• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

Ha! Believe me, Harvard has produced some colossal fools over the years. Even one of the other foolish presidents mentioned above, Mr George Walker Bush, Jr.
True but Jr's 'scholarship' was my daddy went here and he's rich.
And he was at the business school, which is the not-so-secret code for "Daddy had money". The law school is a bit of a trickier game. But in any case, academic attainment does not guarantee practical intelligence.
 
Here is an anlysis of Hitler, who by some estimates may have had an IQ as high as 150, by some of his top stooges who themselves had above-average IQs. I should hedge that by saying I don’t put too much stock in IQ tests. Still, the testimony of these and many others paint HItler as a very intelligent man with a powerful personality who committed horrific crimes and led his nation to total disaster. Intelligence and character are not the same thing. Of course one could simply define someone who commits terrible crimes and does stuff that ends disastrously as unintelligent, but I think the reasoning there is circular.
 
Guess I'm wrong for thinking intelligence would help someone recognize when ambition might cloud good judgment.
 
Guess I'm wrong for thinking intelligence would help someone recognize when ambition might cloud good judgment.
Generally works the opposite direction: ambition clouds intelligence and particularly obscures character. Sadly enough.

Ambition and hubris both work hard against clear thinking.
 
Here is an anlysis of Hitler, who by some estimates may have had an IQ as high as 150, by some of his top stooges who themselves had above-average IQs. I should hedge that by saying I don’t put too much stock in IQ tests. Still, the testimony of these and many others paint HItler as a very intelligent man with a powerful personality who committed horrific crimes and led his nation to total disaster. Intelligence and character are not the same thing. Of course one could simply define someone who commits terrible crimes and does stuff that ends disastrously as unintelligent, but I think the reasoning there is circular.
Also true. I'd consider JD Vance an intelligent man, but he'll be a catastrophically poor president.
 
Guess I'm wrong for thinking intelligence would help someone recognize when ambition might cloud good judgment.
Wisdom might, but I don’t consider wisdom the same thing as intelligence. In any case, these discussions get a bit tangled because concepts like “intelligence,” “judgment, “wisdom,” and the like can be notoriously slippery and hard to pin down outside of some particular context.
 
For example, in discussions about AI, it can be argued that “intelligence” means the ability to quickly and efficiently solve a problem or even any number of problems, better even than the smartest humans. But if we grant that AI is intelligent in this fashion (or getting more intelligent at any rate, for ChatGPT certainly continues to make any number of horrific blunders), there is no evidence that I know of that these things are even conscious in any way whatsoever.
 
I think in the case of Watergate, Nixon’s screwups were not those of a stupid or unintelligent man, but rather of a man intoxicated* with hubris and the arrogance of power, alloyed with deep insecurity, paranoia, and hatred for those he felt had looked down on him. Lyndon Johnson, also an intelligent man, had many of the same traits, which led to the Vietnam debacle.
*And bourbon. He was a horrible drunk.
 
Wow, Pood! I was still in my momma's belly in Jamaica when all that craziness went down. I bet there’s a baby somewhere now, curled up and waiting out the Trump debacle.
 
Dude, seriously, that is LITERALLY WHAT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT IS!!!!!!
Is English your first language?
When someone says (truthfully) that Trump is an “existential threat to democracy”, it doesn’t mean “OMFG HE IS GONNA KILL ME!!”
It means Trump poses a threat to the existence of democracy. Can you wrap your brain around that?

Would you be more comfortable if someone said “trump intends to bring an end to American democracy”? Is “existential” too big a word to apply to a democracy? Even though it has existence? Literally?
OMG. I didn't suggest that Trump was going to kill you or any individual person, JFC this is ridiculous.
You're the one who said existential threat can only mean something that erases our existence. That was not the meaning intended by the statement. The Felon is an existential threat to democracy and likely to the American nation. He certainly won't intend to kill us but he could by cutting safety margins until something critical breaks.
 
All of these things you're saying are justifications for expected future violence.
No. They are motivations for turning out to vote in numbers sufficient not only to create an electoral landslide, but also to discourage people from participating in the ensuing coup attempt. That is the only path to a peaceful transfer of power in January. And by peaceful, I mean body counts of no more than three digits.
That might be how you intend it, but I really really don't think that's going to be the consequence.

"Vote for Harris or else Trump is going to be a dictator and destroy democracy, and turn the miltary against US Citizens and it's going to be Hitler all over again. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, if he wins he's going to persecute liberals and round up immigrants and deport them or put them in camps!"

And you think that the only repercussion of that message is to get people to go to the voting booth? You don't think there's any chance at all that anyone is going to take that seriously? You don't think anyone is going to take it further than that if Trump wins?

Even in your own post, you're messaging that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY we can have a peaceful transfer of power is if Harris wins by a landslide. You've already internalized and repeated that Harris has to win or else...
It's not saying anything about The Felon's plans that he hasn't already said.
 
Meanwhile in the world of incitement.
I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler,

He commented more than once that, 'You know, Hitler did some good things, too,'

{Donald Trump} is a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party.

I am afraid he would break more things than he fixes. He is a hot head by nature, and that is a dangerous trait to have in a Commander in Chief.
 
If the left has to trump up Trump's badness so egregiously, it makes it seem like it's crying wolf. He's already bad enough that nobody should have to exaggerate it.

I think the Democrat voters concerns are largely driven by a genuine fear of repeating Germany’s historical mistake of not confronting authoritarian threats early on, rather than simply aiming to smear Trump. And it’s not as though Trump hasn’t given them reasons for alarm. For example the Russia investigation, which he labeled a 'witch hunt,' was triggered by suspicious behavior on his part. As I’ve mentioned before, when he had a meeting with Putin that typically requires security detail and official records but chose to meet privately without oversight, I expected people to be suspicious. . While the investigation didn’t conclude that Trump colluded with Russia, it did uncover actions that landed figures like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone in serious trouble. I personally don’t see alarmist rhetoric as problematic, so long as it doesn’t dehumanize a group of people and remains focused on the parties actually involved.


Democrats criticize Trump specifically = Good
Trump labels all Democrats as bad = Bad

Republicans criticize Kamala specifically = Good
Kamala labeling all Republicans as bad = Bad (though I haven’t seen this)

It's different.
"Deplorables"

Harris said that?

Following up on this—it's as if Biden woke up, grabbed me by the foot, and put it straight in my mouth.

Biden Said: And just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage." Well, let me tell you something. I don't... I... I don't know the Puerto Rican that—that I know—or a Puerto Rico, where I'm from—in my home state of Delaware, they're good, decent, honorable people.

The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters... his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American. It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been.

Way to go dude. (y)
 
Meanwhile in the world of incitement.
I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler,

He commented more than once that, 'You know, Hitler did some good things, too,'

{Donald Trump} is a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party.

I am afraid he would break more things than he fixes. He is a hot head by nature, and that is a dangerous trait to have in a Commander in Chief.

That's the alternate-universe Trump they’re talking about—you know, the one who said…

If you can't take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it's all over. I mean, it's no good. So I'm very liberal when it comes to health care, I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.
 
That's the alternate-universe Trump they’re talking about—you know, the one who said…

If you can't take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it's all over. I mean, it's no good. So I'm very liberal when it comes to health care, I believe in universal health care. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better.
Oh... that guy?
Donald Trump said:
As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.
2016 RNC Convention

But didn't Sam leap out of Trump right as that speech ended?
 
Biden really ought to sit this election out. Shouldn’t he be on the phone with Netanyahu or Zelensky or something? Like setting the stage for Kamala? That would be more helpful.
 
A U.S. revolution leading to the fall of democracy might resemble the USSR’s collapse from an Eastern perspective. China or Russia could seize the opportunity to offer aid and work to rebuild America’s economy over time, aligning it more closely with their own—rather than repeating the West’s mistakes with post-Soviet Russia, where a mix of power grabs and standoffish treatment ultimately backfired.
The west didn't fail with Russia, success was not possible. The kleptocrats used the collapse to loot, no way would they have permitted a free society to develop.
 
No way? What are you even talking about? Russia today is way more capitalist than it was in the Soviet Union era! The U.S. could have played a huge role in shaping that, but they completely missed the mark by trying to do too much at once while at the same time treating Russia like it could never be part of the team.
 
Back
Top Bottom