Obviously you can't stop Trump from just throwing random bullshit out there, but that could at least be framed by consistent messaging. — Echarmion

Yeah, well now that there's been a switch in the competing candidate, the crew focused on consistent messaging will become irrelevant, and the random bullshit will inevitably ramp up, to fill the void. Should be interesting.

But they did. — NOS4A2

No they didn't. Read the closing of the article which you yourself referred:

"There is no evidence to support Musk's claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI."

There was the intel provided by Dutch to the CIA earlier in the summer. The fact that the allegation was utterly false just makes it all the more egregious.

Regardless, when a person provides false information which they believe to be true, the person is not guilty of making stuff up.

Look at Saddam Hussein's WMD for example. When there is a faulty interpretation of the intelligence, people are not "making stuff up", because they firmly believe in the truth of their interpretation. It's a failure of the intelligence system.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them.
— creativesoul

I don't think you understand. He believes in authoritarianism. I get that you're not taking it seriously. I do, though. I don't think it's an act. — frank

The above paid no attention to what preceded it. Vance could also believe that authoritarianism is a preferable form of government/society/nation.

He could have gone from a broke drug influenced and otherwise horrible upbringing to the greedy - profit at all and any cost - profit as the sole motive for action - glorified on public media - American venture capitalist. He was portrayed as such for a minute.

Vance could not have gone from believing that certain elites were/are to largely to blame for the socioeconomic circumstances/depression he suffered through...

...to wanting/trying to be one...

...while acting in the best interest of midwestern Americans.



'The elites' harmed American people by virtue of influencing government action/legislation. The elites bought/buy the politicians. Common belief was that our government was being illegally bribed by powerful wealthy entities, but nothing could be done about it. A strategically placed representative can have certain language included in certain pieces of legislation that will provide huge financial gains for you personally. If you have the money and know the right sorts of people. If you're an elite. Trump is.

American politicians are for sale.

Donald Trump himself said so. He bragged about it on public stage, in front of everyone watching. It happened as plain as day. As clear as the nose on your face. The media downplayed it. Well, that's being nice about that very troublesome fact. The lack of attention given to, the sheer lack of outrage regarding that particular event is a sure sign that too many people have accepted the fact that Americans have the best government money can buy.

Vance cannot be both. against elites and with them. I understand just fine, thanks.





The opportunities available for many, some of which are Trump supporters, but many more of which are not, have been steadily decreasing since the early mid 70's. Systematically. The normal blue collar and other normal everyday workers/citizens - on a whole, and generally speaking - have had power taken from them and transferred to the owners/employers. This is particularly relevant when there is a conflict of interest between the American workers and their employer. The owners are/were the elites.

The regulations/legislation have been erring on the side of huge corporations and other powerful entities for over half a century. The history of anti-trust legislation shows the slow methodical practice of systematically removing the ability to enforce laws meant to protect Americans from fraud and otherwise being taken advantage of by those who could not care much less about their livelihoods when that conflicts with stock values and/or the actors'/owners' potential profit margin. Consumer protection and antitrust laws are gone... toothless.

Trump is both an elite, and a fraud.

Vance became Donald Trump's running mate, championing the suggested path forward in the 2024 American presidential election, written by the elites. Vance accepted and joined those he claimed were responsible for the plight of very large swathes of midwestern American people. He's becoming one. He's supporting one.

Look through the well documented history. He 'suggested', for lack of a better term, that certain entities were responsible for the passing of certain legislation resulting in fewer equal opportunities for Americans in general. The powerful well-connected elites. During some of those times, he wrote/read as[/i[] an author/speaker/user that was sincere, honest, and forthright. He seemed to believe what he said at the time.

Vance can believe that elites like Trump are largely to blame for the plight and suffering of rule following, law abiding, otherwise hard working midwestern Americans. Vance can believe that people like Trump - the tremendously wealthy powerful people - are largely to blame for all the outsourcing of jobs and lowering of American wages devastating middle America. Vance can believe that Americans have been starved into agreement with competing with foreign workers who do not earn anything equivalent to an American fair wage. Vance can believe that American government has passed legislation that paves the way for business owners to move all operations overseas. Vance can believe that there is legislation amounting to legal government bribery written by entities whom the public are not allowed to learn about/know of... all in the guise of 'free speech' nonetheless.

Vance cannot believe that and believe it's okay to join the elites unless he is okay with unnecessarily harming the aforementioned Americans in the devastating ways they have been hurt by both parties since the late seventies. If espousing authoritarian style government allows him to become an elite, he will.

That's the act.

But they did. — NOS4A2

No, they didn't. Clinton was presented information purported to establish a secret communications link between Trump and Russia's Alfa Bank. She approved the proposal to make this public. No one lied, they were simply mistaken.

Funny you'd bring this up, since this incident led your hero, Durham, to prosecute Sussman for making a false statement to the FBI (one of those "process crimes" you complain about, when it involves a Trump loyalist). But it was shown at trial that Sussman believed what he told the FBI. It also came out that no one in the Clinton campaign approved taking this to the FBI. If you were consistent, you'd be complaining about the injustice done to Sussman. It never should have gone to trial.

"I love my black job ♡"
~Simone Biles, the most decorated Olympic Gold Medal & champion gymnast in history

https://x.com/Simone_Biles/status/1819284274224173147

I missed the "black job" thing being on holidays and trying to avoid my phone most of the time. Can you explain what it's about?

Just more Trumpian racist bullshit to give ignorant MAGAts the warm & fuzzies. Here's a good summary:

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/31/trump-nabj-interview-black-jobs-rhetoric

That's pretty dumb but unsurprisingly so.

Considering that the make-up gets darker and darker I think he may be aiming for one of those black jobs. It seems that there is no longer much demand for orange ones.

:lol:

Just five words and MAGA hates her and thinks she should keep her mouth :zip:

It seems to me that Vance invited her into the conversation when he labeled her a quitter on Fox News, and isn’t MAGA all about hitting back when someone is nasty to you. I guess that’s only cool when Trump does it. Speaking of which, I hope he attacks every popular Republican governor in the swing states. That would be cool.

I hope he [The Clown] attacks every popular Republican governor in the swing states. That would be cool. — praxis

:up:

It turns out Vance is a moron. How did he get into Yale?

By, i would imagine, being much more than shallow, biased, media-driven versions of his personality and life presented to you. The same reason I have no real opinion on Biden beyond his ability to govern, which was lost some time ago.
Sometimes its absolutely fine to accept what's right in front of you - the media is exceptionally good at being wrong no matter which side is in the spotlight. This is almost solely an issue of personality, given almost everything else can be boiled down to statistics.
This isn't a 'you' problem, but it is certainly a problem of this and the Election thread. Pretending that the media is accurately informing you but inaccurately manipulating your opponents. No. You're all in the ditch. NOS has this issue, 180 has this issue - why the fuck a bunch of adult men pretending to do philosophy can't just be adults and humans about this type of thing is entirely unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless.

beyond his ability to govern, which was lost some time ago. — AmadeusD

I don't know how you define governing, but he was governing before your post and during it, and is governing after your post. You achieved either a nos4 standard of nonsense, or maybe give a definition, and hopefully a definition that is not itself nonsense.

Couldn't have invented a better response to illustrate my point.

Governing is conducting policy and organisational aspects of policy and action of a given entity (in this case, the USA). It is not my definition, but thank you for the stark illustration.

why the fuck a bunch of adult men pretending to do philosophy can't just be adults and humans about this type of thing is entirely unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless. — AmadeusD

How did he get into Yale? — frank

If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale?

Governing is conducting policy and organisational aspects of policy and action of a given entity (in this case, the USA). It is not my definition, but thank you for the stark illustration. — AmadeusD

Perfectly good definition.

no real opinion on Biden beyond his ability to govern, which was lost some time ago. — AmadeusD

Great! When? Evidence - how do you know? I ask because either you're right or you're remark is toxic, to put it as nicely as I can.

By, i would imagine, being much more than shallow, biased, media-driven versions of his personality and life presented to you. — AmadeusD

The media hasn't presented him as shallow and biased. Neither his book nor the movie in which his grandmother is played by Glenn Close give the that impression, so I don't know what you're talking about. I think he's a moron because he's had an abundance of opportunities to turn the "catlady" thing around and he won't do it. This is the hill he's willing to die on: Democrats don't have children. In other words, he's no where near as bright as we expected him to be when he was chosen.

If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale? — 180 Proof

Exactly.

Great! When? Evidence - how do you know? — tim wood

Have you been paying attention to his campaign (previously), his continually declining abilities and acknowledgement of such all and sundry?
His inability to even form coherent chunks of speech is a pretty prime indicator. Continual mis-steps in recollection is another. HIs absence from his actual job, almost continually, also contributes to this view.

either you're right or you're remark is toxic — tim wood

Yeah, you're definitely not being an adult about any of this, if these are you only two options to land on. That is absurd.

The media hasn't presented him as shallow and biased. — frank

That is literally all i have read about the guy - he's hypocritical and incredibly biased in (essentially) bigoted ways; that he is incapable of carrying the mantle of VP or P as a result of his political leanings and inability to reach/speak to/engage with Women, POC and other Minorities. Every article that has come across any of my SM or non-social media has been either a comedic attack or a "He's going to be the end of America" type of nonsense.
And definitely some of those earlier claims are true - his PR skills are terrible. But to take all of this serious to judge him as a human being, based on this source of information, is bizarre. The film, btw, has been universally panned by all non-right-wing media for roughly these reasons (you can tell, because Close and at times Adams are praised as "despite" the film lol which might be fitting).

This is the hill he's willing to die on: Democrats don't have children. In other words, he's no where near as bright as we expected him to be when he was chosen. — frank

Well no, this is the unchartiable, childish and ultimately misleading version of things the media likes to put out. His claim isn't "democrats don't have children" anymore than "deplorables" was an actual claim to be applied to every Republican or MAGA-adjacent person. It clearly wasn't, and Hilary unfairly suffered for her lack of precision imo. I wouldn't call the current situation 'unfair' because you're right, he's had several chances to even back out of that thing - but the same mechanisms are at play. They want you angry and incredulous. I'm not really defending him, to be clear. I don't know him. I'm aware he's an awful politician and it's a shame he's running with Trump, amongst all else to deplore there. But it truly is bizarre to see the exact same industry being treated completely differently when they spin different sides of the same coin (i,e two-party politics/politicians) - particularly when I know most of the posters here are far, far more intelligent than to allow what is clearly, and inarguably an industry which does not thrive on accuracy, truth or verdicality but clicks and views.

If Vance actually graduated, what's curious to me is how the hell did his dumbass get out of Yale? — 180 Proof

You have to be a special kind of stupid to think you'd have a clue, and that your opinion is anything more than your bias writ large. Perhaps it just hurts that you did not?

That is literally all i have read about the guy - he's hypocritical and incredibly biased in (essentially) bigoted ways; that he is incapable of carrying the mantle of VP or P as a result of his political leanings and inability to reach/speak to/engage with Women, POC and other Minorities. Every article that has come across any of my SM or non-social media has been either a comedic attack or a "He's going to be the end of America" type of nonsense.
And definitely some of those earlier claims are true - his PR skills are terrible. But to take all of this serious to judge him as a human being, based on this source of information, is bizarre. The film, btw, has been universally panned by all non-right-wing media for roughly these reasons (you can tell, because Close and at times Adams are praised as "despite" the film lol which might be fitting). — AmadeusD

I haven't seen any of that. I mostly get info from the NYT, the WSJ, and Politico. I'd say narrow down input to only sources that at least try to present an unbiased account. You usually have to pay for that.

Well no, this is the unchartiable, childish and ultimately misleading version of things the media likes to put out. His claim isn't "democrats don't have children" anymore than "deplorables" was an actual claim to be applied to every Republican or MAGA-adjacent person. It clearly wasn't, and Hilary unfairly suffered for her lack of precision imo. I wouldn't call the current situation 'unfair' because you're right, he's had several chances to even back out of that thing - but the same mechanisms are at play. They want you angry and incredulous. I'm not really defending him, to be clear. I don't know him. I'm aware he's an awful politician and it's a shame he's running with Trump, amongst all else to deplore there. But it truly is bizarre to see the exact same industry being treated completely differently when they spin different sides of the same coin (i,e two-party politics/politicians) - particularly when I know most of the posters here are far, far more intelligent than to allow what is clearly, and inarguably an industry which does not thrive on accuracy, truth or verdicality but clicks and views. — AmadeusD

As I said, I'd back far away from new sources that want to play on your emotions. Just junk all that wholesale.

Have you been paying attention to his campaign (previously), his continually declining abilities and acknowledgement of such all and sundry? — AmadeusD

Your remark was categorical. As such subject to question. Biden may not be the man he used to be - none of us are. But he is still the man he needs to be with room to spare. And I notice you evade my questions, a characteristic of the toxic poster.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to think you'd have a clue, and that your opinion is anything more than your bias writ large. Perhaps it just hurts that you did not? — AmadeusD

To add to this, there are several people who post on this forum who, based on their ability to make insightful contributions, appear to be pretty intelligent but who nevertheless have views on political issues that seem bizarre.

I would argue that while there are political opinions that are overall correlated with at least academic achievement, this does not hold on a personal level. I think it is to a certain extent true that "politics is the mind killer" in that there seem to be situations where otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing flaws in certain political positions. And that is of course assuming the positions are held in good faith and not the result of entirely different motivations.

What is bizarre from one point of view may be 'normative' in another. The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori.

Therefore, it is a useless argument in political discourse. Noting that condition is far from denying that bias does exist in many forms of feeling and expression.

there seem to be situations where otherwise intelligent people are incapable of seeing flaws in certain political positions. And that is of course assuming the positions are held in good faith and not the result of entirely different motivations. — Echarmion

I will always assume good faith, until shown otherwise. Unfortunately, across threads as long as these two have been (Trump/Election threads) It's hard to continue that assumption. Otherwise, the above is bang-the-heck-on.

The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori. — Paine

This is certainly true - I think all we can do to counteract is point out inconsistencies in approach. LIke trusting the media one way, but not hte other.

The problem with saying the 'bias' is doing the talking is that it dispenses with other peoples' views a priori.
— Paine

This is certainly true - I think all we can do to counteract is point out inconsistencies in approach. LIke trusting the media one way, but not the other. — AmadeusD

I recognize that media is a big player in the description of what is happening. We have to decide for ourselves what is being discussed. And if that collection of selves is just different worlds of facts, it is all for nought. All the King's men could not put the egg back together again.

I love my black job.

JD Vance Just Blurbed a Book Arguing That Progressives Are Subhuman

“Unhumans,” an anti-democratic screed that far-right provocateur Jack Posobiec co-wrote with the professional ghostwriter Joshua Lisec, comes with endorsements from some of the most influential people in Republican politics, including, most significantly, vice-presidential candidate JD Vance. ...

The word “fascist” gets thrown around a lot in politics, but it’s hard to find a more apt one for “Unhumans,” which came out last month. The book argues that leftists don’t deserve the status of human beings — that they are, as the title says, unhumans — and that they are waging a shadow war against all that is good and decent, which will end in apocalyptic slaughter if they are not stopped. “As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman,” write Posobiec and Lisec. ...

“Unhumans” lauds Augusto Pinochet, leader of the Chilean military junta who led a coup against Salvador Allende’s elected government in 1973, ushering in a reign of torture and repression that involved tossing political enemies from helicopters. ...

Vance provided the first blurb on the “Unhumans” book jacket. “In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through H.R., college campuses and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people,” he wrote. “Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.” — NY Times

Inclluding purges of the civil service and intelligence agencies, a plan already outlined in detail in the Project 2025 manifesto.

So now we can add unhuman to unmarried female cat-lovers…..