Are people already regretting their choice?

[Politesse]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

I whole heartedly supported Harris and Walz. Donated money. Volunteered in Washington. They lost. But 1.25% or so. Walz and Harris are more to the left the Clintons, Obama, Biden, Gore, and etc. We need people who can motivate the left and those in the middle to win elections.

MSN

www.msn.com

Pfluger: Harris-Walz is the most liberal ticket ever

Aug. 6—WASHINGTON, Dc. Rep. — August Pfluger released the following statement on the Harris-Walz radical Democratic ticket. August Pfluger: "Kamala Harris caved to the most radical wing of her party by selecting far-left failed state governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz signed a Minnesota...

www.yahoo.com

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

If you ignore their message on climate change, which isn't status quo, sure.

 

[Politesse]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

If you ignore their message on climate change, which isn't status quo, sure.

What has a position on climate change got to do with how "liberal" someone is? What does liberal actually mean to you? If you have basic scientific literacy, you're a "liberal"? A "blended approach" of corporate and government intervention with the corporations mostly at the wheel straight up was the Republican position twenty years ago, but now advocating for the exact same policy somehow made Harris more liberal than her predecessors? How?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

If you ignore their message on climate change, which isn't status quo, sure.

What has a position on climate change got to do with how "liberal" someone is? What does liberal actually mean to you? If you have basic scientific literacy, you're a "liberal"? A "blended approach" of corporate and government intervention with the corporations mostly at the wheel straight up was the Republican position twenty years ago, but now advocating for the exact same policy somehow made Harris more liberal than her predecessors? How?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/bi...-suite-standards-reduce-pollution-fossil-fuel

Tell me how this helps the status quo.

 

[Politesse]

I support that measure, but no, I wouldn't say that a slight adjustment in regulatory standards, largely defined by the industries themselves and at their explicit request for clearer regulatory guidance, set to be largely implemented by them and subject only to next-to-toothless oversight by a federal agency which is also largely staffed by their own, was some monumental change in the status quo. A policy is was adjusted, yes, but whose status was challenged here? And more importantly, how does the challenge represent a liberal project in particular? This is more or less the exact same basic model of how corporations, the EPA and the government interact as has been assumed since Carter's era, so I definitely don't see how it makes Harris any more or less liberal than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, Obama, or Biden. Compared to Trump, maybe. He's always been hard to place on any clear peg board of political ideology, changing his mind every day as he does. Trump vacillates between letting corporations have complete control of their own affairs or claiming absolute control from his own office. He opposes the notion of government standards either way, which is most certainly a challenge to the status quo but not a very politically liberal challenge. Neither autocracy nor corporate oligarchy maximize the freedom and control of the common citizen. What most presidents in the last three decades have endorsed is more of a compromise position, which is hard to credit with much in the way of liberal or conservative ideological commitment but does vaguely keep the peace and keep corporations profitable. As did the adjustment in question.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I support that measure, but no, I wouldn't say that a slight adjustment in regulatory standards, largely defined by the industries themselves and at their explicit request for clearer regulatory guidance, set to be largely implemented by them and subject only to next-to-toothless oversight by a federal agency which is also largely staffed by their own, was some monumental change in the status quo. A policy is was adjusted, yes, but whose status was challenged here? And more importantly, how does the challenge represent a liberal project in particular? This is more or less the exact same basic model of how corporations, the EPA and the government interact as has been assumed since Carter's era, so I definitely don't see how it makes Harris any more or less liberal than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, Obama, or Biden. Compared to Trump, maybe. He's always been hard to place on any clear peg board of political ideology, changing his mind every day as he does. Trump vacillates between letting corporations have complete control of their own affairs or claiming absolute control from his own office. He opposes the notion of government standards either way, which is most certainly a challenge to the status quo but not a very politically liberal challenge. Neither autocracy nor corporate oligarchy maximize the freedom and control of the common citizen. What most presidents in the last three decades have endorsed is more of a compromise position, which is hard to credit with much in the way of liberal or conservative ideological commitment but does vaguely keep the peace and keep corporations profitable. As did the adjustment in question.

It wasn't just this one measure. https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress

It's like people didn't even pay attention, holy shit.

 

[ImGod]

You guys still have some optimism about where we are headed. Aurguing policies and positions. I'm accelerating my retirement plans, hedging, fixing everything I can, buying things that may get much more expensive or scarce.

Might be time some of you take advantage of that 2nd Amendment.

 

[Politesse]

Aurguing policies and positions. I'm accelerating my retirement plans, hedging, fixing everything I can, buying things that may get much more expensive or scarce.

Policies and positions directly impact which things become more expensive or scarce. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the concept of government, but the general idea is that your governmental structure designs and implements policies that affect the general state of the economy and the stability of society within the polity it governs.

We absolutely do need to worry about the coup. But it does not follow that the coup is the only thing we need to worry about, especially since a crisis of confidence in the Democratic Party had a lot to do with Trump's re-election.

 

[Politesse]

So

I support that measure, but no, I wouldn't say that a slight adjustment in regulatory standards, largely defined by the industries themselves and at their explicit request for clearer regulatory guidance, set to be largely implemented by them and subject only to next-to-toothless oversight by a federal agency which is also largely staffed by their own, was some monumental change in the status quo. A policy is was adjusted, yes, but whose status was challenged here? And more importantly, how does the challenge represent a liberal project in particular? This is more or less the exact same basic model of how corporations, the EPA and the government interact as has been assumed since Carter's era, so I definitely don't see how it makes Harris any more or less liberal than Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, Obama, or Biden. Compared to Trump, maybe. He's always been hard to place on any clear peg board of political ideology, changing his mind every day as he does. Trump vacillates between letting corporations have complete control of their own affairs or claiming absolute control from his own office. He opposes the notion of government standards either way, which is most certainly a challenge to the status quo but not a very politically liberal challenge. Neither autocracy nor corporate oligarchy maximize the freedom and control of the common citizen. What most presidents in the last three decades have endorsed is more of a compromise position, which is hard to credit with much in the way of liberal or conservative ideological commitment but does vaguely keep the peace and keep corporations profitable. As did the adjustment in question.

It wasn't just this one measure. https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress

It's like people didn't even pay attention, holy shit.

It seems that what you're saying is that you don't want to discuss this in specific terms. That's fine, we don't need to discuss anything you don't want to.

 

[ImGod]

Aurguing policies and positions. I'm accelerating my retirement plans, hedging, fixing everything I can, buying things that may get much more expensive or scarce.

Policies and positions directly impact which things become more expensive or scarce. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the concept of government, but the general idea is that your governmental structure designs and implements policies that affect the general state of the economy and the stability of society within the polity it governs.

We absolutely do need to worry about the coup. But it does not follow that the coup is the only thing we need to worry about, especially since a crisis of confidence in the Democratic Party had a lot to do with Trump's re-election.

No, policy and positions of the left don't matter. The Dems lost everything. House, Senate, SCOYUS, white house. If they double down on what they ran on it will probably be 12 more years of this. Unless a deep recession/depression or unrest resets it. This last one is my current train of thought.

Any policy discussion for the next 4 years, at least, will not incude any input from the left. Their best hope now is to retake either the House or Senate in the mid terms. Then what leverage do they have? Shut down the government? That's what's going on now, so I'm sure Trump lets them.

There is theory and reality. Unfortunately, we live in reality.

The left needs to give up any fringe issue that affects less than 5%-10% of the population to get back in to power or there won't be anything to come back to for them. Once in charge, talk nuance and support people they appeared to abandon.

For example, if Biden had finished building the border wall, arrested and deported gang members, and created a better immigration system, I think the Drms win this election. It takes out one of the major talking points and you could still allow immigration.

Trump won a 97% Hispanic county on the border based on this issue. Hispanics voted for him because every day thousands came through their small towns and made their lives crappy. Then the Rs in charge of those states that couldn't absorb the volumes bussed illegals to blue areas causung blacks to loose services. That's why Trump got a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic vote than Rs before him.

One issue they were in control of that they could have adressed and stopped everything else that is happening now. While creating a reasonable long term immigration policy.

The left lost pretending inflation wasn't bad even though people paying bills said it was and because they didn't address the border. If they deport so many people housing prices drop and supply increases to drive down grocery prices, Vance might be an 2 term president too.

I think that's best case stuff. Instead we just as well crash and might balkanize. Since we're coming up on 250 years which is the historical average age of countries.

Now people will chime in that "being MAGA light" doesn't work or some garbage. Not realizing these are actually moderate positions supported by a very large percentage, almost super majority, of people. And the reason minorities voted like they did. The more I talk to those on the left regarding why they lost, the more I think they won't win back power anytime soon.

 

[Politesse]

Now people will chime in that "being MAGA light" doesn't work or some garbage.

Because, of course, it does not and never has.

 

[Elixir]

Unless a deep recession/depression or unrest resets it.

The recession/depression part is a guarantee - probably in the next 4 years. The "reset" part, not so much.
I wager we will find out about trumpsuckers' tolerance for pain. If it rivals their tolerance for cognitive dissonance, a reset is a pipedream.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Don't you see, democrats lost because we didn't capitulate towards a party that already gets everything it wants, and will do everything in its power to obstruct us no matter what we do. Lol, sure.

 

[ZiprHead]

Harris and Waltz were the most liberal candidates that we've had in a generation.

By what metric? Their whole message was "change nothing, the status quo is fine". When your entire government is generally right wing, that's conservative, not liberal, ideology.

I whole heartedly supported Harris and Walz. Donated money. Volunteered in Washington. They lost. But 1.25% or so. Walz and Harris are more to the left the Clintons, Obama, Biden, Gore, and etc. We need people who can motivate the left and those in the middle to win elections.

MSN

www.msn.com

Pfluger: Harris-Walz is the most liberal ticket ever

Aug. 6—WASHINGTON, Dc. Rep. — August Pfluger released the following statement on the Harris-Walz radical Democratic ticket. August Pfluger: "Kamala Harris caved to the most radical wing of her party by selecting far-left failed state governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz signed a Minnesota...

www.yahoo.com

Who is August Pfluger and why should I listen to him/her?

ETA: A Texas Republican declares Harris/Walz the most liberal candidates. Color me unsurprised.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there any way to tell the difference between genuine social media videos and ones that are just for show and clicks these days?

Some common red flags. Most aren't the death knell on their own, but if a creator indulges in a bunch of them you might have a paid shill or a Russian troll farm on your hands:

-Superlatives in the video title.

-"You'll never believe what happens next."

- A company brand name is visible on still image. Unless it's a review of the product itself.

- Racy and/or heavily photoshopped still image.

- Posting history is a mix of personal/self-help/fashion advice half the time and politics the other half.

- Anything with "slime" in the title.

- "I don't usually post about this, but..." (especially if obviously untrue!)

- Very frequent "collabs" with other dubious content creators.

- User posts very frequently, or conversely, they only appear to have posted one or two videos under a given name.

- It's about George Soros, AOC, or the Koch Brothers.

- An AI is reading the script.

- It's a slide show with a voice over.

- Comic Sans

- "Why is no one talking about..." (topic of the week that everyone is talking about)

-"What they don't want you to know about..."

-Lots of grievance videos about other creators, platforms, or alleged mistreatment by the "mainstream media".

.. so, all of it then.

There are some, but for most purposes text is better than video. Thus anything video that does not inherently involve action (say, a video about a game--it's going to show gameplay, it pretty much has to be a video) starts out with two strikes against it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 49480

And plenty of us were pointing out the problems. But people wanted to be deceived.

A line from a story (but I can't recall anything about it), "One man, one vote, once."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, it's always best to keep your mind on while watching stuff, I think.

even better, I don't watch social media videos. Nor do I watch real news videos. I think that the only videos that I watch is the weather forecast when a storm is coming.

Yup, even when it's the "correct" medium it's still not very good. I've got a video sitting around here, something along the lines of "how long can I play Factorio without playing Factorio?" The title isn't as crazy as it sounds, it's really about playing it with minimal combat. There's an achievement in the game "Clean hands" that requires your first kill of a nest to be with artillery. But artillery is way up the tech tree and unless you're playing on a train world the bugs keep expanding. (There is a peaceful mode but that removes the nests entirely.) Given the brutal science multiplier he's using I'm very curious how he did it, but it's 6 hours! And I'm sure that's only the highlights. I keep wanting to watch it but not wanting 6 hours worth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any policy discussion for the next 4 years, at least, will not incude any input from the left. Their best hope now is to retake either the House or Senate in the mid terms. Then what leverage do they have? Shut down the government? That's what's going on now, so I'm sure Trump lets them.

You think there will be an honest election again? Even this one was lost to dishonesty--the Republicans managed to suppress enough D votes to "win." (No, not the ballot box. Denying people the ability to vote in a pretend effort to crack down on fraud.)

The left needs to give up any fringe issue that affects less than 5%-10% of the population to get back in to power or there won't be anything to come back to for them. Once in charge, talk nuance and support people they appeared to abandon.

I do agree they focus too much on the edges.

For example, if Biden had finished building the border wall, arrested and deported gang members, and created a better immigration system, I think the Drms win this election. It takes out one of the major talking points and you could still allow immigration.

Except this is fantasy.

The border wall? You realize less than half of illegals actually slipped across any border, let alone the one with Mexico?? And the wall was political nonsense from day 1--there's already enough wall to prevent easy crossing and no wall will stop someone who is prepared. (And while the average person sneaking across the border might not be able to defeat it the coyotes certainly will be able to.) And you're forgetting that the Republicans explicitly blocked actually doing anything because they wanted the problem to exist for the election.

Trump won a 97% Hispanic county on the border based on this issue. Hispanics voted for him because every day thousands came through their small towns and made their lives crappy. Then the Rs in charge of those states that couldn't absorb the volumes bussed illegals to blue areas causung blacks to loose services. That's why Trump got a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic vote than Rs before him.

Thousands per day through one town?? That would be a minimum of 700,000, out of a total of 2.2 million. A third of all of them came through one town????

As for the bussing--deliberately designed to cause problems. Take that extreme case of Martha's Vineyard. On the surface it looks like making it a problem for the rich. Dig deeper, though--Martha's Vineyard is a seasonal community. Almost nobody is there during the cold time, most buildings are simply not habitable in winter--they lack heating systems adequate to even leave the water turned on, let alone be reasonable to live in. Busing them there was a criminal act.

One issue they were in control of that they could have adressed and stopped everything else that is happening now. While creating a reasonable long term immigration policy.

1) It's a problem that doesn't really have a solution.

2) The Republicans wouldn't allow any solution, period.

The left lost pretending inflation wasn't bad even though people paying bills said it was and because they didn't address the border. If they deport so many people housing prices drop and supply increases to drive down grocery prices, Vance might be an 2 term president too.

The right pretended there was a big inflation problem. There was a spike from the supply chain shocks. And there is a big price-fixing issue with rent--but did the Republicans do anything about it? Yeah, dropped all charges.

I think that's best case stuff. Instead we just as well crash and might balkanize. Since we're coming up on 250 years which is the historical average age of countries.

Now people will chime in that "being MAGA light" doesn't work or some garbage. Not realizing these are actually moderate positions supported by a very large percentage, almost super majority, of people. And the reason minorities voted like they did. The more I talk to those on the left regarding why they lost, the more I think they won't win back power anytime soon.

The problem is there is no MAGA light. MAGA is about putting the extremes in power. Doesn't matter if the supporters are moderate, they threw away our country.

 

[Patooka]

"I'm really enjoying the "find out" phase for these folks".

Yep. Fuck 'em.