Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[PCHawk]

While I disagree, it’s same/same. The parties control who gets the chance at being president, not you and not the public. They want you to think you do because they make it some big chest pumping ritual where you’re “doing your civic duty,” LOL

No different than religion. They light a spark in easily duped people, and then they fuel it with promises that they’re looking out for you first, and then guilt if you don’t sit in the pew or cast a vote for their mothership.

Nothing about American government is democratic, or a republic, or blah blah blah. It’s two parties each wanting to be in control who limit your options to two sets of their minions. You have no choice but from those two companies.

I completely agree with all of that, other than the same/same part. You said in your first post that the party will pick the candidate who gives them the best chance to win. I say they care more about having the candidate that they can control. I see how you think it's the same. But I think it's a relevant difference.

 

[PCHawk]

You think voting makes a difference otherwise why would you do it? That’s the crux of the matter. It’s all bullshit until you can give a logical reason otherwise. That’s what I’m getting at. This whole thing is just a big theater of the absurd and you eat it up which is what the left and the right want you to do.

You get to choose between terrible choice A and terrible choice B, and those are your only choices. This system you seem so interested is just a big farce. An independent has no chance. Literally, not figuratively. That’s not a free election. But you think it is.

Guilty as charged on eating it up. But I only think voting makes a difference when you have the option to vote for someone who didn't spend his life in politics. If Trump gets in and makes the country noticeably better, then has someone directly under him run, I'll probably vote for him hoping he keeps it going. If Trump gets in and it's 4 more years of the same (like last time) I'll probably never vote again. (I truly believe this is likely to be what happens). If Trump loses, I won't vote again until someone else comes along who isn't a career politician. I guess I'm duped that it's possible an outsider can clean things up. But the funny thing is, when I say "possible for an outsider to clean things up" you read " it's guaranteed that an outsider will clean things up".

Your last paragraph is all true other than the part where you say I think it's a free election. I seriously wonder if you even read my posts.

 

[Gibsonian]

Morning message from the man who buried his ex wife on the golf course and who also organized and sent fake electors from a half dozen states to cheat in our national election. The man, the con Don

 

[SCHawkeye2]

I think him being a narcissist might be a good thing. People think that because he is one, he is Hitler and wants all the power in the world. I think he wants to be remembered as the greatest president that ever lived. There's an old video of him talking to Oprah (back when she loved him) where he talked about how poorly our country is run in terms of trading deals with other countries. He said he would never run for president. When she pushed him, he said he can't say never because if it keeps getting worse he would maybe do it.

I think his goal is to turn this country around from the economical standpoint. He wants to get business back from overseas and stop relying so much on other countries. If he did that and returned us to where we were around WW2 (and if the media stopped vilifying him) he would be remembered as a great president. He's got no chance to be considered the greatest now after everything that's transpired, but there's no way he could have known how bad he would be attacked.

People act like MAGA is a racist thing, saying it was never great from the black people's point of view (which is true). But it's not about that. America used to manufacture everything. Now it all comes from overseas. It's not sustainable. We were a wealthy country precisely because of our manufacturing. Without that we are only rich in terms of raising our debt with no regard to where that leads.

He said in the 80s that's why he would run, and he still says now that's why he is running. Again, that's what the whole MAGA slogan is about. Getting us back to where we prospered economically. He just had no idea the shitstorm he was in for the second he won. He says now he knows more about who to hire and what to do. I have my doubts for sure. But with my opinion of the government machine, I've got no choice but to hold out hope for him and his movement.

The Art of the Con and Why People Fall for It

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way when deflecting con artists.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[PCHawk]

The Art of the Con and Why People Fall for It

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way when deflecting con artists.

www.psychologytoday.com

If he's such a con artist, why does the media bother making up fake stories like the very fine people hoax? I used to say it was dumb for the media to make up fake stories about him when he gives then enough ammo not to. Now I wonder if they have no choice but to make stuff up.

One thing I find really interesting is how hard it is to find someone willing to say he sexually assaulted them. Guys like Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby, and DeShawn Watson have one person accuse them of something and the floodgates open. With how "bad" Trump is, you would think women would be lining up for miles to accuse him of something.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

 

[PCHawk]

x.com

x.com

What's the other side of this? I assume there has to be one.

 

[CP87]

x.com

x.com

What's the other side of this? I assume there has to be one.

These purges to remove non-citizen voters often end up purging legal voters whose information might be wonky due to errors by the DMV, or in some cases non-citizens who obtained driver's license and later became citizens. Everyone agrees that voter rolls need to be maintained, but someone being incorrectly purged in such close proximity to the election may not allow them to fix the mistake, and hence disenfranchise that legal voter.

For this reason, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act bars states from purging voters in a systematic within 90-days of the election.

 

[CP87]

That's a head-in-the-sand argument. It's what they want you to think.

You actually think the American public is hiring these people?

That may have been true generations ago. But not in several generations has this thing been about what the public wants, what's best for the public, or decided by the public.

America is not a democracy my friend. By no definition in existence is it a democracy. We live in a strict duopoly controlled by wealthy people and companies, who are smart enough to employ people (candidates an congress/senate members) who want money and power and will do their bidding under the guise of doing what's best for us.

In this country if you are not toed to either the democratic or republican line, you have no glimmer of hope whatsoever of being the president. The party machines control that. It's not about being "best for the job." The parties don't want the best person for the job. They don't care about that. They care about finding the person most likely to be elected so the party has control of the congress, the senate, and the presidency. The people and corporations behind the scenes decide who they want as politicians and that's your choice whether you like it or not. If Joe the lawyer down the street is a great guy and a capable person, and decides to run for office he doesn't get to. Because if you're not the guy the party wants you are excluded. To think it's not that way is idiotic; I'm sorry but it's true. To look at Harris and Trump and think either is the person best suited to lead a great country of 350 million people is absolutely absurd. Those two people are the ones the party machines decided can rile the public up enough to win an election and thus win for their respective parties and lobbies.

Get your head out of the sand, amigo. You don't have to like it, but just be conscious to it.

No democracy in the US for a long time. Read the actual definition of that word.

Then look up the definition of the word duopoly.

Our country (and the world) is run by rich people, it always has been. And that isn't necessarily terrible, our country has done pretty well for itself. I think the combination of capitalism and personal liberty have played massive roles in our overall success over the last few centuries.

But unfettered capitalism doesn't work. You get the robber barons of the late 19th century; a few people with all of the money and capital, and everyone else just begging at their stoop. Or unregulated bubbles that lead to collapse of our economic systems, like 1929 or 2008.

Capitalism is kept in check by a government beholden to its voters, a free press, and collective action of the masses (e.g. organized labor). Finding the right balance is the trick because an overly restrictive government can stimy growth, but unfettered capitalism allows those with power to aggregate more power, leading to eventual uprising and social collapse.

So, as shitty as our government is, and as much as government is also controlled by those same rich people, it still stands as one of our few protections against straight-up oligarchy. We could have better protection if we can try to minimize the effect of money on elections, and if we fix the information ecosystem to make it harder for people to be propagandized. These are both enormous problems without an obvious fix in sight, so your cynicism is warranted. But I think we will figure this stuff out, eventually.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Our country (and the world) is run by rich people, it always has been. And that isn't necessarily terrible, our country has done pretty well for itself. I think the combination of capitalism and personal liberty have played massive roles in our overall success over the last few centuries.

But unfettered capitalism doesn't work. You get the robber barons of the late 19th century; a few people with all of the money and capital, and everyone else just begging at their stoop. Or unregulated bubbles that lead to collapse of our economic systems, like 1929 or 2008.

Capitalism is kept in check by a government beholden to its voters, a free press, and collective action of the masses (e.g. organized labor). Finding the right balance is the trick because an overly restrictive government can stimy growth, but unfettered capitalism allows those with power to aggregate more power, leading to eventual uprising and social collapse.

So, as shitty as our government is, and as much as government is also controlled by those same rich people, it still stands as one of our few protections against straight-up oligarchy. We could have better protection if we can try to minimize the effect of money on elections, and if we fix the information ecosystem to make it harder for people to be propagandized. These are both enormous problems without an obvious fix in sight, so your cynicism is warranted. But I think we will figure this stuff out, eventually.

Well said.

The "Holy Grail" is the proper balance between free-market capitalism and socialistic government regulations. It is a constantly shifting goal that will never truly be achieved in a world economy based upon freeing up and utilizing natural resources that are limited.

I tend to have many libertarian views, and generally feel that a competitive free-market system ultimately leads to much more financial progress than a more socialistic system, however, any system that funnels resources and money to fewer and fewer people over time is doomed, and rightfully so.

Even the staunchest capitalist has to do a double-take when looking at the rapidly expanding income gap between CEOs and frontline employees. A ticking time bomb.

 

[Hay Man]

If he's such a con artist, why does the media bother making up fake stories like the very fine people hoax? I used to say it was dumb for the media to make up fake stories about him when he gives then enough ammo not to. Now I wonder if they have no choice but to make stuff up.

One thing I find really interesting is how hard it is to find someone willing to say he sexually assaulted them. Guys like Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby, and DeShawn Watson have one person accuse them of something and the floodgates open. With how "bad" Trump is, you would think women would be lining up for miles to accuse him of something.

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is this enough for you regarding the COUNTLESS women accusing Trump of sexual assault??? His own wife is one of them and look what that got her....buried in a golf course.

He's also been a con artist his whole life. Not everything that's been brought up against him is a HOAX. At some point the person being accused of all of these wrong doings is actually doing these bad things.

Holy shit, it's not that hard to see.

 

[Gibsonian]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is this enough for you regarding the COUNTLESS women accusing Trump of sexual assault??? His own wife is one of them and look what that got her....buried in a golf course.

He's also been a con artist his whole life. Not everything that's been brought up against him is a HOAX. At some point the person being accused of all of these wrong doings is actually doing these bad things.

Holy shit, it's not that hard to see.

Pretty easy to see. We all know the Trump family is barred from having a charity fund due to charity fund theft? Not a hoax, easily verifiable. Trump bilked millions from unsuspecting Trump University “students” as well paid millions in settlement. The con is alive and flourishing. He is a talented artist in this regard to have the kind of record he sports and still they keep handing him money support and votes.

 

[PCHawk]

These purges to remove non-citizen voters often end up purging legal voters whose information might be wonky due to errors by the DMV, or in some cases non-citizens who obtained driver's license and later became citizens. Everyone agrees that voter rolls need to be maintained, but someone being incorrectly purged in such close proximity to the election may not allow them to fix the mistake, and hence disenfranchise that legal voter.

For this reason, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act bars states from purging voters in a systematic within 90-days of the election.

That makes sense. It also means that waiting until this late in the game was more than likely on purpose.

 

[PCHawk]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is this enough for you regarding the COUNTLESS women accusing Trump of sexual assault??? His own wife is one of them and look what that got her....buried in a golf course.

He's also been a con artist his whole life. Not everything that's been brought up against him is a HOAX. At some point the person being accused of all of these wrong doings is actually doing these bad things.

Holy shit, it's not that hard to see.

I was thinking more along the lines of a barage of woman coming out at the same time. But point taken. One thing that would be really hard for a rich famous person would be to be a womanizer and not get yourself into trouble. When you develop the attitude that all women want you, which is an understandable attitude to develop under those circumstances, you're going to eventually run someone the wrong way (pardon the pun). It's just a numbers game. A lot of women won't even tell you if yiu make them uncomfortable so you go through life thinking they all love it.

 

[PCHawk]

Pretty easy to see. We all know the Trump family is barred from having a charity fund due to charity fund theft? Not a hoax, easily verifiable. Trump bilked millions from unsuspecting Trump University “students” as well paid millions in settlement. The con is alive and flourishing. He is a talented artist in this regard to have the kind of record he sports and still they keep handing him money support and votes.

Now those are hoaxes I believe are probably true.

 

[PCHawk]

Is anyone intrigued by the thought of Kennedy cleaning up the food and drug companies and Musk trimming the unneeded fat off government spending?

 

[Fryowa]

Our country (and the world) is run by rich people, it always has been. And that isn't necessarily terrible, our country has done pretty well for itself. I think the combination of capitalism and personal liberty have played massive roles in our overall success over the last few centuries.

But unfettered capitalism doesn't work. You get the robber barons of the late 19th century; a few people with all of the money and capital, and everyone else just begging at their stoop. Or unregulated bubbles that lead to collapse of our economic systems, like 1929 or 2008.

Capitalism is kept in check by a government beholden to its voters, a free press, and collective action of the masses (e.g. organized labor). Finding the right balance is the trick because an overly restrictive government can stimy growth, but unfettered capitalism allows those with power to aggregate more power, leading to eventual uprising and social collapse.

So, as shitty as our government is, and as much as government is also controlled by those same rich people, it still stands as one of our few protections against straight-up oligarchy. We could have better protection if we can try to minimize the effect of money on elections, and if we fix the information ecosystem to make it harder for people to be propagandized. These are both enormous problems without an obvious fix in sight, so your cynicism is warranted. But I think we will figure this stuff out, eventually.

I understand your points and I respect them. I think we agree on most things.

But this country is not an oligarchy. It is a duopoly. We use the term oligarchy to mean a small group of people running everything, which may be true at a given point in time, but what we truly have is a duopoly. There are two ruling parties in this country who have absolute power over literally everything in government, they just take turn back and forth as far as who’s in charge at a particular point in time.

No one else has a chance to become president, full stop…not debatable. If you are not a republican or democrat, you have quite literally zero chance. On paper there is a technical chance, but we’re not dealing with paper, we’re dealing with reality.

What about the house and senate? Aren’t there independents? Yes. And now we need to look at how much a non-democrat/republican has actual power to affect change.

When was the last time an independent drafted a bill of any significance that passed? When was the last time a house or senate vote was decided by anything other than a democratic or republican majority?

You used the phrase “a government beholden to its voters.” I like the idea, but again the only way the government is beholden to its voters is on paper. In reality it’s the other way around. The duopoly decides what choices you have and thus they aren’t beholden to anyone. We are beholding to the offerings they decide to give us. Ross Perot running as an independent was a noble move against the machine and raised some eyebrows, but let’s be honest. Even in the 90s that idea was long dead before it popped in his head.

Oligarchy is a euphemism with respect to American politics. Call it what it is…a duopoly that decides what we get to vote on.

 

[PCHawk]

I understand your points and I respect them. I think we agree on most things.

But this country is not an oligarchy. It is a duopoly. We use the term oligarchy to mean a small group of people running everything, which may be true at a given point in time, but what we truly have is a duopoly. There are two ruling parties in this country who have absolute power over literally everything in government, they just take turn back and forth as far as who’s in charge at a particular point in time.

No one else has a chance to become president, full stop…not debatable. If you are not a republican or democrat, you have quite literally zero chance. On paper there is a technical chance, but we’re not dealing with paper, we’re dealing with reality.

What about the house and senate? Aren’t there independents? Yes. And now we need to look at how much a non-democrat/republican has actual power to affect change.

When was the last time an independent drafted a bill of any significance that passed? When was the last time a house or senate vote was decided by anything other than a democratic or republican majority?

You used the phrase “a government beholden to its voters.” I like the idea, but again the only way the government is beholden to its voters is on paper. In reality it’s the other way around. The duopoly decides what choices you have and thus they aren’t beholden to anyone. We are beholding to the offerings they decide to give us. Ross Perot running as an independent was a noble move against the machine and raised some eyebrows, but let’s be honest. Even in the 90s that idea was long dead before it popped in his head.

Oligarchy is a euphemism with respect to American politics. Call it what it is…a duopoly that decides what we get to vote on.

Now that they've opened the door to pushing people through without the fake process you talk about, expect that to happen more often.

They just really have to put in term limits on everyone. I know it will never happen but it would solve a lot of problems. Who's more powerful between a senate member who's been in power for decades and a president who has a limit to how long he has to build allies? I suppose that answer depends on which offices said president held beforehand. I hate to beat a dead horse (no I don't) but the longer you're in office, the more likely you've been corrupted. People in office need powerful allies to stay there. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule. I don't think Pelosi or McConnell are part of those exceptions.

 

[CP87]

Is anyone intrigued by the thought of Kennedy cleaning up the food and drug companies and Musk trimming the unneeded fat off government spending?

Not at all. I don't think those are bad goals to have, but nothing leads me to believe those are the guys to take on those tasks. Let Elon build cars and rockets, let RFK, Jr. saw off whale heads, and leave those other tasks to experts.

 

[Hay Man]

Is anyone intrigued by the thought of Kennedy cleaning up the food and drug companies and Musk trimming the unneeded fat off government spending?

Come on now....you have to be trolling.

RFK Jr's a looney conspiracy theorist and would absolutely ruin any part of the govt he can get his hands on. He'll ban all forms of vaccines and probably get rid of the FDA. His entire Kennedy family is against him for the stuff he's said and done.

Musk has already said that Trump's economic policies will most likely crash the economy and it's the price Americans will have to pay. Wages will go down because they want to get rid of overtime pay. Good bye social security, Education Department, etc....