I detect curious amounts of resentment towards men in the comments. :chin: — Tzeentch

That's something dems have to deal with. If you apply feminist and black rhetoric in an election, you should expect patriarchal and white identity responses.

I have no idea how democratic countries can be run with women or men assuming to be different from the rest, but there's definitely going to be a lot of resentment if countries become California and promise people reparations (because 8 generations ago some of their ancestors were slaves).

Did anyone tell these liberals that serfdom in Europe ended with the French Revolution? Who is going to pay for reparations when 90% of the world population are the descendants of peasants who (till two centuries ago) used to be either slaves or serfs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

I've heard that people used to call "moma" Catherine the Great, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel (though I don't know if that is correct).

Finland and New Zealand were able to elect female liberals as their leaders. Both women received a lot of attention, but their stardom didn't pass the 12 month threshold :rofl:

Kamala is no deal. She made Trump look genius.

Speaking for myself, I didn't bother to vote Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, but I would love to vote Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and maybe Ocazio-Cortez.

However, I agree with you on that sexism does play a big role. Telling from UK, Germany, Israel, and Italy, there's only one path for women to lead countries: they need to be (very) conservative women.

It seems that men need to see a mother model when they vote. This is why conservative women have more chances to get the male vote, than the liberal ones. So, either Ivanka or Tulsi might become our first female president :rofl:

We had some people here (in the Philosophy Forum) who argued that only stupids can vote for Donald Trump. I told them that though I am an immigrant myself, I would never call stupid someone who voted for him.

Nonetheless, you don't need to be enthusiastic about the future. I mean, Donald Trump and his voters have my respect right now, but I doubt that this country is going to get any better.

My problem with the democrats are not big spending and high taxes. My problem with them is that they use this money in order to divide families (when you promise 1.7 trillion US dollars to single mothers, in order to buy groceries, is like you are encouraging women to get divorce and their children to be cared by the government), make young people less productive (cause truth be told if someone asks me why I never married I would tell her/him that in the years when I was more fertile like a man, I was looking to get my PHD, instead of making some kids), help out corporations, enable genocides and civil wars, and so on.

Four years with Trump, if we are really lucky, we might see less wars, but there's nothing revolutionary in him. The guy is still promising people cheaper oil & coal (because this is what his friends want him to do in the 21st century, when countries like China and South Korea are leading the total electrification of a new fusion-energy-oriented world), and I am wondering what will happen when his friends in the farming and various industries tell him that with 20 million illegals being deported some of these businesses and industries may collapse. I mean the guy may build a wall and have his ICE officers look tough in front of the cameras, but he won't stop the diversification of this country (which will make USA, UK and Western Europe look like the Balkans or Brazil for centuries to come), he always will have an ear for his rich friends, and he won't transform news outlets, social media, schools, corporations, the judiciary, etc.

In the best case scenario, you will have less wars in the four next years and a big, beautiful wall in the border with Mexico, but you shouldn't expect anything else to change in this country. Inequalities will keep rising, media outlets and social media will keep brainwashing the youth, higher education will make US population older (like is already doing in Europe, where Italians are the nation with the most diplomas and with the less kids), the judiciary will be controlled by the two major parties, our planet will become warmer, dirtier and less habitable year by year.

Elections make many Americans feel better (through releasing some of the anger they have been experiencing), but nothing will get better till we see a real/big revolution in this country and/or in the world. MAGA is not a revolution. MAGA is just a trend to release anger and keep life going on, till the day when the real problems will become irresolvable and will hit all of us in the face.

The lesson:

Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha.

I saw that June debate between Biden and Trump and to tell you the truth I saw Joe being too old, but I sympathized with him for the reason that Joe Biden was putting effort to answer the questions of the journalists, whereas Donald Trump was not answering any questions.

Kamalahaha believed that "kindhearted democrats" need good vibes, not answers. That was a big mistake and I hope Pelosi, Clooney and Kamalahaha fire themselves from the Democratic Party, cause they will be complicit in this crazy comeback of climate-change deniers, gun-loving, god-fearing, republicans.

Stop blaming middle-class Americans for this ugly outcome! Democrats should blame themselves and their corporate media only. One of the very few things I came to agree with JD Vance is that corporate media are the biggest threat to American democracy on this day.

I believe that too. In Europe people should understand that it is matter of time till they get divorce from the US. Trumpists are isolationists, but a diverse (democrat led) America will also lose its interest in Europe and Middle East. If that won't happen, then it will not be normal & democratic at all.

Just being supportive to Palestinian-Americans (and human dignity in general) who aren't going to vote for Democrats this year.

I would love to vote the Green Party, but in NYS we have only two parties in the ballot and makes me wonder: why should it be this way?

Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly).

God, help us with these politicians! (Praying, I guess, is the only thing I can do now :confused: )

In this article you can read the reason why I decided to not vote this year:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/palestinian-us-friends-job-opportunities-humanity-gaza

The fact that you give him a pass while criticizing the Democratic ticket, and yet claim you care about climate change, shows how unserious you are — or how fake. The choice is clear for anyone truly concerned about that issue. Should take about 10 seconds. — Mikie

I wish they win, not because I have high hopes in them, but I do fear Trump may make things worse.

However, I think Democrats' strategy is not working. They are trying to be appealing to the majority (people who don't want the second amendment to change, people who don't want to make sacrifices for the environment, people who think USA should stand by the side of Israel, etc.), but in this way Democrats will lose the support of grassroots groups: those who want to end the war in Middle East right now (mostly American Muslims), those who take environment seriously, those who want stricter gun laws, etc.

I am afraid that in their attempt to sound moderate, Harris and Walz will lose support among some groups, and they will try to stick with an economic plan that does not sound popular to the majority (middle class) they are trying to appeal to in other ways.

So, I wish Democrats had taken the opposite route: they didn't stick with that "opportunity economy", and they were radical on things like gun control, environment, and ceasefire now.

November 5 will show whether I got everything wrong.

That conclusion from JD Vance was a masterpiece tonight!

I am very frustrated with a democrat candidate who supports more local oil (Harris), and a vp who was an NRA supporter (Walz). I don't know why should I vote them.

I am just glad that Vance did not refuse global warming; he even blamed democrats for not having done enough with renewables :rofl:

I live in a state (NY) governed by the democrats the last 40 years or so, and I just see the mentally ill and the homeless increasing in numbers every year.

So, living in a progressive town, I can't help wondering: how is it possible for these people to defend progressive taxation, all kinds of handouts to single moms, to never stop attaching "tax the rich" stickers on every car and window, and at the same time these (progressive) people will propose nothing about the mentally ill and the homeless who increase in numbers every single year?

Seeing how the homeless and the mentally ill are becoming more and more (making this town look like taken out from a zombie movie), I can't help thinking that the problem will not be taken seriously by the democrats for the simple reason that democrats cannot classify the mentally ill as a voting bloc. So, they are deaf to their plight for the reason that whether you help or you do not help a mentally ill person, he/she won't vote for you. In contrast, the democrats have an ear for struggling single moms and students burdened with stupid debts, because they see the latter as voting blocs.

D) a 78-year old former United States president — Mikie

That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people?

He used to be advised by Ivanka and Jared when he was in office, but now I am not sure whom he listens to. (If I remember well, when he was president there were a couple of times when Ivanka made him deactivate his Twitter --but I am not very sure on this).

Three days before the presidential debate, a columnist in The Guardian wrote that Trump is so sure about himself that he won't bother to prepare for the debate with Harris. I laughed when I read those things, only to find three days later that the columnist was 100% right.

Maybe it's their right to do so.

To tell you the truth I think we will be better without Trump. But I do worry for our journalism. Turning Kamala into a hero overnight, crediting her with qualities she does not have, etc., will turn people away from liberal media outlets. These media do not sound serious or sincere every time that election approaches. There is a bigger probability to read something negative about Trump on conservative media, than reading something negative about Kamala on liberal media. The latter are really making Trump look like a victim in the eyes of millions of people.

I like to listen to NPR in my working hours, but its producers can't stop promoting Kamala and insulting Trump. They even called a psychology professor to explain Trump's narcissism. I wonder if someone would have paid that professor to explain Kamala's negative traits, how easy would have been for him to invent some "psychological science" on Kamala also :grin:

NPR is supposed to be a public radio, but since August it has become like another democratic parrot. With this kind of daily coverage, many public and private media will keep making people suspicious that this country is really controlled by the democrats and anti-Trump billionaires.

Most of the liberal media (viz. the majority of the US media outlets) have found nothing wrong with Kamala the last two months, and they won't bother to fact check her. The same media are implying that the election has been already decided from the presidential debate on Sept 10th, though very little substance was seen on that debate (i.e. Trumps' constant rambling on immigrants, Kamala's strong support for cheap groceries and US made oil, and the candidates' views on Israel & Ukraine.... all other issues were left to the imagination of the voters).

The guy who lost his job because he called Trump incompetent is now saying that Kamala may be even more incompetent lol

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/trump-likelier-winner-unless-harris-tackles-two-failings-says-ex-ambassador

With regard now to what are you saying about eliminating overtime taxes, it seems that you have missed the point. The point is not preserving inequalities, the point is making people to work more.

A Green New Deal promised by the democrats would have brought more jobs and innovations to the USA and to the whole world, but since the democrats spent more money in covid relief and armaments, the only countries that have really seen some kind of green/electrical revolutions lately are China and South Korea. Harris seems to have totally forgotten the democratic green hive of the previous elections and her only pledge about improving economy is to help single mothers with the groceries.

Kamala started very poorly, but she was the winner tonight.

Her "opportunity plan" is a disaster in the making (a big blow to the already tortured middle-class Americans). Nonetheless, since Trump did not offer any other plans apart from deporting immigrant slaves, she had a greater appeal.

The big loser tonight was ABC News. That Fbi report the journalist mentioned, about lower crimes on national level, is a total bs if someone keeps in mind that liberals tend to make legal many things conservatives make illegal (so when you legalize cannabis and abortion you definitely may have 40 million less "criminals" in the whole nation). Definition is also the reason why US looks much better than Europe when it comes to corruption (cause in some European countries if a mayor receives a sandwich from a voter that's called corruption, whereas in the US you may receive millions in donations and you may be considered the most ethical mayor). In short, Americans do not care what Fbi and Abc will report. For as long as they see armed robberies and murders in their towns, they do think that crimes are a serious problem.

Thanks to ABC bad journalism and Trump's irrelevance, too little attention was paid to Kamala's "opportunity plan" (that as I said here is not directed to the middle class, but to the poorest people and single mothers). Urban living, farming, life expectancy, food industry, general health issues, labor ethics, AI, education and infrastructure were not mentioned at all. Crimes were not taken seriously by the ABC. The national debt was not mentioned, whereas on environment Kamala Harris said the biggest lie: i.e. Joe Biden and she have spent trillions on stopping climate change, when the truth is that they spent 3 trillion on covid relief, they passed a bill of 800 billion on infrastructure and to this day less than 20% of that bill has been invested by the US government. Surely, the ABC journalists did not bother to fact check Kamala's big lie tonight. She even promised to produce more local oil.

I won't bother to vote, but it would be unfair to blame only republicans or democrats if this country becomes less democratic and less thriving. A lot of blaming should go to our journalists as well.

By the way, in UK there's no limit how much to give to the parties, but there is a clear limit on what the parties can do with all that money. This is why many won't bother to donate in UK lol (cause they know that 70 million are enough for palm cards, billboards, and this kind of stuff).

https://qz.com/1743234/the-three-main-differences-between-us-and-uk-elections

So now, I come with this question: let's suppose that we know the people who give X money in the US, what do we know about the way X money is used?

Can Pier Morgans, to take an example, receive X money in order to write a good article about Trump? Another example: can Kamala use D money in order to pay "volunteers" to attend an event?

These laws against foreign inference in US election make little sense in a country that spent 7 billion in 2016 election campaigns. We are 6 times bigger than UK, but in 2016 we spent like 100 times more then UK in electoral campaigns.

The biggest problem in this country are the money from NRA, Oil Industry, Pharma, all kind of CEOs, the Zionists, and so on.

It doesn't make sense anymore to vote for candidates who take billions from people you and me do not know at all. The only thing we know about the "legal" billions is that they come from US citizens (though their hearts may belong to Izrael, to Texaco or to some utopia).

If democracy has a circus, USA is that circus nowadays.

And most of your claims amount BLM, etc., are straight from right-wing media. Worth analyzing. — Mikie

That's true. But, as you say, some claims need more analysis (before you dismiss or approve those).

I don't wish Trump to win. Another thing that bothered me back then was that almost all of his family members became advisers in his Oval Office (that really made this country look like Saudi Arabia). Even fanatic Republicans were bothered with the culture Trump brought into the White House. Clint Eastwood, to mention one of them, got really nuts when Trump posted those Goya-cans pictures from the Oval Office lol

Anyway, right now 36% of males in this country despise both parties. Kudos to them! It is time for independent minds to make their voices heard. They should leave behind the notion that the least bad is the best choice for independents. Cause none can predict the future, and what you make the least bad right now, in the future it may turn into the worst choice.

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/featured_data/young-men-distrust-both-parties/

Independent men and women who still care for this country should push for judicial and electoral reforms. I do hope that judicial and electoral reforms may make us less independent on the two major parties. Reforms may help both republicans and democrats, also, to become more sensible and less Machiavellian.

As hinted to, many institutions and standards in the US (I am adding UK also) for a few centuries were based on (unspoken/unwritten) conventions. But we see a cultural/mental shift in the US (and UK) lately --and for this reason reforms are becoming indispensable. Nothing should remain unwritten and unforeseen anymore.

You might be right about Trump, but after Biden's victory all BLM protests in the US stopped and we got some peace from the fireworks craze. Since none in this country believes that black lives improved with Biden, the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks. These things may resume again if Trump wins and that's one good reason to not wish a Republican victory. Nonetheless, there is so much evidence that the democrats may be behind BLM, women, and Muslim protests. It is not surprising that the millions given to BLM & diversity issues came from the same billionaires who sponsor the democrats.

Democrats pretend to be saviors and angels and for this reason they should not compare themselves to the Republicans. Democrats are supposed to abide by higher standards lol

Pledging 1.7 trillion to the very poor, as Kamala did ten days ago, turns the US into a kind of charity organization that gives without expecting any worldly things in return. It is not that I am against helping. Morally speaking I feel a duty to help the incapable. But here again you have some moral dilemmas: What vision do I have for a country where inflation is taken more seriously than climate change, wars and violence? Should we bill the future generations for misfortunes (covid and inflation) that happened to us? What kind of culture you create when you nourish a whole nation with the idea that for every hardship you can bill future generations with more debt? What is the best way to use debt? Is it better to invest in progress and development or to use it for food and leisure? Do democrats have any visions for our children and the future? If so, how they will materialize those visions if this country becomes bankrupt and people are encouraged to abstain from family and work?

In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. Their aim is to take power regardless of the means and the people they use. I decided to vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's ridiculous response to covid19 and, mostly, because Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it is morally advisable to vote for third party candidates or to not vote at all.

I’ve never heard one woman say that. — Mikie

You don't read The Guardian.

After the MeToo movement, there are many articles on The Guardian which supposedly show how (white) men have started a campaign of revenge against women. White & old men are taking revenge and punishing intelligent women (according to The Guardian columnists) simply because white men hate the truths and injustices exposed by the MeToo movement.

In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women and their anger towards women is an inborn thing that all women should be aware of:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo

PS: am I the only one to suspect that Kamala Harris and democrats are targeting single mothers with their 2024 ticket, and whenever Kamala speaks about middle class she doesn't mean American families/couples with median income and small businesses, but she speaks about single mothers (like those she used to advocate for when
she was involved into CA politics and activism)? If I am right in believing that democrats target certain groups in their 2024 campaign, aren't they therefore investing in divides in order to hold power? If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?

Gender division is one of the many gifts we got from the Democrats.

Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans, but that would not be a strong argument at all (since it is essentially saying that from birth men are inimical towards women, when I am more inclined to believe that all humans are born equal, unbiased and free, till they are manipulated by "educators" and politicians).

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/

It's easy to blame Republicans, since they had the majority in the Senate, in the last 40 years or so. But the problem seems to be the laws and standards pertaining to the judicial system.

Most of European countries do not appoint judges for life, but only for ten years. There are countries like UK where judges are appointed by some non-political commissions and countries like Germany, Spain, France, etc., where judges are elected by politicians BUT only if they get the 75% of approval in local parliaments/assemblies. So, in these countries there is only one way to become a judge: you should be almost apolitical, cause no party ever controlled 75% of parliament seats and the only way these countries can have judges is through wide consensus and through making sure that the judge is almost impartial.

From history books and legends this is what we are told: you can become a judge only if you are impartial. In the US judicial system that's not the case anymore.

There is always a hierarchical top to society where all the political power accumulates, and therefore, also pretty much all the wealth. — Tarskian

This notion was widespread among French, Italian, and Austrian economists and social theoreticians at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of these theoreticians (though not their fault) became popular among fascists, nazi, and communists, who took for grounded that societies always are hierarchical/patriarchal/dominated etc., and for this reason the solution is not to go against a natural trend/inclination of humanity (they thought democracy and liberalism were doing that), but to choose the last worst outcome through placing the group who deserves it the most at the head of these ("inevitable") societal hierarchies.

I don't know what's going on in Asia, or wherever Tarskian lives, but the USA seems to be more a chaotic kind of society, than a well-thought hierarchy.

We have a poor class in this country that may decide who will govern in 2025 and can hope in some money (through tax reforms) to be transferred from the rich to them. We have single mothers who have become Kamala Harris' primary target. We have the zionists who take every congressman to travel to Israel and "see" what perfect democracy Israel is. We have NRA which organizes gun festivals in evangelical churches, and at the same time is in big love with Israel and whoever pays well in the Middle East. We have SCOTUS. We have Elon Musk who takes money from Obama in order to save the US from carbon emissions and then gives Trump 45 million a month (though the latter wants more carbon emissions). We have media outlets, the Catholic Church of America, BLM and LGBT groups.

At this moment the zionists and NRA seem the strongest groups in Washington DC. But in other circumstances, you may see other groups to exercise more power. So, I am more eager to believe that this country tends to be chaotic (like most of the countries in this continent), more than hierarchical.

Whoever wins, this country needs to reform its outdated judicial system. Americans take very seriously the thoughts of the founding fathers, but Europe has developed a much more functioning judicial system due to the interruptions/failures of European democracies in the past (something that has not happened in the US so far).

It is a shame that in the US judges and district attorneys are party candidates or independents supported by parties and billionaires like George Soros, when democracies are supposed to have three independent branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Since in the US the judicial branch is not independent from the executive, US justice is flawed and divisions have become more difficult to heal.

It is a shame also to put the blame on the Republicans (who control SCOTUS) only, when the real problem are the laws and standards pertaining to the US judicial system.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/how-european-countries-create-ideologically-balanced-courts

No doubt he is stupid and very anachronistic (in order to balance the cost of foreign tariffs, he thinks to reduce the prices of local energy, through making coal and oil cheaper, at a time when the rest of the world is trying to free itself from carbon emissions and countries like South Korea and China are leading all other nations in batteries and electrical devices), but Kamala is not better.

Price gouging is not coming only from big companies, is coming mostly from small and medium businesses. Many of these businesses will close or file for bankruptcy if the government tells them how to limit prices. (Walmart and Amazon will profit again.)

This is going to be a very difficult election. You have to choose one of the two extremists. The one is the extremist of the rich and evangelicals, the other the extremist of the poor and identity politics.

If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.

By the way, why every time I open Youtube I see ads from democrats only?

I just removed my party affiliation with democrats, and I never plan to vote climate-change deniers (republicans), but I am just trying to better understand how democracy works in this country and within the social media. This is why I am asking about Youtube.

Thank you.

For me no big difference between democrat politicians and republicans, apart from appearance (republicans dress and look trendier than democrats, democrats are better orators).

Trump reduced taxes in order to satisfy his voters. Harris says she will give handouts to those in need. Is it not the same thinking, with different targets? Trump targeted businessmen and self-employed people, Harris is targeting those in need, mostly single mothers and minorities (though she uses the word "middle-class" for promotional purposes).

In contrast with republicans, I believe in government spending and government intervention. But I don't see why there are no other ways of doing it, apart from just giving money to people.

Trump did that too (he told people "vote me, so you save money" and he kept his word). Most of my friends were happy for saving from their taxes during Trump's presidency, and Biden did something similar in a time of urgency.

It is not an accident that 2020-2022 coincide with the US cryptocurrency craze. Just from the people I know, I may tell you that many of these relief paychecks ended up in crypto investments (wasted money, which in one or another way our children will have to repay).

But you should see it that Kamala Harris is doing the same thing with Trump: vote me, so I give you money. I, Kamala, speak about USA and Americans, but in the way and in the moment I do it, I don't care for the future or the role of this nation, I just want you (my potential voter) to know that money is coming for you.

We have some moral dilemmas now:

Should the voter consider money and personal benefit as the foremost criterion in casting his vote? Democrats and republicans will say yes. (Truth does not matter to them.)

Should our generation borrow money that the next generation will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say yes. (The only future they know is from one election to the next.)

How should we use the money that our children will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say these money should be used in the way that satisfies best those voters which brought us to power. (Again, the only future they know are those periods from one to the next election.)

To conclude, we are not talking only about debt and sums here. We are talking about the morality of doing politics and spending money in this way. You don't blame your neighbor who takes a loan to upgrade his old house and buy a car, but you will definitely blame you neighbor if he takes loans to pay sex-workers, buy drugs, go to see Dubai, etc. In this country so much money is paid, but the results are poor and some people will always pay the bill (without a detailed receipt). I can't vote republicans when they reject science, but I have lost faith in democrats too. Either they have to be frank with Americans and tell them some big sacrifices are needed to save our country and/or the whole world, or they just will keep satisfying their voters every four years and always will blame their opponents for that never-happening-revolution.

Democrats promised 6 trillion for Green New Deal. So far they have invested less than 20 billion in the green new deal, gave like 3 trillion on covid relief only, increased the US public debt to 35 trillion, plan to give 1.2 billion for student loan forgiveness and I heard Kamala Harris today stating that she is going to give 1.7 trillion in middle-class handouts (though I know very well she wasn't referred to me with "middle-class", but to her potential voters).

I am wondering who are more stupid now, those who vote for Trump or those who think that the evil in this country may come only from the "far-right", but never from the left?

I stand for social justice, gun laws and environmental protections (things that Trump never takes into consideration), but if Democrats bankrupt this country the only sure thing is that progressives won't see any of their plans/dreams realized, and they will deserve to be blamed for failures which they often use to charge their opponents with.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13751313/Kamala-Harris-rolls-economic-plan-1-7-TRILLION-handouts-bungles-revealing-ban-grocery-store-price-gouging.html

It seems that on the NYS ballot will appear only two names: Trump and Harris.

Jill Stein will not be on the ballot. RFK Kennedy is still fighting his way, but I don't think the guy has any good qualities. He is in the center of all bizarre stories: he had wombs in his brain, he dumped a dead bear in Central Park, he seems to have a taste for roasted dog meat, and his wife committed suicide (maybe she couldn't bear living with him anymore).

It has become very hard to find any good politicians nowadays. The more mediocre, weird and stupid one is, the bigger the probability he considers himself the center of the universe and (as a result) he wants to become the next president.

How is Musk's behavior explained?

The most educated people in this country buy his very expensive Tesla cars, and Elon Musk says now that he is going to give a 42 million check per month to a climate change denier. :vomit:

Any comments on JD Vance's philosophy credentials? :gasp:

I heard he studied philosophy. Will be be a philosopher king? :rofl:

Funny fact: I met a girl on a dating app and she deleted me after I wrote those things about the Democratic Party lol So, I don't blame you for considering untenable those views.

I just follow some kind of "economical thought processing".

Although I know that I was born a prodigy with very high IQ and gifted stature, same as Don the Clown, and if I wanted I could become Schopenhauer, Einstein, Michael Jackson, Leon Messi, Rocky Marciano, Shakespeare, and so on, life taught me that the whole universe (out of jealousy, surely :) ) would conspire against me.

Hence, though I never doubted myself (for the sake of this debate, you know) I found out that (because the whole universe is jealous about me and about Hillary Clinton) there's a hope that I may achieve a couple of things in this life, but not everything.

That kind of economical thought processing seems totally absent among Democrats and this thing has started to make me suspicious about their intentions in general. Democrats want growth, equality, peace, free education for all, reforms, gun control, better infrastructure, general welfare, thriving American families, women rights, trans rights, Muslim rights, Natives rights, technological progress, control of the space, etc. etc. and their ever expanding list of "priorities" makes me sometimes ask if these people are serious or they just create as many priorities and needs as they can in order to appeal to all those groups who take these "priorities" seriously.

Lately I have started believing that it is a leftist tactic (around the world) to imagine as more needs and problems as you can in order to make more and more people feel that they need to be protected by the leftists. So, if I travel to Luxembourg or San Marino and see how different these countries are from the US, I am sure that a 10 mins talk with a Luxembourghian or Sanmarinian leftist would instill in me the feeling that in Luxembourg and San Marino people have the same problems like here in the States. But that feeling, I insist, will not come from what I see and experience there, but from a political discourse that sounds the same among the politicians around the world.

Though the left traces its history in those workers unions who fought for the working classes in Europe and US, we see how the change in living standards and working ethics has made leftists change priorities as well. It is hard to attain today that leftists care more about EU/US majorities than right wing politicians, for the simple reason that the leftists will keep talking about poverty and working conditions, even though in the 21st century labor has been radically transformed and poverty is not as widespread as it used to be in the beginning of the 20th century. Democrats want to speak about the poor and the rich, forgetting that 70% of people in this country are neither poor nor rich.

But I think I know why they do it now. Most of the people in this country do not care to vote at all and in these circumstances both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that they may keep power through appealing to the few, not to the many. If they really cared about majorities they would set a couple of priorities that majorities seem to care (like crime, inflation and infrastructure) and they wouldn't invent so many needs and priorities.

I lost faith in Democrats when they gave people 3 trillion in covid relief, but they could afford only 800 billion for the infrastructure. They put the blame on the Republicans for that too, but this absence of economical thought processing among the Democrats has started to trouble me.

Is anyone considering Jill Stein in this forum?

A few years ago I was thinking to register with the Green Party, but then listened to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and came with the wrong opinion that democrats will fix this country and the whole world (which would follow the US example of Green New Deal).

Now, I have been convinced that the only difference between democrats and republicans is in words; they just use different vocabularies and do the same exact thing (rewarding whomever supports/votes them, with federal money).

Should I consider Stein now or is she another traditional politician whose only concern is to get sponsors and to reward only the people who vote for her? Will her name appear on the ballot in NYS?

Roevember is coming! :victory: — 180 Proof

This was the most funny part. It sounds like an abortionist revolution being cooked behind the curtail lol

With regard to the other things you said, the only difference between genders in my view is volume, nothing else.

Democrats are right in saying gender does not matter, but they are wrong in using gender in order to gain votes (and they are wrong in implying that genes do not matter as well). History and science can verify that only volume divides the genders, but in the case of genes, that's a kind of prohibited debate at this moment. In the future maybe people and scientists will feel more free to discuss genes.

If my mother is great with numbers and my father great with words, and I am great with numbers too, but weak with words, then there's a big probability that I took after my mom's genes. Schopenhauer, also, loved his dad and hated his mom, but I guess he got his love for the letters from his poetical mom, not from his entrepreneur dad (from the second he inherited enough money to become a great intellectual).

Women and men long for the same things, but with different volumes. A woman may think about sex 12 times a day, a man 270 times. A woman may want to pull the hair of the woman who takes her husband, a man may want to kill that who touches his wife. There may be many women who have higher IQ than Kant or Einstein, but the reason why these women will not become Kant or Einstein in my view is volume (or call it will). Though these women may have enough brain cells, intelligence and skills to become Einstein, if they don't do so, then they somehow lack that "male volume" or "male will" which enable many men to annihilate their egos in order to achieve their goal/task.

That's my view and that's what brain science seems to support. Female and male brains work the same, but male brains seems to consume more energy always ;)

Since we are in the election discussion, I wish to add something.

I have been surprised with CNN, the Guardian, NY Times and a few liberal outlets that seem to have forgotten what they used to write about Kamala Harris just three or two years ago. Whereas three years ago all these outlets seemed to agree that something is really wrong with Kamala Harris (she had a few scandals in her office, she was eclipsed by Biden, she made gaffes and there were times none knew her whereabouts in the White House), now all these liberal outlets post only positive things on Harris and do not make any references to their own old posts about her.

Does any democrat here feel good with that? I mean it seems as CNN, The Guardian, NY Times, etc., have forgotten their older articles on Kamala Harris. Is that normal for you guys or is just the way journalists use to do their work?

(I remember well, by the way, in 2011 when The NY Times ran an article were some Syrians praised ISIS for doing better work in their town than Bashar Al-Asad!!! Just six months or so after that article, I heard again about ISIS. This time isis invaded Iraq and started making videos with human heads being cut. So, I guess that ISIS article in the NY Times, in 2011 or 2012, was a good example of never being enthusiastic about the people these outlets will praise. I better wait to see Kamala in her debates with Trump, before deciding if she deserves my vote.)

I'm an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you the education system was not designed for boys. I incorporate a lot of breaks throughout the day because I know my boys need to get up and move. I've been criticized for this my whole career. I'm told I should teach "bell to bell", but I'm tenured, so fuck those people. I do what I want. My school even banned football, because it led to fighting. I let my boys do it on the sly. — RogueAI

,

Very interesting. To the best of my knowledge there is one single country in the western world that has accepted that "traditional elementary schools" are failing boys and that country is Finland. Finland, to the best of my knowledge, is thinking seriously to make a few reforms so that elementary schools will stop failing boys.

So, I think right from the start, boys sort of know the education system is biased against them. But before I go any further, I want to see if you agree with me that support for someone like Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained. That to a "normal" person (however we define that) someone like Trump is loathsome and reviled. — RogueAI

I see your point here. Although a leftist, I do not agree with all the ways democrats have chosen to keep power and I have seen so many times that they shift priorities after they come in office. I am a green-new-deal supporter (in general, not in every detail), but I saw how Biden administration did nothing in that direction, I saw how black lives did not improve within four years, and I saw that gun violence did not fade. So, I support some democrats, but I consider it really weird when some young women ask me what I think about Trump, before they make any other questions. That really makes me ask if I am living in George Orwell's 1984, where everyone uses newspeak and is brainwashed time after time :) And Orwell, to the best of my knowledge, was a leftist too, but he was courageous enough to see how ideology may take a turn towards the darkest sides.

Since I vote democrats (sometimes) for a few causes I consider good (not for all the causes democrats say are good), I personally would never mock a person for voting Trump (cause I don't know all the reasons why he makes Trump important, as he doesn't know all my reasons for voting some democrats).

But we are living in strange times and the strangest of all things is having so many young people to believe that other people will love and educate them better than their own families.

Good point Rogue Al, but I think is true for certain countries. In the US the suicide rate for men is four times greater than for women (biggest difference in the whole world I think). In Asia and Africa there are countries where the suicide rates between men and women are different and there may be a few countries where female suicides slightly surpass those of men (maybe Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, but I am not sure on this).

Lately, I have started thinking that something might be really rotten with schools and social media. It seems that females and males are targeted differently by education, models, ads, electoral campaigns, policies, etc., to come to this outcome where a brother may be "far-right" and his sister "anti-fascist".

I respect people's choices, but someone needs to convince me that gender should play a role in this. From history books I know that certain cultures had different rules for women and different rules for men, but I also know that communist and fascist regimes (and all religions) had equal support among women and men, insofar as both women and men were "educated" properly by these regimes.

I saw some "far-right" protests in the UK today and their "anti-fascists" responders, and it was like here in the US: the "far-right" protesters were 97% white males, and the "anti-fascists" a mix from all the rest, with white females included.

I read in The Hill a few years ago that 65% of girls in US high schools and colleges declare to be "progressive", whereas only 28% of boys do that.

This thing has started to trouble me a little, since in my family I know that we share similar opinions regardless of gender. We are all leftists and once upon a time I was the only theist/religious in my family, till that day when I became a copy of my parents: another proud agnostic.

So I guess I need to go back to high school in order to find out how come gender will have a saying on one's probability to be a democrat or a republican, a theist or an agnostic, etc.

Do schools nowadays (and/or social media) have more impact on young people than their own parents? I don't know how kids are brought up in other parts of this planet, but in Europe and US (which I know enough) I thought parents do not tell sons different stories from those they tell their daughters.

So it is a big puzzle to me how sisters and brothers do not think the same anymore. Are parents the real educators of their kids nowadays? I really can't imagine a mom telling her daughter Kamala is great and then telling her son Donald is great.

I made these thoughts when for a couple of days I didn't use the cell-phone and pc at all. I was walking around the town, in parks, etc., and I started bringing memories and thought there are things I will miss one day and I won't be in this place with these surroundings forever.

It was a strange feeling of melancholy and spontaneity that I am not used to. But I do remember that when I was a little kid and teenager in Albania and Greece, I had these thoughts hunting me constantly. These fears, as hints, made me religious.

When I gave up all religions in my twenties, some of these thoughts and fears resurfaced. Now in my forties, I don't care at all and I should be very very sick in order to think seriously of death. I mean I can't think of death for more than 5 mins anymore, whereas as a little kid I was terrified of death.

Three things may explain this change:

1) I have changed with the years (it might be some kind of psychological or physical transformation in me).

2) In my forties I have gotten used so much with the idea of my mortality that it doesn't shock me anymore.

3) I have changed environment. Living in the US now has made me care more about daily routine tasks and care less about death. I mean, I know very well how much melancholy I feel when I visit places I've lived in Greece and Albania. The last time I went there, three years ago, I wanted to cry and I was asking myself how so many years had passed so fast.

On the one hand, (1) I know that I can't generalize things from my personal experiences. On the other hand, (2) I am starting thinking that maybe my new lifestyle in the US has changed me a lot and I might have become a person who cares less about death because in the US I am busy all the time, I don't have that love for life and people I used to in Greece and Albania, and so on.

If I am right about (2) then maybe this modern American life has a lot of saying on the way I perceive death, life, love, spontaneity, etc.

Truth be told, , religious fervor is in decline in the US and the western world. So, it is not only about me, you, and X person. It looks like a western trend of abandoning religions (don't focus on political debates and the use of religion for political reasons, but look the attendance numbers in US, UK and EU churches). The only path I can imagine back to religiosity in these countries is through replacement, i.e. if these nations and cultures are replaced by people/cultures who will bring new religious fervor.