So my question is this: Isn't it incumbent upon "liberals" to go into the lions den, troll if they have to, rock boats, stir pots? — James Riley

Don't we need a counter-insurgency program, specifically designed to upset stupidity? — James Riley

Regardless, I ask myself, how best to turn the craziness when the truth will not suffice? When facts will not suffice? Maybe the craziness should not be turned? — James Riley

I think these questions are in the right direction. My own view is to resist the temptation to engage with the opposition, especially on the Internet (and even more especially on social media platforms), and instead to focus on gathering and organizing people who share the same values/goals -- or those who can be swayed (of which there are many).

Why? Because I'm sorry to say that there's a chunk of the electorate that's just immovable, mentally. They're sinking further into a vortex of pure chaos, an alternative reality of "alternative facts" that far exceeds any kind of craziness on the left -- and is much more dangerous. The "Q" phenomenon is a prime example, but also the Big Lie ("election was stolen") and the sacking of the Capitol. There's really no reasoning with them anymore, and there's no time -- especially not online, which is where a lot of this banter takes place. If it's gonna happen, maybe it'll happen in real time between real people (neighbors, friends, pastors, priests, doctors, community leaders).

We can learn some lessons from history. We beat them in 2020 by 7 million votes during a high turnout year. Given the electoral college, that's still not good enough in my view -- especially against such an awful incumbent. On the other hand, incumbents historically win, and Biden voters were far less enthusiast than Trump voters in 2016 or Obama voters in 2020. Given the Republican gains in Congress and the state legislatures, however, it only shows how unpopular Trump was (e.g., Trump lost Maine but Susan Collins won re-election handily). Is this level of participation good enough? Not at all.

We need to do more, not only bringing more and more people away from the right and the center, but away from apathy and non-voting (the largest "voting" bloc there is by far). Our job, besides voting, is to organize these people.

I think the focus should shift away from national issues and towards local issues -- the state legislatures, local elections, councilmen elections, etc. Creating groups in person or online of like-minded people around your community. Otherwise all this news-consumption and yelling into the social media ether (Tweeting, re-tweeting, sharing memes, hitting a "like" button, writing long political posts, etc) and endless complaining amounts to is political hobbyism. (I should know -- I've fallen into that trap too. I see it all around me -- and there's good reasons for it; it's not just laziness.)

As far as national issues -- we should try pushing this administration and the Democratic party as a whole towards what we feel are the right issues. Here I am in Noam Chomsky's camp. Bernie Sanders has already done that in his own way, and it's showing in Biden's administration. I'm not at all fooled by the media's portrayal of this, making him out to be the "next FDR," but I simply don't see him going as big as he is without having to kiss the ass of the large number of Bernie voters and the vocalness of AOC et al. One reason to push, apart from the fact that they're simply better policies, is that if these measures pass they will have real, noticeable effects on people's lives and, once they get a taste of it, it'll be very hard to reverse -- and will lead to greater turnout. (I think Obamacare demonstrates the former point -- and I'm not a big fan of it, but it is far more popular now in it was 10 years ago.)

So, on the federal level: push them in whatever way you can to implement policies that will help the majority of Americans, and this will (arguably) lead to higher approval and turnout. More importantly, on the local level, start getting involved. This necessitates the things you mentioned: talking to others, trying different strategies, discovering better methods of organizing, etc. That itself takes group collaboration. So if there's any mantra here, it's that we've got to be more social.

Those on the Right know it, and they're better at it -- they're far more organized than the Left. They're also desperate, have a coalition that are becoming more and more unhinged (which are turning off a lot of corporate America despite their party being far more likely to give them everything they want), and increasingly rely on structural factors (electoral college, Senate representation) and cheating (gerrymandering, voter suppression) to maintain power.

We don't share the same problems. We already have the numbers, and we have the policies (large majority support for most of them). But we're simply not as organized. You can't run on demonizing the other side forever, and running simply on "I'm not as bad as that guy," even if it's true. Eventually you have to do something. I think handing out stimulus checks was a good start, and some of the proposals (child care, universal Pre-K, taxing the rich) are decent, but it's got to continue.

I live in NH -- close to Maine, where Collins won. I can't help but think if I did more to assist her opponents campaign that the Democrats would not have to be held hostage by the likes of Joe Manchin. So there's a little connection for you. (Not to say I have that much influence, of course.)

I think Trump will be highly competitive in 2024 and the odds on favorite to win if a recession hits by then, which seems highly likely given record high corporate debt levels today. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are corporate debt levels very predictive of recessions? What data are you looking at, and can you pass along please? Thanks.

In general, I'd expect Far-Right political parties to continue their string of victories until developed nations figure out a solution for the issue of immigration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think people really care much about immigration if there isn't a "crisis" or the media isn't whipping them up in a frenzy. Notice the hysteria about the border from last month has completely subsided. This shows up in polling, too. It's there, but other things like healthcare, political corruption, the economy, etc., consistently poll higher in importance.

Wise words. Especially about showing them what it means to govern for the people. But it always comes down to shoe leather.

My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves.

Thanks for your thoughts.

My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves. — James Riley

Hmm— do you recall the name?

Hmm— do you recall the name? — Xtrix

I did not, but I found this on Google: https://www.cjr.org/politics/bill-green-ad-susan-collins.php

Probably him.

Hey you know if Trump prevails in ejecting all the sensible Republicans, in four years time, the Republican nominee’s argument will have to be that Biden, who’s spent the entire time re-building the economy and the political landscape, didn’t actually win the 2020 election. The mind boggles as to how you could actually campaign on that.

The mind boggles as to how you could actually campaign on that. — Wayfarer

Sedevacantism is a thing.

His ongoing appeal is still a symptom of some dreadful malady regardless. — Wayfarer

Or just evidence of how the world really works.

So I guess the question is, if Trump refuses to recognise the result of the 2020 election, and the party falls in behind him, then how can they qualify to contest an election? Unless they’re prepared to acknowledge they lost, then they should be disqualified from running on the grounds that that party won’t honour the democratic conventions that govern elections.

Which would mean that if this was recognised and the GOP was deemed ineligible to run on the grounds that they can’t play by the rules, then the USA ends up a one-party State, like Trump wanted - but the party is the Democratic Party. :sweat:

Depends on the democratic system really. If you have a winner takes all system, majorities matter. If you need coalitions to rule, the dynamics change a lot.

f you need coalitions to rule, the dynamics change a lot. — Benkei

Sure, and I live in a country that has such a system. There is a trend toward simplification, polarization into two camps. The political parties sometimes differ pretty much only in name.

Perhaps it looks like that because you yourself have extreme views?

Perhaps it looks like that because you yourself have extreme views? — Benkei

So the idea to abolish political parties (extremism) is extremist? Perhaps it looks like that to people who fight racism with racism.

Ah, a random idiot joins the discussions by misinterpreting my meaning. Get lost.

I fact-checked the link you sent and read the story. It was determined to be fake news. Want to know how I found out?

By all means.

It looks like the case against Trump’s supposed hush-money payments was dropped.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

The dreams of Trump’s perp-walk slowly dwindle.

It looks like the case against Trump’s supposed hush-money payments was dropped. — NOS4A2

That's how the rich get away with crime: They have minions do their dirty work for them. They can then pretend they didn't know. Notice it was dropped because they couldn't prove Trump knew, not because it didn't happen. So, all you have to do is say "Be a shame if anything happened to Loui."

That’s more a presumption of guilt than innocence, and there are reasons we avoid such tyranny in free society.

That’s more a presumption of guilt than innocence, and there are reasons we avoid such tyranny in free society. — NOS4A2

Uh, no. It's a presumption of innocence. That's why we let them go. Remind the right next time someone on the left is accused of something, or walks because of a failure of proof.

The presumption is innocence is a legal fiction, it says exactly nothing about actual guilt or innocence.

True, but it is a tried and true principle. I can’t think of any reason we’d assume the opposite, but here we are.

I can’t think of any reason we’d assume the opposite, but here we are. — NOS4A2

What do you mean "here we are"? Didn't they drop the charges?

The presumption of innocence applies to a finder of fact (jury, or judge in a bench trial), not to the public. You know he's guilty as f and so does everyone, including him.

At stroke of midnight, Trump shall win.
I am certain that it is just a matter of time before Trump or his children win the presidential elections. — baker

Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying.

Begrudgingly, they did. But I also think the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply only to those concerned with law, but also to those who believe in justice, human rights and common sense. You either believe in it or you don’t.

Begrudgingly, they did. — NOS4A2

The burden of proof that it was "begrudgingly" would be upon you. And, since you believe a presumption of innocence, I know you didn't mean "begrudgingly", right?

I also think the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply only to those concerned with law, but also to those who believe in justice, human rights and common sense. — NOS4A2

Maybe it should, but I think certain segments of society see it as a matter of who's ox is being gored. The same guy who wants Trump to get the benefit of the doubt as a matter of principle, will not give that same benefit to those who dropped the investigation.

You either believe in it or you don’t. — NOS4A2

One can believe in principles as a matter of principle, but not let principles cloud common sense. That's one reason we have juries.

I’d love to see this common sense in action, but I have asked for proof of Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread for years now with nothing to show for it, so I don’t expect much.

Maybe I’m jaded. We were promised the next Hitler, nuclear war, economic collapse, race wars, fascism, the Kremlin, and a litany of other bogeymen, none of which materialized. So I doubt such accusations as a matter of course. I can only imagine how the world would be today had those tasked with informing us warned us about real threats. Now we find ourselves under the yoke of every leader and bureaucrat but Donald Trump. Sad.

I’d love to see this common sense in action, but I have asked for proof of Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread for years now with nothing to show for it, so I don’t expect much. — NOS4A2

You used common sense when you suspected the dismissal was done begrudgingly. I agree. Nevertheless, our common sense does not rise to the level of a principle we both hold.

This is probably a digression, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal burden and an extremely high one at that. The civil standard is usually "a preponderance of the evidence." Any way, the wheels of "justice" turn slow. Some times it takes years. We all know (common sense) Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar. But applying civil or criminal standards to that is another thing. Had Obama done one smidgeon of the things Trump did, the right would have their panties in a knot, their hair on fire, and they'd be dancing around and screaming themselves horse.

We were promised the next Hitler, nuclear war, economic collapse, race wars, fascism, the Kremlin, and a litany of other bogeymen, none of which materialized. — NOS4A2

Thanks to the left.

I can only imagine how the world would be today had those tasked with informing us warned us about real threats. — NOS4A2

You mean like Faux News and Limbaugh?

Now we find ourselves under the yoke of every leader and bureaucrat but Donald Trump. — NOS4A2

Yeah, you're all yoked up. LOL!

@James Riley I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but @NOS4A2 has completely ignored that there are 545 pages of people criticizing the Trump presidency here and, for whatever reason, decided to use this thread in order to convert the members of The Philosophy Forum to Trumpism. Upon enjoying reading Leszek Kołakowski's My Correct Views on Everything, I came to a certain realization about Politics, being that, though I have no intention of conceding to the American Right, I would actually prefer not to just simply habitually ignore everything that any person of any right-wing political philosophy either says or does entirely. I have been beginning to lament this life decision, however, as they seem to have taken that, in good faith, I have decided to take totalitarianism seriously as an invitation to recruit me as a Trump supporter.

Being said, I feel kind of bad for NOS4A2, as, though every new user of this forum has defeated them in a debate within this thread can be fairly entertaining for the other users here, I'd bet that this has somehow left them lacking in self-confidence, a complex that more or less every supporter of Trump must have on account of just how readily apparent it has been that he may have been the worst president in United States history.

:100: I'm slowly starting to get the lay of the land. :smile:

I've just noticed that they entered this debate, at least, two years ago around page 144 and have consistently commented within this thread since. There's something to be said for perseverance, I guess.

Though I, myself, have just done this, I do kind of feel like we ought to extend a certain degree of sympathy to @NOS4A2, as they have been repeatedly cynically and savagely mocked by more or less the entire forum for kind of an extensive period of time. Granted, you would think that they would've given up on this by now, but, still, I do genuinely feel kind of bad for them.

No fuck that little shit treat him like the trash he is.