It seems to me that Trump and his supporters say whatever people want to hear and whatever they believe gains them some kind of advantage, regardless of what's said is true, so the basic strategy is not to silence opposition but to control the truth or reality. — praxis

This is the reality. What suits them best are the facts. It's all just political rhetoric, everything. Talk about making your own reality.

A bit postmodern, don't you think?

What is wrong in having safety valves?

Having things to be little harder to change than just getting a simply majority (50%) is a good thing. Having written constitutions are good, but then again if you have a solid institutions in your democracy, it isn't so crucial.

On the other hand, you can have the all the legal trappings of a democracy, a Constitution, elections and a legal system, but if they aren't upheld, nothing matters.

Take the example of Liberia. It declared it's independence in 1847 and had basically 1-to-1 the Constitution of the US. But in reality power was with the small minority of those who were descendants of those freed slaves. And the democracy in the country was questionable. Then just one day in 1980 seventeen non-commissioned officers lead by a sergeant major walked to the Presidential Residence and shot the President and took power. Then he later staged fraudulent elections and was for ten years a dictator, which afterward lead to one of the nastiest civil wars Africa has seen with things like cannibalism and roaming child soldiers and overall anarchy.

I'll be interested to see how mid terms go. Trump voters are mad at the GOP leadership, rightly intuiting that they despise their "God Emperor." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh yes, their God Emperor.




I actually remember one true Trump believer using that name in 2016. Now he was a genuine racist (worried about the white race dying in the US) and living in a trailer (and not on this site, not even as a banned member). Yes, stereotypes have their actual living examples.

It's a religion for them. Or a cult (would be more proper). That people here are outraged at Trump and hate him gives them pride that their God Emperor did win the 2016 elections. They will happily jump in the "stop the steal" bandwagon for what it's worth. It annoys others, so they like it.

So it's a hijack.

The GOP doesn't need the Electoral College. They win majorities of House votes. The Democratic dream of minority votes surging against the GOP has never materialized, and by the third generation, new immigrants are far more attracted to the party. Their problem is that their loonies keep winning primaries, and their variously insane and racist messaging is killing them in national elections. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's actually quite typical. The most hardcore supporters dominate the primaries, which isn't in the favor of mainstream voters, especially those who can change the party they are voting.

And as we saw in Georgia, railing about fraud that hasn't occured kills your turn out. So a big upset could be on the way. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is the likely outcome, actually. People will just stay away from this loonie crowd. It's not like an angry movement will emerge from somewhere demanding "their party back"! Change will come in the way of people just forgetting past stuff.

Like Trumpism though, this can all be explained by the oppression of their base, the evil media, and voter suppression, clearly it couldn't be that they just aren't that popular and need to compromise... — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's a religion. And religions are a faith based issue. Not a fact based issue.

A good comment, @Count Timothy von Icarus! :up:

I think it's a silly mistake for Republicans to rally behind this guy still. But they're pretty much out of ideas, and they're afraid of those voters who still love the guy. They're really caught in a bad spot in this respect. All the better for the country, in my view. — Xtrix

The present situation in the Republican Party is...silly. Yet as said, the party has been hijacked. And of course it is true that there's still time until 2024 and much will happen.

US elections wouldn't be polarized dumpster fires if we didn't have such an incoherent and broken election system.

If we went via the popular vote, the GOP would have won one election in a third of a century. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And there's the reason just why it will stay like it is. At least if it comes to the GOP.

I think that’s a good start. — Xtrix

Civilian Climate Corps? Hundreds of thousands in this Corps?

What does it do? Would it do something that is already done with something other?

Or is this a rehash of the work relief program Civilian Conservation Corps given a new name?

Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030 — Xtrix

Sounds interesting, what is the actual plan?

So yeah, I get the distrust, I just don't think it translates into having to distrust vaccinations. There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence. — Benkei

And then we do live in democratic countries, where people can and will have their own ideas. Some countries more than others.

Even here in law abiding Finland, where of the population over 12 years old over 80% have gotten the first shot and 69% have gotten the second shot has been given to the majority of people. Yet even from the 65+ age cohort still just slightly over 91% - 93% have been vaccinated. So I guess that every tenth likely won't get a shot. The government has an objective to have 4/5 of the population having two shot vaccinations and rest there. To get higher, you would have to really forcing people to get vaccinations.

No one cares what this deranged imbecile has to say anymore. — Xtrix

The way I see it, there is a lot of commentary on Trump still in the media.

Plus the GOP seems to be hijacked by the "Trump crowd" ...or at least so it's depicted in the media. So Biden won. But it wasn't in the ballpark of Reagan winning over Mondale in '84 or Roosevelt winning over Landon in '36.



Has anybody seen signs of the political polarization going away?

Besides, what would be the reason why elections in the US wouldn't be dumpster fires?

Careful with the syllogism. Not that the computer, if it passes the test, is a person. It is that the computer is intelligent. — Caldwell

Even if it is so intelligent after all.

Start with current top notch datamining capability and computer recognition, lets say every comment here on PF and on other Philosophical discussion site (still, quite finite amount of discussion threads), then add a great English language program, and realistically you could have a program that would fool people most of the time.

And still it would be a simple ordinary computer program using algorithms "if....then" to produce the fooling. Nothing AI about it!

How to know that it's a stupid computer program? It's only as good as the human programmer has made it. Get the program to participate in dialogue that the programmer hasn't anticipated and soon you might find the flaws. The program cannot do what it isn't programmed to do. (Even if it has likely a mechanism programmed in it to do in this case ad hominem attacks, which would we a very human response).

My argument though will be that it is through the surplus created by agriculture that wealth was generated and as a consequence the early beginnings of the idea that those with power (strength in the main but ideas too) created the very early beginnings of the class struggle and the haves and have nots. — David S

On the other hand, with just hunter gatherers, there basically wouldn't be culture as we know now. Would writing and more advanced mathematics even be needed?

Yes, we can yearn for the Noble Savage who hasn't been spoiled by civilization.

Well, that civilization is our culture, so...

Myself I'm usually skeptical of beautiful looking young politicians, because it raises the question of just who picked them up and was it indeed their looks that got them to the place where there are now. They are in the same group with celebrities and athletes, who can have after their actual career settle for a political career. With women there have been some embarrassing failures, notably in the US when John McCain's team accidentally picked Sarah Palin for the Veep position. They were in a hurry.

Actually plain looking women politicians seem far more competent as there has to be a reason why they have climb the political ladder. Same is for the minorities: have they done something or have they been picked as to get the quota. The target group for young female politicians isn't actually middle aged men ogling at their looks, but the older generation of voters who finally decide they ought to give their vote for a younger generation. And why not to give the vote for that nice looking energetic young woman!

(The Iron Lady at the start of her political career. A woman leader who usually is totally forgotten when the issue of women and power is debated. Because...some actually didn't like her politics. Which in a way is good that she is judged by her politics, not by being a woman.)


(Another successful politician that obviously didn't get the vote because of her looks.)

I was just about going to post the video that @Praxis posted on the Trump thread on Marjorie Taylor Greene. Yep, she was happy when January 6th happened. So you have those women too.

So I guess we can agree that one's genitals aren't the most important reason to pick a politician. Far more is what the politician believes in and what he or she does.

So...

What do people think about Trump being the Republican candidate in 2024?

And what a wonderful happy time Americans would have again if Trump would be re-elected?

Certainly not news after the fiasco at Helsinki in 2018. Leak the kompromat, Vlad ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

After watching the whole press conference held here by Trump and Putin in 2018 is all that actually one needs to firmly understand that Trump's relationship with Russia was not normal. It wasn't a normal press conference between the US and some other country. It was more like Putin as Soviet Union would held a press conference with East Germany or a satellite state. It simply wasn't and isn't normal.

And likely some Americans will deny it forever.

Yet then there's the reality:



How about trying to change these statistics in the next elections? No seriously, this is a clear sign of the parties being out of touch of the people and quite complacent in sharing the power in the US.

Damn. Imagine getting to look at these women all the time as opposed to Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden. That alone makes it preferable. — Xtrix

American political parties should note that, actually. The hilarious issue is now that all the party leaders in the administration coalition are women, all the party leaders in the opposition are men.

As you know, they have to make it appear related to the budget to pass reconciliation, but these are real policies being enacted. — Xtrix

Having looked at the history of the so-called "infrastructure bill" or the earlier stimulus packages, I would look at where the money really goes in the end.

"Here's the reigns, bitches! Have fun!" — James Riley

Well, you would love the leftist-centrist administration here that we have, dubbed by the opposition "the Lipstick administration":

(Prime Minister and the leader of the Social Democrats in the middle. Other ministers in the picture are party leaders also:)

It does matter. Free community college, free child care, having Medicare cover eye classes and hearing aids, extending the child tax credit, creating thousands of charging stations, subsidizing clean energy, funding the IRS, etc etc— these are all very beneficial for the majority of Americans and the planet. — Xtrix

Again this is far more a policy and legal matter than something that could be solved by more spending. Think of universal health care that costs less than in present US. That would mean that also doctors would get a lot less. US Doctors are now paid the most in the World. The unfortunate issue is that there are too many who benefit from the current system and they have too much lobbying power. Overhaul of the system is a huge task.

If we closed loopholes, prevented stock buybacks, nationalized the banks that needed bailouts, taxed the wealthy at higher rates, ended the stepped up basis, implemented a wealth tax, increased capital gains taxes, ended tax havens, allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cut military expenditures, etc— there would be no deficit. — Xtrix

That would be the case. Yet I think you would simply need totally different political parties than the two you have now. I simply don't see it happening. And think Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism was partly right of how things are done. Of course it's not pre-planned as Klein naturally makes it to be (with the worst intentions, as usual). Only when the option to do as before simply isn't there, when the World hits a severe crisis, then drastic reforms will be made. But not before.

What those reforms will be in the end depends on the people: will they accept what the elite gives them or doesn't.

And it continues the same way when Republicans are in power, only on steroids' with a large dose of denial. — James Riley

The is a genuinely bipartisan policy. Of course where the spending goes differs a lot. Or how actually prudent an administration is.

It will be fun to try trickle up instead of trickle down, though, for a change. — James Riley

When a global pandemic hit and people were forced to close shop for a while, it's understandable. The real issue comes when the pandemic is over (or is the new normal).

Asking for a definition for the sake of clarity isn't asking someone to defend anything. — I like sushi

Well. let's see if you get an answer.

I don’t think you’re referring to the reconciliation bill. What I’m talking about includes measures for child care, climate change, and many other provisions that would be good for this country. — Xtrix

But it doesn't matter!

It can be infrastructure spending, spending to thwart the climate change, spending on health care or education. It doesn't matter.

You see, you have to understand how the US works. You have the most expensive health care system in the World that still performs extremely poorly by OECD-country standards when the whole population is taken into account. You have the most expensive education system, that indeed has the best universities around (the Ivy-league and so on), yet overall performance of the system is, again, poor. And it's very expensive. Something is simply wrong when you don't get the best effective service for the most money.

Shoveling money to a broken system won't help, because thanks to the political system you cannot make structural changes that could improve the basic situation. You could have free higher education, universal health care and likely have it cost LESS. But that simply won't happen. There isn't that political will.

Since you can just print the money (and the US is doing it now as other countries aren't buying that debt), nothing will change. There simply is no motivation for change.

Plus, taxes don't pay but a small fraction of our debt/deficit. We are the world bank (that is so long as the heavy-hitters trade on the petrodollar, and not barter or use some other form of currency; if they do that, we just sanction them or invade them). So, we just print money. That's what we've been doing all along. — James Riley

And that's my basic point. (Yet do note that your not the World Bank, your the biggest customer for the World. The US isn't financing the World.)

A large part of the US government spending is based on acquiring more debt (or to print money) perpetually. It's perpetual. There isn't any solution to this. No solution, no change, until a financial crisis. And it's silly for some to remind that the debt was as huge during WW2, but it was paid back, because that was totally different: consumption was cut, for example no private automobiles were produced and the whole economy was put to war footing that ended when the war ended. But now the deficit spending is about totally ordinary spending at normal times.

But as you said (just like Dick Cheney), deficits don't matter. Just note that the speed is increasing and the deficits are getting larger...

I don't know if it's true, but I'm entitled to my confirmation bias, aren't I? — James Riley

Likely Robert Reich is correct. But then, the show is continuing the same way under Biden too. Nothing will stop it now, especially after large direct money transfers to US citizens is becoming the new norm.

Yeah....but here's the problem:

Nationwide, it takes an annual income of $538,926 to be among the top 1%. Among the approximately 1.4 million taxpayers who meet this threshold, the average annual income is about $1.7 million

(US Today)

So I gather that the 1% of taxpayers then make 2,38 trillion dollars annually, right?

Well, just the budget deficit this year is somewhere like 2,3 trillion, hence NEARLY ALL of their income would go just to cover what is now put on the tab or monetized. That is before additional spending... And of course, try taking all the income away of every hundredth taxpayer.

I would ask anyone who feels a strong inclination toward Critical Theory to give an explicit definition/s of what exactly is meant by Power and how Power can manifest. — I like sushi

Good luck with that. Nobody hasn't actually defended the theory itself. The "defending" comments, if you can say there are those, usually make the point that those making a critique about the theory in the first place are just wrong (in so many other ways).

And let's remind ourselves that the vast majority of spending is on autopilot. Until that crash happens and some unhappy administration has to do "adjustments" to social security and health care.

For anyone still keeping up with this bill (arguably the most important news story there is), what do we think will happen here? A watered down version or nothing whatsoever? The clock is ticking. — Xtrix

How about seeing the forest from the trees here?

This all is simply a way to sustain the economy by more debt financing. It's basically a stop gap measure to keep a failed financial system afloat. The reasons for the spending are simply political rhetoric as everybody understands that ten years time goes well further than this administration. Politicians just give the most benign sounding reasons for the bill, then will typically haggle over the pork in the usual way.

It's similar theater as the debt-ceiling debate. Sure, perhaps the bill can get dragged on for some time, but sooner or later that spending bill, any spending bill, has to be put out. Otherwise the markets will crash.

The political reasoning: if markets crash > economic recession > very unhappy voters > democrats lose the next elections. That's the real motivation here.

What has to be understood that this will continue until a severe crisis happens. It is intended to be so. And the hope is that happens only after ten years or so.

Who was fighting a war other than the neocons? — Athena

As I said on another thread, also the hypothetical Gore administration would have gone to Afghanistan. And to respond to a terrorist attack with a military attack was something that already the Reagan administration had done. It's really, really difficult to think that Americans would have after 9/11. If Bush would have negotiated with the Taliban and gotten them to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, likely then he would have lost the next election. Even ironic is the Peace-deal that Trump made with the Taliban: they would immediately accepted such a paper in September/October 2001.

The issue never was what to do with Afghanistan. Or how to win...an insurgency of one's own making.

Anyway,can we have an agreement that trading is important to stimulate both the mind and the economy and the US failed to establish regional relationships that are essential to Afghanistan being a healthy country? Agree the problem is Afghanistan's economic and trading problem and its isolation from others, not Islam? Yes? — Athena

Let's remember that we are talking about Afghanistan.

Trade didn't even come to be an issue: trade and economic issues are mainly for peacetime. Not when you are fighting a war (and utterly losing it), you don't care about trade and the economy. These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches.

I'll just repeat myself, but I think it ought to be really looked at how absolutely dysfunctional the whole Afghan policy has been.

I think the real fact is that the US failed utterly to establish any relationship with the neighboring countries by simply not caring at all about these countries and their objectives. It is really no surprise that the US now does not have ANY bases in any of the neighboring countries (unlike Russia, btw). It has to operate from Qatar that is on the Persian Gulf. And because the Taliban had a safe haven in Pakistan (and Pakistan had nuclear weapons), the US was in a very bad situation strategically. And then it simply lost it's will, which was the final nail in the coffin for the "Westernized" Afghanistan.

Simply put it: Americans created their own narrative about the war and for the reasons to fight the war without any interest or thought given either to Afghans, Afghan internal politics or neighboring countries and their objectives. That's the real reason. And you can see it in the commentary now given by Joe Biden extremely well.

A war fought with so much hubris and self centeredness simply will fail.

Aristotle's logic is deductive reasoning. Science is inductive reasoning. — Athena

Math is considered to be science. You think all math is inductive reasoning?

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. Perhaps we could discuss why the west became a leader? We are dealing with Christians opposing science so how can we see them as the friend of science? — Athena

If I could add something to this. When it comes to science and scientific thought, either the collapse during the Dark Ages or the Renaissance of it later, religion isn't the sole culprit or reason. Yes, it is part of the reasons, but not the only actor. I would think that simply the in the first case the collapse and then a rebirth of a globalized economy is a far more important reason. Science and scientists, just as artists and engineers, need an economy where there is a demand for such highly advanced professions and enough revenue to pay for their services. A poor, regional economy that basically just survives won't create such highly specialized professions. There simply has to be those patreons and their wealth.

That the artists or scientists aren't killed as heretics is of course one issue....

I think here is a good interview about the issue of Critical Race Theory or what the problem is with it is without the Republican / right-wing hysteria. John McWhorter is one of those reasonable commentators daring to make comments about this.

Just to make the observation note that this isn't just your average flu epidemic.

It's not completely unsurprising: just look at the flu epidemics from the Spanish flu to the present. Add to the fact that medicine and health care has rapidly improved from the start of the last Century. Every other epidemic (pandemic) has had far less deaths with (with the exception of HIV).

Exactly. So it's a misleading statistic deliberately cited in terms designed to further the fear and panic. Yet you thought it a good idea to promote it. — Isaac

Someone that doesn't know or understand that there are far more Americans today than one hundred years ago has to go to himself or herself. It isn't misleading.

But naturally to some people you have to state the obvious.

Comes to my mind the calculation that there were 2,5 billion Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaurs that lived on Earth ages ago. Of course the species wandered around for 2 million years, so actually at one time there was roughly around the World 20 000 specimens of the dinosaurs living. (Just for comparison, there are roughly 55 000 grizzly bears today in North America today).

I assume that if (or when) the million mark is reached years from now, people will likely disregard it in a similar way...as being misleading. And why wouldn't they. That HIV has killed roughly 36 million people doesn't matter either.

Of course there are more Americans now than then. But I think the article you referred to was referring to other proclaims.

About 50,000 people die every day because of the effects of poverty. What massive global action are we taking to prevent those deaths?...oh yes..fuck all again. — Isaac

Absolute global povetry has gone down. But that naturally isn't the politically correct news to say. Especially for Americans.



And the reason why American aren't aware that things have improved in other places:

Another statistical mark reached by the present pandemic:

COVID-19 has now killed more Americans than the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic did, when roughly 675,000 people died.

By Tuesday, the number of COVID-19 deaths in the United States had passed 676,000, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

About 1,900 Americans are now dying in the United States every day, on average — the highest level since last March. A simulation model designed by researchers at the University of Washington predicts an additional 100,000 Americans will die of COVID-19 by Jan. 1, 2022, which would bring the total death toll to 776,000, the AP reported.

Yes, we should start with the conclusion we like and then keep changing our reasoning until we justify it regardless of any mathematics, evidence, or line of reasoning to the contrary - what a brilliant way to go about thinking over a topic. — Isaac

That's one way to justify your position. I'd say "Stop the steal" is here an even better example where the Republican politicians and lawyers that supported Trump hopelessly tried to bring some credibility to a crazy man's narcissistic impulses and his bizarre claims that the election was stolen. Anything goes that will make it at the present. With wild accusations you can seize the moment in the media, but it won't stand in court, literally in this case. Yes, obviously it's not science, but politics, but unfortunately even scientific discourse can be hijacked in this way.

Btw, making outrageous claims that won't hold up with longer scrutiny might be even the strategy when the audience doesn't remember or isn't interested to genuinely inform itself on the events, but just responses to the present day "outrage issue". Conspiracy theorists behave like this: when the outrageous isn't true and shown not to be true, you have already moved to the next outrageous claim.

That about the tactics. Yet in truth a large part of these issues where science "gets attacked" are basically political issues. Or simply put it: when our policies are justified by scientific observations, then, unfortunately, science gets dragged into politics. The obvious way to be against the implemented policy is to be against the scientific observations.

Science of course tries to be objective and the normative part (how things should be) isn't anymore so much about science but policy. And perhaps with the exception of creationism, which actually does inherently go against modern day science, usually all political sides do accept science. That is when science isn't made part of the so-called "Cultural War". And unfortunately again, it is. And that is very sad.

To show that the layman (assuming he's interested in being right) — Isaac

Quite an assumption to be made.

I would think the layman would simply choose the option that fits the closest to his or her Worldview in general. There being two or more opposing views means that the issue isn't a simple tautology and for the layman to hear about opposing views means that either the issue isn't settled or there is a sustained campaign to fight the so-called scientific truth for some reason.

Thanks for your answer, Baker. I guess we often have this ideas or stereotypes of how peaceful the Buddhists are. Of course one shouldn't forget that people in the end are quite similar everywhere, and if things go bad, people can be violent and intolerant to each other. And it's actually stupid in my view to argue that the reason is purely because of religion.

You mean the model of lògical positivism? — Thunderballs

Logical positivism is the philosophical school the promotes this thinking. It differs from positivism in that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation rather than personal experience. Hence the importance of the experiment, document, data. I would describe the school (and others may disagree) as positivists who put a lot of importance to the scientific method.

And of course that seems quite OK and fair. The only problem comes when people, as usual, take this to the extreme and start thinking that when you cannot make the scientific experiment, then those things don't matter so much. Or start to look for things that prove the (usually) mathematical model. Simply putting the cart (scientific model) in front of the horse (curiosity about reality) and then being puzzled how it's not going so well as the other way around.

I think what is meant that Bohr didn't address the Nature of reality anymore. It's that in which science, physics in particular, is (normally) interested. Instead Bohr had that positive "shut up and calculate" attitude. Only what we know matters. So he preaches. — Thunderballs

Well, basically logical empirism / logical positivism is that "shut up and calculate" attitude. Logical positivists put the data, the experiment, on a pedestal. At worst, it becomes a worship. The problem is that people can forget that it's just a model. In other words the model used starts to be the reality.

With interest I followed the thread on stupidity. Contrasted with intelligence I wondered. There is much ado about AI. But what about AS, artificial stupidity? Does it come along naturally in making AI? — Thunderballs

At least there is the stupidity of thinking that a basically totally classical computer program with just a lot of feedback loops to process gathered information is something different from the past, Artificial intelligence.

That stupidity, believing the hype, exists.

Do expand on how Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science. — baker

First question: Are there militant Buddhist extremists who attack people in order to defend their cherished religion?

If not, why not?