Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Republican primary poll for Michigan

Trump 45
DeSantis 42

 

[The Cat]

Ripple effects. 1 month after the trucks stop rolling.
Just say no to accelerationism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Something that the youtube has thrown at me.

 

[Kephalos]

"We cannot act with too much caution in our disputes. Anger produces anger; and differences, that might be accommodated by kind and respectful behavior, may, by imprudence, be enlarged to an incurable rage." -- John Dickinson (1732-1808). Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Generic ballot 538

The common wisdom and expectations were that there is huge red tsunami coming in November. But then one court made some decisions and probably due to that polling now looks as it looks.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why Democrats Are Disillusioned Over Climate Change

 

[ceecee]

Something that the youtube has thrown at me.

 

[Kephalos]

Trump didn't act and didn't want to, plus 4 other takeaways from the Jan. 6 hearings

The committee, across these eight hearings, has built a case – more political than legal — that Trump, who continues to lie about the election and teases that he will run again in 2024, is not fit to hold the office...The bottom line is Trump knew what was going on, and could have taken action, but chose not to, for hours. It was three hours and seven minutes from the end of his speech to when he finally put out the video telling the rioters to go home...Trump's criminal culpability, if any, is for the Department of Justice to determine. It's becoming clearer after several of these hearings, that the committee's goal is less legal and more political...

Cynicism in general is a corrosive force. Every act of injustice that goes unpunished erodes people's belief, their faith, that the social institutions set up (the laws, the courts, the police, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and finally the legislators and politicians): 1) to prevent acts of injustice, 2) to punish the acts of injustice that do happen and 3) to redress the damage to the extent that it is possible from acts of injustice committed.

The former goes for all ordinary cases where justice isn't served, such as wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals. It is orders of magnitude worse to deliberately create a false expectation in people or to allow a false expectation in people to be formed knowing full well that such expectation must disappointed (due to its being unrealistic or uninformed). Not only does it corrode the sense of justice of the people in whom the expectations is created, but it vindicates the cynics who (for their own political reasons such as former president Trump) also want to undermine people's faith in the good functioning of society's institutions (while also deliberately undermining them in what becomes a sort of toxic self-fulfilling prophesy).

I confess that I had a bad feeling about this whole thing when it was to be Congress (first the Senate then the House of Representatives) and not the Department of Justice directly that was going to be in charge of this inquiry. It told me that the Deparment of Justice either could not in its (unstated) opinion find something to charge Trump with as a result of Jan. 6 2020, or that it could only obtain for Trump convictions for relatively minor offenses such as those some of the actual rioters have gotten, or that it did not want to prosecute Trump for a crime (serious or not) due to political reasons (Trump being a former and potentially also a future president).

It is disappointing: the moral unsuitability of Donald Trump -- independently of ideology, although I personally have problems with that too -- to be president of the United States (or even president of his companies!) was evident from even before 2016 (for example when he failed to run for president in 2012) and even during his presidency nothing in his behavior really should have changed that perception of his lack of character in anyone (conservative or liberal or whatever). Exhibiting Trump some more (more than he has already exhibited himself) might have some value if it causes some of the people to disabuse themselves of any remaining illusions about what kind of man he is, but unrealistic and unjustified expectations it might backfire and even embolden him

I find the behavior of the committe and of the Department of Justice to be incredibly irresponsible all in all.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

One could argue that culturally enforced monogamy was/is its own form of eugenics designed to counteract the pareto principle as it can be observed in effect in more sexually permissive cultures.

The goal of said engineering to match as many average and low tier men as possible to mates; in the "natural" setting without enforced monogamy and chastity, we will see women allowed to choose top tier men and pass them around among themselves whilst rightfully ignoring and rejecting those men deemed to have subpar genes. This has always happened on a smaller scale, but now we can see it becoming more widely accepted.

the latter is really the way to go; wouldn't we prefer to have the brightest, most physically fit and endowed men passing on their genes vs lots of average and subpar men diluting the gene pool? This is a hard pill for most men to swallow, as it means over half of men would be unworthy of passing on their genetic codes, but assuming society doesn't collapse, this seems to be the way we're headed. Might as well embrace it, and if you're male, hope you were dealt a good hand of cards genetically and physically. Some average to high average guys might be able to improve themselves to the point of becoming viable mates and sperm donors, the rest, better focus on yourselves and buy sex dolls.

It's not really surprising that "kinks" like breeding and cuckoldry are gaining popularity. It's also not surprising to see the huge overlaps among the breeding and cuck fetish communities. I'm particularly fascinated by the cuck men who get off on the thought of having their own wives impregnated by other men whilst they themselves are either forced to wear condoms or denied sex altogether. Weird. Apparently it's not uncommon for these couples to seek out "bulls" to have the honor of passing on their DNA.

 

[Virtual ghost]

World’s cartoonists on this week’s events

 

[Virtual ghost]

White House clash with Pelosi over Taiwan spills into the open


What do you guys think of this ?

 

[The Cat]

White House clash with Pelosi over Taiwan spills into the open


What do you guys think of this ?

Only Nixon can go to China.
Only Nancy needs a strong republican party.
Sometimes war hawking looks like humming birds.

 

[ceecee]

White House clash with Pelosi over Taiwan spills into the open


What do you guys think of this ?

Perhaps she is looking for some new company to invest in. Oops, I mean for her husband to invest in.

 

[Kephalos]

White House clash with Pelosi over Taiwan spills into the open


What do you guys think of this ?

Logan Act.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To finally answer this. As I said I find it kinda "cringey" when people in US call GOP conservatives. Since I really don't see what is all that conservative in that party. Conservatives should be about law and order and Reps want to flood the whole society with guns, so that everyone can make their own justice on the spot. What in my own book is more like an anarchy than some kind of law and order. The same thing is with economy, everything has to be deregulated even if the half products are made and customers are cheated or poisoned ( since they don't have a lab worth 200 million that would determine flaws of the product). Conservation of environment: zero points. Conserving people's health, not really. Deficit control: not really at this point. Organizing clean and fair election and respecting institutions: the government is the problem .... etc. etc.

My general dislike of GOP is there exactly since this in my book isn't a conservative party by almost any means. But some kind of a anarchy-business-theological hybrid that is a story for itself. It is not really a secret that I am not American but I really don't understand why in US this is considered to be conservative position. In my book the Democrats are much closer to what I would consider conservative, especially if we don't count the hard-core wokers. Conservatism for me requires one sense of order and justice and GOP isn't really on board here. Some see me here as some kind of a HC liberal, while in fact I am no stranger to watching my own local right wing evening news (which would be rated as pretty progressive by US standards). Not to mention that I am for cotrolling deficts, I don't mind market as long as basic human rights are respected, I am straight ... etc. But as soon as you advocate for more compact order or science you are seen as some kind of a far left nut that will end liberty for the rest of eternity. I know culture is a messy concept but here there seems to be so much disconnection that numbers just don't add up here towards conservatism (in my book). In other words they as a party are bad at fixing most stuff exactly since they for the most part are impulse driven as a culture. While to me that is the opposite from conservative. For me conservatism is more surgical in approach and most Reps aren't really there. However as the world became complex there are lesser and lesser chances that reactive improvised logic will get it right and that everything will be ok. Therefore for me defining their position is more like stubborn than conservative. It is almost as US culture doesn't really understand that you can be on the right while not being evident economic libertarian, religious fanatic or ultra nationalist. What in my book are more like extremist positions than conservative ones, which should be thought through.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The Abortion Vote In Kansas Looks Like It’s Going To Be Close

This is something that should be looked at. Since that will say something about public mood.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To finally answer this. As I said I find it kinda "cringey" when people in US call GOP conservatives. Since I really don't see what is all that conservative in that party. Conservatives should be about law and order and Reps want to flood the whole society with guns, so that everyone can make their own justice on the spot. What in my own book is more like an anarchy than some kind of law and order. The same thing is with economy, everything has to be deregulated even if the half products are made and customers are cheated or poisoned ( since they don't have a lab worth 200 million that would determine flaws of the product). Conservation of environment: zero points. Conserving people's health, not really. Deficit control: not really at this point. Organizing clean and fair election and respecting institutions: the government is the problem .... etc. etc.

My general dislike of GOP is there exactly since this in my book isn't a conservative party by almost any means. But some kind of a anarchy-business-theological hybrid that is a story for itself. It is not really a secret that I am not American but I really don't understand why in US this is considered to be conservative position. In my book the Democrats are much closer to what I would consider conservative, especially if we don't count the hard-core wokers. Conservatism for me requires one sense of order and justice and GOP isn't really on board here. Some see me here as some kind of a HC liberal, while in fact I am no stranger to watching my own local right wing evening news (which would be rated as pretty progressive by US standards). Not to mention that I am for cotrolling deficts, I don't mind market as long as basic human rights are respected, I am straight ... etc. But as soon as you advocate for more compact order or science you are seen as some kind of a far left nut that will end liberty for the rest of eternity. I know culture is a messy concept but here there seems to be so much disconnection that numbers just don't add up here towards conservatism (in my book). In other words they as a party are bad at fixing most stuff exactly since they for the most part are impulse driven as a culture. While to me that is the opposite from conservative. For me conservatism is more surgical in approach and most Reps aren't really there. However as the world became complex there are lesser and lesser chances that reactive improvised logic will get it right and that everything will be ok. Therefore for me defining their position is more like stubborn than conservative. It is almost as US culture doesn't really understand that you can be on the right while not being evident economic libertarian, religious fanatic or ultra nationalist. What in my book are more like extremist positions than conservative ones, which should be thought through.

I've heard many attribute this issue to poor education in the US, which refers back to the OP.

Some have even speculated that the weakening of education is a deliberate choice by oligarchic interests to strengthen their own position in this way.

 

[ceecee]

To finally answer this. As I said I find it kinda "cringey" when people in US call GOP conservatives. Since I really don't see what is all that conservative in that party. Conservatives should be about law and order and Reps want to flood the whole society with guns, so that everyone can make their own justice on the spot. What in my own book is more like an anarchy than some kind of law and order. The same thing is with economy, everything has to be deregulated even if the half products are made and customers are cheated or poisoned ( since they don't have a lab worth 200 million that would determine flaws of the product). Conservation of environment: zero points. Conserving people's health, not really. Deficit control: not really at this point. Organizing clean and fair election and respecting institutions: the government is the problem .... etc. etc.

My general dislike of GOP is there exactly since this in my book isn't a conservative party by almost any means. But some kind of a anarchy-business-theological hybrid that is a story for itself. It is not really a secret that I am not American but I really don't understand why in US this is considered to be conservative position. In my book the Democrats are much closer to what I would consider conservative, especially if we don't count the hard-core wokers. Conservatism for me requires one sense of order and justice and GOP isn't really on board here. Some see me here as some kind of a HC liberal, while in fact I am no stranger to watching my own local right wing evening news (which would be rated as pretty progressive by US standards). Not to mention that I am for cotrolling deficts, I don't mind market as long as basic human rights are respected, I am straight ... etc. But as soon as you advocate for more compact order or science you are seen as some kind of a far left nut that will end liberty for the rest of eternity. I know culture is a messy concept but here there seems to be so much disconnection that numbers just don't add up here towards conservatism (in my book). In other words they as a party are bad at fixing most stuff exactly since they for the most part are impulse driven as a culture. While to me that is the opposite from conservative. For me conservatism is more surgical in approach and most Reps aren't really there. However as the world became complex there are lesser and lesser chances that reactive improvised logic will get it right and that everything will be ok. Therefore for me defining their position is more like stubborn than conservative. It is almost as US culture doesn't really understand that you can be on the right while not being evident economic libertarian, religious fanatic or ultra nationalist. What in my book are more like extremist positions than conservative ones, which should be thought through.

You can can call them crypto-fascists since that is what the majority of Republicans/GOP/conservatives/right wingers embrace. Not outright support of course. That's still too risky at the moment but it won't be for long. In the end, in the US, the fundamental distinction between conservatism and liberalism is the former’s commitment to moral inequality. Conservatives are simply more comfortable with the idea that people are unequal, and so should be treated unequally. US conservatives feel too many people—immigrants, women, minorities—had cut in line and obtained benefits and government mandated advantages that they did not deserve. The same was true of Reagan and his tirades against “welfare queens” in the 1980s. In circumstances where too many gains have been achieved by liberals and leftists, conservatives will engage in anything from radical reforms to outright counter-revolutionary efforts to restore the "right" kind of social hierarchy to society. And that is what we are seeing and why.

And there is no one on earth that hates America more than right wing/conservatives/Republican Americans. They absolutely despise the promise of secular government, of anyone striving for equality, the freedom others are granted the same as them, for all. That's why they scream about the idea of states rights (which also brought slavery among other things). Of course there is huge disconnect. Decades of right wing media has hammered that into their heads and no they have no idea that you can personally be conservatives without the Third Reich haircuts and ideology. Human and civil rights should never be negotiated and whatever the fash and their supporters have to say should be crushed as they are a threat to all humans world wide. Would have thought the two world wars would have made that very evident.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I've heard many attribute this issue to poor education in the US, which refers back to the OP.

Some have even speculated that the weakening of education is a deliberate choice by oligarchic interests to strengthen their own position in this way.

This is absolutely true.

Since US was build on colonial logic and therefore the key question is "How do I as an Individual milk the most out of x people". While building the functional and working society was never rally a part of the plan. If it happens as a side effect that is ok, but that doesn't seem to be the goal. The most obvious example is mass outsourcing. That is the most obvious example of individualism over system/country. While with that you basically blew up the country and everything else are basically just the side-effects. This is why for me this isn't really conservatism. Since real conservatism would be more responsible towards the country, if not people as well.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You can can call them crypto-fascists since that is what the majority of Republicans/GOP/conservatives/right wingers embrace. Not outright support of course. That's still too risky at the moment but it won't be for long. In the end, in the US, the fundamental distinction between conservatism and liberalism is the former’s commitment to moral inequality. Conservatives are simply more comfortable with the idea that people are unequal, and so should be treated unequally. US conservatives feel too many people—immigrants, women, minorities—had cut in line and obtained benefits and government mandated advantages that they did not deserve. The same was true of Reagan and his tirades against “welfare queens” in the 1980s. In circumstances where too many gains have been achieved by liberals and leftists, conservatives will engage in anything from radical reforms to outright counter-revolutionary efforts to restore the "right" kind of social hierarchy to society. And that is what we are seeing and why.

And there is no one on earth that hates America more than right wing/conservatives/Republican Americans. They absolutely despise the promise of secular government, of anyone striving for equality, the freedom others are granted the same as them, for all. That's why they scream about the idea of states rights (which also brought slavery among other things). Of course there is huge disconnect. Decades of right wing media has hammered that into their heads and no they have no idea that you can personally be conservatives without the Third Reich haircuts and ideology. Human and civil rights should never be negotiated and whatever the fash and their supporters have to say should be crushed as they are a threat to all humans world wide. Would have thought the two world wars would have made that very evident.

Here I kinda have to disagree, the more radical of them may share some things with Fascists but I just don't see it that way. These people seem to be way too individualistic and market focused to be fascists. As I said for me this is some kind of a anarchy-business-theological hybrid, that evidently has it's roots in the wild west. You can do xenophobia and various forms of bigotry without being a fascists. Since fascism is much more than just that.


While the fact that this mix can be very toxic and harmful for many people is something else. As I said for me this isn't Conservative since it conserves pretty much nothing except some vague old ideas.