We live in the age of fraudulence

[James Brown]

Obviously putting an abhorrent ignorant fuck like Trump on the ticket doesn't scare people into voting. Then what? Short of suggesting some legislation that doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming law.

Making voting “mandatory” like Au, would help immeasurably. Of course the idea would get shot down, but introducing it might soften the ground for the future.

RNC Intervenes to Back Trump Anti-Voting Order, Claims Greater Voter Access Hurts Their Candidates​

[The RNC's Chief of Staff Michael] Ambrosini argued that expanded mail-in ballot access and insufficient voter roll maintenance harm Republican electoral prospects and drain critical party resources. One of its central claims is that mail ballots received after Election Day give Democrats a competitive edge.

“Late-arriving ballots that skew heavily in favor of one party undermine confidence in the integrity of the election, dilute the timely votes of Republican voters, and harm the RNC,” the filing states.

 

[Elixir]

If 50,000,000 choose not to vote, what's the government going to do about it?

Impose a moderate fine. Isn’t that what they do in Au?

Australians are legally required to vote in federal, state, and local elections. If you do not vote, the process typically involves:
• Receiving an “apparent failure to vote” notice, giving you a chance to explain your absence or provide a valid reason (such as illness or travel).
• If your reason is not accepted or you do not respond, you will be issued a fine. The amount varies by state: for example, $99 in Victoria, $161 in Queensland, and $20 at the federal level (with higher penalties for repeat offenses).
• Ignoring the fine can lead to further penalties, including additional fees and possible referral to enforcement agencies for debt collection.
• Not voting itself does not lead to jail, but repeated failure to pay fines can escalate to court action, which in rare cases could result in imprisonment.

This year turnout is reportedly around 90%, and historically, turnout rates have been around 95% since 1925 when compulsory voting began. I’d be happy with that; Republicans would be routed and might have to revise their fascist agenda - or at least its timeline.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

Obviously putting an abhorrent ignorant fuck like Trump on the ticket doesn't scare people into voting. Then what? Short of suggesting some legislation that doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming law.

Making voting “mandatory” like Au, would help immeasurably. Of course the idea would get shot down, but introducing it might soften the ground for the future.

RNC Intervenes to Back Trump Anti-Voting Order, Claims Greater Voter Access Hurts Their Candidates​

[The RNC's Chief of Staff Michael] Ambrosini argued that expanded mail-in ballot access and insufficient voter roll maintenance harm Republican electoral prospects and drain critical party resources. One of its central claims is that mail ballots received after Election Day give Democrats a competitive edge.

“Late-arriving ballots that skew heavily in favor of one party undermine confidence in the integrity of the election, dilute the timely votes of Republican voters, and harm the RNC,” the filing states.

So, if in person voting skews heavily in favor in one party, it undermines confidence in the integrity of the election?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

If I take "with college degree" in polling data at face value, plenty of presumed well educated people still voted for Trump. Why is that?

These people don't know history, political philosophy, or even what's in their own best interests. It's a long winded way to say that most of them are ignoramuses.

I might buy a huge block of US voters being ignorant and stupid but I still can not accept that they are voting against their best interests. Even unintelligent animals know what their best interests are and it is arrogant and condescending to say otherwise. My pet cat knows whether it is better or worse off after 3 election cycles and those "stupid and ignorant" who voted for Trump were people who did and do also. People might be stupid electing the wrong person for 1 election cycle but not after this amount of time has passed for their reality to set in.

If the Democrats want to win they need to be better than MAGA and they simply need to change who they are and stop "whining about Trump".

Or better yet a non corrupt 3rd party needs to take over from the completely corrupted uni-parties we have today.

The evidence is quite clear that they voted against their own interests. There have been many reports of Trump voters that have regretted their choice. Now that might mean that they didn't know that they were voting against their own interests, but that means that they were stupid because it was quite clear before the recent election what Trump was going to do.

After reading the New Yorker profile of Curtis Yarvin, it is more clear to me than ever that we live in the age of fraud. The ultimate crisis we are experiencing is one of epistomology: a majority of people are unable to distinguish bullshit and propaganda from established science and fact.

Most of us have to depend on others to know what "the truth is". We have to depend on others because we do not have infinite time resources to know first hand for ourselves. And when we do depend on others there is always the opportunity to be scammed.

Actually finding the truth is extremely difficult to come by. If finding the truth was so easy that any intelligent person would know, we would not need courts to find judgement for defendants accused of crime.

One does not have to find truth all by oneself. One can use filters, for example this forum, where get inputs from many different people.
The situation with a defendant in court is different, because if they are guilty then they are trying to hide the truth. Also, it is s different kind of truth. Theirs is a personal truth - are they guilty or innocent. Whereas with many public situations we are dealing with general truths, that are rather obvious as to what is true or false.

After reading the New Yorker profile of Curtis Yarvin, it is more clear to me than ever that we live in the age of fraud. The ultimate crisis we are experiencing is one of epistomology: a majority of people are unable to distinguish bullshit and propaganda from established science and fact.

Most of us have to depend on others to know what "the truth is". We have to depend on others because we do not have infinite time resources to know first hand for ourselves. And when we do depend on others there is always the opportunity to be scammed.

Actually finding the truth is extremely difficult to come by. If finding the truth was so easy that any intelligent person would know, we would not need courts to find judgement for defendants accused of crime.

History has shown you believe what you want to believe. When someone demonstrates otherwise, you thank them for bringing to your attention, you disappear, and then come back with the same preconceptions. So please, don't say that it is too hard to know what is going on.

So you think you know the absolute unimpeachable truth and everything possible because you are so smart and intelligent? Tell us all for certain what happened during the JFK assassination. Tell us all whether Epstine was killed or killed himself. Then tell us all (since you are the all knowing God) just exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

What happened during the JFK assassination is well known, except to conspiracy theorists.
Epstein's death was probably, suicide, it could have been murder, but the death of a scumbag isn't of great importance to most people.
It is also well known, based on extensive archaeological evidence, how the pyramids were built. I have watched many documentaries about the building of the various Egyptian pyramids, and they explain quite clearly how the Egyptians achieved these tasks, and it shows that they were intelligent and motivated.
Jimmy Higgins did not make any claim to being all-knowing. He simply pointed out that you choose deliberately to be ignorant.

 

[bilby]

I like the idea, but it would extremely difficult to enforce. If 50,000,000 choose not to vote, what's the government going to do about it?

Collect a billion dollars in fine revenue.

Maybe more importantly, a non-vote can be a form of protest. To disallow it would be a 1st Amendment violation.

Nobody in Australia has to vote. The fine is for failing to submit a ballot paper. It's a secret ballot, and if you put a blank paper into the box, nobody can (or will) do anything about it - if you want to protest by not voting, you can. You can even write a manifesto on the paper if you want (though nobody in power will likely ever read it).

But sitting on your arse watching TV on election day isn't a protest. There's no first amendment right to laziness.

 

[Tigers!]

So the goal, assuming we have real elections ever again, is to get back half of the people that can be gotten back.

I'd say the goal is to get the majority of people who didn't vote at all off their asses...

That is your first job. I read that 1/3 of the US electorate did not bother voting in 2024. Why on earth not?

 

[RVonse]

What happened during the JFK assassination is well known, except to conspiracy theorists.
Epstein's death was probably, suicide, it could have been murder, but the death of a scumbag isn't of great importance to most people.
It is also well known, based on extensive archaeological evidence, how the pyramids were built. I have watched many documentaries about the building of the various Egyptian pyramids, and they explain quite clearly how the Egyptians achieved these tasks, and it shows that they were intelligent and motivated.
Jimmy Higgins did not make any claim to being all-knowing. He simply pointed out that you choose deliberately to be ignorant

"What happened during the JFK assassination is well known, except to conspiracy theorists." https://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx#:~:text=Mafia, Federal Government, CIA Thought,his attempts to visit Cuba.
So most people are conspiracy theorists now and you are in the minority believing the official narrative.

"Epstein's death was probably, suicide, it could have been murder, but the death of a scumbag isn't of great importance to most people." That was very clever on your part. Don't answer the question and tell us the subject matter is unimportant.

"It is also well known, based on extensive archaeological evidence, how the pyramids were built. I have watched many documentaries about the building of the various Egyptian pyramids, and they explain quite clearly how the Egyptians achieved these tasks, and it shows that they were intelligent and motivated." That means you don't know because none of your so called experts can't know. They did not live back then.

Furthermore, I could easily bring up all kinds of other unsettled subjects such as the sinking of Liberty, the beginnings of the Iraq war, 911 etc. and you would not know for sure what the truth really was about them either. Because you were not there and even if you were there not conclusive since other unknown subterfuge below the surface. At best you could only form a probability of what really happened in each case.

"Jimmy Higgins did not make any claim to being all-knowing." He claims (just as you do) to know everything by reading and citing what others have done. And that actually means nothing at all.

 

[Tigers!]

Obviously putting an abhorrent ignorant fuck like Trump on the ticket doesn't scare people into voting. Then what? Short of suggesting some legislation that doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming law.

Making voting “mandatory” like Au, would help immeasurably. Of course the idea would get shot down, but introducing it might soften the ground for the future.

Get "shot down" - like any sensible gun control measure?
An ironic joke that you did not mean.

A thing I have noticed as an outsider looking into the US society/culture for deacdes now is you are whingers. Always compláining about something yet never managing to do anything about it. "Its too hard", "It would get shot down". Etc., Etc.

In Australia you would be called gunners - we're gunner do this and we're gunner do that. But nothing gets done.

 

[Tigers!]

I like the idea, but it would extremely difficult to enforce. If 50,000,000 choose not to vote, what's the government going to do about it?

Collect a billion dollars in fine revenue.

Maybe more importantly, a non-vote can be a form of protest. To disallow it would be a 1st Amendment violation.

Nobody in Australia has to vote. The fine is for failing to submit a ballot paper. It's a secret ballot, and if you put a blank paper into the box, nobody can (or will) do anything about it - if you want to protest by not voting, you can. You can even write a manifesto on the paper if you want (though nobody in power will likely ever read it).

But sitting on your arse watching TV on election day isn't a protest. There's no first amendment right to laziness.

Brexit should have been a warning as to the perils of not voting.

 

[jonatha]

So most people are conspiracy theorists now

Do you find this the least bit surprising or unlikely?

 

[Elixir]

Maybe more importantly, a non-vote can be a form of protest.

A more potent (and perfectly legal) form of protest would be to vote for “none of the above”.

 

[WAB]

Obviously putting an abhorrent ignorant fuck like Trump on the ticket doesn't scare people into voting. Then what? Short of suggesting some legislation that doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming law.

Making voting “mandatory” like Au, would help immeasurably. Of course the idea would get shot down, but introducing it might soften the ground for the future.

Get "shot down" - like any sensible gun control measure?
An ironic joke that you did not mean.

A thing I have noticed as an outsider looking into the US society/culture for deacdes now is you are whingers. Always compláining about something yet never managing to do anything about it. "Its too hard", "It would get shot down". Etc., Etc.

In Australia you would be called gunners - we're gunner do this and we're gunner do that. But nothing gets done.

When I worked in management, I noticed a very oft-used word: address. I will address it, we will address it, we'll address that, etc. I quickly learned that it meant nothing would be done about it.

Nowadays it's really popular to "have a conversation" about this or that. I suspect that amounts to much the same thing. Jordan Peterson would say, "We can have that caawnversation".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After reading the New Yorker profile of Curtis Yarvin, it is more clear to me than ever that we live in the age of fraud. The ultimate crisis we are experiencing is one of epistomology: a majority of people are unable to distinguish bullshit and propaganda from established science and fact.

Most of us have to depend on others to know what "the truth is". We have to depend on others because we do not have infinite time resources to know first hand for ourselves. And when we do depend on others there is always the opportunity to be scammed.

Actually finding the truth is extremely difficult to come by. If finding the truth was so easy that any intelligent person would know, we would not need courts to find judgement for defendants accused of crime.

History has shown you believe what you want to believe. When someone demonstrates otherwise, you thank them for bringing to your attention, you disappear, and then come back with the same preconceptions. So please, don't say that it is too hard to know what is going on.

So you think you know the absolute unimpeachable truth and everything possible because you are so smart and intelligent?

Not certain how you got to that from my post. I said you don't seek the truth, you seek what you want to believe, and ultimately ignore any well portrayed counter arguments, regardless if you thank the the poster for posting it or not. Your posts since 9/11 have done nothing but demonstrate your habits.

Tell us all for certain what happened during the JFK assassination.

You tell me. The files were released.

Tell us all whether Epstine was killed or killed himself.

A wealthy hedonistic man guilty as all hell, destined to spend the rest of life in prison... not wanting to spend the rest of his life in prison. Suicide isn't too crazy of a conclusion there. If people wanted him silenced, they could have done it before he was arrested, you know... like where there weren't as many cameras or security.

Then tell us all (since you are the all knowing God) just exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Lots of labor and time. The pyramids aren't remotely efficiently designed. Nor independently as they pop up in multiple areas across the globe. Despite the people existing a long time ago, math was a thing 3000 years ago. Engineering included construction as well as fluid air dynamic design, particularly in hot regions. The Inuit figured out how to make igloos work too. Trial and error and taking note. They were simple, but some were smart. The Inuit were uber simple people, but the among the best whalers on the planet, despite having fewer resources.

These people figured it out, like the squirrel figures out how to get to the seed in the squirrel proof feeder because their lives all depended on it. Extrapolate some engineering and low cost labor, and wondering how tall, poorly efficient designed, structures made of rock could be constructed is kind of silly.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

What happened during the JFK assassination is well known, except to conspiracy theorists.
Epstein's death was probably, suicide, it could have been murder, but the death of a scumbag isn't of great importance to most people.
It is also well known, based on extensive archaeological evidence, how the pyramids were built. I have watched many documentaries about the building of the various Egyptian pyramids, and they explain quite clearly how the Egyptians achieved these tasks, and it shows that they were intelligent and motivated.
Jimmy Higgins did not make any claim to being all-knowing. He simply pointed out that you choose deliberately to be ignorant

"What happened during the JFK assassination is well known, except to conspiracy theorists." https://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx#:~:text=Mafia, Federal Government, CIA Thought,his attempts to visit Cuba.
So most people are conspiracy theorists now and you are in the minority believing the official narrative.

"Epstein's death was probably, suicide, it could have been murder, but the death of a scumbag isn't of great importance to most people." That was very clever on your part. Don't answer the question and tell us the subject matter is unimportant.

"It is also well known, based on extensive archaeological evidence, how the pyramids were built. I have watched many documentaries about the building of the various Egyptian pyramids, and they explain quite clearly how the Egyptians achieved these tasks, and it shows that they were intelligent and motivated." That means you don't know because none of your so called experts can't know. They did not live back then.

Furthermore, I could easily bring up all kinds of other unsettled subjects such as the sinking of Liberty, the beginnings of the Iraq war, 911 etc. and you would not know for sure what the truth really was about them either. Because you were not there and even if you were there not conclusive since other unknown subterfuge below the surface. At best you could only form a probability of what really happened in each case.

"Jimmy Higgins did not make any claim to being all-knowing." He claims (just as you do) to know everything by reading and citing what others have done. And that actually means nothing at all.

The truth isn't determined by polls. Also there aren't just Americans in the world; most non-Americans know how conspiracy theory oriented Americans are, and have a different view.
We don't know with certainty that Epstein wasn't murdered, but that is true of many things, mostly minor things.

The experts do know, by studying the evidence. You weren't alive 80 years ago, so do not know if WW2 happened, using your reasoning.
Sure there are things that are uncertain, but there are many things that are, known because of evidence. Your argument is like that of Biblical creationists regarding the universe and the age of the Earth. Funnily enough they never consider that they weren't back there when their god allegedly created the Earth.
No one claims to know everything, but you are claiming that no one knows anything.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

If I take "with college degree" in polling data at face value, plenty of presumed well educated people still voted for Trump. Why is that?

I've spoken my peace on this issue. The only thing I'll repeat is that the Dems have driven away millions of voters and continue to do so.

Anyway, I attribute the Trump phenomenon as a reading issue. IOW, people don't read books. To say they have a shallow understanding of the issues is an insult to the word "shallow."

These people don't know history, political philosophy, or even what's in their own best interests. It's a long winded way to say that most of them are ignoramuses.

So why did all these morons start voting? I blame it on the internet. They can read a headline, a short but bombastic article, watch pundits on Fox, and then believe they know things. It's a majority age coloring book for kids who've been held back three years in elementary school.

Maybe it’s not that Democrats have driven away millions of voters, but millions of voters have fled to Trump because .., they are ignoramuses, for reasons that you cite among others?

Not that Dems are all that hot, but the idea that Trump offers a better alternative is to laugh in order to keep from crying.

The way I see it, the Dems lost to Trump twice. How awful must the Dems be to have that happen???

I'll guesstimate that about 80% of those who voted for Trump are irredeemable morons. Those are people you can't sway. So the goal, assuming we have real elections ever again, is to get back half of the people that can be gotten back.

The question is how to do that. I'll give the Dems a good start: stop doing what you're doing to drive away voters. Pay attention to what the largest demographic groups are concerned with and align with social policy that appeals to them.

And dammit, quit taking swing states for granted. Nobody need be worried about California, New York, Illinois, etc. Make a quick pit stop at those places and get the hell back to the swing states. Live there. Listen to them.

And goddammit, find someone with the charisma to win a fucking POTUS election. As long as they're not a Republican, I don't give a damn.

Run Homer Simpson. At least he'll be too frightened and awestruck by the position to do anything but ask Lisa and Marge to find smart people to make decisions. Hell, I'd take Bart at this point.

I don't think they 'lost' at all. I don't believe for one second that election was legitimate - and I suspect Musk's cronies were quite useful to that end.

Any evidence of that?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I like the idea, but it would extremely difficult to enforce. If 50,000,000 choose not to vote, what's the government going to do about it?

Collect a billion dollars in fine revenue.

Maybe more importantly, a non-vote can be a form of protest. To disallow it would be a 1st Amendment violation.

Nobody in Australia has to vote. The fine is for failing to submit a ballot paper. It's a secret ballot, and if you put a blank paper into the box, nobody can (or will) do anything about it - if you want to protest by not voting, you can. You can even write a manifesto on the paper if you want (though nobody in power will likely ever read it).

But sitting on your arse watching TV on election day isn't a protest. There's no first amendment right to laziness.

How would the government go about collecting the names of those who didn't vote without incurring more expenses than a fine would cover?

"Laziness" and free speech have nothing to do with each other.

Personally, I'm not voting again unless the Dems make some drastic changes. The GOP is right out. IOW, I don't feel represented by either party. Voting for a third party is ineffective and potentially harmful.

The Trump party is a flat-out, unacceptable disgrace while the Dems have created apathy and its own niche brand of revulsion. Fuck 'em both. I don't need either.

To be clear, I'm not making a middling, half-assed "both sides are bad" argument. The Dems are far less awful than the GOP.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Anecdote for the weird veer in to the JFK shooting. My daughter visited the JFK assassination site recently. I taught her to shoot when she was 18. She remarked, "I could've made that shot with iron sites." Considering that Oswald had a scope on his rifle, the shot(s) would have been cake for anyone basically trained in marksmanship.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The way I see it, the Dems lost to Trump twice. How awful must the Dems be to have that happen???

I'll guesstimate that about 80% of those who voted for Trump are irredeemable morons. Those are people you can't sway. So the goal, assuming we have real elections ever again, is to get back half of the people that can be gotten back.

The question is how to do that. I'll give the Dems a good start: stop doing what you're doing to drive away voters. Pay attention to what the largest demographic groups are concerned with and align with social policy that appeals to them.

And dammit, quit taking swing states for granted. Nobody need be worried about California, New York, Illinois, etc. Make a quick pit stop at those places and get the hell back to the swing states. Live there. Listen to them.

And goddammit, find someone with the charisma to win a fucking POTUS election. As long as they're not a Republican, I don't give a damn.

Run Homer Simpson. At least he'll be too frightened and awestruck by the position to do anything but ask Lisa and Marge to find smart people to make decisions. Hell, I'd take Bart at this point.

I don't think they 'lost' at all. I don't believe for one second that election was legitimate - and I suspect Musk's cronies were quite useful to that end.

The exit polls were dead on in the tight races. One would have needed to fix those as well, which seems very unlikely.

I think Musk was involved with micro-targeting ads in locations. The GOP likely benefited from some incredibly intelligent AI driven app to micro-target house seats and EVs among certain minority groups.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anecdote for the weird veer in to the JFK shooting. My daughter visited the JFK assassination site recently. I taught her to shoot when she was 18. She remarked, "I could've made that shot with iron sites." Considering that Oswald had a scope on his rifle, the shot(s) would have been cake for anyone basically trained in marksmanship.

The JFK killing will always be suspect due to the killing of the assassin. That is just unusual. But in life, the most exciting possibility is usually the easier one to debunk. Life is much more boring than we want it to be.