Who are you voting for?

[EspiKvlt]

It's not that my political opinion is changed. It's that hearing someone in a position like that often makes me look up something I may not know about. Think about things I haven't thought about.

If Pewdiepie brought up something I didn't know about, I may look it up. If he brought up a point I hadn't considered, I may think about it when I wouldn't have before.

Being a popular position means you can inspire people to learn about things they didn't know or hadn't considered. That's what's really important here.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I've lived long enough to encounter a serious political debate centred around a man who self-identifies as 'PewDiePie' and now I don't know what's left to experience in life.

 

[Gen]

But then again I don't tend to be swayed by anyone's opinion. I prefer reading up and making up my own mind.

Same! But of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect

The Third-person effect manifests itself through an individual’s overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves.

Also who writes the things you are reading that you use to make up your own mind? I wouldn't say my opinions have been determined by others but everyone's opinions are an amalgamation of things we read, our own experiences, who we are surrounded by, etc.

 

[zippypinhead]

These are Youtube's global demographics:

View attachment 66180

I think we can safely assume PewDiePie's audience follows this graph in rough terms considering his videos are in english and he targets them to a US audience. So let's say 19% of his audience is american. That leaves us with roughly 9 million subscribers. From those, let's assume the vast majority of his audience is not old enough to vote, let's assume only 10% of his audience is 18 or older... that would still be 900,000 people that can vote and watch his videos. I would dare to say this is pretty impressive. I don't think many models here have 900k followers on twitter, for example. On my best days on cam I have 4000 viewers at most. I would dare to say that the opinion of a swedish guy that lives in England and cannot vote in the US matters more than the opinion of anyone on these forums if his voice is heard by 900,000 voters. If PewDiePie's opinion is unimportant then so is John Oliver's because he is english, regardless of how many people watch his talk show.

The great thing about the internet is everyone can weigh in on issues, and you get to hear other people's point of view. If you only limit what you hear to whether or not that person is an american citizen of voting age you will miss a lot of stuff. There are tons of minors with interesting voices, I have followed Tavi Gevinson (who, by the way, is the most hardcore progressive) since she was 14. She is 20 now, is still a hardcore progressive, and I still read what she writes. Even at 14 she was more articulate and interesting than many adults I know.

I don't believe I'm being unfair to PewDiePie or his audience by identifying that he has comparatively low stakes in the outcome of this election. He's treating it as entertainment on its face, and I honestly believe that's exactly how he feels about it. I personally believe he's an ironic supporter of the Donald meme more than he is an earnest supporter of Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for the US presidency. I could be wrong on that, but I suspect I'm not. The stakes are considerably higher for a man like John Oliver, who is a permanent resident of the US. Oliver has lived and worked in the US for a decade, and he's married to a US citizen. Chances are very good that he will become a naturalized US citizen in the not-so-far future, especially given his status as a political commentator.

You're right. Great thing about the internet is all the voices. Unfortunately, since there is no real filter, all those voices usually end up screaming at each other in unison until the din is so overwhelming that nobody can make any sense of anything anymore. That's a problem. We reach a point where we can't separate the signal from the noise, and we have to start treating everything like it's serious. Before we know it, we're having a heated discussion about what it means when a Swedish man wears a "Make America Great Again" hat, and whether or not there will be an impact upon our national landscape because of it.

Does your head hurt over this? Mine does. I feel like the last sixteen months have been nothing but a series of Can't Tell If Serious meme wars with ever-escalating implications.

Fuck. I had mostly avoided this thread for 50 pages. I shouldn't have stuck my nose in. I'm going away now.

 

[Lintilla]

I got my ballot in the mail yesterday. Can someone tell me why I shouldn't write "Giant Meteor" on the blank line? I've only been an American since 2014, so this is my first time voting for president. I might be thinking too much as a Canadian about this... In Canada, you don't vote for Prime Minister, you vote for your member or parliament, which has more local implications, while even on a national level it's not entirely pointless to vote for a third party. So this "lesser of two evils" thing, I'm not really on board with it.

I would consider a Trump win to be completely unacceptable, but the thought of voting for Clinton makes me want to puke. Since none of the other candidates have a chance, I would never vote for them unless I actually supported them (since actual support is all it could really imply), and I just don't support any of them at all, including any of the write-ins who are approved.

I do want to vote for other things on my ballot... but at the moment I'm thinking I'll probably NOT be voting for president at all besides potentially filling in that blank with some garbage that shows it wasn't a mistake, even though it won't be counted in any way AFAIK.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

got my ballot in the mail yesterday. Can someone tell me why I shouldn't write "Giant Meteor" on the blank line? I've only been an American since 2014, so this is my first time voting for president. I might be thinking too much as a Canadian about this... In Canada, you don't vote for Prime Minister, you vote for your member or parliament, which has more local implications, while even on a national level it's not entirely pointless to vote for a third party. So this "lesser of two evils" thing, I'm not really on board with it.

I would consider a Trump win to be completely unacceptable, but the thought of voting for Clinton makes me want to puke. Since none of the other candidates have a chance, I would never vote for them unless I actually supported them (since actual support is all it could really imply), and I just don't support any of them at all, including any of the write-ins who are approved.

I do want to vote for other things on my ballot... but at the moment I'm thinking I'll probably NOT be voting for president at all besides potentially filling in that blank with some garbage that shows it wasn't a mistake, even though it won't be counted in any way AFAIK.

If you can write in Giant Meteor #GMOD16 by all means do so. I wore my GMOD16 T-shirt and got a couple of compliments. I don't have the option of a write-in.
My fantasy results for this election is that Hillary wins 538 electoral votes and gets 50 popular vote (1 votes per state).
I really don't Hillary to think she has a huge mandate just because of Trump so awful.

 

[Lintilla]

I'm just wishing I moved one state over to Nevada, because I think that's the only state with an actual "none of the above" vote (not sure the actual wording) that gets counted. Abstaining is not what I want to do, I want to be on record as saying "fuck all of these options".

 

[Shaun__]

I got my ballot in the mail yesterday. Can someone tell me why I shouldn't write "Giant Meteor" on the blank line?

In at least some states write in candidates must register before the election, so your vote for Giant Meteor may not count. You can leave it blank if you choose to do so out of apathy for any of the candidates. I think you should vote for someone for every office if given a choice of more than one, but not voting is your right the same as voting.

 

[Lintilla]

In at least some states write in candidates must register before the election, so your vote for Giant Meteor may not count. You can leave it blank if you choose to do so out of apathy for any of the candidates. I think you should vote for someone for every office if given a choice of more than one, but not voting is your right the same as voting.

I'm in Arizona, so yes, they have to be approved. I've looked them all up, and I can't vote for any of the the write-ins. I'd only write something in the blank so it was clear it wasn't some sort of mistake on my part, and certainly not apathy. Probably no one will notice besides the person checking it. So no, it won't be counted, even for funsies I don't think. That really kind of pisses me off. I by no means prefer not to vote, but I'm not given any option that is acceptable to me. Nevertheless, the fact that I will not be counted does NOT convince me to vote for someone I absolutely would not like to see in office. I have no interest in having my name in the +1 column for someone awful either way.

A decade or more back there was a group of people in Alberta who similarly did not want to vote for any of the candidates available. They (illegally) ate their ballots in protest (Google Edible Ballot Society). The charges against them were eventually dropped, and I believe that it ended with the option to officially refuse a ballot being added. That's also not what I want, given that I do wish to vote for other offices and the state's ballot propositions, but at least it's something :\

 

[justjoinedtopost]

So the gullibility idea that you are proposing doesn't really have much to do with the way social media works.. If Trump wins it will mean that the legacy media is not as powerful as they used to be. That they will have to start policing Facebook, Twitter and Youtube even harder than they are policing them already. And they are getting nervous... Facebook is sliding news that portray Clinton in a bad light or that go against their multi-culti, open borders agenda, Twitter banned Milo from their network after having a fight against Leslie Jones and calling her a man, and Reddit's news board goes as far as to delete any comments or threads on news that they don't find PC compliant (for example they deleted any comment or thread that said the Orlando shooting was perpetrated by a muslim) True dissent right now is possible only in places like 4chan, and other boards that remain outside the sphere of control of google/facebook/twitter/reddit. But social media still allows for people to doubt and question the main narrative. Which is why this guy is saying that if Trump wins it will be a victory against mainstream media. Just like Brexit was. And he is right.

First of all, the gullibility idea, goes right over your head.
The networks, 4chan, reddit, facebook, youtube, twitter, ACF, AboveTopSecret, RaptureReady, schoolbooks, religious texts, material you get from a White Supremacist group or the NOI...it's all media. I don't care where you get your info, you have to have the intelligence and experience to evaluate it, glean the truth from it, and discard the false.

• Based on my intelligence, Hillary is crooked enough that a win for her represents, in my view, gullible people voting for her for whatever reason.
• Based on my intelligence, Trump is a would be dictator with only one qualification; his ability to exploit people's susceptibility to propaganda. He represents a win for gullibility.

See, legacy media is NOT as powerful as it used to be. A Trump win or loss will not change that fact. You are gullible if you believe otherwise.

Wait what do good looking people what to do with JJTP's joke?

I think the jab joke flew over some heads here. Justjoined wasn't insulting the looks of Trump supporters, Justjoined was taking a sarcastic jab at how acceptable and celebrated and frequent attacks and insults on a persons physical appearance spew out of the Toad Lords mouth. And since he had just finished watching Trump shit talk like a mean girl for an hour, it had infected him... *DEEP BREATH*

Am I right @justjoinedtopost or am I the idiot with planes flying over my head?

No, you are right on the money.

 

[Osmia]

. . . .
I would consider a Trump win to be completely unacceptable, but the thought of voting for Clinton makes me want to puke. . . ..

I need to preface this by saying that I'm not taking issue with your post specifically; I'm responding generally to all those who feel this year's presidential voting choices are impossible to reconcile. Your formulation (quoted above) seems to be a particularly common one this election year. I feel basically the same way: though I view Hillary somewhat more favorably than you, she is very far from my ideal candidate.

But if you see your choice as being between someone who is unacceptable and one who is merely distasteful, then a good utilitarian argument can be made that you should vote for the "lesser of two evils" so that your vote contributes to minimizing the harm resulting from the selection of the next president (or maximizing the good, if you prefer to look at it that way).

It can seem very distasteful to have to make this kind of choice--the assumption being, I suppose, that we can and should expect consistently excellent candidates to choose from. But almost without exception, the choices we face every moment of our lives, including in the most mundane matters, come down to choosing between non-ideal options. People generally take a pragmatic approach to making these decisions, without getting bogged down in ethical conundrums. I would argue that deciding how to cast your vote for president should be approached in the same way. Maximize the good; minimize the harm. It's not as if voting for Clinton (or Trump) means that you are agreeing with them, or validating them, or committing to be their followers for the rest of your life.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

I agree. I get very nationalistic, very defensive over the very idea. Makes me glad that I am only a few hundred yards away from an armory.

I wonder if this is a universally human trait? I am going to run ask the people of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, etc... see what they think.

 

[zippypinhead]

I agree. I get very nationalistic, very defensive over the very idea. Makes me glad that I am only a few hundred yards away from an armory.

I wonder if this is a universally human trait? I am going to run ask the people of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, etc... see what they think.

At this point, I've made my position as clear as possible. Some people may not recognize the dripping sarcasm involved with your implication that my dismissal of PewDiePie as a leading political voice for America makes me a jingoistic xenophobe, but I get it, buddy. I get it.

If I never have to type "PewDiePie" again, that would be fab.

 

[Mila_]

First of all, the gullibility idea, goes right over your head.
The networks, 4chan, reddit, facebook, youtube, twitter, ACF, AboveTopSecret, RaptureReady, schoolbooks, religious texts, material you get from a White Supremacist group or the NOI...it's all media. I don't care where you get your info, you have to have the intelligence and experience to evaluate it, glean the truth from it, and discard the false.

• Based on my intelligence, Hillary is crooked enough that a win for her represents, in my view, gullible people voting for her for whatever reason.
• Based on my intelligence, Trump is a would be dictator with only one qualification; his ability to exploit people's susceptibility to propaganda. He represents a win for gullibility.

See, legacy media is NOT as powerful as it used to be. A Trump win or loss will not change that fact. You are gullible if you believe otherwise.

No, you are right on the money.

That is such a teenager concept, though, the idea that you can be sealed from other people's influence or that it is even desirable to be that way.

Listening to what others have to say or looking for more information to form your own opinion doesnt make a person gullible, on the contrary. Gullibility means that you swallow something that is obviously false without contrasting it. Or that the way you choose to contrast information doesnt work. And sure, the people who only listen to media and dont go to the source or look up more information on the matter can be accused of apathy, being dumb, or being uninterested, but you can't really accuse someone of gullibility for believing in what news networks tell them because up until recently people actually thought news reporting was truthful. The fact that they can get away with twisting the truth and reporting lies is not the fault of the public. And it isnt even just the news networks and journals doing this, its news cables too, Reuters and the like are also in the donor bag.

So right now legacy media has no truth, no contrast, and no balance. Talking to your neighbor, or your neighbors dog is more productive than listening to the lies they spin. And since they are working together and present the same picture to the audience seeing something different from what they present is quite a challenge. The only places you will find hints of what really is going on, where to go for the actual truth is online, because the internet is not under the grip of the donors and the elites who set the public opinion agenda.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Spoiler: Dark Daydreams

Just a thought experiment. Something to consider as a what if. Not advocating it or wishing for it.

One thing that struck me the other day watching Trump was him was the messianic way he presented himself to the crowd. He is the only one who can save us, the enemy is trying to destroy him, they are trying to steal from us and destroy us, we can't let them, etc...I don't care about the polls. What I wonder is, how many actually buy into this man? How many cult members do we have?

Extend it out a little bit; how many believe only the Republican party can save them? Or the Democrats?

We are at war in the Middle East. It is hopelessly complex. I am beyond trying to figure out who the good/bad guys are at this point. US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel...we are all a bunch of shits and heros. Part of this war is the propaganda, and everybody has a stake in it.

We are also at war in America. While I wouldn't call it non-violent, it has been mostly politcal. I don't expect that to continue. It has really heated up over the last several decades. The propaganda has just gotten absurd. Nothing is off limits. We are no longer the "Loose Lips Sink Ships" nation that entered WWII.

http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/eve...illary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

That is such a teenager concept, though, the idea that you can be sealed from other people's influence or that it is even desirable to be that way.

Who's concept is that? Not mine. I take a very multi-cultural view of exposing myself to others influence experience.

Listening to what others have to say or looking for more information to form your own opinion doesnt make a person gullible, on the contrary. Gullibility means that you swallow something that is obviously false without contrasting it. Or that the way you choose to contrast information doesnt work. And sure, the people who only listen to media and dont go to the source or look up more information on the matter can be accused of apathy, being dumb, or being uninterested, but you can't really accuse someone of gullibility for believing in what news networks tell them because up until recently people actually thought news reporting was truthful. The fact that they can get away with twisting the truth and reporting lies is not the fault of the public. And it isnt even just the news networks and journals doing this, its news cables too, Reuters and the like are also in the donor bag.

Ok. I can see you are a thinker. Test your gullibility. You appear to be pro-Trump, anti-Clinton; so what sort of falsehoods are in the pro-Trump propaganda? What sort of falsehoods are in the anti-Clinton propaganda?

So right now legacy media has no truth, no contrast, and no balance. Talking to your neighbor, or your neighbors dog is more productive than listening to the lies they spin. And since they are working together and present the same picture to the audience seeing something different from what they present is quite a challenge. The only places you will find hints of what really is going on, where to go for the actual truth is online, because the internet is not under the grip of the donors and the elites who set the public opinion agenda.

Legacy media is full of bullshitters. So is the internet. And you can find truth in both. You can lie with the truth, and you can tell the truth with a lie.

You say the donors and the elites set the public opinion agenda. I don't want to nitpick here, but there are a number donors and elites, there are a number of agendas, and they do not always agree. True, there are a handful that are far too powerful.

About 17 years ago I noticed something happening. I pointed it out to a family member, and his jaw dropped. Another time I pointed it out to a co-worker who reacted much the same. There was no denying it. It was reported in the legacy media, briefly. I went to the internet, and I saw it heavily and effectively discredited there with different methods.

I have heard the rumors of there being video of both Clinton and Trump using the n-word. I await with interest to see if either is true. Won't change my opinion much of either of them if it is. I'm more interested in seeing how easily how the masses are herded.

 

[Mila_]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

I agree. I get very nationalistic, very defensive over the very idea. Makes me glad that I am only a few hundred yards away from an armory.

I wonder if this is a universally human trait? I am going to run ask the people of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, etc... see what they think.

I, for one, would love to see you both apply your nationalistic instincts to the actual country, you know, things that actually make your nation stronger, instead of applying it to words other people say. If you truly have a nationalistic instinct it should make you jump when you see your borders being eliminated, the laws being disrespected, your jobs shipped overseas, your political caste shitting on your people, the media shitting on your cops, your welfare system abused by foreigners with no connection to the US other than their hatred for it. But alas, it seems that your nationalistic instinct is there only when it comes to words you do not like. Funny.

One thing that struck me the other day watching Trump was him was the messianic way he presented himself to the crowd. He is the only one who can save us, the enemy is trying to destroy him, they are trying to steal from us and destroy us, we can't let them, etc...I don't care about the polls. What I wonder is, how many actually buy into this man? How many cult members do we have?

You can't fault a man for being good at democracy. It is a popularity contest. And being a messianic figure always draws the masses in. If we want to fix this we need to change the system, go back to an aristocratic model, but I don't see people swallowing the "democracy always leads to tyranny" red-pill anytime soon. Universities aren't even making people read Plato's Republic anymore.

Ok. I can see you are a thinker. Test your gullibility. You appear to be pro-Trump, anti-Clinton; so what sort of falsehoods are in the pro-Trump propaganda? What sort of falsehoods are in the anti-Clinton propaganda?

Trump probably lies about his wealth, I am sure his tax returns aren't all that kosher or he would have showed them by now. But his tax records don't matter to me. The core of his campaign is not about Trump as a person, but about the very real fact that open borders is suicide and it is taking such a big toll on every western nation. When the truth is on your side you don't need to lie. Hillary though doesn't have that advantage because her campaign is about herself, nothing else. Identity politics at most, which is weak and relies on victimhood. There is no project to Hillary and because there is no project, the core of her campaign is lies.

The globalist agenda is being pushed by the elites –who own both the media and the establishment politicians– against the laymen. Even when the elites might have different interests in some regards, when it comes to globalism and open borders they are a unified block. Their wealth depends on their control and their control depends on nations letting them keep it. Weak nations that put up no protections to their national industry and trade, with a democratically elected government that can be bought is what they need. They have enough money and influence to buy media and politicians in every western country. This is why nationalism is a badword and defending borders is something you didn't hear anywhere before this election. Not even republicans who are supposed to be conservative defended the borders. Think about this... Soros paid 6.5k euros to a few nobody Spanish journalists to compile a black list of twitter nationalistic accounts in Spain. It came out in the news here about a month ago. They micromanage this much.

The people who suffer this crap is the middle class and the blue collar workers. Unlike the elites they don't get to move when shit hits the fan. They have a job they need to stay put for, they have bought a home in their country, and their destiny is the destiny of their people. Elites are cosmopolitan, they have 5 homes in different continents, jump from one to the other, and even if they are forced to stay put they will always get to keep a fenced property with security to save them from chaos. Politicians fuck their country to line their own pockets so at least they get something out of this. Look at hillary, she made 3 million last year from speeches given to Goldman Sachs audiences. It is the people who suffer.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I, for one, would love to see you both apply your nationalistic instincts to the actual country, you know, things that actually make your nation stronger, instead of applying it to words other people say. If you truly have a nationalistic instinct it should make you jump when you see your borders being eliminated, the laws being disrespected, your jobs shipped overseas, your political caste shitting on your people, the media shitting on your cops, your welfare system abused by foreigners with no connection to the US other than their hatred for it. But alas, it seems that your nationalistic instinct is there only when it comes to words you do not like. Funny.

Words other people say? Lol. Who are you talking to? Is the only fight you know against the PC overreach? It's real, and I get it. Want to hear what I said in a packed "sensitivity training" class at a company I used to work for, and the backlash it caused? Or would you rather hear about the time I offered up a Coulter-worthy blunt truth about homosexuality in another meeting?

• You are talking to an American who lost work to illegal immigrants. Right in front of my face in one case. They got sent out on jobs; I got sent home. And I was rolling spare change for gas money during that period.
• You are talking to an American sick to death of bad laws being enforced, and good laws being circumvented.
• You are talking to an American who can't stand to see good cops get shit on by the media, or good people get shit on by bad cops, and has had to see both.

My AMERICAN opinions have nothing to do with instinct. I care less about a stronger America at this point; I want to see a smarter America.

You can't fault a man for being good at democracy. It is a popularity contest. And being a messianic figure always draws the masses in. If we want to fix this we need to change the system, go back to an aristocratic model, but I don't see people swallowing the "democracy always leads to tyranny" red-pill anytime soon. Universities aren't even making people read Plato's Republic anymore.

I fault Trump for his faults. Not for being good at democracy.

I hope people realize there is no red pill. There is either a never ending succession of red pills, or there is the blue pill. It's the kool-aid you only need to drink once.

Trump probably lies about his wealth, I am sure his tax returns aren't all that kosher or he would have showed them by now. But his tax records don't matter to me. The core of his campaign is not about Trump as a person, but about the very real fact that open borders is suicide and it is taking such a big toll on every western nation. When the truth is on your side you don't need to lie. Hillary though doesn't have that advantage because her campaign is about herself, nothing else. Identity politics at most, which is weak and relies on victimhood. There is no project to Hillary and because there is no project, the core of her campaign is lies.

The globalist agenda is being pushed by the elites –who own both the media and the establishment politicians– against the laymen. Even when the elites might have different interests in some regards, when it comes to globalism and open borders they are a unified block. Their wealth depends on their control and their control depends on nations letting them keep it. Weak nations that put up no protections to their national industry and trade, with a democratically elected government that can be bought is what they need. They have enough money and influence to buy media and politicians in every western country. This is why nationalism is a badword and defending borders is something you didn't hear anywhere before this election. Not even republicans who are supposed to be conservative defended the borders. Think about this... Soros paid 6.5k euros to a few nobody Spanish journalists to compile a black list of twitter nationalistic accounts in Spain. It came out in the news here about a month ago. They micromanage this much.

The people who suffer this crap is the middle class and the blue collar workers. Unlike the elites they don't get to move when shit hits the fan. They have a job they need to stay put for, they have bought a home in their country, and their destiny is the destiny of their people. Elites are cosmopolitan, they have 5 homes in different continents, jump from one to the other, and even if they are forced to stay put they will always get to keep a fenced property with security to save them from chaos. Politicians fuck their country to line their own pockets so at least they get something out of this. Look at hillary, she made 3 million last year from speeches given to Goldman Sachs audiences. It is the people who suffer.

Q. What sort of falsehoods are in the pro-Trump propaganda? What sort of falsehoods are in the anti-Clinton propaganda?
A. Trump probably lies about his wealth, I am sure his tax returns aren't all that kosher or he would have showed them by now.

Your first sentence was on the right track. Everything that followed, while I may agree with some or even much of it, amounts to nothing more than a massive deflection. I asked you to analyze propaganda, and you only know how to regurgitate more.

It's ok that you feel like you need to support Trump. If you are opposed to Hillary, then we have common ground.

This is a smart guy. 19:07 of this video...



Now by god, I feel this man's rant. I have shared much of the same sentiments for a long time now. I have spent much of this campaign wavering back and forth on whether I should vote for Trump or not, for pretty much the same reasons. But I am never going to do that now, and it is because of Trump and the people around him.

Spoiler: Dark Daydreams

Just a thought experiment. Something to consider as a what if. Not advocating it or wishing for it.

One thing that struck me the other day watching Trump was him was the messianic way he presented himself to the crowd. He is the only one who can save us, the enemy is trying to destroy him, they are trying to steal from us and destroy us, we can't let them, etc...I don't care about the polls. What I wonder is, how many actually buy into this man? How many cult members do we have?

Extend it out a little bit; how many believe only the Republican party can save them? Or the Democrats?

We are at war in the Middle East. It is hopelessly complex. I am beyond trying to figure out who the good/bad guys are at this point. US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel...we are all a bunch of shits and heros. Part of this war is the propaganda, and everybody has a stake in it.

We are also at war in America. While I wouldn't call it non-violent, it has been mostly politcal. I don't expect that to continue. It has really heated up over the last several decades. The propaganda has just gotten absurd. Nothing is off limits. We are no longer the "Loose Lips Sink Ships" nation that entered WWII.

http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/eve...illary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846
Well, good to know I am not alone in my willingness to entertain dark notions.
But I wouldn't worry; just words.
Same with the talk of Russia and Syria. Mere words.
Propaganda? Why, it's nothing but letters stuck together.

mene mene tekel parsin anyone?

 

[Mila_]

The former director of Bernie Sanders campaign slams Hillary Clinton on TV:

 

[ACFFAN69]

The former director of Bernie Sanders campaign slams Hillary Clinton on TV:

Look at hillary, she made 3 million last year from speeches given to Goldman Sachs audiences. It is the people who suffer.

Speaking of nice basements. All four of these are examples of houses currently owned by the Clinton's. Selling the public's interests out to big banks and stealing millions from Haiti makes for great business.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-wont-budge-mass-surveillance-stance-leaked-emails-reveal-1586175

Is this ironic?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-bogus-watch-lists-after-attack-orlando.shtml

edit: this is neither pro/anti Trump or Hillary imo. I posted another thread relating to this, didn't really take off.

This election is looking like the biggest distraction of all time to me. Everybody knows how hate speech is part of a Holocaust. So is censorship. So is control of the media.

 

[Mila_]

Remember when the campaigns started how every week there was a confrontation outside a Trump rally where Bernie supporters would instigate fights and even spit on attendees faces?



Now it seems it wasn't Bernie supporters the ones disrupting Trump's rallies wearing Bernie tees. Turns out they were hired to do it by the DNC and Hillary's campaign through an organization called Democracy Partners:

 

[schlmoe]

Why don't you two (you know who you are) get it over with and get a room?

 

[Osmia]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...48c4b0-8f02-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

This is an opinion piece by E.J. Dionne, who can be described as an old-fashioned progressive/liberal. Dionne describes how the left has failed to deal with the social and economic issues that led to the tea party and then Trump. His main point is that regardless of what happens to Trump after the election, those issues remain to be addressed, and it will fall to the mainstream political parties (D and R) to do that. He focuses on what the democratic party, and liberals, should do.

Here are a few excerpts:

But progressives should resist complacency bred by the idea that the anger on display in this election will soon subside as older voters uneasy with change decline in numbers. Throughout the West, social-democratic and left-liberal parties are facing defections, divisions and decline. Their economic model — combining a market orientation with welfare states, strong unions and regulations — is no longer delivering the broadly shared prosperity that was once its hallmark.

Technological change has undercut incomes and living standards for a significant share of our fellow citizens. An influx of immigrants has shocked certain communities, leading them to experience a genuine sense of displacement and powerlessness in the face of change they cannot control. There are struggles for power as new groups gain political ascendancy and older groups, once a majority, become minorities. There are also battles over material resources as newcomers are perceived as taking jobs (sometimes for lower wages) from groups that once dominated particular fields.

. . . advocates of immigration reform need to do a far better job of making the case that the rights of the native born are strengthened, not weakened, when millions of undocumented residents are allowed to earn equal rights themselves.

Also feeding populist rebellions on the left as well as on the right is the fact that supporters of an open global economy have simply not been attentive enough to the costs of change. Every trade deal is defended in the same way: There will be a majority of “winners” and a minority of “losers,” and the losers will be assisted and compensated. But the assistance and compensation are never adequate, and the trade deals have focused far more on protections for investors than for workers.

We have added hundreds of millions of new workers to the global labor market. This has created a downward-trending bidding war for less-skilled labor, which is particularly tough on the least advantaged workers in the most advanced economies. A much-cited study by three well-known economists, David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, found that import growth from China cost 2.4 million American jobs in the 2000s.

Progressives and moderates alike also need to recognize that arguments can be sensible as far as they go but still send signals of indifference to those who are losing out. Take a group we might call the “schoolers.” They say again and again that there’s nothing wrong with our economy that can’t be solved by giving more education and more training to more people. The core insight here is certainly right: We must do far better in preparing workers for the economy as it exists.

But especially for older white workers, a lot of this talk sounds like a put-down. They can be forgiven for thinking they’re being blamed for following the rules that applied when they first entered the workforce: A high school degree and hard work would be enough to allow them to live well and their kids to live even better.

Trump is blowing smoke when he claims he can reopen the old factories and mines. But his promise, however empty, sounds more sympathetic than technocratic talk about “the skills gap.”

And, there's more. Well worth reading.

 

[Osmia]

On "Morning Joe" today, there was an interesting segment about the decline in health and longevity indicators for white Americans, something that's been in the news quite a bit this year. This segment presented the data very clearly, better than I've seen before. Joe Scarborough made the obvious connection of these trends to the popularity of Donald Trump.

The video of the segment is here:
http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_mj_rates_161017

This chart shows the clear upward trend in death rates of middle-aged whites in the US, starting around 2000. Note that death rates of US Hispanics continued to decline during that period.



The next chart shows the causes of death for those middle-aged whites. As you can see, suicides, "poisonings" (drug overdoses, etc.) and liver diseases rose sharply among that group during that period.



This chart shows the increasing gap in longevity between rich and poor.



Finally, one of the panelists made an interesting point: if the pre-2000 decline in white middle-aged deaths had continued to the present, 500,000 more people would be alive today, a number equivalent to the AIDS epidemic.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...48c4b0-8f02-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html

This is an opinion piece by E.J. Dionne, who can be described as an old-fashioned progressive/liberal.

Reads like the man is living in a bubble. I don't disagree with a few of his points, but I'm sure not his target audience.

"Defeating Trump is the first step. Giving an ear and a heart to the legitimate concerns of his supporters is the next."
This line in particular gags me. Same as it has when I have heard Trump talks about "love" as he chases his El Generalisimo desires.

 

[Osmia]

Reads like the man is living in a bubble. I don't disagree with a few of his points, but I'm sure not his target audience.

"Defeating Trump is the first step. Giving an ear and a heart to the legitimate concerns of his supporters is the next."
This line in particular gags me. Same as it has when I have heard Trump talks about "love" as he chases his El Generalisimo desires.

His target audience is people like me: white, liberal/progressive, middle class and above--in short, people who don't hear what Trump is saying about these topics simply because Trump is the messenger. That's the unfortunate thing about Trump's candidacy: he's saying something important about free trade, immigration and the self-serving elites, but Trump himself is an obnoxious messenger to everyone but his die-hard supporters. And if elected, I don't think he would be able to effectively implement the necessary policies because he's undisciplined and not interested in the art of governing. So, the task of dealing with these problems will fall to the mainstream parties who, prior to Trump's candidacy, haven't shown much awareness of the issues.

Dionne comes from an old-school social justice tradition of Catholic Christianity, and he sometimes has an earnestness that contemporary Americans may not relate to. However, I think his point about "giving an ear and a heart" to Trump's supporters is right on. People these days are too isolated and segregated according to socio-economic status and political beliefs. Anytime a group is marginalized by the dominant culture, political changes to fix the problems are slow to nonexistent.

 

[Mikey_P]

I'm early voting for Clinton because she is the only choice. Trump is just a no go.

Third party is a waste of time-- please no links suggesting that it does matter-- here's the math, while ignoring the underlying principle that perpetuates the two party system!

 

[Mila_]

The hidden camera video I posted about Hillary paying a third party to organize agitators and send them to Trump rally's to pose as Bernie voters is real. Scott Foval was fired from Democracy Partners yesterday and now it seems that Zulema Rodriguez, the woman who claims on the video she was responsible for shutting down Trump's Chicago rally is on Hillary Clinton's payroll and on some PACs payroll as well per recent leaks:





SEVENTEEN THOUSAND dollars is one of the fees for "political consulting" also known as agitating in the name of Bernie Sanders to make his voters look bad and to disrupt Trump's rallies.

But you won't see this on the news. It will be a full blackout on this matter because legacy media is a partner on Hillary's camp so let's just squeeze TRUMP SAID PUSSY some more and ignore this completely.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

His target audience is people like me: white, liberal/progressive, middle class and above--in short, people who don't hear what Trump is saying about these topics simply because Trump is the messenger. That's the unfortunate thing about Trump's candidacy: he's saying something important about free trade, immigration and the self-serving elites, but Trump himself is an obnoxious messenger to everyone but his die-hard supporters. And if elected, I don't think he would be able to effectively implement the necessary policies because he's undisciplined and not interested in the art of governing. So, the task of dealing with these problems will fall to the mainstream parties who, prior to Trump's candidacy, haven't shown much awareness of the issues.

Dionne comes from an old-school social justice tradition of Catholic Christianity, and he sometimes has an earnestness that contemporary Americans may not relate to. However, I think his point about "giving an ear and a heart" to Trump's supporters is right on. People these days are too isolated and segregated according to socio-economic status and political beliefs. Anytime a group is marginalized by the dominant culture, political changes to fix the problems are slow to nonexistent.

Aside from his language, I think he is in a bubble when he speaks as if change will come from the two parties. I sort believe Chris Hedges' view on this, and he is someone I would have considered an extremist a few years ago.

I agree about Trump's interest in governing. He is not a politician. The only -- only -- qualifications he has demonstrated that fit in with politics are his unabashed willingness to game the system, and his propensity for lying his ass off. Will be quite a laugh when the disgruntled people who support him see what he meant when he referred to when he talked about "renegotiation". Gallows humor, to be sure.

But, I'm done with the stress of "how am I going to vote". Just got back from early voting. It was an absolutely revolting experience. I have known for a while now "my" government could not be trusted. It's just sad they are not even putting on a convincing act any more.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-vote-twitter-2012/
Good thing my vote didn't mean anything. Takes a lot of the pressure off.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

OMG. Trump got Gary Busey drunk and got him to grab some poor woman right on the pussy!
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...-busey-groped-me-donald-trump-laughed-w445401