The Race For 2024

[lpetrich]

The plan includes a major expansion in the child tax credit. Low- and middle-income families would get up to $6,000 when they have a new baby. And Harris said she wants to restore the pandemic-era program that gave families up to $3,600 per child.

The income limits for the Biden plan were very high. Hardly "low and middle income". I have not seen any indication that KH wants to dial down eligibility below six figures.

That helps avoid a lot of administrative bureaucracy to wade through and a lot of people falling through the cracks of such a system. But then again, some people seem to enjoy dealing with complicated administrative bureaucracies and avoiding such bureaucracy would be a great loss to them.

A bigger child tax credit has also been proposed by Republicans. Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance said on Sunday that he would like to see it expanded to $5,000 per child.

He is just as wrong.

Great competition.

And those who suffer under it are us child-free taxpayers.

As a childless taxpayer, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Tigers!]

Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

 

[Politesse]

Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

If we desire a dialectic context in which words have no specific meaning, sure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

But let's make something clear. Communism wasn't intended as some sort of evil thing. It was a theory (a pipedream) about how to attain equity of resources among the people. This isn't a bad ideal. The trouble is, through experience, we learned government sucks at micromanaging business and industry and is not in a position to be able to manage such a system, which the USSR and China learned the hard way. The US learned easier because the small "utopian" societies that attempted to exist all collapsed in the US. But without the massive starving of tens of millions.

Regarding vocabulary, fascism is a word that has an adapting meaning these days. There is fascism fascism, which speaks to the political and economic foundation of it, and then there is fascism, a loosely referenced concept of the word which simply reflects tyrannical governance that generally holds at least one group of the population in low regard, and required violence to seize or maintain power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US has a foreign policy view of "those two are fighting each other, we must figure out which side are the good guys and support them, we must figure out which side are the bad guys and oppose them." It is a foolish policy.

"Good guys"? I think the question is which side winning (if any) works in our best interests, nationally or for the really wealthy with interests there.

When the good guys start doing bad things, they're no longer the good guys.

Sometimes there are no good guys.

Indeed... and sometimes a quagmire for an adversary is the goal. But sometimes a foot is put down too to keep things from going any further.

When the US says "we are sending support" it don't mean "medicine, taking in refugees, etc." The US means "we are sending you bullets and bombs".

Actually, it can mean all sorts of things. There is a very particular reason why the US and UN have not sent troops to Ukraine.

 

[Elixir]

Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

If we desire a dialectic context in which words have no specific meaning, sure.

I dunno. Looks like a pretty concise description of Trumpism.

 

[Copernicus]

Who do you think you are talking to? Does anyone here really want to shoot a Palestinian kid in the head? I hate the current administration's rubber stamp Israeli policy just as much as you do, yet we are still voting for Harris, who mouths administration policy on that subject. If anything, she has been more negative about it--about as much as she can be while still being part of this administration. It remains to be seen whether anything will change on that score after she takes office.

The distance between what I said (I am feeling depressed about the future of the country following the convention) and what you apparently read (I wish to personally attack future President Harris for being too imperfect) is making it very difficult to communicate. I cannot and have no reason to defend a point that isn't mine. I agree that Harris' position on Israel has been, like her position on damn near every subject, vague at best. Purposefully vague, as even many who like and support her campaign much more vigorously would agree. What I see as dangerously non-committal in the face of an imminent right-wing theocratic coup d'etat, they simply see as a clever way to get more votes out of the undecided middle. Which, it is. But that's why watching the convention left me feeling depressed and alienated. It is very clear that when the Trump regime or its descendants come for me, the response from the Democrats will be similarly muted and carefully diplomatic. Harris would happily defend me, I'm sure, against a bill to "Kill all gays tomorrow". But that's not how the assault will begin. Has begun, rather. The right's obsession with trans people is not just about trans people.

I wasn't trying to talk you out of your depression, but you seem not to notice how much you actually waste time dumping on Harris for her perceived faults. The fact that she is conducting her election campaign differently than you would is unsurprising. She is an accomplished politician, so she would rather get votes rather than spend the time saying things that would appeal to you but not the majority of voters. If you want to fault her for behaving like a politician, so be it. I would rather she not choose a path to political martyrdom when running against someone like Donald Trump. A sensible politician picks her battles.

FTR, I find it highly insulting and arrogant when you say things like "I don't understand how you made it as far through life without forming any sort of nuance in considering moral actions. Where did you get this dumbass idea that there is a "perfect" to begin with?" You really come off as a righteously moral asshole when you say things like that, and I would have expected better from you. I have nothing to do with Jesus or any other religious mythology.

Then why are you bringing up all this nonsense about "perfection"? I have never had such a childish view of morality, to my recollection not even when I was a child. There is more to ethics than "all right" or "all wrong", "perfect" or "flawed".
That's a really stupid moral argument, and it isn't mine. So where did you get it from? There may well be, but I am not aware of, any non-Christian moralities that adjoin a person to be objectively "perfect"; it's just that one Bible verse that lays such an absurd responsibility and guilt on people, and I have always disagreed with it.

Look, I'm not the only one criticizing you for what appears to be "making the perfect the enemy of the good", so you ought to listen when more than one person brings it up. Why do you think that is? Could it be some things you've said? You are perfectly entitled to clarify what you meant, but insulting people and threatening to block people for even mentioning the criticism goes beyond the pale. I'm not expecting an apology for your insults directed at me, but it would help if you stopped blaming everyone else for misinterpreting what you post.

And I notice you did not bother to answer my question. It isn't obvious why someone of your high moral character would vote for Harris.

Lack of options and probably groundless hope for the future. There may be some hope for negotiation with a Harris administration, some time perhaps for cultural attitudes to shift. If Trump wins in November, there is no hope at all for either, not even a fool's hope, until after we've gone all the way through the fire. So how else will I spend my vote? Between "very little" or "nothing" is not much of a choice but it is the choice we've been handed. I don't hate Kamala Harris, despite what you seem to be implying. I don't think she can or will reverse our country's headlong march into authoritarianism, but who knows whether anyone could stop that. Frankly, I think people put way too much faith in presidents, and it has only made things more dangerous. I don't think that Kamala Harris is a "bad person", and should she win, I'll allow myself a day or two of celebration, before rolling up my sleeves and getting back to the grim day-to-day of my political and professional work. Much as I did when Obama was elected. It will still be a relief that Trump was not elected. It will still be a victory that a woman, and Berkeleyite, and a person of mixed race, was able to break multiple iron ceilings at a go. It will open the door to a much more expansive imagination of what the White House can or could be for every generation to follow. A remarkable and indelible triumph for as long as our democracy lasts. I'm just, you know, still extremely worried about how long that will be. Harris is not personally responsible for the rise of the Alt-Right, not even Trump himself could claim that honor. He profitably jumped on board a gravy train that was already rolling; the fault lies with all of us, not just in a handful of celebrity politicians.

I agree with much of what you say, and I wish you would dwell more on the positive than the negative. However, we all have to find ways to cope. I can see where always expecting the worst leads to fewer unpleasant surprises than always expecting the best. However, it is much more tiring to be always expecting the worst.

I do not agree that I am a person of "high moral character".

It's funny that you are now trying to castigate me for voting for Harris, when not that long ago quite a few people in this very thread were dogpiling me for saying that I was considering abstaining from this same election in the immediate aftermath of Biden/Newsom's publicity tour in Israel. I don't recall whether you were one of them, but clearly that option would be no more popular in general.

First of all, you started by castigating me for lacking moral nuance, so my takeaway was that you thought yourself to possess the moral nuance that you thought I lacked. I won't castigate you for deciding how or whether you want to vote, but I do find myself frustrated that so many Americans are prone to thinking that not voting absolves them of responsibility for who gets elected. You have clearly stated that you don't think that way, and that is why you are voting for Harris. But, in the end, the whole point of voting is that the people get a chance to choose the candidate they most prefer, even if all of them fall short in one way or another. In another forum, a Republican living in Ohio told everyone she was going to write in Mickey Mouse, because she couldn't stand Donald Trump. Then she saw the polls narrowing after Harris became the nominee. Now she will vote for Donald Trump, because she really can't stand Democrats even more. Her vote, her choice. And she deserves Trump, if she gets him, but she would deserve Trump if she wrote in Mickey Mouse and Trump beat Harris anyway. IMO, of course.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am a fan of using English words with their standard English meaning. (Or Spanish words with their Spanish meaning -- I'm not trying to push jingoism here!) This may seem an obvious goal, but the oft-seen conflation of fascisim with, say, communism is so egregiously WRONG it offends my eardrums! Like an out-of-tune piano, or nails screeching on a chalkboard this ignorance makes me want to yell "Shut up!" Others have recently complained here about the conflation, but I'll join the chorus.

The Wikipedia page for Fascism spends its first 49 words in a single sentence defining fascism! I tend to be a "reductionist" and would like to whittle the 49-word definition down to just 30 or 35 words, but I'm not going to try. But I'm discouraged to see the excessive reductionism at IIDB. Most Americans I'm sure would respond, if asked for a definition of fascism, with "Duuh. It's whichever politicians I don't like!"

Madeleine Albright wrote a 250-page book titled Fascism. I'm not sure it gives one specific definition -- it mostly discusses real fascists from 20th and 21st centuries -- but it does offer good insights. Early on she writes "Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power." Quite apt, and yet VERY different from anything in Wikipedia's 49-word definition! The word refers to a specific political modality, yet it is difficult to find a one-size-fits-all definition.

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.

Yes.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

Wrong.

But let's make something clear. Communism wasn't intended as some sort of evil thing. It was a theory (a pipedream) about how to attain equity of resources among the people. This isn't a bad ideal. The trouble is, through experience, we learned government sucks at micromanaging business and industry and is not in a position to be able to manage such a system, which the USSR and China learned the hard way. The US learned easier because the small "utopian" societies that attempted to exist all collapsed in the US. But without the massive starving of tens of millions.

Yes.

Regarding vocabulary, fascism is a word that has an adapting meaning these days. There is fascism fascism, which speaks to the political and economic foundation of it, and then there is fascism, a loosely referenced concept of the word which simply reflects tyrannical governance that generally holds at least one group of the population in low regard, and required violence to seize or maintain power.

I disagree with some of the details in the "loosely referenced concept" definition, but I don't want to quibble!

 

[steve_bank]

Trump is trying to turn the tables. He is now climbing unlike the left he is the one hor the constitution and rule if law.

 

[southernhybrid]

I find it very weird that anyone expects humans to stop being violent or to end all wars. We are fucking apes, who evolved from chimps. Chimps had wars over territories. We do the same thing. Many in my generation honestly believed we could accomplish peace, love and happiness, but we were naive and sadly wrong. Sure, "War is not the answer", and War, what is it good for" Absolutely nothing, say it again". "Just a little bit of love will help conquer hate", etc etc. Those lines from old soul songs are still true, but unless we evolve into some type of better apes, this shit isn't going to end. Violence is a part of human nature. Even peace loving groups sometimes become violent. It's in our brains.

I will happily vote for the person who at least would like to decrease our support for war. Israel isn't the problem. Netanyahu is the problem and unless he is over taken, things will continue. Foreign policy is complicated. Do we want Iran to get more involved and destroy Israel? There is no easy answer to this mess. I still have the image in my head of the little girl running down the street on fire after being the victim of Napalm. Same as it ever was. I remember my late mother telling me about the day that my father broke down in tears after telling her about shooting a Japanese soldier and finding photos of his children in the man's wallet. Only a naive person would believe things are going to drastically change. Humans, like our ape ancestors can be loving, caring, or hateful and violent. "That's the way of the world".

I guess I'm not negative enough when it comes to how I vote because I always perceive one candidate as better then the other, not the lesser of two evils. That seems kind of arrogant to me, as if there is such a person who will be able to accomplish everything you want or everything they want for that matter. The job of president is a difficult one and right now one candidate is totally unqualified for the job, to say the least, while the other has plenty of experience, making her qualified to take on a difficult world. She will not be able to bring about world peace, but she might be able to help limit the number of victims of wars. I'll take that and hope that she will be able to accomplish more than I expect.

But hey. If anyone here wants to be a Debbie Downer, go for it. We can't stop you, but we can at least try to reason with someone who is negative, even if we don't get very far.

 

[pood]

@southernhybrid the only thing I would disagree with in your excellent post is that we didn’t evolve from chimps. Rather, we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. </nitpick>

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump is trying to turn the tables. He is now climbing unlike the left he is the one hor the constitution and rule if law.

Yes! He for the constitution and rule of law. (Unless we are talking about elections!!). And of course he’s against separation of duties, the 14th amendment, the electoral college, meddling in states voting rights, the first amendment and etc. Steve: I assume you are being sarcastic????!!

 

[Politesse]

I find it very weird that anyone expects humans to stop being violent or to end all wars. We are fucking apes, who evolved from chimps. Chimps had wars over territories. We do the same thing. Many in my generation honestly believed we could accomplish peace, love and happiness, but we were naive and sadly wrong. Sure, "War is not the answer", and War, what is it good for" Absolutely nothing, say it again". "Just a little bit of love will help conquer hate", etc etc. Those lines from old soul songs are still true, but unless we evolve into some type of better apes, this shit isn't going to end. Violence is a part of human nature. Even peace loving groups sometimes become violent. It's in our brains.

I will happily vote for the person who at least would like to decrease our support for war. Israel isn't the problem. Netanyahu is the problem and unless he is over taken, things will continue. Foreign policy is complicated. Do we want Iran to get more involved and destroy Israel? There is no easy answer to this mess. I still have the image in my head of the little girl running down the street on fire after being the victim of Napalm. Same as it ever was. I remember my late mother telling me about the day that my father broke down in tears after telling her about shooting a Japanese soldier and finding photos of his children in the man's wallet. Only a naive person would believe things are going to drastically change. Humans, like our ape ancestors can be loving, caring, or hateful and violent. "That's the way of the world".

I guess I'm not negative enough when it comes to how I vote because I always perceive one candidate as better then the other, not the lesser of two evils. That seems kind of arrogant to me, as if there is such a person who will be able to accomplish everything you want or everything they want for that matter. The job of president is a difficult one and right now one candidate is totally unqualified for the job, to say the least, while the other has plenty of experience, making her qualified to take on a difficult world. She will not be able to bring about world peace, but she might be able to help limit the number of victims of wars. I'll take that and hope that she will be able to accomplish more than I expect.

But hey. If anyone here wants to be a Debbie Downer, go for it. We can't stop you, but we can at least try to reason with someone who is negative, even if we don't get very far.

Pseudoscience. We are not chimps, and chimps don't form military industrial complexes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Communism is an economic system. When communism is rejected by the people, that's when fascism comes into play.

 

[Swammerdami]

The quotees' names were bollixed in my recent post. (I'll blame the buggy editor!) Here is the correction:

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.

Wrong.

 

[Copernicus]

@southernhybrid the only thing I would disagree with in your excellent post is that we didn’t evolve from chimps. Rather, we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. </nitpick>

Well, we evolved from apes. It is fair to say that we are a variety of African ape. Gorillas apparently diverged from our branch with other modern apes. Hominid and chimpanzee ancestors diverged later, IIRC.

 

[bilby]

We are not chimps,

Yeah, we really are...

and chimps don't form military industrial complexes.

and yeah, we observably do.

The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.

The seperation of humans into their own genus is a great example of the stories we tell. Our favourite story is that we (for any scale of "we", from just "me", all the way up to the entire Kingdom Animalia), are special, different, and better.

Despite an entire universe of solid evidence to the contrary.

 

[southernhybrid]

@southernhybrid the only thing I would disagree with in your excellent post is that we didn’t evolve from chimps. Rather, we and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. </nitpick>

You're correct, but we do share bout 99% of our DNA with chimps and we certainly have a lot in common with our other primate ancestors. We've even been described, perhaps not purely scientifically, as the Third Chimpanzee. But, sure, we did directly evolve from a common ancestor. I was just making a point that the history of primate violence goes way back and sadly we still haven't gotten it our of our brains. No problem with your nitpick.

 

[Janice Rael]

. I was just making a point that the history of primate violence goes way back and sadly we still haven't gotten it our of our brains. Not problem with your nitpick.

Of course I can't find it now, but, I read a recent (2024) paper that confirmed previous research, and claimed that predation and predatory behavior date back to the Precambrian Era, and, from 2017: "Although predation was a decisive selective force in the Cambrian explosion, it was a shaper rather than a trigger of this evolutionary event."

So, you are all correct. Violence goes all the way back to the beginning. It's our nature.

 

[Copernicus]

I find it very weird that anyone expects humans to stop being violent or to end all wars. We are fucking apes, who evolved from chimps. Chimps had wars over territories. We do the same thing. Many in my generation honestly believed we could accomplish peace, love and happiness, but we were naive and sadly wrong. Sure, "War is not the answer", and War, what is it good for" Absolutely nothing, say it again". "Just a little bit of love will help conquer hate", etc etc. Those lines from old soul songs are still true, but unless we evolve into some type of better apes, this shit isn't going to end. Violence is a part of human nature. Even peace loving groups sometimes become violent. It's in our brains.

I will happily vote for the person who at least would like to decrease our support for war. Israel isn't the problem. Netanyahu is the problem and unless he is over taken, things will continue. Foreign policy is complicated. Do we want Iran to get more involved and destroy Israel? There is no easy answer to this mess. I still have the image in my head of the little girl running down the street on fire after being the victim of Napalm. Same as it ever was. I remember my late mother telling me about the day that my father broke down in tears after telling her about shooting a Japanese soldier and finding photos of his children in the man's wallet. Only a naive person would believe things are going to drastically change. Humans, like our ape ancestors can be loving, caring, or hateful and violent. "That's the way of the world".

I guess I'm not negative enough when it comes to how I vote because I always perceive one candidate as better then the other, not the lesser of two evils. That seems kind of arrogant to me, as if there is such a person who will be able to accomplish everything you want or everything they want for that matter. The job of president is a difficult one and right now one candidate is totally unqualified for the job, to say the least, while the other has plenty of experience, making her qualified to take on a difficult world. She will not be able to bring about world peace, but she might be able to help limit the number of victims of wars. I'll take that and hope that she will be able to accomplish more than I expect.

But hey. If anyone here wants to be a Debbie Downer, go for it. We can't stop you, but we can at least try to reason with someone who is negative, even if we don't get very far.

Pseudoscience. We are not chimps, and chimps don't form military industrial complexes.

But our variety of great apes does. The non-hominin varieties just haven't figured out how to produce more effective weapons.