Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
One of biden harris sycophants leading @whitedudesforharris assures that his wife's lover is voting for kamala
A man that buys a nintendo switch for his lovers's husband wouldnt lie!
A man that buys a nintendo switch for his lovers's husband wouldnt lie!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2021
He seems like a middle of the road guy, dismissive of all the FEMA talk but also talks about how he had more communication with Trump in office, never got anything from Biden. But he’s also mad Tennessee didn’t get any love from either end because it isn’t a swing state. So, if it would help his constituents he might but it would be nice to be courted by someone first. Even a low level advisor.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
Ross "owning" it isnt the flex that he thinks it is.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2024
The left's insistence on having the last word really is the right's greatest asset.
- Joined
- May 25, 2018
I've noticed that since the disastrous Fox News interview from a few weeks ago, Tim Walz has been almost totally MIA.
He's hardly even part of the national discussion in regards to the election now; a total non-entity. Dude is nothing more than a fart in the wind at this point.
I want this to be true so badly.
He's hardly even part of the national discussion in regards to the election now; a total non-entity. Dude is nothing more than a fart in the wind at this point.
Please tell me you aren't just being funny.
I want this to be true so badly.
natural born loser
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2024
Truss doesn't really count because the moneychangers couped her to install their Indian manlet.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
I'll do it again too
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
I should be more specific, he's not the normal "love me guns, love me drugs, `ate me feds, simple as" type, he's a REALLY serious business economics nerd
of all the shit I never archived one of the biggest regrets is his old "Adventures Of Citizen X" blog where he got into very deep cut stuff
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2023
Fuck ups just don't stop with this bitch! Doom just keeps getting bigger and bigger!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
So according to what Gehenna said earlier about anything less than 2% being margin of error, Kamala being down more than 2 (2.3 but still more) is still significant, right?
- Joined
- May 25, 2018
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
Honestly same. Would rather vote for a woman who killed her way to the top instead of sucking her way to the top. And that's coming from someone who KNOWS the horrors the Clintons wrought.
Melee Bouquet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2024
Speaking of the NYT (((David Brooks))) had an op-ed yesterday entitled "Why the Heck Isn’t She Running Away With This?” Some wag on Twitter kindly archived it, and made a wry reference to the author's “practiced incomprehension”
Absolute trash and not worth reading, but a fun way to gauge the amount of lying and delusion around one of America's most celebrated groups of propagandists, the Moloch worshipping pedophiles of the NYT. This overlong essay offers up seemingly goodnatured but insane advice delivered in a cozy tone-- Kiwis, here's a taste of the talmudic mischief of Mr. David Brooks.
After declaring Democrats have “huge advantages” because they are not a threat to democracy and poll better on healthcare and abortion, Brooks guilelessly insists
It's said with such breezy confidence that you'd assume what Brooks has in mind can't be that hard for the Dems to swallow. He yammers on, setting the stage:
The left has been clear that there can be no compromise on this. They've spent decades laying a foundation for critical theory and forcing all of our institutions to be in alignment with it. There is no way they are going to dismantle this enormous machine which gives them so much power and allows them to torment and destroy their enemies. What does he have in mind? Brooks continues cluelessly:
Nothing less than total blasphemy! This is the opposite of DEI and threatens every single part of leftist identity politics-- Queer theory, anti-colonialism, liberal feminism, CRT, Black Lives Matter, etc etc. Good luck changing the foundational beliefs that create the entire world view of your supporters. His other two suggestions are climate change and immigration, equally essential creation myths to the left.
I'm used to Brooks' signature blend of chutzpah and schizophrenia, but this is impressively done. It's like watching someone take a dump right in front of you while maintaining eye contact.
Why the Heck Isn’t She Running Away With This?
Oct. 17, 2024, 7:00 p.m. ET
NYT, David Brooks
(paywalled article | archive)
Two big things baffle me about this election. The first is: Why are the polls so immobile? In mid-June the race between President Biden and Donald Trump was neck and neck. Since then, we’ve had a blizzard of big events, and still the race is basically where it was in June. It started out tied and has only gotten closer.
We supposedly live in a country in which a plurality of voters are independents. You’d think they’d behave, well, independently and get swayed by events. But no. In our era the polling numbers barely move.
The second thing that baffles me is: Why has politics been 50-50 for over a decade? We’ve had big shifts in the electorate, college-educated voters going left and non-college-educated voters going right. But still, the two parties are almost exactly evenly matched.
This is not historically normal. Usually we have one majority party that has a big vision for the country, and then we have a minority party that tries to poke holes in that vision. (In the 1930s the Democrats dominated with the New Deal, and the Republicans complained. In the 1980s the Reagan revolution dominated, and the Democrats tried to adjust.)
But today neither party has been able to expand its support to create that kind of majority coalition. As the American Enterprise Institute scholars Ruy Teixeira and Yuval Levin note in a new study, “Politics Without Winners,” we have two parties playing the role of minority party: “Each party runs campaigns focused almost entirely on the faults of the other, with no serious strategy for significantly broadening its electoral reach.”
Teixeira and Levin observe that both parties are content to live with deadlock. The parties, they write, “have prioritized the wishes of their most intensely devoted voters — who would never vote for the other party — over the priorities of winnable voters who could go either way.” Both parties “treat narrow victories like landslides and wave away narrow defeats, somehow seeing both as confirmation of their existing strategies.”
Trump has spent the past nine years not even trying to expand his base but just playing to the same MAGA grievances over and over again. Kamala Harris refuses to break with Biden on any significant issue and is running as a paint-by-numbers orthodox Democrat. Neither party tolerates much ideological diversity. Neither party has a plausible strategy to build a durable majority coalition. Why?
I think the reason for all this is that political parties no longer serve the function they used to. In days gone by, parties were political organizations designed to win elections and gain power. Party leaders would expand their coalitions toward that end. Today, on the other hand, in an increasingly secular age, political parties are better seen as religious organizations that exist to provide believers with meaning, membership and moral sanctification. If that’s your purpose, of course you have to stick to the existing gospel. You have to focus your attention on affirming the creed of the current true believers. You get so buried within the walls of your own catechism, you can’t even imagine what it would be like to think outside it.
When parties were primarily political organizations, they were led by elected officials and party bosses. Now that parties are more like quasi-religions, power lies with priesthood — the dispersed array of media figures, podcast hosts and activists who run the conversation, define party orthodoxy and determine the boundaries of acceptable belief.
Let’s look at the Democratic Party. The Democrats have huge advantages in America today. Unlike their opponents, they are not a threat to democracy. Voters trust them on issues like health care and are swinging their way on issues like abortion. They have a great base from which to potentially expand their coalition and build their majority. All they have to do is address their weaknesses, the places where they are out of step with most Americans.
The problem is that where you find their weaknesses, there you find the priesthood. The public conversation on the Democratic side of things is dominated by highly educated urban progressives who work in academia, the media, the activist groups and so on. These folks have a highly developed and self-confident worldview — a comprehensive critique of American society. The only problem is that this worldview is rejected by most Americans, who don’t share the critique. The more the Democrats embrace the priesthood’s orthodoxy, the more it loses working-class voters, including Hispanic and Black working-class voters.
For example, the progressive priesthood, quite admirably, is committed to fighting racial oppression. Its members believe that the way to do that is to be hyperaware of racial categories — in the diversity, equity and inclusion way — in order to rearrange preferences to support historically oppressed groups.
Most Americans also seek to fight racism, but they seek to do it in a different way. Their goal is to reduce the salience of racial categories so that people’s talents and initiative determine their life outcomes. According to a 2022 University of Southern California survey of Americans, 92 percent of respondents agreed with this statement: “Our goal as a society should be to treat all people the same without regard to the color of their skin.” Which is why only a third of Americans in a recent Pew Research Center survey said they supported using race as a factor in college admissions.
Or take energy. Most members of the Democratic clerisy are properly alarmed by climate change and believe we should rapidly shift from fossil fuels. Liberal white college graduates favor eliminating fossil fuels by two to one. It’s no skin off their teeth; they work on laptops.
But if you live in Oklahoma or work in an industry that runs on oil, coal or natural gas, this idea seems like an assault on your way of life, which, of course, it is. An overwhelming 72 percent of Americans favor an all-of-the-above approach, relying on both renewables and traditional energy sources.
Or take immigration. Highly educated white progressives tend to see the immigration and asylum issue through the lens of oppressor and oppressed: The people coming across our border are fleeing horror in their home countries. But most Americans see immigration through a law-and-order lens: We need to control our boundaries, preserve social order and take care of our own. In a June CBS survey 62 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Hispanics, said they supported a program to deport undocumented immigrants — the most extreme version of this approach.
On these, as on so many other issues, the position that is held by a vast majority of Americans is unsayable in highly educated progressive circles. The priesthood has established official doctrine, and woe to anyone who contradicts it.
The Republicans have exactly the same dynamic, except their priesthood is dominated by shock jocks, tech bros and Christian nationalists, some of whom are literally members of the priesthood.
Harris clearly understands the problem. She has tried to run her campaign to show she is in tune with majority opinions. In a classic 2018 More in Common report, only 45 percent of the most liberal group in the survey said they were proud to be American. But Harris festooned her convention with patriotic symbols to the rafters. She’s now explicitly running on the theme: country before party.
But in just the few months she has had to campaign, Harris can’t turn around the Democratic Party’s entire identity. Plus, her gestures have all been stylistic; she hasn’t challenged Democratic orthodoxy on any substantive issue. Finally, candidates no longer have the ultimate power over what the party stands for. The priesthood — the people who dominate the national conversation — has the power.
The result is that each party has its own metaphysics. Each party is no longer just a political organism; it is a political-cultural-religious-class entity that organizes the social, moral and psychological lives of its believers.
Each party’s metaphysic seems to grow more rigid and impermeable as time goes by. Sometimes it seems that Harris is running not to be president of the United States but to be president of a theme park called Democratic Magic Mountain, while Trump is running to be president of Republican Fantasy Island. Each party has become too narcissistic to get outside its own head and try to build a coalition with people outside the camp of true believers.
The political problem for Harris is that there are a lot more Americans without a college degree than with one. Class is growing more salient in American life, with Hispanic and Black working-class voters shifting steadily over to the working-class party, the G.O.P.
The problem for Trump is that he is even better at repelling potential converts than the Democrats. He’d be winning landslides if he had tried to wedge MAGA Republicans into a coalition with Bush-McCain Republicans, but he’s incapable of that.
The problem for the rest of us is that we’re locked into this perpetual state of suspended animation in which the two parties are deadlocked and nothing ever changes. I keep running into people who are rooting for divided government for the next four years. It will mean that America will be able to do little to solve its problems. They see this as the least bad option.
Oct. 17, 2024, 7:00 p.m. ET
NYT, David Brooks
(paywalled article | archive)
Two big things baffle me about this election. The first is: Why are the polls so immobile? In mid-June the race between President Biden and Donald Trump was neck and neck. Since then, we’ve had a blizzard of big events, and still the race is basically where it was in June. It started out tied and has only gotten closer.
We supposedly live in a country in which a plurality of voters are independents. You’d think they’d behave, well, independently and get swayed by events. But no. In our era the polling numbers barely move.
The second thing that baffles me is: Why has politics been 50-50 for over a decade? We’ve had big shifts in the electorate, college-educated voters going left and non-college-educated voters going right. But still, the two parties are almost exactly evenly matched.
This is not historically normal. Usually we have one majority party that has a big vision for the country, and then we have a minority party that tries to poke holes in that vision. (In the 1930s the Democrats dominated with the New Deal, and the Republicans complained. In the 1980s the Reagan revolution dominated, and the Democrats tried to adjust.)
But today neither party has been able to expand its support to create that kind of majority coalition. As the American Enterprise Institute scholars Ruy Teixeira and Yuval Levin note in a new study, “Politics Without Winners,” we have two parties playing the role of minority party: “Each party runs campaigns focused almost entirely on the faults of the other, with no serious strategy for significantly broadening its electoral reach.”
Teixeira and Levin observe that both parties are content to live with deadlock. The parties, they write, “have prioritized the wishes of their most intensely devoted voters — who would never vote for the other party — over the priorities of winnable voters who could go either way.” Both parties “treat narrow victories like landslides and wave away narrow defeats, somehow seeing both as confirmation of their existing strategies.”
Trump has spent the past nine years not even trying to expand his base but just playing to the same MAGA grievances over and over again. Kamala Harris refuses to break with Biden on any significant issue and is running as a paint-by-numbers orthodox Democrat. Neither party tolerates much ideological diversity. Neither party has a plausible strategy to build a durable majority coalition. Why?
I think the reason for all this is that political parties no longer serve the function they used to. In days gone by, parties were political organizations designed to win elections and gain power. Party leaders would expand their coalitions toward that end. Today, on the other hand, in an increasingly secular age, political parties are better seen as religious organizations that exist to provide believers with meaning, membership and moral sanctification. If that’s your purpose, of course you have to stick to the existing gospel. You have to focus your attention on affirming the creed of the current true believers. You get so buried within the walls of your own catechism, you can’t even imagine what it would be like to think outside it.
When parties were primarily political organizations, they were led by elected officials and party bosses. Now that parties are more like quasi-religions, power lies with priesthood — the dispersed array of media figures, podcast hosts and activists who run the conversation, define party orthodoxy and determine the boundaries of acceptable belief.
Let’s look at the Democratic Party. The Democrats have huge advantages in America today. Unlike their opponents, they are not a threat to democracy. Voters trust them on issues like health care and are swinging their way on issues like abortion. They have a great base from which to potentially expand their coalition and build their majority. All they have to do is address their weaknesses, the places where they are out of step with most Americans.
The problem is that where you find their weaknesses, there you find the priesthood. The public conversation on the Democratic side of things is dominated by highly educated urban progressives who work in academia, the media, the activist groups and so on. These folks have a highly developed and self-confident worldview — a comprehensive critique of American society. The only problem is that this worldview is rejected by most Americans, who don’t share the critique. The more the Democrats embrace the priesthood’s orthodoxy, the more it loses working-class voters, including Hispanic and Black working-class voters.
For example, the progressive priesthood, quite admirably, is committed to fighting racial oppression. Its members believe that the way to do that is to be hyperaware of racial categories — in the diversity, equity and inclusion way — in order to rearrange preferences to support historically oppressed groups.
Most Americans also seek to fight racism, but they seek to do it in a different way. Their goal is to reduce the salience of racial categories so that people’s talents and initiative determine their life outcomes. According to a 2022 University of Southern California survey of Americans, 92 percent of respondents agreed with this statement: “Our goal as a society should be to treat all people the same without regard to the color of their skin.” Which is why only a third of Americans in a recent Pew Research Center survey said they supported using race as a factor in college admissions.
Or take energy. Most members of the Democratic clerisy are properly alarmed by climate change and believe we should rapidly shift from fossil fuels. Liberal white college graduates favor eliminating fossil fuels by two to one. It’s no skin off their teeth; they work on laptops.
But if you live in Oklahoma or work in an industry that runs on oil, coal or natural gas, this idea seems like an assault on your way of life, which, of course, it is. An overwhelming 72 percent of Americans favor an all-of-the-above approach, relying on both renewables and traditional energy sources.
Or take immigration. Highly educated white progressives tend to see the immigration and asylum issue through the lens of oppressor and oppressed: The people coming across our border are fleeing horror in their home countries. But most Americans see immigration through a law-and-order lens: We need to control our boundaries, preserve social order and take care of our own. In a June CBS survey 62 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Hispanics, said they supported a program to deport undocumented immigrants — the most extreme version of this approach.
On these, as on so many other issues, the position that is held by a vast majority of Americans is unsayable in highly educated progressive circles. The priesthood has established official doctrine, and woe to anyone who contradicts it.
The Republicans have exactly the same dynamic, except their priesthood is dominated by shock jocks, tech bros and Christian nationalists, some of whom are literally members of the priesthood.
Harris clearly understands the problem. She has tried to run her campaign to show she is in tune with majority opinions. In a classic 2018 More in Common report, only 45 percent of the most liberal group in the survey said they were proud to be American. But Harris festooned her convention with patriotic symbols to the rafters. She’s now explicitly running on the theme: country before party.
But in just the few months she has had to campaign, Harris can’t turn around the Democratic Party’s entire identity. Plus, her gestures have all been stylistic; she hasn’t challenged Democratic orthodoxy on any substantive issue. Finally, candidates no longer have the ultimate power over what the party stands for. The priesthood — the people who dominate the national conversation — has the power.
The result is that each party has its own metaphysics. Each party is no longer just a political organism; it is a political-cultural-religious-class entity that organizes the social, moral and psychological lives of its believers.
Each party’s metaphysic seems to grow more rigid and impermeable as time goes by. Sometimes it seems that Harris is running not to be president of the United States but to be president of a theme park called Democratic Magic Mountain, while Trump is running to be president of Republican Fantasy Island. Each party has become too narcissistic to get outside its own head and try to build a coalition with people outside the camp of true believers.
The political problem for Harris is that there are a lot more Americans without a college degree than with one. Class is growing more salient in American life, with Hispanic and Black working-class voters shifting steadily over to the working-class party, the G.O.P.
The problem for Trump is that he is even better at repelling potential converts than the Democrats. He’d be winning landslides if he had tried to wedge MAGA Republicans into a coalition with Bush-McCain Republicans, but he’s incapable of that.
The problem for the rest of us is that we’re locked into this perpetual state of suspended animation in which the two parties are deadlocked and nothing ever changes. I keep running into people who are rooting for divided government for the next four years. It will mean that America will be able to do little to solve its problems. They see this as the least bad option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Being a cutthroat cunt who has gotten away with commissioning the murder of at least dozens of people is infinitely preferable to... whatever Kumala is.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2023
Wow.
This really stands in stark contrast to Trump's rallies, and the energy and vibe of the candidates.
This would not have happened at a Trump rally. Partially because his rallies are large and a heckler would be unlikely to be heard. Partially because someone likely to heckle would be unlikely to be caught dead at one of his rallies. But mainly because that's not how Trump would have played it. If Trump had heard a similar heckling from someone presumed to be a Kamala supporter at one of his rallies, he would be more likely to play it off as a joke or play it up as even Democrats supporting his policy positions because they're such good policies, and then continue talking about his policies. I imagine something like this:
"What's that? Who said that? Oh, look, wow. Wow. We even have Kamala fans here. It's amazing,really. Even Kamala's fans know that we need to do something about all the illegal immigration. That's probably why Kamala is pretending to copy my position, and take credit for the work I did on stopping illegal immigration. They probably want to look at that wonderful chart again. Can we see that chart again? Up on the big--yeah. I love this chart, love this chart. This is a beautiful chart, saved my life, too. Even Kamala's fans are showing up at my rallies to see this wonderful, beautful chart, in person, because they also want to feel hope for America again. And they deserve to feel hope for America, even if they like that silly woman. Because they're still Americans. All Americans want to feel hope for our country, hope that we can stop the illegal immigration that's destroying this country..."
...and so on.
Compare that to what Kamala did. Note the naked contempt in her voice. The heckler doesn't belong there, he belongs over at the smaller rally down the street. He doesn't deserve to associate with the cool people at her rally who support her. No, the heckler can go sit at the table in the corner of the lunch room with the other nerds.
The vibe I get from this snippet is that she considers everyone her lesser. If you are not her, your job is to support her; your support of her is simply owed. If you don't, well, you don't deserve to be in her presence.
Kamala's campain is already spiralling. This doesn't yet feel like it has the same magnitude as Hillary's Basket of Deplorables moment, but it does carry a similar contempt.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
Sure thing. I already figured you planned on having a good time that night with friends and family anyways so why shit it up for you by pestering you?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2023
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
I thought he was too old and suffering from dementia?
- Status