Presidential Debate + RFK

[Merkabah Star]

this clip of Biden saying end of quote seems to have divided people. I didn’t think it was a gaffe but just listening to a podcast and people seem to think it is.

soooo.. 😁
 

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by Merkabah Star

[Merkabah Star]

Shepmates miming the golf debate. 😂

 

[hundreth]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Breaking Points is so bad. They are brainwashing their whole audience to not vote for Biden.

Breaking Points alone can get Trump reelected. Irresponsible hosts.

I have my issues with Breaking Points, they can have very biased coverage at times.

That said, they're really only pointing out what's already happening. They don't have enough influence to sway much.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Marianne Williamson Throws Her Hat Back In The Ring After Biden Debate Disaster | HuffPost Latest News

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marianne-williamson-reenter-president-democrat-biden-debate_n_66852378e4b0e3bf9771e6f1

Marianne Williamson Throws Her Hat Back In The Ring After Biden Debate Disaster

The self-help author says she’s officially reentering the race following President Joe Biden’s debate performance.

Marianne Williamson, who ran for president in 2020 and suspended her 2024 campaign in February, has officially reentered the race. In a video Tuesday, she announced that she’s seeking to replace President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.

“President Biden deserves our respect, our compassion and our gratitude,” said Williamson in the video. “But the debate on Thursday night made it very clear that the Democrats need a new nominee on the ballot... We need to recalibrate, and we need to do so quickly.”

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by Rafael Thundercat

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, ryandesreu said:

What happens when he dies midway through his next term?

Not as bad as the alternative midway next term.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Seems like Skynews Australia do lipservice to Trump. Wondering why? 

 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, hundreth said:

they're really only pointing out what's already happening. They don't have enough influence to sway much.

No they aren't. They have their finger on the scale, pandering to their anti-mainstream audience. They have a lot of sway.

[Yimpa]

When I say

I do NOT mean to be tickled by Trump. That is the pickle we have collectively fallen into.

[Rafael Thundercat]

A video from 8 years ago O'Reilly basic defending Trump from acusations of playing with Fascist Ideology. 

 

[aurum]

8 hours ago, hundreth said:

You're both kind of talking past each other at this point, but I generally agree with @Raze that alternative candidates can and could have had a better chance in a general election.

It's not really that we are talking past each other. I understand their argument and I think they understand mine.

We just disagree on certain nuances.

Here is their position summarized:

"Trump won because people were fed up with the establishment and wanted change, which he tapped into. The democrats could have won, but they selected a more status quo politician like Hilary rather than Bernie. Bernie was actually more popular because he was more anti-establishment and promised people the change they wanted, but he was disadvantaged by the primary which only caters to and is biased towards DNC insiders. Here is polling showing how well Bernie would have done with independents, which shows he could win a general. Here is an article showing that the DNC colluded against Bernie. So if it wasn't for DNC corruption and the two party system, Bernie would have won."

^ It's not a totally unreasonable take. I can see how someone would draw that conclusion. And there's some truth to it.

But I am arguing that there are subtler distinctions that are being missed here.

If the DNC is corrupt and colluded against Bernie, that is actually proof that he wasn't electable. He couldn't even appeal to enough democrats, which is why they colluded against him.

But let's relate all this back to Biden before we derail this thread with Bernie again.

BOTH of you believe that Biden doesn't have a chance to win and should probably be replaced. This is not a coincidence, given how you see alternative, anti-establishment candidates like Bernie. You think these people can win. You think people want these candidates. And what I'm suggesting is that's not how it works.

Centrists win elections. By the simple fact that elections are about who appeals, often on a superficial level, to the most number of people. That's democracy. And most people are in the center. They are not radicals and they're not progressives. They don't even follow politics all that closely.

Of course alternative candidates can still sometimes win elections. But usually their victories tend to be more niche. The more broad you go, the harder it becomes for that strategy to work because you will start alienating more and more people. And the presidency is the ultimate for general appeal.

Then you ask, "but then how did Trump win the election? He was such an anti-establishment radical who won because people wanted big change!" And that's exactly why I tried to bash you over the head with the fact that actually Trump catered to American culture quite well. He fits what a lot of SD Blue / Orange people want and plays into the culture war perfectly. There's nothing mysterious about this.

Also, consider that Trump WAS, and still is, widely unpopular. He couldn't even become a two-term president. And who did people react and replace him with? Sleepy Joe Biden. One of the most establishment politicians we have.

Of course it's possible Trump wins in 2024 and I will have to eat those words. But nonetheless, that Joe Biden won at all shows that most people are not looking for extreme candidates. It's simply not possible for them to succeed. Especially not when it comes to sustainability.

You have to appreciate what it actually takes to win a presidential election. No fringe, alternative candidate is capable of this. You have to recognize that, otherwise you will be forever supporting moonshots.

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Marianne Williamson Throws Her Hat Back In The Ring After Biden Debate Disaster | HuffPost Latest News

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marianne-williamson-reenter-president-democrat-biden-debate_n_66852378e4b0e3bf9771e6f1

Marianne Williamson Throws Her Hat Back In The Ring After Biden Debate Disaster

The self-help author says she’s officially reentering the race following President Joe Biden’s debate performance.

Marianne Williamson, who ran for president in 2020 and suspended her 2024 campaign in February, has officially reentered the race. In a video Tuesday, she announced that she’s seeking to replace President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.

“President Biden deserves our respect, our compassion and our gratitude,” said Williamson in the video. “But the debate on Thursday night made it very clear that the Democrats need a new nominee on the ballot... We need to recalibrate, and we need to do so quickly.”

 

 

 

Speaking of moonshots 

[TheAlchemist]

Betfair betting exchange (peer to peer) is currently settled on odds of 1.72 (58%) for a Trump win and only 9.6 (10.4%) for a Biden win, which is absolutely crazy. Kamala Harris currently has higher odds than Biden (7.0/14.3%). 

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/30186572/multi-market?marketIds=1.176878927

Odds for someone other than Biden being the Democrat candidate seem to now be around 30-60% on a few sites. 

https://polymarket.com/event/will-biden-drop-out-of-presidential-race?tid=1720036056296

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by TheAlchemist

[Merkabah Star]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Seems like Skynews Australia do lipservice to Trump. Wondering why? 

 

It’s considered conservative, right wing. A lot of their commentators love trump. 

In general though. Australians hate trump, with a passion. 

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

It's not really that we are talking past each other. I understand their argument and I think they understand mine.

We just disagree on certain nuances.

Here is their position summarized:

"Trump won because people were fed up with the establishment and wanted change, which he tapped into. The democrats could have won, but they selected a more status quo politician like Hilary rather than Bernie. Bernie was actually more popular because he was more anti-establishment and promised people the change they wanted, but he was disadvantaged by the primary which only caters to and is biased towards DNC insiders. Here is polling showing how well Bernie would have done with independents, which shows he could win a general. Here is an article showing that the DNC colluded against Bernie. So if it wasn't for DNC corruption and the two party system, Bernie would have won."

^ It's not a totally unreasonable take. I can see how someone would draw that conclusion. And there's some truth to it.

But I am arguing that there are subtler distinctions that are being missed here.

If the DNC is corrupt and colluded against Bernie, that is actually proof that he wasn't electable. He couldn't even appeal to enough democrats, which is why they colluded against him.

But let's relate all this back to Biden before we derail this thread with Bernie again.

BOTH of you believe that Biden doesn't have a chance to win and should probably be replaced. This is not a coincidence, given how you see alternative, anti-establishment candidates like Bernie. You think these people can win. You think people want these candidates. And what I'm suggesting is that's not how it works.

Centrists win elections. By the simple fact that elections are about who appeals, often on a superficial level, to the most number of people. That's democracy. And most people are in the center. They are not radicals and they're not progressives. They don't even follow politics all that closely.

Of course alternative candidates can still sometimes win elections. But usually their victories tend to be more niche. The more broad you go, the harder it becomes for that strategy to work because you will start alienating more and more people. And the presidency is the ultimate for general appeal.

Then you ask, "but then how did Trump win the election? He was such an anti-establishment radical who won because people wanted big change!" And that's exactly why I tried to bash you over the head with the fact that actually Trump catered to American culture quite well. He fits what a lot of SD Blue / Orange people want and plays into the culture war perfectly. There's nothing mysterious about this.

Also, consider that Trump WAS, and still is, widely unpopular. He couldn't even become a two-term president. And who did people react and replace him with? Sleepy Joe Biden. One of the most establishment politicians we have.

Of course it's possible Trump wins in 2024 and I will have to eat those words. But nonetheless, that Joe Biden won at all shows that most people are not looking for extreme candidates. It's simply not possible for them to succeed. Especially not when it comes to sustainability.

You have to appreciate what it actually takes to win a presidential election. No fringe, alternative candidate is capable of this. You have to recognize that, otherwise you will be forever supporting moonshots.

Understood. 

I think for me, it's less about a leftist candidate, and more about alternate candidates vs. Biden. In another post I mentioned that a normal decent party member who is younger would be ideal. I feel that the bar to do better than Biden is very low.

But then, I looked at the polls.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024

What in the world is happening here?? Michelle Obama?? WHY? Harris?? She's horrendous.

I literally just don't understand who these people are who vote in these polls. Yes, we have a corrupt DNC. Yes, we have corporate lobbyists influencing elections. Yes, we have many other issues.

However, it seems the greatest problem of all is that our population at large is braindead. 

The 3 leaders our society has picked out of 300 million citizens are Biden, Trump, and RFK jr. It's hopeless.

[aurum]

3 hours ago, hundreth said:

However, it seems the greatest problem of all is that our population at large is braindead. 

The 3 leaders our society has picked out of 300 million citizens are Biden, Trump, and RFK jr. It's hopeless.

Yes that's exactly right. 

A democratic leader can only be as wise as the citizenry that elect them.

We have Trump, Biden and RFK because they deeply appeal to the majority of Americans.

Of course a better candidate is still theoretically possible. This is not set in stone. But these three have been very successful at persuading people to vote for them.

Also, Trump is just power-hungry and willing to manipulate at a level many normal people are not. So it could be argued that he has gotten to the top through deception and not genuine appeal, which is a problem. But nonetheless, people still like him because he is effective at playing into their value system.

[Leo Gura]

Politics in a capitalist democracy is not about finding excellence, intelligence, or wisdom. It's about finding the lowest common denomiantor that people are willing to live with who is corrupt enough to give his supporters rewards for donating to him.

You MUST be corrupt to win the US presidency. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Because the people who elect the president are themselves deeply corrupt. So they cannot vote for someone who is pure.

Devils must vote for a devil. That IS democracy.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Jodistrict]

Robert Kennedy is the only one talking about the real issue.  In this case, the banksters who have bought up all the market now buying up all the single family homes.  You can't really be free if you are an economic slave.   The Republican vs Democrat clown show is a deflection of how wealth is being concentrated by a parasitic class that games the system and doesn't provide real productive value. 

 

 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/already-own-89-p-500-113144903.html

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Politics in a capitalist democracy is not about finding excellence, intelligence, or wisdom. It's about finding the lowest common denomiantor that people are willing to live with who is corrupt enough to give his supporters rewards for donating to him.

You MUST be corrupt to win the US presidency. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Because the people who elect the president are themselves deeply corrupt. So they cannot vote for someone who is pure.

Devils must vote for a devil. That IS democracy.

Most Americans agree money should be removed from politics, just that reform alone would remove a lot of the corruption. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Most Americans agree money should be removed from politics

They agree in the abstract, but they would not be willing to vote for someone who would actually be serious about that issue. 

What they really care about more is culture wars. Because to actually vote based on curing corruption would require surrendering all your selfish personal desires, like guns, abortion, identity politics, Jesus, tax cuts, Gaza, etc. And the average voter is not mature or wise enough to do that.

Edited July 4, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Alex4]

On 2/7/2024 at 0:10 AM, Leo Gura said:

I don't see Ukraine as existential. The US has way too much influence in that region where it doesn't belong. The US is overreaching and causing needless trouble for itself. Backing off with NATO is the wisest course of action. There is no threat to the US or NATO from Russia. That is paranoia.

Hey Leo,

I just listened to the first episode of Conscious Politics, where you criticize isolationist policies. Why do you believe the USA should withdraw its support for Ukraine? Wouldn't that be an isolationist policy? Maybe you think the European Union alone should support Ukraine?