What about the fake elector scheme? The January 6th insurrection was done in conjunction with that plot, to delay the vote certification and give Pence/members of Congress "encouragement" to choose a fake slate of electors. Both sides have problems, both sides can be considered "bad". But they are not equally bad. They are NOT the same. Pseudo-intellectual nonsense that tells you otherwise be damned.
TRUMP How is tarrifs on all Chinese foreign crap. Corporate tax rate 15 percent same as Hong Kong. Going to hurt economy? Bigger deficit then Kamla don't believe. More businesses here more jobs and more money. How does Gavin Newsom answer a question about the gigantic price increase for gas coming to Californians in 2025? He doesn’t, but at least he’s annoyed by the question, takes credit for Elon Musk’s success, and brags about his failing economy. Free Healthcare for illegals killing him. Taxes nuts nobody lives there like Kamla. She will destroy USA.
Just as with the Benny Hill Parade inside the Capitol on January 6th, the electors issue had no effect on the outcome of the election. Both were terrible situations, of course! But the damage was to Trump and the people who undertook those activities, there was certainly no damage done to democracy, Biden or the Democrats. YES! Both sides are "bad", and that is about the best thing I can say for them! No, they are NOT equally bad! On this we agree. Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader were not equally bad, either. But the actions of both were brutal and unacceptable and they both needed to be stopped. Both needed to be removed from society to protect the citizens. We don't necessarily need to remove politicians from society, but if we had the good sense to remove them from their positions of power - BOTH parties - then it would serve the same effect of protecting the citizens - and in this latter case, the nation. What pseudo-intellectual nonsense are you referring to? Please point it out to me, I'm would like to see it. I'm always curious as to what different people refer to 'pseudo-intellectual', so I'm always interested to see examples.
Huh? Are you serious? As I've already said, I don't consider January 6th much more than an embarrassment to those involved, and a tragic loss of life for an unarmed woman, BUT I'm amazed at the position you have taken (quoted below). Care to elaborate?
What if Biden had won the election by a single state, Pence had sent the false slate of electors back to the state for certification, and that state certified the false slate of electors? Is it unfathomable that a man who tried to overturn the results of an election with no evidence would try again? It's easy to say "it didn't work so who cares", but why give him another chance? He's inserting a loyalist who said he would not have certified the results of the election and sent it back to the states. What if it's just one corrupt state that makes the difference and he gets that state changed?
If someone tries to murder a person and fails, should we not care about it because ultimately no damage was done? I suppose the two Republicans who tried to assassinate Trump did nothing wrong since nothing actually happened. The pseudo-intellectualism of saying "both sides" when it comes to politics. People say it as if they're being so very serious and have deeply contemplated the matter when it's just a lazy cop-out.
Serious. The cop had right to shoot woman breaking in even unarmed. When you storm capital ur taking loses. We have a right to do all that happened. Trump was not at fault he said peaceful twice. Nancy Pelosi should have called national guard the right decision in all of this but failed.
When the rioting was going on, why did Trump not immediately call for them to stop? Why instead did he watch it on the TV, happy that they were doing it, calling senators to urge Pence to "do the right thing?" It took him more than 3 hours to tell them to go home and be peaceful. Moreover, in the same breath, you say that Trump was not at fault, but that you had a right to do all that happened. If you had a right, why would anyone be at fault? If you had a right, why should anyone (be it Trump, or Pelosi) have called the national guard?
We have a right to storm capital anytime we want for anything. Trump tweeted out way early then 3 hrs. He also made a video. Nancy is in charge of congress not Pence or Trump the halls and should have called national guard immediately. The fault lies in congress lack of communication to rioters need lowd speakers also. He said at rally before people went to capital be peaceful
When the violence and rioting were happening, when doors were being broken and violent, low-IQ thugs were breaking into the building, Trump was silent. Except that Trump could have called the National guard as well. He also said that they would never take back their country with weakness. Classic Trump language, giving himself just enough wiggle room.
Trump was far from silent as insaid before. Congress was silent. Not Trumps job. Nancy and congress under immediate threat. Trump talks off top of head not scrip3d like all dems. I hope everyone listened yesterday as Bloomberg interviewed me. For over a year, I’ve said China is building giant plants in Mexico. Since they heard about the Tariffs, all work has STOPPED on those plants. I saved Michigan autoworkers. Detroit will thrive if I’m elected! Donald Trump Truth Social 02:39 PM EST 10/16/24 @realDonaldTrump
Exactly who is it that wants to give him a second chance? Not me. Of course, left up to me, I wouldn't give Biden or Harris another chance at high office, either. Who was it that said "who cares?" Personally, I said it was a terrible situation, but that fortunately, no one on the presumptive "receiving end" was hurt. This is one of the things I hate about partisanship: the whole "you're either with us! or you're the enemy!" attitude so many partisans have these days. If you can see both sides of the same evil coin, objectively and at a distance, BOTH sides still lump you in as the ENEMY! Ignoring the fact that you are not taking sides... Two wrongs don't make a right!
Which part of "Just as with the Benny Hill Parade inside the Capitol on January 6th, the electors issue had no effect on the outcome of the election. Both were terrible situations, of course!" didn't you understand? How does "Both were terrible situations, of course!" equate to "not caring"? Oh, wait! That's right... of course! Only when someone is so partisan that anyone who isn't on "your side" is automatically "the enemy on the OTHER side"! Regardless of what their actual position is... In which case, non-partisans be DAMNED! (only if you are a partisan, of course, which most people seem to be ultra-partisan these days). Wow! What a crock! A much better example of pseudo-intellectualism is trying to rationalize that one side is more virtuous and one side is just evil, when the truth is that there is so little virtue and so much evil that it's hard to find virtue and impossible to get past the evil. It used to be only communist countries where people were so partisan and so divided! Where communist countries in the past had the division between the hardcore party-line partisans and those who saw the truth and despised the establishment, now we have two full sets of hardcore party-line partisans, neither of whom are willing to admit that the problem IS the parties and the establishment, NOT the people! The parties and establishment remain in power simply because the public refuses to see and admit that the parties/establishment are fully invested in dividing the people, and turn them against each other! If the people realized that it's the parties/establishment that are the PROBLEM, and NOT their fellow citizens, more than half the problems could go away within in a matter of a few years - and the other problems could be addressed more civilly and with more give-and-take. I don't have any problem getting along with Democrats, Republicans, caucasians, African-Americans, or any other ethnic or demographic group UNTIL the issue of politics comes up. I don't bring it up. But once someone finds out I'm not on "their" team, or any team, for that matter, I've viewed with suspicion at best and too often, hostility.
When the flagitious traitors were storming the capitol, why did Trump say nothing for 3 hours? So we should care, but at the same time it didn't affect the outcome...isn't the implication that it isn't a big deal? Because my point is that it was a huge, gigantic, massive deal, and you seem to disagree...specifically because it didn't have any effect. At this moment, I see "non-partisanship" as very strange. The vast majority of the time, they are either 1) Not truly non-partisan (nowadays, they don't want to admit to supporting Trump) 2) Are grossly misinformed/stupid (which I don't think you are) 3) Are simply uninformed/apolitical (which I'm doing the courtesy of assuming you aren't) 4) Intellectually unable to get over their desire to equate both sides (sometimes this ties into reason 2). This is not Romney vs Obama or Bush vs. Gore. Trump is an existential threat to Democracy. He is a traitor and anti-American. He has shown that time, and time, and time again. To use a tired metaphor, it's as if you are on a flight and the attendant offers you cold, bland pasta or a bowl of shit with glass in it. Neither is great, but pretending that they are equally bad is asinine. The Democrats are better than the Republicans. They are certainly better than the MAGA Republicans. Absolutely no question about it. Denying that fact and just saying that both sides have problems is useless. You accuse me of rationalizing that the sides are different and that one is better, but you're just trying to rationalize that they are the same! It's funny because I think part of the reason we might have seemed so united in the past is that: 1) We had a common enemy. Axis powers, Russia, Iraq, then "the terrorists". Now the bigotry of small differences comes into play. 2) We had a shared reality because we had a shared media environment. Now, because of technological advances, people get into their media bubbles, and most people don't know how to navigate that. They get fooled by misinformation, and a market that caters to what we want to hear, not what is actually true. I also want to point out that there were plenty of times this country has been very divided, and the problem wasn't parties, the establishment, or politicians, but our fellow citizens. The fellow citizens who wanted to keep slaves were WRONG. The fellow citizens who wanted to keep segregation were WRONG. Our fellow citizens who wanted to overturn the 2020 election results were WRONG. Often, the public is getting the politics that they want. Trump's anti-immigration, anti-trade, anti-American rhetoric is popular because that's what his base wants! It's what won him the primary and has given him so much support. Harris pushes gun control, high taxes, and pro-choice policies because she sees that as her path to victory. Chase Oliver is a better candidate than any of them...but his policies are unpalatable to the general public. It depends on the politics. I used to have a coworker (in HR) who I got along with very well. Not at all racist, or sexist, or anything (indeed, he was actually shockingly ahead of his time when it came to the "me too" stuff). But, it came out that he had very conspiratorial politics: the moon landing was fake, vaccines cause autism, 9-11 was an inside job, the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated, etc. Once that came to light, I would try and engage him in conversation, and he'd always shut me down with rhetoric like yours: "Let's not talk politics". So I stopped talking to him and instead treated him with suspicion, hostility, and disdain. Was I wrong to do so? Should I have ignored his abhorrent, stupid views since we are all fellow citizens?
The solution to this problem is quite simple: Since this is an investing forum, the person who has the highest capital gain as a percent of total investments at the end of the year has final say in all things political, as their superior investment prowess makes them infallible. The person with the lowest gain has to storm the U.S. Capitol on 1/6/25 completely naked like the dunce that they are. Was that so hard?
No, my direct comment - no implication, was that ""Both were terrible situations, of course!" No implication. Both the January 6th Keystone Kops / Benny Hill Parade at the Capital where a woman got shot and killed was terrible AND the potential replacement of legitimate electors was terrible! It was a big deal, in my opinion. But not the "huge, gigantic, massive deal" you believe it was, simply because there was no chance that either one would succeed - and it fact, they both backfired. That's because you and I have VERY different world views! You said "At this moment, I see "non-partisanship" as very strange." And yet, my non-partisanship, and the non-partisanship of the few people I know who are truly non-partisan, was born of the very ULTRA-PARTISANSHIP that both parties and the establishment have worked so hard - quite successfully I might add - to retain their grip on power and deceive the public into believing that "one or the other" parties/establishment is good, and the other is evil. The truth is that neither is good, and both are evil. That doesn't make them the same!! It simply means that they both realize that it is in their selfish, corrupt best interest to keep the public divided against EACH OTHER, and supporting "one or the other" party - of which both parties have in common being part of the establishment, which is no longer interested in democracy, "We the People", the Constitution or any of that "archaic crap" as they see it - which to them are just roadblocks in their desire for totalitarianism. They only want one party eventually - the Political/Government/Corporate RULING party! and a world in which elections - if they are still held at all - WON'T have consequences. They'll be straw polls. You didn't say "In my opinion" anywhere in the above quote, so I won't dispute your perception. We have very different perceptions and world views, you and I, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Oh, smack!! The same is also true of the extremist parties/establishment! Are you really convinced that 45%-50% of Americans are virtuous and right, and the other 45%-50% are evil and traitorous? Really? Want to hear something even MORE incredible? That's how the other side feels about YOUR side!! I prefer to think that, even though sadly there are many vile and evil people, that most of them are decent human beings duped and brainwashed by their "party/establishment" of choice, into believing that about the "other side" - both "other sides". It's almost as if there are TWO competing Emperors New Clothes, and there are just a few observers looking on in childlike wonder, shaking their heads and saying "Can't you see? BOTH them sum beaches is NAKED!" Oh, I know, I know! I've heard it all. We're in a tough spot, eh? We've got virtually half the country who believe that, and the other half believes that the Democrats (you know, the "other side") are socialists working toward communism, doing away with individual liberties and eventually the Constitution, stacking the Supreme Court, eliminating the filibuster, etc, etc, etc. Oh yeah, I catch it from both directions, and all these ultra-partisans seem convinced that every election (starting in say, 2016) is going to to lead to the "end of the world" and "death of democracy and freedom" as they know it. I'm not pretending they're equally bad. But I know for a fact that NEITHER is worthy of my support, or the support or trust of the American people. There's a saying that the best trick the Devil ever played on humans was convincing them he doesn't exist. Maybe the best trick that the parties/establishment ever played on the American public is convincing both sides that THEIR bowl of shit with glass in it, is really just cold, bland pasta - and therefore worth consuming and putting up with. My position is that it isn't good enough to hold your nose and your tongue and support your idea of the Lesser of Two Great Evils - or eat bowls of shit with glass in it, disguised as cold, bland pasta. One has to be willing to quit trying to spew a party line and refuse to accept lies and deception as "a necessary means to an end" because "the other side is worse!" - whether they are or not - and one must refuse to play along with cover ups and corruption and things you and I and everyone else KNOWS are unacceptable by both sides. Both sides accuse the OTHER side of misinformation and their partisan followers seem to believe it! HA! At risk of you continuing to accuse me of the UNTRUTH that I am saying that "both sides are the same" or "both sides are equally bad", I will say that both sides aren't really guilty of what I would call "misinformation". No, both sides are guilty of OUTRIGHT LIES and PROPAGANDA and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that - most people know that, whether they admit it or not.
On a serious note though, both of you bring up very valid points that I agree with. I don't have much to add, but I will give one thought that I think we can all objectively agree on as an undeniable fact: The vast majority of Americans are too dumb to be evil, too busy to keep up on all the ways they are being taken advantage of, too lazy to do their own unbiased research, and too conditioned to value immediate gratification over long term stability and solutions. And the powers that be want to keep it that way to exploit our under evolved tribalistic instincts.
I agree with most of that! My first, relatively minor, disagreement is with the idea that humans are "too lazy to do their own unbiased research". They are. But also, humans are just not fact-seeking machines. We crave having our biases confirmed like we crave fat and sugar, and the internet has fully revealed that! My second point of disagreement is that people are "too conditioned to value immediate gratification". I think this is inherent/base human nature. It takes conditioning to make people ignore that and think in the longer term. But water flows as it does, and it's hard to push back against that. Our choice architecture has deteriorated! I also can't entirely agree with the last part; the "powers that be". In the sense that I don't think there is some insidious, top-down conspiracy to exploit our tribalistic instincts...as Scott Alexander might say, it's just Moloch...the people want to have their tribalistic instincts served, and that's what the market is giving us. The media "exploits" those instincts because media that doesn't isn't watched by anyone (PBS, for example). The politicians "exploit" those instincts because politicians who take the high road and try to appeal to our better natures tend to lose. Put another way, the incentive structures have caused this; I'm not sure we can ever close that Pandora's box.
