The Race For 2024

[barbos]

I have to agree with "Hitler" again:

 

[Politesse]

In a representative democracy, you vote for the representative that you trust to carry out plans and goals that you agree with.

Wrong. You are forced to either vote for one of two candidates presented to you by the upper classes as "representatives" of an aesthetically right or left leaning political faction, or to throw away your vote altogether. I have never voted for a presidential candidate that I felt I could "trust to carry out plans and goals that I agree with", the very idea is ridiculous. No one I trust would ever run for president in the first place, let alone be able to afford a spot on the ticket. Anyone I actually liked would be politically unmade by two words. Whether those two words would be "land back" or "gender parity" or "free education" or "insurance mafia" or "sex positive" or "no war" would be a matter of pure chance as far as what came up first in the interview. Toni et al like to scold me for demanding perfection, but I have never advocated anything of the sort. I am well aware that perfection is not, has never been, and will never be on the table.

 

[laughing dog]

If I feel the need to get depressed, all I have to do is think about global warming or all the wars going on.

If you're worried about global warming, you should be pretty worried that Harris and Walz are pulling back from addressing climate change.

Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK With That.

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions. Some analysts chalked that up to strategy and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

“This doesn’t look accidental, it looks like a deliberate choice,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based research firm, referring to the sparse mentions of climate change in the speeches of Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

If you're worried about war, but aren't worried about Harris gladly crowing about how "as Commander-in-Chief", she "will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world", I don't know what to tell you. That is not a promise to stop our reckless imperial adventurism overseas.

Or is it just the very likely if not inevitable possibility of losing some of those proxy wars that concerns you? Would you feel more comfortable if we were landing some more of our lethal troops on foreign shores, to kill some more bad guys and make you safe? Because that is unlikely to change the outcome. Because we do not actually have the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, nor does having the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world necessarily win wars.

I’m unhappy that women must act hawkish in order to deflect a tiny bit of the perception that women are weak and emotional. I’m less concerned that Harry’s would be quick to go to war or even to deploy armaments. There are zero persons in the world who, if elected POTUS would eliminate the potential for war. I do believe that Democrats in general have a much better record of improving the environment.

Unfortunately, politics is all about compromise between competing needs, wants, and perspectives.

Campaigns are built on mass appeal. Unfortunately. And unfortunately ( but not really unfortunate at all), POTUS does not legislate ( except through the unfortunate use of executive powers which is dangerous, even when I agree with any particular order). In order to improve the lives of most Americans, we need to eject more Dems in down ballot races. All politics are local, at the heart.

Too close a pursuit of the perfect can obscure the good.

I fucking hate that deflection. You cannot declare yourself or anyone else guiltless of any and all criticism just by saying "no one's perfect". We might as well give up all politics, law, and philosophy if that's the standard. It is not.

We counter-signed a genocide less than a year ago, and now we're bragging about the lethality of our military. It may seem trivial when its aimed at other nations and cultures, but its the very same military that Trump wants to turn against the domestic population if he wins. Muslims aren't targeted for their faith, they are targeted because there are "the enemy". To nearly half of the poltiicians and employees of your government, you are also "the enemy". It won't always be people who aren't important to you under the gun.

I don't see how you can treat the continued escalation of presidential powers as an unfortunate aside rather than the immediate and pressing crisis that it is. Biden could walk into a press conference right now and murder any reporter he dislikes, without consequences. He doesn't even need the defense of the law any more, the Court has ruled that he is not subject to it, and Harris/Trump won't be either. If the President has unchecked power over our country and many others, it matters what they think and say. We cannot afford to treat this election as light entertainment.

Who is treating this election as “light entertainment “? Where is this genocide we signed onto?

Your complaints about Presidential power are misplaced - it ain’t the Democrats who increased it.

Like it or not, unless there is a real revolution , societal change moves relatively slowly. Doesn’t mean stop pushing for your goals. But using alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric tends to backfire.

 

[Politesse]

Your complaints about Presidential power are misplaced - it ain’t the Democrats who increased it.

This is the opinion of a child, or at least someone who does not watch the news. Every president from Nixon onward has actively and enthusiastically heartily participated in the continued expansion of presidential powers, it is not a partisan project. Except insofar as party lines are used to obfuscate the project from the public.

It wasn't Trump who ordered the first extrajudicial killing of an American citizen deemed a threat by the executive branch. But each president happily accepts the new powers handed to them by the previous, and pushes the envelope a little bit farther. With this speech and her other public pronouncements, Harris may not be outlining any pokicies, but she is signalling her intentions very, very clearly. Hers will be an executive branch defined by rigorous defense of the status quo. In short, a conservative government, as that term used to be defined. This may indeed keep fascism at bay for four more years, but it will do nothing to combat the rising tide, any more than some waffly words about caring for the environmemt will combat the actual rising tide.

 

[Politesse]

Like it or not, unless there is a real revolution , societal change moves relatively slowly. Doesn’t mean stop pushing for your goals. But using alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric tends to backfire.

This is nonsensical. Name a single politician or activist in this country's history who did any good whatsoever for the American people, without engaging in something their opponents would call "alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric". The only people who can get anything done in this world are those honest enough to see a problem, smart enough to design a solution, and brave enough to attach their public reputation to a project that will not, initially at least, be popular.

In any case, considering we've had an outright coup attempt on our Capitol not all that long ago, I'd be curious to know at exactly what point, if at any point, you would consider alarm to be justified.

 

[Copernicus]

In a representative democracy, you vote for the representative that you trust to carry out plans and goals that you agree with.

Wrong. You are forced to either vote for one of two candidates presented to you by the upper classes as "representatives" of an aesthetically right or left leaning political faction, or to throw away your vote altogether. I have never voted for a presidential candidate that I felt I could "trust to carry out plans and goals that I agree with", the very idea is ridiculous. No one I trust would ever run for president in the first place, let alone be able to afford a spot on the ticket. Anyone I actually liked would be politically unmade by two words. Whether those two words would be "land back" or "gender parity" or "free education" or "insurance mafia" or "sex positive" or "no war" would be a matter of pure chance as far as what came up first in the interview. Toni et al like to scold me for demanding perfection, but I have never advocated anything of the sort. I am well aware that perfection is not, has never been, and will never be on the table.

I guess I'm with Toni et al., because I don't know what else it is that you are demanding. I'm sorry that you are feeling so depressed about the only two viable choices you are presented with, but we all need to cope with limited choices in our lives.

 

[Politesse]

I guess I'm with Toni et al., because I don't know what else it is that you are demanding. I'm sorry that you are feeling so depressed about the only two viable choices you are presented with, but we all need to cope with limited choices in our lives.

I need do no such thing. At least not silently. As long as I still have freedom of speech, I have no intention of muzzling myself voluntarily. Not only do I not trust the president, neither do I think any American should trust any president. Looking at our nation's history, trust in that institution seems unspeakably naive. But I'm not "demanding" anything, I am not an autocrat. If you disagree with me, you are free to do so. I have no power to stop you even if I wanted to, and I certainly do not.

 

[Elixir]

I need do no such thing. At least not silently.

If making a lot of ineffective noise helps you cope, nobody is trying to silence you. Just don't expect a lot of results for your efforts.

 

[laughing dog]

Like it or not, unless there is a real revolution , societal change moves relatively slowly. Doesn’t mean stop pushing for your goals. But using alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric tends to backfire.

This is nonsensical. Name a single politician or activist in this country's history who did any good whatsoever for the American people, without engaging in something their opponents would call "alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric". The only people who can get anything done in this world are those honest enough to see a problem, smart enough to design a solution, and brave enough to attach their public reputation to a project that will not, initially at least, be popular.

I agree with your last sentence. What that has to do with alarmist hyperbolic rhetoric I don’t know.

 

[Copernicus]

I guess I'm with Toni et al., because I don't know what else it is that you are demanding. I'm sorry that you are feeling so depressed about the only two viable choices you are presented with, but we all need to cope with limited choices in our lives.

I need do no such thing. At least not silently. As long as I still have freedom of speech, I have no intention of muzzling myself voluntarily. Not only do I not trust the president, neither do I think any American should trust any president. Looking at our nation's history, trust in that institution seems unspeakably naive. But I'm not "demanding" anything, I am not an autocrat. If you disagree with me, you are free to do so. I have no power to stop you even if I wanted to, and I certainly do not.

Where did I say that you need to be silent or muzzle yourself? If you feel a need to vent your anger and frustration about things you cannot change, then I suppose that is just how you cope. If you don't want people to offer opinions on your posts, why put them out there? I'm still going to support the Harris-Walz ticket regardless of your negative feelings towards them and all other politicians. Sorry if that troubles you, but I'm as entitled to my opinions and feelings as you are to yours.

 

[Politesse]

If you don't want people to offer opinions on your posts, why put them out there?

Your opinions are welcome, who said they weren't?

 

[unapologetic]

I have never voted for a presidential candidate that I felt I could "trust to carry out plans and goals that I agree with", the very idea is ridiculous.

I recently spent some time on a Quaker reddit forum. The Quakers hate Rump, but they are not voting. They see any vote as an endorsement of the process. As an endorsement of whoever wins, even if it is someone they oppose. I guess, like you, the candidates they approve of never win.

 

[Politesse]

Stands to reason, considering. The Friends are not big fans of the military super-state either. Or any state, really. I mean, I do not think they believe in disloyalty to nation-state as such, but neither are they ultimately citizens of any earthly government. I used to hang out with some Quakers from time to time when I lived in Berkeley, and occasionally miss their sense of quiet order and soberly considered mysticism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you know what you get when you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

It's too bad this has to be explained.

 

[scombrid]

Elect the president that will fuck things up the least. Trying to change the way things are run by swapping in a president the is way outside the status quo is a non starter. Even if we elected someone like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren (who aren’t even remotely radical) they would be completely impotent without changing out the house. People really need to focus on state politics if we want to have a fraction of a chance of fixing things without burning everything down. GOP has done the most work to take states where they can seriously fuck around with districts and solidify their minority rule.

 

[Politesse]

Do you know what you get when you vote for the lesser of two evils? Less evil.

It's too bad this has to be explained.

So what is your long term plan, then? Just "win every election", forever until the end of time, and never have to a tually deliver a better future?

 

[Politesse]

Do you people really not see how meaningless the phrase "nobody's perfect" is as a response to fair and legitimate critique?

"It's wrong to murder children."

"Nobody's perfect, get off your high horse."

"A party that has no goals cannot possibly achieve them."

"Perfect is the enemy of the good, stop being so entitled."

"Our country is slipping into fascism, and very few people are standing against it."

"They should step aside, no one gets everything right."

It's like a fucking parody. If you do something evil, observing that you were imperfect at the time is stating something everyone already knows. It is not a meaningful defense of your actions, only the most transparent of deflections.

We're not voting on student class president. The White House wields ever more power over the country and the world, and it matters who occupies it and how. It might be Trump in a month. If it isn't, it will be him or someone very much like him in four years or, at a maximum, eight. This is not the time for inaction and avoidance of risk.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In a representative democracy, you vote for the representative that you trust to carry out plans and goals that you agree with.

Wrong. You are forced to either vote for one of two candidates presented to you by the upper classes as "representatives" of an aesthetically right or left leaning political faction, or to throw away your vote altogether. I have never voted for a presidential candidate that I felt I could "trust to carry out plans and goals that I agree with", the very idea is ridiculous. No one I trust would ever run for president in the first place, let alone be able to afford a spot on the ticket. Anyone I actually liked would be politically unmade by two words. Whether those two words would be "land back" or "gender parity" or "free education" or "insurance mafia" or "sex positive" or "no war" would be a matter of pure chance as far as what came up first in the interview. Toni et al like to scold me for demanding perfection, but I have never advocated anything of the sort. I am well aware that perfection is not, has never been, and will never be on the table.

I have voted for presidential candidates that I feel "I could "trust to carry out plans and goals that I agree with", and did so without hesitation, because I don't delude myself into thinking that my vote would change the outcome.

When I read arguments like yours, I see "sure my candidate is a pedo, but he's raped fewer children than the other candidate". It's like when laughing dog pointed out that Hitler killed fewer people than did Stalin.

 

[Politesse]

When I read arguments like yours, I see "sure my candidate is a pedo, but he's raped fewer children than the other candidate". It's like when laughing dog pointed out that Hitler killed fewer people than did Stalin.

My position, that politicians should be held accountable for their actions and policies regardless of whether they are the "lesser of two evils", is like excusing pedophilia....

Sure.

You've really gone off the deep end.

For the record, I think everyone who sexually abuses a child should go to jail. And that includes at least two of our living ex-presidents, if Jeffrey Epstein's address book is any indicator. This is exactly what the "lesser of two evils" mentality gets you, rapists on the Court and pedophiles in the White House.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I read arguments like yours, I see "sure my candidate is a pedo, but he's raped fewer children than the other candidate". It's like when laughing dog pointed out that Hitler killed fewer people than did Stalin.

My position, that politicians should be held accountable for their actions and policies regardless of whether they are the "lesser of two evils", is like excusing pedophilia....

Sure.

You've really gone off the deep end.

For the record, I think everyone who sexually abuses a child should go to jail. And that includes at least two of our living ex-presidents, if Jeffrey Epstein's address book is any indicator. This is exactly what the "lesser of two evils" mentality gets you, rapists on the Court and pedophiles in the White House.

Let me know when you vote for someone good instead of the lesser evil.