, with the unprecedented ability we have now to archive EVERYTHING, what is important to give a little shove up into the modern zeitgeist? And it can't be the book 1984, everybody buys it, nobody actually reads that one. The thing is, we are kinda creating garbage all the time, but the population is bloomed, and doing and recording storytelling at an incredible rate. It's easy for us to say 'well, this is garbage' (see me on any Max Martin written song) but I mean, it's actually somehow, hit me baby part of our history. History's mysteries are diminishing, because I can actually just look up 'Hell Hound on My Trail' by Robert Johnson, but that doesn't mean there aren't artifacts being created today. Cult classic movies are the easiest analogue I can make. The Room, nobody should have ever enjoyed that movie, but it's going to survive. Torrent (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

https://thetanks.bandcamp.com/album/epic-loads-lp I have this on vinyl, which you can't get anymore. I bought two copies and gave one to a friend who also loves the Tanks. I keep it because I still put it on sometimes. The re ord gets spun. I bought the full Warren Ellis 'Transmetropolitan' graphic novel, and just gave it away to a friend when I was done reading it, I mean, artifacts are kinda dumb. Share what you love. It always belongs in a museum, I ain't running no g.d. museum. Torrent (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My Idea for the Children at Thanksgiving

I know a lot of my family are picky and won't try stuff, so at least for the kids' table this year I am going to try 'Thank you' around the world. It's still going to be standard Thanksgiving fare, but to get them to eat what aren't nuggets and applesauce, my idea is to have everyone say 'Bon Appetite' or 'Itadakimasu' or 'Jal MeokessUumnida' or 'Guten Apetit' And take a bite of something. It's not going to be culturally relevant to food, but it will be something the younger kids can't resist. If the older kids are saying words and eating foods, there are no picky eaters. The little ones refuse to be left out.

Entirely, my plan is to fill note cards with natural language (and characters when it applies), American English versions, and English pronounciations. Last Thanksgiving these kids took a bite of mashed potatoes and then excused themselves, I want them to try the foods. Kshingm yong and a bite of turkey from the kids would be a lot more fun for the adults as well. Torrent (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Might sneak in 'Good bread, good meat, Good God Let's eat' as Uncle's privelege. Torrent (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

oh sick, i can edit this now

can someone help me fix my userpage :SOB: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Rikeloldaboss the userboxes are EVERYWHERE. new edit whats this? --->^{— Unsigned, by: Rikeloldaboss / talk / contribs}

Done. You needed the userboxboxtop and userboxboxbottom templates. Bongolian (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that you can view the source of other people's userpages and steal whatever you like from them. It's a good way to learn. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

New drinking game idea (I have not been here for a while)

I got an idea for a drinking game- Transphobia Talking Points Drinking Game.

Someone cites a Bible verse, take a drink of dark ale.

Someone cites Basic Biology, take a shot of whiskey.

Someone says groomer, take a drink of tequila.

Someone says You Will Never Be A Woman, do a Jello Shot.

I don't recommend playing this drinking game. I came up with it for shits and giggles. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Never did get into hard alcohol... only beer. And not gonna lie, most beer nowadays is either American "light beer" aka water, or artificially flavored crap that hurts the stomach. It's difficult and expensive to get a proper Trappist ale or weizenbock from a traditional German brewer. Impiricism (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You Canadians have Unibroue at least, although the now-Sapporo owned brand seems to be tightening up things as part of the overall "craft beer" decline. (Recently a Reddit seemed to state only their excellent Belgian tripel style beer La Fin Du Monde is being exported to the US these days, which sucks because I liked a fair bit of their catalog. Even odder, I couldn't find any Unibroue in any Calgary Alberta beer store with an online presence -- weird.) BobJohnson (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

La Fin Du Monde is okay... not as good as a Chimay Blue or Green though IMO. Have been wanting to try the Maudite Dubbel from the company, but haven't been able to readily find it in my city. If in Alberta the best shop for alcohol in not just the province, but for all of Canada is Sherbrooke Liquor in Edmonton; not kidding about the best shop in Canada part - 'Berta with its conservative libertarian bent has the most relaxed alcohol import laws out of any province. Impiricism (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how "YWNBAW" is an insult when coming from woman-haters. Come to think of it, I have seen Nazis tell converts to Judaism they'll never be "real" Jews... what is going on? Chillpilled (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Misogynists often have a warped mindset where they believe that they treat women well (and how dare they think otherwise); as part of that they also see themselves as being "protectors" of them... hence YWNBAW is them defending ladies from those lesser others. The Nazi and Jewish convert thing likely has similar warped ideas I assume... perhaps a clash of discovering regular folks can become Jewish vs the idea of Jews being less than people. Impiricism (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is yet another aspect of MAGA of which some of the naval-gazing to the good old days actually misses... while the "1950s America stereotype" certainly was far more sexist / gender-defined roles / etc. back then (and certainly *far* more hostile towards alternate sexual orientations, to the point where the Lavender Scare was a thing), there also was (at least at certain purportedly "proper" levels of society) a sort of Gentlemen's Code that the rather boorish behavior of MAGA and other similar movements would have fallen afoul of. Certainly boorish behavior existed "back in the day" among the so-thought-of-as "rougher" classes, and a touch of such (to varying degree) was allowed "among the boys" at least, even among the upper crust. But to be a boorish lout towards women? That would have been considered a serious "buddy, you got No Class" faux pas among the Proper Society types. (And the Washington Society of the 1950s, among many others, certainly was Proper Society types from all I know.)

(There's a similar thing with fundamentalism too. "Back in the day" the old "mainline Protestant" Christianity dominated the American society scene. Fundamentalism was seen as the religion of the dumb gullible hicks.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The plot of the Bolsonaro saga thickens

I don't know how to start this, but Jesus Fucking Christ. First, there was an attempted terrorist attack in the Praça dos Três Poderes on the 13th of this month, and the perpetrator was someone affiliated with the party which Bolsonaro belongs to, and was driven to commit the act by Bolsonaro's fake news; After that, just two days ago, it was discovered that several people in the military, including Bolsonaro's former aide, were arrested for plotting a murder of Bolsonaro's political opponents in 2022, and just today, a few hours ago, Bolsonaro and several of his aides were indicted (That's 3 times that he's been indicted now for those who aren't counting, does the man do anything apart from commiting crimes?), and he allegedly knew of the assassination plot, but unsurprisingly did nothing to stop it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Read a little bit of Wikipedia's page on the Politics of Brazil... Brazilian politics are much more complex to Canada, the US, and the UK, where there's really only two maybe three parties that dominate. Switched to reading about Bolsonaro himself... just like Trump, I'm perplexed as to why anyone would ever vote for them. Neither figure is a pleasant person in general; how can one trust the proposed policies of a person who is not personally trustworthy? It reminds me of the meme of leopards promising that no, they will not eat your face if you vote for them. It's frustrating to no end that people keep doing it. Impiricism (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

61 years

Since Aldous Huxley and CS Lewis died. Anna Livia (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear. They both died on 22 November 1963. Well, there's a bit of trivia! Spud (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and Anthony Burgess, best-known as the author of A Clockwork Orange, died on 22 November 1993. Spud (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Orange Revolution began in Ukraine on 22 November 2004. Impiricism (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you missing the fact it was 61 years since JFK as assassinated? How come I remember this even though I'm not even American? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(Corrected the numbers)

'Not stating the obvious.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What is obvious outside the USA is clearly not obvious to 75 million Americans, so it's a fair call from all us "danged furriners".Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're concerned about C.S. Lewis. I'm not exactly a fan of him and I'd expect a heavily rationalist and secular userbase to feel similarly. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just that he's not someone I really think about. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Lewis might not be to your tastes, or those of most here, but he is a significant and literarily important author. He's as significant as Huxley and Kennedy in his own way. Kencolt (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The trio of notable deaths on 22 November 1963 is a meme. Anna Livia (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

And today, 23 November 2024, marks 34 years since Roald Dahl died. Spud (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Mustn't forget the first manifestation of a blue Police Box (not being a Whovian myself). Anna Livia (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, that was something being born. Kencolt (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am taking a Crack at learning Biblical Greek again.

Trying to learn the Greek alphabet is a huge challenge. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Looks like Gavin Newsom's star is going to be on the rise if there's still a functioning democracy in 2 to 4 years.[17]

“”As a Californian, Newsom is an evil psychopathic demon who feeds on the blood of Republicans. I despise everything about him and cannot wait for the day I get to vote for him as president. He may be a psycho but he's our psycho.

—Seagull on the dead bird site[18]

Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think he’s a good idea. California shifted significantly right this year to due ongoing dissatisfaction with Democratic governance, and he has big “used car salesman” energy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

He also feeds on the blood of the homeless. Carthage (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For a comprehensive takedown, see this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"He's our son-of-a-bitch."[19] Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Cutting against my laconic New England nature for a moment, I always appreciated the longer yet somehow more hilarious version from Lyndon Johnson about Hoover, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It is rather pathetic to see Democrats pimp out a guy who crushed a single-payer healthcare (after pledging to back it) and minimum-wage increase bill as "the guy to beat Trump" when a carbon-copy of that candidate just lost the fucking popular vote. He's as two-faced as Kamala, and just as much a representation of the corporate control of the Democratic Party that honestly needs to end. Carthage (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration and "build the wall" is surprisingly popular across the US, in all likelihood it is the main issue that rocketed Trump to victory. You aren't going to win over moderates with one of the governors that's the face of amnesty. CorruptUser 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration?

There's nothing "moderate" about xenophobia and bigotry, which is in large part the fault of racist fearmongering in the media. Immigrants aren't delivering fentanyl over the border (the people doing that are Americans), they aren't eating your pets, and they're working the jobs no one else will, often in slave-like conditions. Those "moderate" bigots were never going to vote for Harris anyway, no matter how far to the right the Dems pivoted. And you can bet your ass they pivoted to the right on immigration. Carthage (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Don't let anyone in" actually IS the centrist position; the "far right" position on immigration is actually "invade and conquer the heathens". CorruptUser 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The far-right position on immigration is "immigrants are coming to white countries to demographically replace our people, and this is why we should ban immigration from non-white countries." The actually moderate position on immigration is "we should expand legal pathways for citizenship, eliminate the incentives that make undocumented immigrants more desirable workers than citizens and legal residents, and invest in the development of countries that we see the most immigration from so that immigration itself isn't necessary for the people living in those countries to have a prosperous life." A complete ban on immigration is not by any means a sensible, or feasible, position. Just because an opinion is popular doesn't mean it's sensible or correct, and we shouldn't contribute to the mainstreaming of xenophobia by labeling these opinions as "moderate." They're not, they're just bigoted. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I should probably note that "ban immigration" is already a far-right position. "Invade and conquer the heathens" is simply further right. Carthage (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So... what's the immigration policy of China? India? Brazil?

Historically speaking, nations very rarely let in foreigners en masse, and if they did it was as second class citizens at best. That any significant number of people are welcoming to migrants is a historical anomaly. CorruptUser 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If the best you got is "well other countries don't have open immigration systems like the US" (and we don't have that. In fact, the Biden administration has deported far more people than Trump, which is a dubious honor to be sure. Deportations tear apart families, and most often the guys who end up getting deported are just guys who got busted for having a small amount of weed on them or for going a few miles over the speed limit. Bonus points for racial profiling.) then you've already lost. You've offered no real reasons for why immigration is such a bad thing. It built this country. Part of this country's founding mythology is that the US is a shining beacon on the hill, welcoming all comers. "Bring me your poor, tired, huddled masses." And before you say that immigrants commit more crime than native-born citizens, that's bullshit. Immigrants are also necessary to have a functioning economy, they do the jobs nobody else will, often under harsh, slave-like conditions. And they absolutely pay taxes. Fact of the matter is, anti-immigrant sentiment in this country is born out of harmful misinformation. And about China, it's not the US currently undergoing a severe demographic decline (not to the same extent, anyways, and we can thank immigration for that). That's China. Their demographic crisis would be very much mitigated if they started letting more immigrants in. Carthage (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is one of those things I simply don't get about the American 'left' as well as personally pisses me off.

If you're going to have an immigration policy which isn't utterly 'open doors, ask no questions' you are going to need an some kind of border service, to process applicants and to stop folks simply crossing the border undocumented. Outside of asylum cases [which the country is legally bound to process with a modicum of competence, compassion and speed] and those believed to be citizens the country has zero obligation to accept anyone - every country in the world is permitted by both law and convention to have immigration/visitor criteria, to control their borders and lastly, to deport those within the country believed to not be here legally. 'Guys getting deported for speeding' is in fact two differing situations;

a) Guy busted speeding was an undocumented visitor, thus the crime led to them being spotted, arrested and deported.

b) Guy busted speeding was a documented visitor, thus the crime led their residency/visitor status being revoked and then deported.

Hardliners would argue that both 'deserve' deportation, while a more generous person would accept that for b) the punishment is disproportionate. This is a discussion regarding the legal standards documented visitors are held to. To argue that a) doesn't lead to deportation is to basically argue that once you've cleared the border service, you're in forever, while '[country] needs immigration' is a different discussion to this one, which is what should the state do when undocumented visitors are discovered within the country.

I am not au fiat with the particulars of the American position, but through the prism of British experience [esp with the last Tory Govts] is to ask - what is the state of legal systems, such as guest worker programmes, talent visas, family residency rules, claiming asylum and then finally, the route to settled status/citizenship. This the the zone where we discuss the relative needs of the country's industry for foreign labour, the historical foundation for immigration [while the UK is traditionally an emigration point, we've also long been a immigration point too from the Irish to Hong Kongers] and how we integrate said folks into our societies. And in this, Corrupt is correct; as 'settler nations' America's historical 'open door, no questions' policy has been an historical anomaly globally, and if I remember right a policy which closed just after WW1 [and was never properly open in the first place, what with the de facto bans on nonwhite groups like the Chinese]. I would go further in this; that there is a wealth of information now of 'how not to do' immigration - and one of the key positions is [in my book] 'don't allow foreign groups to effectively colonise particular towns/cities to the point the natives feel utterly overwhelmed with no personal benefit'.

Now on the 'immigrants and crime' issue. Moving to another country is in many ways the firmest 'clean break' a person can do; a land where not only does 'nobody know your name' but the new authorities traditionally don't either. This is beneficial for many innocent reasons - for example, many Brits making the crossing liked the relative lack of a class system which 'pegged your position in life' they found in America. But you know who else likes clean slates? Career criminals. To quote Terry Pratchett's Night Watch; the best place to be a crook is the place nobody knows you are a crook. Plus, some of these folks will be on the run from the authorities 'back home' and shall also work to try to avoid getting attention so nobody puts two and two together; this was a problem with America back with the Mafia in the 1900s, so it's not new [or just American; here in the UK one of the major foreign/ethnic crime groups has been Albanian, and while some of the smuggled people were trafficked sex slaves and drug labourers some were also 'criminal importation' to expand their British businesses].

This is partly why the 'bring me your poor, tired, huddled masses' argument falls down. It's utterly tone-deaf to the above problem, because it denies it exists period. I'm willing to bet a fiver that it's no way as common as public perception thinks and there's an element of xenophobia/racism about it but it is an issue and it does concern a decent % of people. It's one of the reasons Trump [and earlier the Tories here] won; they promised 'to do something about this' and part of their pitch was 'the left have no policy, just let everyone in'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I will note that your 'clean break' argument entirely relies on a disconnect of communication and coordination between authorities across the border. With proper communication/coordination I don't see how freely crossing the border to America could possibly be more of a 'clean break' than freely crossing state lines. Perhaps you are misplacing blame?

Also, you say that an "open borders" policy is a historical anomaly, but I'd love to see your sources for this. From what I read, it was actually really common among nations in the pre-WWI era. It wasn't just America. E.g. take a look at this article I found.

"[... ] to basically argue that once you've cleared the border service, you're in forever". The issue is of ethical nature. Sure, nations have legal frameworks and an existing convention to deport undocumented immigrants. The issue is that when these undocumented immigrants make a life for themselves inside the country we're forced to grapple with quite literally ruining their new life for themselves. I don't find that tenable, especially concerning families. Laws are tools that we use to facilitate the functioning of society in the ways that we want it to act. Do we really want a society that does this to people? Is there truly no better policy? What some see as unequal legal treatment, I see as an ethical practicality.

Finally, I'm not sure who you're arguing against. You seem to be making an argument just to tear it down? Who is "the left" here?

I suppose I can choose to be a stand-in, though. I'd argue that we (America in particular) should have as open borders as possible. Screening for criminals and providing documents is just about the only restriction I'd really argue for. I'm not very sympathetic to people who get concerned when their communities have high-levels of immigration, except for logistical issues irt housing and services. But to me those logistical issues are a failure of our society and not necessarily an intrinsic drawback of immigration. As for undocumented immigrants who make it past border control, I personally see no reason why they cannot simply go through processing while still being in the country. Deportation is insanely expensive, anyways, and takes about $11k per immigrant. It's horribly punitive and inefficient to have this process as it is.Sciraven (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

- Not sure why you think I don't believe border agencies etc don't talk to their counterparts - if they don't, they very well should. One of the few reasonable things the old Tory Govt did here in the UK, for example was signing an agreement with Albania which allowed us to, amongst other things cross-check applications with their criminal records and deport convicted criminals easily. But there's always going to be cases where County X either can't or won't sign such an agreement [and for decent reasons too, such as 'believing counterpart to be utterly corrupt'.]

- Historical 'open door, no questions' has been a lot more of a historical anomaly globally than you think. Most European empires controlled [sometimes quite strictly] who and who couldn't settle there, English/British North America being perhaps the only exception to this [partly because said colonisation efforts were basically left down to private enterprise] and said countries often had certain requirements you had to fill so you could settle [for example, to settle in Hapsburg Spain or Bourbon France being Catholic was mandatory]. Even the famed Ellis Island [open 1891] was partly there so American officials could ask questions. You are right that this relatively 'open door world' died with WW1, and I would go further to say the door was finally 'fully closed' in the 1960s when Euro nations such as UK and France started to severely restrict access to former colonies and nations like W Germany ended their 'guest workers' schemes.

- On your 'deporting undocumented migrants hurts families [and that is wrong]' point, that is an untenbale position to have. If you agree you shall never deport 'because it hurts people', you might as well simply abolish the whole immigration system. What about foreign born criminals? Don't they have families too? That is utterly politically untenable position. You talk of ethics; what about those immigrants who did go through the legal channels, doing everything which was asked of them? Is that then fair for them to see following the rules had no ultimate effect because the ones who didn't follow them got away with it? Justice must be seen to be done otherwise folks won't believe in it.

- There are downsides to having open-door immigration policies, and beyond the simple fact of provision of services etc. As pointed out above, one of the key problems is that in nations like the UK and USA, we have whole swathes of the economy hooked to cheap, casualised and disposable labour, much of it immigrant in origin. And before you trot out the usual neolib line of 'it's good for the economy', I actually suspect it isn't - that while it increases raw GDP it doesn't increase GDP per capita because all you're doing is throwing more labour at the economy, not actually making the current labour more productive. There is also the issues of social cohesion; one of the biggest failures of multiculturalism was to expect 'both sides' to intragrate of their own accord, with most of the running expected from the host communities. Why should the latter have to suck it all up, do all the 'changing' with zero official support? What's the 'ethics' in that? The locals of my HomeSmallTown never asked for the thousands of foreigners to come there, they never saw any benefits for themselves for the foreigners to come there and in fact at times saw 'the foreigners' getting extra help they didn't.

The issue is, obviously that the HomeSmallTowners are all 'Somewheres'; people who are fairly parochial in scope and geographically 'anchored', while the folks bigging up the Others coming in [often to make their own Somewhere in an existing Somewhere] are usually 'Anywheres' - folk who feel more 'citizens of the world' and geographically footloose. Narrower and wider views of 'Us' and 'Them', deeper or shallower rivers between the two groups. It's why the Anywheres feel that Somewhere is clannish and insular while Somewheres think Anywhere is cold and unsupportive - something you can feel in small towns which have been partly 'colonised' by commuter Anywheres from larger settlements ['it's folks like you which mean my kid can't afford no place to live' etc].

In fact, part of me suspects that 'Anywheres' like mass immigration because they don't really have to deal with the costs of it [that is paid by the Somewheres]. Well, the American 'Somewheres' got their revenge; they elected Trump twice. Enjoy! KarmaPolice (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Not sure why you think I don't believe border agencies etc don't talk to their counterparts". The point you missed that I was making is that with sufficient coordination between agencies across nations, a criminal escaping across the border should be no more untenable than a criminal escaping across state lines in the U.S.. Ergo, if I assume you think the state of free travel within America is tenable (and I must assume so; to do otherwise is absurd to me) then your problem lies squarely in whatever distinctions in these borders can obscure a criminal's background. That would be a lack of coordination and/or resources. There's nothing magical about the U.S. Mexico border that lets criminals throw away their past. Borders are legal structures, they have no material reality.

"If you agree you shall never deport 'because it hurts people'". I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong with my argument such that you immediately assume I'm using some contrived rule-based argument about harm for deportation. I thought the insinuation of utilitarianism was clear. The insinuated question is: what benefit do we get from deporting people that outweighs the human cost of it? Not to mention the insane monetary expense of deportation, to begin with. Furthermore the argument you make about it not being "fair" to people who legally crossed the border is contrived to me. Logically following from my point, you're effectively saying that that "fairness" is so important as to be worth deconstructing innocent lives and spending tens of thousands of dollars per person. All so that, what, we get the relief of knowing we held people consistently to an arbitrary standard? How the fuck is that fair? How is that possibly ethical? That's what's so untenable to me. That's why I call my position an ethical practicality.

"And before you trot out the usual neolib line of 'it's good for the economy', I actually suspect it isn't". Uh, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to react to this. We have evidence that strongly suggests it is, and all you're really giving me is "Well Maybe It Doesn't, Thought About That?". Like, sure, you're allowed to have a hypothesis it's not true. Fair enough. But "arguments" born of pure intuition are so commonplace I could flood my entire house with just the saliva that comes out when they're spoken. Genuinely, what the fuck am I supposed to do with this? Maybe there's a study on that precise hypothesis, and I'll go looking, but it sure as hell ain't productive to just throw away an evidenced-based theory for one with a lack of it just because it suits ya.

"Why should the latter have to suck it all up, do all the 'changing' with zero official support?". Could you stop strawmanning me? Like JFC man not every position on open borders just thinks there is NO logistical issues socially whatsoever. Understandably, you're probably extrapolating this from my "lack of sympathy" I stated earlier. I should clarify because I sounded harsh. My lack of sympathy is squarely about xenophobia irt immigration in communities. E.g. when people get concerned simply because the people who come are different culturally, I don't give two shits. That's what I was trying to insinuate by talking about the logistical exceptions. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Anyhow, I'm not suggesting no official support?? The fuck?? Beyond that, immigrants getting help when "[other people] don't" is something I see as a policy issue irt social safety nets not an issue with immigration. And beyond that, people who need the most help should get the most help, to me. Immigrants are not special in my mind? I don't know if you're claiming that of me, but it's kinda insinuated?

"[S]omething you can feel in small towns which have been partly 'colonised' by commuter Anywheres from larger settlements". I'm trying to mesh this point my head but the problem is that there is inconsistent evidence that immigration here in the U.S. has actually led materially to these negative sentiments in the same places where the immigration is taking place. I'd love to see some kind of empirical study on this. From case examples, it doesn't seem to hold up. Like the Haitians from Springfield Ohio, or in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles with undocumented immigrant populations. You can also expand this to larger geographical areas: California has some of the best pro-immigrant policies and most pro-immigrant sentiment and it's also the state with the largest amount of undocumented immigrants. We also know materially that a lot of disinfo helps fuel xenophobia - which is one of the strongest undercurrents of the recent calls for "mass deportation" and other such policies. With this kind of context, how am I to believe your claim is well-supported? What have you done to specifically isolate immigration as a factor?

"Well, the American 'Somewheres' got their revenge; they elected Trump *twice*. Enjoy!" Uhhh... no? One, Immigration wasn't the top issue in the exit polls we got among the demographics who swung Trump to victory (it was "The Economy", whatever the fuck that means in the scope of Trump's national sales tax on foreign goods, lmao). Two, the vast majority of immigrants settle in urban areas, not small towns. I'm not seeing much, if any, evidence that a lot of small towns in these swings states were swamped with immigrants, except perhaps a few in Arizona. Especially not in the Blue Wall states afaik. Have you seen any evidence to the contrary? From what I can see the facts of the matter don't support that narrative, my friend.

Anyhow, it'd be nice if you stopped treating me as if I had no critical thinking. A few of these arguments you're making are, from what I can gather, actually just propositions that you're not really tying to anything empirical (e.g. that one about the economic impact). And beyond that, the strawmanning is getting a little annoying. Maybe I'm just bad at communicating, but stretching my "look at the human cost of human deportation" to "you're saying you don't support any legal measure that could possibly hurt someone" is one hell of a convenient thing to do. Sciraven (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

- On border coordination, you don't answer my point of 'the bodies you're coordinating with being incompetent, corrupt, malign or missing'. And you still need to have a border agency to exist, to ask questions and if/when needs be, stop folks from entering the country. Your 'inside the USA' argument is rot, because that is an internal 'free movement' zone, where every player is reasonably competent and trustworthy [similar to the Schengen Zone in the EU, which is in fact a better example].

- With deportation, you did say 'it was an ethical issue' and then talk about how uprooting them would hurt others? Gee, not sure how I could have mistaken that argument with a simple 'it would be too costly to remove them' one. Wow. I just said it. How is the argument about illegals stay scot-free pissing off the legal ones 'contrived'? It's totally natural; if I have to strive and struggle to get that card legally and then somebody else rocks up and despite having not followed the rules gets given that card too - where's the fairness in that? It's Frank Grimes vs Homer Simpson. You want a utilitarian argument? Here; 'the law must punish breakers and reward followers so public confidence in them is retained', because otherwise this whole show falls apart. Now, arguing what those rules should be is something completely different, and part of my argument is to have a strong border service so ultimately, a lot less deportations have to happen.

- You want evidence. Here. The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US [para 66, UK Lords report/meta-study]. You've utterly ignored my point that 'simply throwing more bodies at a problem might improve raw output, but not productivity', or the fact that I highlight not 'immigration' in general, but in particular very low paid occupations where the endless cheap labour is retarding productivity growth because bosses are simply 'hiring another cheapo immigrant' than investing in capital plant to do that job instead as well as suppressing wage growth in the un/semi-skilled occupations.

- 'Xenophobia' has been the stock handwave away regarding all criticisms regarding immigration for decades, just like 'racism' has been used to silence critics of ghettoised ethnic groups who act like the rules the rest of us follow don't apply to them. If you simply 'let in as many as wish to come here in' and also allow them to go where they like in the land too, yes you will end up with the situation I outlined, and my argument rests mainly on the fact that's what happens now.

- Immigration was an major issue, though not the top one. But don't take my word for it [I know you don't like that] - Among Trump supporters, the economy (93%), immigration (82%) and violent crime (76%) are the leading issues., About six-in-ten voters (61%) today say immigration is very important to their vote [Pew Research, 9/9/24]. Wasn't the top issue, but hell, why don't you go and tell those 61% it's nothing to worry about?

- 'not really tying to anything empirical'. That's because I thought this was a discussion, not a show that we fling papers and essays at each other and shove [citation needed] on every single thing without loads of backup. But I can do that if you'd like. So, on the 'local vs newcomers' divide I discussed which isn't real to you right now, behold it becoming real...

https://theconversation.com/why-do-small-rural-communities-often-shun-newcomers-even-when-they-need-them-199984

https://1043wowcountry.com/a-new-californian-living-in-idaho-slams-washingtonians-moving-here/

https://time.com/6992970/gentrification-small-towns-essay/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/inside-the-welsh-village-where-english-speakers-arent-welcome/

Note here, I was talking in very general terms; not simply about external immigrants [though they will get it harder because their 'Other' rating is often very high]. I spent part of my youth in Wales, and I shall tell you now there was a divide between 'the locals' [Welsh, poorer, often blue collar] and 'the English' [older, wealthier and often professionals] to the point the two groups barely mixed socially. The place I went to Uni to had a very modern 'town and gown' friction about it and I did also describe my SmallHomeTown too and point you towards the Somewhere/Anywhere article [if you'd bothered to read my comments below the one you replied to, that is]. However, it is an under-documented issue.

- Oh, immigrants heading for small-town America not real either? Here; https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/11/249981976/a-midwestern-meatpacking-town-welcomes-immigrants As noted elsewhere, immigrants [legal or not] dominate the American agricultural worker group, and last time I looked into agriculture [and related industries] it kinda happens well, out in the country and by smaller cities. And America has been having a rural drain for aeons now, meaning that the remaining locals get 'replacement vibes' as the only folks coming in are 'foreigners' to work at the processing plant or whatever. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"'Xenophobia' has been the stock handwave away regarding all criticisms regarding immigration for decades." Except that anti-immigrant sentiment does have a large xenophobic/racist component to it. It's not people like Elon Musk who are gonna get deported, even though he was in this country for a while illegally. Neo-Nazis recognize that Trump's deportation scheme appeals to racists. The bid to end birthright citizenship? Guess what that's appealing to. Racist fears about "white genocide." The language used to describe immigrants? "Immigrants are poisoning the blood of this country." How is that not a racist statement? And what the fuck is this? "'Racism' has been used to silence critics of ghettoised ethnic groups who act like the rules the rest of us follow don't apply to them." Which, one: you realize "ghetto" is often used as a racist dogwhistle, right? Two: what the fuck are you talking about? That's a strawman right there for criticisms of systemic racism. It's inverting the actual criticism: "that there is a double standard in the American legal system, and it is a racist one." Black people are convicted much more harshly than white people. They receive, on average, longer sentences. It's people of color who are targeted by police to meet arrest quotas. Carthage (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that I'm not aware of anyone on the "electable left" in America that has truly advocated "open borders". People like Biden and Harris certainly didn't. I Googled to check how Newsom is "the face of amnesty"... and honestly, I'm not finding much. I mean, yes, he expanded health services to undocumented workers, but he's also killed several other bills related to undocumented workers. The face of amnesty? Okay...

So how is Newsom all of a sudden the face of amnesty? Two words: Republican propaganda. The Republicans are great at the moment at coming up with "simple solutions for simple minds", especially on Other type issues... and also painting simple demagogues where Democrat politicians are The Cause Of Everything. As an example, Donald Trump's wall is a fucking ridiculous solution to illegal immigration in practical terms... very expensive, and in some cases (like the border at Big Bend National Park) impossible and pointless. But, if you disengage your brain and "think" only with base anger, this dumbfuck solution might actually sound quite good. I already see that the "conservative" propaganda networks took Newsom's little things, like that health care for undocumented workers bill, and blew it out of proportion.

If the racist rubes had a brain, they'd figure out real quick that the politicians aren't the "face of amnesty"... it's the farmers, hotel and leisure industry, construction and others that employ undocumented labor... largely in an already illegal manner. Or, if not, using "workarounds" like the H-2B visa (which I suspect will become more prominent in the future, gives "biz" an "out"). Beginning with Arizona in the 2010s or so, there have been a few states that occasionally "crack down" on illegal immigration properly (namely, by holding employers accountable). Generally, the states have backed off real quick once they figure out that the illegal employing industries (which have a Republican lean, mind you) get hurt -- so even though laws remain "on the books", they are poorly enforced. Also, let's face it -- the prices of things like hotels and veggies are going to go up if illegal immigration was truly cracked down on. Do the rubes that complained about this year's inflation even know that?

By and large, I see the "issue" of illegal immigration in this country as a dog and pony show more than anything else. As long as employers are using them... it will happen. And as long as the rubes don't understand the full scope of illegal immigration... the Republicans will find it as a useful tool to get people mad. So it goes. BobJohnson (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of this is utterly confected and yes, a lot of this could be solved with a more 'defence in depth' situation than a literal 'wall' spanning every metre of the border [rule of thumb tells me you close one route another simply pops up elsewhere]. However, one thing I have learned from British experience is that what 'the left' [or more correctly, the centre] all so often fail to do is to what I call 'reasonable potted replies' to the right-wing BS. This is why, for example I've long felt that in the UK Labour should have said the line 'firm but fair' every time asylum came up as an issue ['we will always help those in genuine need, but we won't be a soft touch either'] to counter-jam the lies. I've seen Carthage's argument about criminal immigrants deployed and fall on it's arse in real-life; all the opponent has to do is find a single well-known exception to 'prove it is wrong'. My argument neuters this defence by accepting that the 'is a criminal' and 'is an immigrant' venn circles do have some overlap and it's perfectly reasonable to argue then, 'well we don't want those people, do we?'.

Perhaps I'm getting more cynical as I age, but it's got to the stage that instead of arguing 'this is a manufactroversy' to the eternally obtuse until you pass out is to simply trot out some glib soundbites and a bit of security theatre to 'assure' them 'we have heard you and are doing shit to sort it out' [all the while ideally sorting out the more knotty/nuanced issues behind the issue, which normally you don't get thanked for]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that unfortunately. The nuts and bolts wonk stuff, while more the reality of what is going on, is not for the masses that casually tune into politics (if they do at all). On immigration, I actually think that the more progressive end of the Democrats could hype up a "boogeyman" themselves if they wanted to emphasize the Big Business role. (People tend to not like Big Business, though everyone uses it.) Beyond that, I think that finding an acceptable "mass market" slogan/soundbite for the Democrat side is more challenging -- while currently most are not full open borders, they have more "little things" like Newsom's health bill, and nuance is hard to communicate with a sound bite (and easy to counter with simple fear). You might not need one -- good political communicators like Barack Obama didn't necessarily need them. But exceptionally skilled political communicators are rare.

One other caveat: I do think that many of the "racist rubes" actually change their tune quite a bit when it comes to labor with greater skillset. Immigrant doctors and engineers (or even plumbers, electricians, and welders!) seem to arouse far less ire among the masses. Again, however, nothing that I can think of a "mass market" slogan for. But it is something to shape policy over. Most immigration policies worldwide (the United States included) are *much* more friendly to those who have learned a trade. BobJohnson (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

'The builders and strivers will always be welcome to our [COUNTRY NAME]?' And yes, a decent % of the anti-immigration rhetoric is a map/territory issue; that when the centrist-capitalist ruling classes look at macro stats like unemployment rates and GDP growth while the anti-immigrants look at the micro, like the fact low-wage jobs have lost purchasing power and big businesses have used migrant labour to depress wages [which folks like Zinn noted in his People's History - that the Irish were used to break the settled Anglo worker, then they were broken by Italians, then they were broke by Poles etc...]

I think a part of the issue with 'immigration' is that a decent % of the 'reception areas' are in small towns which have suffered generational brain-drain [think of for example the agri colonies which are now strongly Hispanic in the Mid-West] and often have very set ideas on 'what things should look like' - that a ex-mining town doesn't really want say, tourism / educational facilities / artist colonies / retirement communities / tech hubs or solar farms - they just want the fucking mines back. This reminds me of my recent visit back to HomeSmallTown, a washed-up little place where what little economic energy felt now is from the recent migrants [in this case 'foreign to this town']. Cue whining about 'foreign shops' in the town centre etc. Even after pointing out those units had been empty before that and had been for years - they were adamant that there was a BadThing. Came to realise that they didn't want economic recovery, they desired a picture of 1980 to walk back into. Not sure how I could soundbite this away. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Corrupt wasn't arguing for a "sensible immigration policy," he was arguing to ban immigration entirely. He stated that was the centrist position. My response to that was "a sensible approach to immigration is to expand legal pathways, rather than restrict them as Trump is doing, go after the structures that incentivize big business to hire migrant labor in the first place (and there is a difference between undocumented labor and simple "migrant" labor), and invest in those countries we are seeing record numbers of immigrants from so that immigration doesn't seem like such an appealing economic pathway to people desiring prosperity." Plus, as I have stated previously, a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in the States is based on bullshit fearmongering, it's literally an entire business model.

Also, no one in this thread seems to give a shit about the utterly disastrous effects deportation has on communities. It rips parents from children, children from parents, spouses from their significant others There is also the fact that anti-immigrant discourse (and thus, policy) in this country is thoroughly racialized (much more than the "and some of it may be caused by racist sentiment" liner implies). It won't be white people (and white immigrants) targeted by Trump's immigration crackdown. It'll be racial minorities, and you can bet your ass that there have been plenty of false positives. And I don't think we should be perpetuating the rhetoric about "Core Americans" here. It's a racist dogwhistle. Hell, if this country had any real "core population," it would be Native Americans, and they've also had white nativist rhetoric thrown their way (as seen here). To boot, Hispanic-Americans are also in no way "foreign" to the US. Some of them have been here (Tejanos and Californios, for instance) since before the Southwest (and Texas) were ever a part of this country or saw Anglo boots on their soil. In fact, there is a big cross-border economy/community down there. It turns out that communities don't vanish and the people in those communities stop interacting when a bunch of thugs with guns come in and draw an imaginary line on a map separating the people in those communities. Just look at the O'odham.

It's not out of a sense of "youthful naivety" that I, and others like me, object to xenophobic policies. It's because we know where xenophobic policy comes from, and the disastrous consequences it will have on marginalized populations, as I discussed above. Carthage (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm merely pointing out that the vast majority of the world, throughout most of history, has had the immigration policy of "fuck off". Why bring it up at all? To disabuse you of the notion that somehow, the natural, default position is to be in favor of illegal immigration. In the US, the centrist policy is "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked". I've stated my ideal immigration policy in the past, but I'll reiterate it again.

1) Expand student visas, 2) expand H1B, EXCEPT that it should be awarded based on employee pay and NOT a lottery, 3) eliminate the lottery visa, 4) expand/promote the military pathway, 5) rapid deportation of criminals, 6) make California's prop 187 national law, 7) expand the work visas, 8) overhaul/streamline/cheapen the legal immigration pathway, 9) go after any employer that hires illegal immigrants, 10) while "anchor babies" should absolutely be given citizenship, anyone who violated immigration law should be permanently ineligible for family reunification, and quite a few more. CorruptUser 06:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

1) There is no "natural, default position on immigration." All politics are localized, and so all political positions (including on immigration) are informed by local conditions. A historical trend to tell outsiders to "fuck off" does not in anyway mean that's somehow "more natural" than letting people in. Borders are a very artificial phenomenon, and integration and migration have been just as much the average historical trend as xenophobia and isolation.

2) You didn't state that the centrist position was "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked." You stated the centrist position was "don't let anybody in." You're moving the goalposts. Hell, I was the one who stated that the moderate position is to ensure that there are viable legal pathways for people to immigrate, not ban it entirely like what you stated. Notice that nowhere in this thread did I argue for completely open borders. Stating that "anti-immigrant politics in this country is generated by racist fearmongering from people in power, and that completely banning immigration is a stupid position to take" is not equivalent to "I believe our borders should be totally open and we should do no screening of people coming in."

3) I, however, also seem to be the only one acknowledging the practical realities of the situation. Because immigration politics in the United States are so heavily racialized, there is going to be a racial component to who we screen, and how we enforce anti-immigration laws, and that marginalized communities are going to be negatively effected by these policies. The U.S. citizens being mistakenly picked up by ICE are not white guys. ICE isn't really going after white immigrants. It's going after people who look like Cesar Chavez, no matter how long people like Chavez have been in the country, or if they are here legally or not. And there are going to be attempts to restrict legal immigrants, so that people who were here legally are now here illegally. Carthage (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen of mainline American centrist opinion [like the 'Very Serious People' talking heads] I would guess Corrupt is correct in the "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked" position [I'm going to assume the earlier 'immigrants can fuck off' was a mistake by omission rather than shifting the posts]. However, while they are also correct in pointing out that 'fuck off unless we explicitly say otherwise' immigration policies are roughly the norm around the world right now [give or take] but Carthage is also correct in pointing out that the American mythos of being 'a city on the hill, welcome to all comers' is in stark contrast to this. I still think the 'anchor baby' line is BS, though - or at best, a very tiny issue [it sounds very close to the British 'teen girl has baby to get a free council house' trope which right-wing shits still peddle despite the fact that a) I never met a teen mother who got knocked up for that purpose and b) housing shortages means that 'hasn't worked' for some time now].

That said, they didn't say there was anything 'natural' in this current position - I mean I pointed out before that before 1914, effectively the entire world was visa free. This state of affairs would have also been held as 'natural', I suspect, just like it was held as 'natural' that the Lower Classes shouldn't be educated because their station in life was to toil. I'm not ignoring the human factor in this either; it's just that again, that's a different conversation. Does deportations of undocumenteds hurt their families? I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't. But simply saying 'that will hurt others so we'll let you go with no penalty' isn't a viable position with the Big Public because they'll feel strongly that it makes a mockery of all those folks who did go through all hoops to get residency. What said penality actually is is another topic - though I'm going to guess that the majority of the Big Public won't be in for performative cruelty.

And yes, the very nature of having policies means you'll end up with false positives/negatives - that's ultimately unavoidable. From what I can tell, the USA has a similar issue to us in the UK in which we lack formal, national systems of an ID card which allows 'legal' residents to assert their position with ease [this is perhaps worse in the USA because less of you as a % of the population have passports] which results in individual officers being in the position to 'use their own judgement' aka to use both conscious and unconscious bias.

I'm aware that you personally didn't advocate 'totally open borders with zero checks', Carthage. The problem is 'you' [as in your position] have been quite well-painted as such by the right-wing shits of this world as advocating this. Yes, this is utterly unfair and incorrect; but it's part of the cost we have to pay; like having to constantly point out that no, just because you support trans rights it doesn't mean 'we think there's a thousand genders' and supporting a reasonable welfare state isn't that you believe in a continuous supply of 'gives' to lazy fuckers. What's more, often when 'we' [as in 'folks on the genuine left'] get 'ambush questions' we're unprepared to give a pithy, 'potted answers' to allow folks to get the gist of our position. Yes, a lot of nuance is lost by doing this but we both know that if we don't define ourselves our opponents will and it will invariably be a lot worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

there are 1000 genders and every time someone complains i personally double the amount TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

and I add one to the tally of 'You suck.' what a worry Torrent (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Torrent Who do you mean by 'You'? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, one person, one tally in my book. If you're being sarcastic a little bit of context is needed.Torrent (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)