:up:

I'm not as concerned with Trump winning the election as I am with him losing the vote count. He has been busy keeping his MAGA base stirred up, and if he loses he might incite them to disrupt procedures at the Capital and overturn the presidency by force of arms, not simply wandering the Halls of Congress. — jgill

So all the potential consequences with him in power during a time of extreme global unrest due to both Russia and China is not a larger concern than some backwards MAGA cult members mounting a real attack that would quickly be fought back and at the same time cement the need to reshape politics into a form that prevents things like this to ever happen again?

Trump is right about one thing with his "bloodbath" rhetoric though; if he and his followers take things too far, it will tip the scales of society's tolerance of them so far into the negative that they will be branded a terrorist group and if someone wears a MAGA hat it won't end well. Most of these people are gullible idiots, but if consequences for affiliation with MAGA becomes too negative, they will quickly break down into very obscure smaller groups of fanatics.

I can't see how any of this would end well for Trump, his closest people and his followers. With luck, everything fizzles out over the years, but if Trump and his followers take things too far, then they will quickly realize that there are far more people on the good side who won't tolerate this bullshit.

↪boethius "National polls" are not predictive since US presidential elections are not "national elections". Also, polling only becomes somewhat meaningful, or predictive, in the Fall 6-8 weeks before election day indicating electoral trends only in swing states only of likely voters. — 180 Proof

Your statement was that Trump was losing popularity, generally speaking, since the criminal charges dropped. To cite you exactly:

In other words, he's not "attracting support" and probably hasn't been since the criminal indictments dropped last year. — 180 Proof

I then cite polls that show Trump pretty steady from 2021 through 2023 and then gaining in favourability since the primary, which demonstrates he's attracting support.

I then also point out that he's essentially dead even, if not slightly ahead, in the polls in a Trump v Biden.

I then point out that the electoral college favours heavily republicans as Red states have more electoral college votes overall, so (unless historical trends reverse and red states are now blue states) such polling would indicate a large Trump advantage.

But I ask you to provide the evidence upon which you're making your claim (as perhaps this coarse look at the polls misses something essential).

I already dealt with your point that a lot of registered republicans, that you'd need to establish that he's not trading that group for some other group. The polling shows he's gaining overall in favourability, so perhaps he's lost 20% of registered Republican support but has gained elsewhere.

Now, if there's a break down somewhere of the swing states, of the likely voters there and so on that provide some additional insight, then great; if not, if it's as you say:

Also, polling only becomes somewhat meaningful, or predictive, in the Fall 6-8 weeks before election day indicating electoral trends only in swing states only of likely voters. — 180 Proof

Then for your argument to make sense, you'd need to at least try to establish the primary voting isn't some analogue of a poll but far more predictive, far earlier, which you do not.

You're basically just handwaving and assuming Trump is losing support and in the face of data that he isn't you're just handwaving away the polls and any basis at all upon which you could rest your own claim.

About 20-25% of actual voters in state Republican primaries did not vote for Loser-1 even after he's become the only candidate left in the race. This indicates he's losing support of (most of) those actual GOP voters. — 180 Proof

How does 20-25% turn into "most of" in the very next sentence?

Now, definitely Trump is a "non-traditional" candidate so it's not unusual he'd lose support from "traditional republicans"; the question is whether his untraditionalness can pickup support elsewhere, which the polls at the moment indicate rather than your claim that he's losing support overall.

Compared to 2020, Loser-1 is underperforming both with voters and donations to his campaign, which is consistent with the trend with women voters in particular against the MAGA-GOP since SCOTUS trashed women's reproductive rights in 2022. — 180 Proof

Trump was massively out-fundraised by Hillary, yet still won. As I've already mentioned, there's not much prospects the SCOTUS will change in the next 4 years, so abortion may not end up being a big issue. As you say, we'll have better predictive power in the 1-2 months before the election.

Given these indisputable circumstances, do you really believe Loser-1's electoral prospects are going to improve in the coming months? If so, I think that's ahistorical wishful thinking ... but who knows, right? — 180 Proof

As we see above, they are definitely disputed circumstances by the polls, which you then dismiss but then claim in the very next sentence that Trump continuing to increase in favourability enough to win the election (i.e. in the right places that translates to votes) would be ahistorical?

What is the historical precedent are you referring to? If polls don't matter at the moment? What does?

I honestly don't get what you're basing your argument on other than your own feeling ... which seems to be exactly the case:

I'm not a betting man but I haven't lost since 2017 betting against the Cult Leader & his MAGA-GOP flying monkeys — 180 Proof

... So you haven't done any bets, being not a betting man, but you also haven't lost any bets since 2017 ... but what about 2016? You're basically just saying that except for the times you're wrong you've been right and we should just trust you on that.

Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, so his strength is fighting the establishment and so 2024 could be a repeat of 2016.

Biden is clearly mentally attenuated, if not in the first stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, and it's going to be difficult for him to campaign with any vigour. Then there's the whole Hunter thing and Biden's own mishandling of classified documents, the war going badly in Ukraine, war in Gaza and so on.

And just because Biden seems to "get away" with incredible gaffs (aka. clear signs of dementia in his case) of memory problems and losing his train of thought, doesn't mean it's not going to be a big issue. Trump super packs will inundate people with attack adds using all this material in the 2 months before the election.

Both candidates are incredibly weak candidates.

If you didn't know anything about the other candidate you'd assume they have absolutely zero chance.

My own guess is I think we're in for a rerun of 2016 where Trump was "the underdog" and widely hated and had incredible mind blowing scandal after scandal but that Hillary was also widely hated and had her own scandals and gaffs, and the establishment assumes Hillary is going to win but that turns out to be counter-productive and fuels Trump instead.

I'm not predicting Trump is going to win, just that he has a solid chance of winning.

A lot will depend on what money and allies consolidates around Trump, and Biden's ability to even keep it together.

Liberals like to dismiss Biden's age concern as some sort of "agist" thing, but one indisputable dementia moment far worse than we've seen so far could sink him. Or he could die; which based on his age is about a 5% chance between now and the election—true he has top of the line health care, but being president and running a campaign is also stressful, so who knows which factor dominates.

Which I don't think is appreciated enough. Death rates rise exponentially with age (after adulthood) and the probability of death at 82 years (within a year time frame) is 8%.

Age: 82
Death probability: 0.079691 — Actuary life table, US Social Security

Furthermore the process of dying from disease in old age is due to the decay of the organism, so there's generally a period of mental and physical decline and even incapacitation, which can be a long or relatively short process with few or many stays in hospital and medical interventions.

Of course, health is also a concern for Trump, but the 5 year difference in age with Biden is really a big difference on an exponential curve.

:eyes: :roll: :smirk: Okay, whatever.

update:

(Rick Wilson posted on Youtube 19 March 24)

addendum:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890870

↪boethius :eyes: :roll: :smirk: Okay, whatever. — 180 Proof

Ah yes, the cunning response to evidence being "whatever".

If you just want to stay in your liberal echo-chamber, then why come here to post what you want to believe?

As you say yourself, there's very little way to predict (based on actual evidence) the outcome of the election from where we are at the moment.

Both candidates are incredibly weak, simply pointing to how absurdly bad one candidate is doesn't really advance the analysis for people who want to understand the situation.

Trump has his legal problems ... whereas Biden also has legal problems as well as 2 times more chance of just straight up dying before Trump, and even bigger chance of suffering some serious medical event or terminal decline (even worse than his current mental state). Trump has been found culpable of sexual assault, whereas Biden has literal a genocide on his hands.

It's truly mind boggling, but typical of a declining empire that the political elites become incredibly incompetent and senile, so it's mind bogglingly stupid but not "ahistorical", to use your verbiage.

As for the election, the evidence bases facts are that Trump is not losing support, but gaining support.

The fines he has to pay are a massive inconvenience but won't stop him from being on the ballot and potentially winning. Trump is not without allies and support, and there's plenty of interests who have a net-present value proposition for backing Trump even assuming he's more likely to lose than win.

And, as I demonstrated above with actual evidence and statistics, Biden has a non-negligible chance of dying (2-4%) before the election even happens.

These odds are comparable to drawing two unpaired cards in Texas Holdem and then hitting two pair on the flop (2%), if you want a feel for the what the (low end) of the odds are. Two pair isn't a remarkable hand.

Could the democrats recover from Biden just straight up dying? Seems a hard sell.

So, if we assume a Biden death would mean a Trump victory (though I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary) and let's say a Trump victory would be an absolute total disaster for America and the world, the democrats are essentially betting nearly the absolute worst thing they can imagine happening (a second Trump presidency) on odds comparable to, or greater than, than flopping 2 pair.

What conclusions were drawn from the evidence in the 2016 election? How much more reliable is the evidence today?

What do the statistics show about the health of someone Biden's age, who is fit and active, versus someone Trump's age who drives his ft ass around in a golf cart and shuns vegetables in favor of Big Macs?

It looks like the corrupt Tish “Peekaboo” James and Bitch Tits Judge Androgen won’t be stealing anyone’s private property today. Trump still has to pay an unjust bond of $175 million in 10 days in order to appeal the corrupt ruling but the 8th amendment of the constitution is going nowhere, and one can only hope justice will soon prevail.

Recall that fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried stole billions from customers and defrauded investors and his bond was only $250 million, which was the largest such bond ever set in an American criminal proceeding. Trump stole no money and investors were paid in full. Not to mention that the corrupt James’ sense of justice is like a wind-sock, going in the direction of wherever her friends are.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/17/opinion/an-irish-society-an-unpaid-loan-and-the-hypocrisy-of-letitia-james/amp/

What conclusions were drawn from the evidence in the 2016 election? How much more reliable is the evidence today? — Fooloso4

Conclusions drawn by who?

At the time, I expected Trump to win, but that was just gut feeling based on the idea people would want to see "what happens next" in the Trump debacle show. Fife Thirty Eight gave Trump basically a chance in 3 of winning.

However, I think the main thing to learn from 2016 is simply that the dissatisfaction with the political system in the US is so great that a complete outsider can beat both the Republican and Democrat establishment and media machine.

We also learned that while the establishment had all sorts of "fail safes" to prevent a too left candidate from ever winning, why the democrats have the super delegates, they simply assumed that they couldn't be threatened from the right: that the Republican Party would be the party of big business and other factions on the right could never be viable (libertarians, evangelicals, racists and fascists); therefore leaving open the weakness that a "business person" such as Trump waltz in and take the party away from the "gentleman warmongers".

What do the statistics show about the health of someone Biden's age, who is fit and active, versus someone Trump's age who drives his ft ass around in a golf cart and shuns vegetables in favor of Big Macs? — Fooloso4

I was in a pretty long relationship with a doctor and the main thing I learned about health is that age is the primary killer. Simply getting old is an exponential decay process, and exponentially worse odds of dying every year, and in the 80 year old bracket the odds are really high of dying.

Her experience was also that it was always a surprise who died and who continued to live. For example, whenever she went on vacation in internal medicine she would know some of her older patients would die but it was always a surprise.

The main factor, according to this doctor at least, is simply the bodies ability to recover becomes exhausted; any specific problem doctors can deal with pretty well but there's knock on effects on the other organs that increase with age, and so medical problems accumulate until you have a situation where you can keep one organ functioning but the medicine required will likely destroy what's left of the kidneys, of which the treatment would destroy what's left of the liver.

Bottom line, it's simply a fact that people get old and die. There's a good chance to live to 70, not uncommon to live to 80, over 90 is pretty rare and there's very few above 100 and above 110 is super rare.

So, what is for sure is that Biden's odds of dying due to being older is twice as great as Trump.

Who's healthier or leading a less stressful life I think is speculative. Golfing is pretty good exercise as well as relaxing.

Obviously Trump's legal problems are a big stress, but Biden also has legal problems.

Presumably being President is itself stressful under normal circumstances and there's less time to relax than Trump, though I wouldn't be surprised if Biden doesn't really do much and other people handle everything.

What is clear is Biden's cognitive decline compared to Trump, who (all while bing largely incoherent) mental acuity seems to be the same. Biden loses his train of thought, relives the past such as who's the president of France, and clearly can't handle any question requiring a complex or nuanced answer (such as the whole "XI is a dictator" saga).

And this is not a defence of Trump, just the reality is that Biden with his two pair odds of dying and clearly becoming senile and "time to go to a home time" on national television is the best the Democrats have to offer.

It's a sad state of affairs, but not unusual for a declining empire.

Trump Criminal Trial Is Set for April 15 as His Attempt at Delay Fails

Donald J. Trump is all but certain to become the first former American president to stand trial on criminal charges after a judge on Monday denied his effort to delay the proceeding and confirmed it would begin next month.

The trial, in which Mr. Trump will be accused of orchestrating the cover-up of a simmering sex scandal surrounding his 2016 presidential campaign, had originally been scheduled to start this week. But the judge, Juan M. Merchan, had pushed the start date to April 15 to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to review newly disclosed documents from a related federal investigation.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had pushed for an even longer delay of 90 days and sought to have the case thrown out altogether. But in an hourlong hearing Monday, Justice Merchan slammed their arguments, rejecting them all.

What is clear is Biden's cognitive decline — boethius

Is that notwithstanding any cognitive decline, he has got a lot done in spite of the best - or worst - efforts of Republicans. And if Republicans had condescended to contribute to government instead of trying to destroy it, likely much more could have been accomplished. It is my guess he has a good and dedicated team and they all work together. Republicans, on the other hand, have no good man or woman - "good Republican" being nearly an oxymoron - nor can they work together, but instead like sharks in a feeding frenzy feed on each other and even themselves.

Just as the Covid-19 exposed the failings of the US for-profit public health-HMO-pharmaceutical-industrial complex, every delay bought & paid for by Criminal Defendant / Insurrectionist / Fraudster / Rapist / Defamer / electoral Loser-1 exposes the systemic failings of the US judiciary & law enforcement. :mask:

Trump’s Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World’s 500 Richest People

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-25/donald-trump-6-4-billion-net-worth-makes-him-one-of-world-s-richest-people

And here I thought he was going to be broke today. This timeline is just too good.

Is that notwithstanding any cognitive decline, he has got a lot done in spite of the best - or worst - efforts of Republicans. And if Republicans had condescended to contribute to government instead of trying to destroy it, likely much more could have been accomplished. It is my guess he has a good and dedicated team and they all work together. Republicans, on the other hand, have no good man or woman - "good Republican" being nearly an oxymoron - nor can they work together, but instead like sharks in a feeding frenzy feed on each other and even themselves. — tim wood

I'm not defending Republicans. Over the last half century they've spearheaded the legalized corruption in the United States based on completely fantastical legal arguments absolutely fatal for the, while starting illegal wars, illegal rendition and torture, blocking health care and free education (the basis of a healthy society), and worst of all creating massive amounts of propaganda to destroy the environment.

That being said, the Democrats are as completely corrupted by the legal corruption and beholden to largely the same special interests as Republicans, with some slight variations. Democrats have since Obama become the war party and corporate profiteering party of all kinds, as it lowers public opposition when "the left party is doing it". There's a long list of laws and policies that democrats would be outraged and in the streets over if the Republicans were doing it, and that's by design.

And for all this brew-ha-ha over Trumps pretty insignificant law breaking (from a national point of view) what did the democrats do about literal war crimes and torture? "We won't be going on a witch hunt" ... but we did "torture some folks". Where was the concern for the law of the democratic party then? Zero concern because they're paid to rape the law, which is far worse for the public good than Trump's sexual assault and "grab em' by the pussy" approach to life.

Now if you don't like Trump and republicans, both old establishment and the MAGA types, the reality is they have a chance to regain power due to democrat corruption. Biden is only in power because he's a linch pin in the wall holding back all the skeletons from just spilling out onto the house floor.

Whether you think Biden's cognitive decline matters or not to his job as president, because he has "competent team" that is making all the decisions, maybe true, but certainly you can recognize it's not a great campaigning slogan: "Vote for Biden! his controlled by his team, trust us!"

It's also highly suspect that a senile and demented leader is irrelevant because of the people under him. He still has the presidential authority and anyone with access to him could get him to sign anything and any sort of strife in his administration will be ultimately decided by presidential authority.

However, much worse, anyone familiar with people dying of old age would be familiar with the denial that goes with it. Old people can be essentially unable to see, unable to remember basic facts, reflexes of a tree, but insist they are completely capable of driving and incensed and angry at any suggestion to the contrary.

I hope most of these trials are postponed till after the election. If Americans want to vote for a climate denying, election denying, neoliberal fraud — then let them.

If he loses, it’ll be nice to know that’ll be the last of Trump. If he runs again he’d be 82 and his businesses would likely be in shambles, having been abandoned by the establishment financially and unable to draw off as much money from average dupes. The RNC will choose someone younger as their nominee in ‘28. Maybe Haley, Maybe Desantis, maybe someone yet unknown.

If he wins, America will get a reminder of how awful he was, and it’ll be his last term. 2028 won’t come soon enough. Legislatively he likely gets nothing done, but will probably appointment more appellate and Supreme Court judges (it’s likely the senate flips to republicans this year). His actions will likely reinvigorate the left— again — and there will be a large electoral backlash in 2026.

My main problem will be the 4 years lost in climate policy — which we truly don’t have — and the fact that the judiciary will be all but Trumpified for a generation, making it harder to get anything done even when the inevitable backlash hits.

I hope most of these trials are postponed till after the election. If Americans want to vote for a climate denying, election denying, neoliberal fraud — then let them. — Mikie

Agreed.

My main problem will be the 4 years lost in climate policy — which we truly don’t have — and the fact that the judiciary will be all but Trumpified for a generation, making it harder to get anything done even when the inevitable backlash hits. — Mikie

Would Biden do anything meaningful on climate?

Bidens' administration seems to just co-create terrible wars.

Not that Trump would do anything, but a second Trump administration I think could (potentially) cause Europe to stop being vassals to the US.

European leaders entertained the idea (at least talked about it) of ceasing to be cowardly vassals during the first Trump administration, but then Biden came along and EU elites ran to prostrate themselves and basically begged for abuse in their gimp suites. That's definitely their comfort zone.

Not that I know how history would go, but I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration, at least for the world and global ecosystems. Trump's quest for vengeance (randomly purging various officials and so on) could also cause a collapse of the corrupt networks that dominate the US, without 4 years being enough to consolidate a new network. A network that is already weakened by Wikileaks and various other whistleblowing and key players just aging out and dying.

Trump would also likely deescalate with the Russians and Chinese which could be immensely stabilizing, simply because there's no winning moves in Ukraine or against the Chinese and more conflict overseas is simply unpopular.

Which, despite all Trump's immense flaws and wrongdoing and being totally unfit to be president, he's at least sensitive to public opinion rather than on an ideological quest for world domination. Trump doesn't hesitate to insult the neocons as bizarre fools. The current administration is 100% neocon oriented, and they seem to me as evil as they are delusional. I wouldn't say Trump is evil; more petty, narcissistic, bombastic and plenty of other negative, but not quite evil, qualities.

My feeling is a second Trump presidency would basically kill the neocon bureaucratic hold and dream of world domination and realists would be the only effective players left to pick up the pieces of further imperial decline and chaos domestically. I don't think Trump could actually stage some sort of coup so in four years he'll be gone as you say, and the process would essentially result in a geriatric purge of the current ruling elite. Although the geriatric political elite fully legalized corruption, mobile phones have resulted in such a deep rooted fear of being recorded a lot of younger politicians are less corrupt as a habit while the ability to broadcast creates the habit of simply being open in one's analysis.

That's not a prediction however, just an idea of potential positive consequences of a Trump presidency, to make the point that I don't think it's foregone conclusion that a Biden presidency would be any better. Biden's overall trajectory is more and bigger wars, as that's how the neocons stay relevant.

Fortunately, Loser-1 won't win the 2024 election. Already an adjudicated rapist, he'll be a convicted felon, effectively broke & out-of-business by this fall with five more civil laws suits for "January 6th" pending (maybe 1-2 will be underway) and 2-3 criminal trials to follow in 2025 (not counting more 2020 Election Interference indictments to drop in Arizona & Michigan). :clap: :party:

Would Biden do anything meaningful on climate? — boethius

It’s a mixed bag with Biden. He’s producing more oil and gas than any president I think, has allowed drilling, approved the Willow Project, etc. Yet the IRA was passed which will do some good — although that was very watered down. He’s done some other things which aren’t terrible.

Overall, I’m not super enthusiastic, but he’s infinitely better than going backwards. Rhetoric also matters on the world stage. The US official position wanting to do something about it is important— the President saying it’s a Chinese hoax is also important, negatively.

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

We just disagree here. There’s no question Biden is better. The judiciary alone is a reason. Baby steps towards climate policy is another— and there has been some progress. Compared to literally going backwards, I don’t think there’s much to think about. It’s also hard to believe Trump would do anything about Israel. If anything, he’ll go even harder with supporting the genocide. He may be less hawkish with Ukraine— that could be beneficial. Otherwise I see no redeeming qualities. He’s a danger we can’t afford.

Trump sells signature Bibles.
Branding like it ought to be.

Trump shares an image of Biden tied up like a hog in the back of a pickup truck.

Trump attacks Biden over Easter coinciding with Transgender Day of Visibility

I gather from this that the Easter Bunny is not gay. But if I cannot even see the Bunny, the matter becomes more obscure.

Trump goes after a Judge's family because he figures he can.
Not a good look if you care about appearances.

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

There isn't one.

There isn't one. — AmadeusD

There’s plenty, actually. For those paying attention. But please keep the substantive Tweets coming.

Ill take that rent now.

Many of these circumstances applied when Hillary ran and she lost. Most Americans vote whoever they like best to go have a drink with not on policy or anything else substantive. So excuse me for not sharing your optimism when my gut feeling is on the fence (not a good sign historically).

There was a good piece (in Dutch) how neoliberalism gets you fuckheads like Trump and all the other racist scum floating to power in the EU. https://www.reddit.com/r/thenetherlands/comments/1btc0fh/het_neoliberalisme_heeft_de_solidariteit/

Many[none] of these circumstances applied when Hillary ran and she lost. — Benkei

Not so, not even close ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851623

That's my story and I'm sticking to it because my gut and my head tells me not to panic. Loser-1 and his MAGATs are going to keep on losing as they have every year since 2017. :victory: :mask:

Neoliberalism takes away formal instruments with which the democratic system can influence socio-economic matters, but does nothing to counteract the informal instruments with which 'big business' influences matters through lobbying.

It takes power away from the citizens and puts it in the hands of big business, and as such is a blueprint for widespread corruption.

Once the system is well and truly rotten, the ground is ripe for populism. It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is.


This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with solidarity, and the article I found rather uninspiring.

In the Netherlands, the left failed to be a counterbalance against neoliberalism, and failed to provide a suitable alternative. (And obviously we needn't even mention a 'left' in the US...)

In fact, the largest left-wing party GroenLinks/PvdA consists of two parties which have basically appeased neoliberal (VVD) dominance for over a decade in the hopes they would be allowed some scraps. They staunchly supported and continue support the relinquishment of sovereignty to the EU, which is entirely ran by lobbyists.

Meanwhile, the left-wing party that did take its job seriously and helped to break neoliberal dominance is almost completely ignored by the left and ended up with a measly 5 seats.


So this article comes across as somewhat detached whinging about an imaginary moral high ground. If I'm honest, it's rather typical from dusty academics, who are repeatedly shown to be some of the most detached people in Dutch society.

There isn't one. — AmadeusD

We definitely agree on this point.

Once the system is well and truly rotten, the ground is ripe for populism. It is corruption that is the catalyst for populism. So while populism in ways is a problematic phenomenon, it is a reaction to a problematic status quo. This insight is what almost always lacks in discussions about how bad populism is. — Tzeentch

To add to this excellent point, the classes of people who benefit from a system very rarely see any problems. When you benefit, systemic corruption is just "the way things are done".

When the intellectual classes benefit (professors, scientists, established media avatars, and so on) a populist anti-corruption movement is not inherently anti-intellectual but is far more likely to be so.

To contrast, the reformation was sparked by similar outrage against corruption of the ruling class, in particular the church but also feudalism in general, but was pro-intellectual and lead by intellectuals and sharp criticism against both the church and feudalism. Which can be taken as simply a example that populism isn't always anti-intellectual, or then as an exception that proves the rule in that there emerged new intellectual classes (created by the printing press) who were simply average citizens that learned how to read and did not particularly benefit from the feudal system. That it was illegal to teach slaves in the US how to read is another indication people understood this latent danger of general literacy and the American Revolution is another example pro-intellectual populism for that matter.

The history of the ruling class since this pro-intellectual populist time I would argue is figuring out how to teach people how to read ... but also teach them to be uncritical docile consumers at the same time.

We definitely agree on this point. — boethius

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.”

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.”

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

The push from the Biden Admin for EV's and emission standards is also night and day compared to what a GOP administration would be doing/will do.