No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, made edits while you were responding. Covers some issues you have with it.
Well, I'm a leftist, so naturally I believe that using money on domestic spending to help people is preferable to spending money on bombs to kill people. That's like, most of what it means to be a leftist. I would like to think that this is the natural, base assumption, and that the argument in favor of military spending is the thing that has to be proven.
collapsed inline media
If you'd like, I could go on about the many, many domestic crises we're facing due to insufficient public funding, everything from healthcare to education to even basic infrastructure like bridges. Seems like a bit of a tangent though.
Ultimately, whichever position is "correct" doesn't really matter. If you don't address domestic problems then you're probably going to lose the election and then you don't get any say in what happens at all, which is, you know, what happened.
It's been like 80 years of unjustified conflicts that have consistently made the world a worse place before you can find any conflict where US bombs were actually used to improve anyone's life, including a twenty year long quagmire that we just got out of before this. Despite making things worse for everyone, pretty much every conflict whether it was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc were entered into with widespread popular support and they all had the exact same justification: that the other side was just like Hitler and they would keep expanding forever unless we got involved. It's a wonder to me that there's anyone who still believes in "benevolent interventionism."
Your arguments will require more nuance than "I'm leftist who thinks guns and killing is bad".
You don't think the world was better off after US intervention in WWII? Don't you think more lives would've been saved if the allies had been stronger sooner?
The defense of Ukraine is the most justified use of armament in a very long time.
As I said, that is the one, singular time in the last 80 years of war that military intervention benefitted anyone in any way. Every conflict is "the most justified use of armament in a very long time." Y'all just think you're special because you're living in the present and think everyone in the past was just dumb, it's hubris. Bush went into Afghanistan with like a 90% approval rating. There was near-universal agreement that the conflict was justified. 20 years later and millions dead, we have nothing whatsoever to show for it.
I was alive when that war started, and I was part of that 10% who never approved of Bush, and people accused me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I said I thought we should turn the other cheek. The same sort of people now call me a Russian bot or Putin shill for advocating diplomatic solutions now. But I was completely vindicated and they were all dead wrong.
It's funny that you can't help but turn to the WWII example even after I preempted it. It's because it's an easy, go to justification that you can just plop on to any war ever. If that's all it takes to get you to support a war, you would've supported Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Vietnam, and Korea. The historical record of "wars justified by pointing to WWII" is absolutely abysmal.
But sure, I'll grant that there are times when the use of force is justified, when you can make a clear argument as to how the average person will materially benefit from it. You can't do that with this war, except by plugging in the generic WWII line, which is bullshit now just as it always is. The reality is that quality of life is not very different between Ukraine and Russia, it's just a question of which group of capitalists gets to exploit people.
Again, I want to make the point that regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there are a lot of people who have soured on the idea of "benevolent interventionism" and on this conflict specifically. I'd also mention that I predicted Americans would eventually lost interest in the conflict and move on, as is happening now. We never had a real material stake in the conflict, Russia doesn't pose an existential threat, and Americans are easily excitable but have goldfish memories. Enthusiasm was always going to wane so unless the conflict was resolved quickly it was always going to result in a loss, and the only question was how long the meat grinder would have to keep running before people could accept it.
I'm impressed with how much you need to type to say absolutely nothing of substance. The comparison to WWII is there because it's the most apt, Putin even copy/pasted the same excuses Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia. So if you have a problem with the completely adequate comparison to WWII go complain to him or maybe just inform yourself on both conflicts. Otherwise your insinuation that this is no different from anyone else who was incorrect about their reasoning for war just ends up being empty garbage.
Americans at least had to get hit with 9/11 to go mad enough to start an unjustified war in Iraq, what's Russia's excuse?
"It's not an existential threat", do things need to become existential before you tend to them? What kind of brainlet argument is that?
Americans are losing interest in the defense of Ukraine because Russian propaganda is working its way through the smooth brains in the states. Nobody is surprised.
I never realized that Czechoslovakia had a coup which banned opposition parties, leading to rebels to seize control of the Sudetenland who then requested aid from Germany in the ensuing civil war.
Hubris. "Everyone else in the past 80 years who said the things I'm saying now has been wrong, but I'm obviously correct, because This Time It's Different."
It should at the very least give you significant pause, especially considering that the people responsible for lying the public into Iraq and Afghanistan not only faced no consequences for it whatsoever, but, in many cases, are the exact same people drumming up support for Ukraine. Fool me ~~once twice three times four times five times~~ six times, shame on me.
Missing the point. The point is, since it's not an existential threat, Americans aren't going to remain invested in the long term. And the war could go on indefinitely. In the face of that kind of stalemate, it's inevitable that Americans will lose interest and throw in the towel. So, we shouldn't get involved in what could be another 20 year long commitment like Afghanistan if we're not prepared to follow through, instead we should persue diplomatic solutions. The justification of the conflict is irrelevant, it's better to not fight a justified conflict at all than to fight a justified conflict for a little bit and then give up after a bunch of people have died. Or to put it a different way, a war cannot be justified unless it's possible to win.
Blah blah magic Russian propaganda. We have our own propaganda, there's no reason to think Russian propaganda would be so much more effective than our own, it's just a talking point and not a serious explanation.
You say this as if it justifies invading a country and they didn't go on to take the whole thing.
"People have been wrong in the past, therefore you're wrong now" You're the one failing to prove why Ukraine's defense isn't actually justified.
Call it magic all you want, the facts say otherwise. Look at my other comment for links with examples. If you can't see any reason our propaganda wouldn't be as effective against an authoritarian state that blocks sites like YouTube/Wikipedia then go read more or something idk.
That isn't "what happened". What happened was the public got played by domestic and foreign propaganda + some sprinkles of misogyny and racism.
Bidens admin was one of the best in a long time and was infinitely more productive than the orangutan could ever dream of being.
But because Biden was too stubborn to not go for a second term, Kamala was placed in a shit position with only 3 months to build a campaign/image, and despite her situation she still performed insanely well because she's also infinitely more competent and intelligent than the orangutan currently in the white house.
Voters are so fucking dumb and uninformed, that the most googled thing in a bunch of states on election day was "did Biden drop out?" Then they decided to vote for the old orange criminal loser, who tried to steal the 2020 election and a few weeks before was ranting on TV like a senile grandpa about the Haitians "eating the cats and the dogs".
Nonsense take. Biden dropped out because his brain was melting and it got to a point that nobody could reasonably pretend otherwise, he was also polling like shit, and both of those factors are why he dropped out. Three months is plenty of time to build a campaign, it's comparable to election seasons in other countries, if anything, it was more advantageous to Kamala for her to be able to skip the primary, especially considering how badly she did in the 2020 primary.
Conditions declined under Biden, in part due to a global wave of inflation that caused incumbent parties to be unseated in many elections around the world. Kamala failed to distinguish herself from Biden's economic policy despite the fact that purchasing power has declined, and followed his unpopular Israel policy as well.
Your narrative is heavily biased, it's designed to absolve democratic candidates of any and all blame and shift it onto the voters rather than looking at what actually happened. If the democrats fail to learn from their mistakes, they will keep making them again and again.
No idea why you're commenting on why Biden did/didn't drop out as I didn't even give a take on that. Fighting a ghost for no reason, but ok. For Kamala personally it was better that she didn't have to go through primaries, but it's worse for the Dems. Obviously.
Yes inflation was the #1 cause, which wasn't Bidens fault. US also recovered from the pandemic better than peer economies and earned the title of "economic envy of the world", thanks to his administration.
People got brainwashed regardless into blaming him for inflation. My argument still stands.
You're always injecting this stuff. I already said it was global inflation that caused other incumbent parties to lose. You're constantly trying to reaffirm your beliefs and it gets in the way of critical thinking and rational discussion. The goal is to see the world as it is, not stan your favorite politician.
People didn't get "brainwashed," jfc. Not everyone is an economic expert following global trends. People saw prices go up, so they got upset because the prices were higher. Not everything that happens is because of Russian propaganda.
And your argument does not still stand. As I said, Kamala failed to distinguish herself from Biden's unpopular policies.
Oh wow, yes my argument does indeed fall just because Kamala failed to "distinguish" herself in a rushed 3-month campaign from Bidens objectively successful administration. Makes sense 👍
No shit they're not economic experts, that's why they blamed Bidens admin, with the help of propagandists.
Again, you're getting distracted playing defense on points I already conceded. Jesus, it's hard to talk to people who are so partisan-brained. Even if I try to give you something you'll refuse to accept the gift, and then demand it.
Not everything I say is trying to paint Biden in the worst possible light. I'm not arguing that Biden singlehandly caused global inflation and every other problem in the world. I'm just trying to engage with reality as it is and not this hyper-partisan bullshit that says he can do no wrong and nobody could ever have a legitimate reason to disagree and everything is Russia's fault.
I'm not affirming what you think either lmao. I'm affirming what a large portion of voters were thinking. I'm also the only one here backing up my arguments with facts and polls, so I don't think I'll be the one not "engaging with reality".
You're doing it again omg 😭
I don't think what I'm saying is even registering because the hyper-partisan brain kicks in and has to defend your favorite politicians, even on points where they're not under attack.
It doesn't matter if "a large portion of voters" agree with your position if I already said the thing you're trying to convince me of.
Nobody is here defending favourite politians, you're just not saying anything of substance on this topic anymore.
I said, "Biden lost because of a wave of global inflation, and people aren't economic experts so they attributed it to him," and your response was, "No shit they're not experts, that's why they attributed it to him." Don't tell me things that I just told you.
You didn't say that voters were misled into blaming him for inflation, that's the difference between our statements, they're not the same. You're welcome.
Yes, because they weren't, because they didn't have to be. You're just randomly interjecting an unnecessary theory to explain why people were upset by things getting more expensive. People naturally get upset when things get expensive because, newsflash, people don't like paying more money for things.
But that's beside the point. Yes, your statement included another point, but it still contained the part telling me the part I had just told you. Don't do that shit, it's very annoying.
People can be upset and informed. If they didn't incorrectly blame Biden for inflation they might not be dumb enough to vote for the corrupt criminal rapist who tried to steal an election. And given that he won by a razor thin margin, a small difference in misled morons could've reversed the result.
Wait, are we talking about a handful of people being swayed by Russian propaganda, or broad segments of the population?
Feel free to estimate how many are swayed by Russian propaganda. It's been swaying results since 2016 and embedding itself further into minds since then. That seems like a lot of people over time if you ask me, definitely much more than a "handful" lmao
I'd estimate, maybe half a percent? Might be too generous.
yes, I'm sure the orangutan rapist criminal coup attempter won a second election just because of inflation and only "half a percent" being swayed by propaganda lmao. Might be too naive
Yes, because being an "oragutan rapist criminal coup attempter" doesn't actual affect the average person's life in any tangible way. Inflation does. Not hard to understand why he won, as they say, "It's the economy, stupid."
That's a super dumb take. He's made/is making a shitload of decision that negatively affect millions.
That's not what I said. I said that the things you mentioned about him don't affect the average person's life in any tangible way, not that his actions in general don't affect them.
Perhaps, if the democrats spent more time focusing on those tangible things and distinguishing themselves on policy and less time focusing on his personal character, they might have had a chance.
Was laying out project 2025 and January 6th not enough? lol they're just too dumb
January 6th is not distinguishing on policy, it's another example of focusing on character in a way that doesn't have any direct, material impact on people's lives.
Project 2025, Trump disavowed, and I don't recall democrats really focusing on specific points from it that would materially impact people's lives. Telling people to read a 900 page document that Trump claims not to support is not enough, no.
If you think that shitting all over democracy by attempting a coup and lying about the integrity of your elections "doesn’t have any direct, material impact on people’s lives" then you have brain worms. People even died to this shit. Families and friendships have been ruined.
Oh wow, I'm so glad that the serial liar "disavowed" it and then proceeded to install the minds behind project 2025 into government and speed-run the implementation of its policies.
Don't be disingenuous and obtuse. Nobody asked anyone to read 900 pages, summaries of the project were detailed all over the media and Dems/Kamala highlighted various points of the project. Again, if people were too retarded to take it seriously that's on them. They can eat the shit they ordered now.
Yeah? What percentage of the population?
Again, this incessent need for partisan moralizing. There was no way to prove to the American people that he was going to give government positions to the people behind it. I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him, you can stop constantly trying to convince me he's a Bad Man.
What we're talking about is not morality, it's the factual question of why Trump won. For that purpose, his character is only relevant insofar as it affects public opinion of him.
Which parts? I need specifics since you just tried to claim that January 6th was an issue that had a direct, material impact on the average American (lmao!) so I don't trust you to make that evaluation.
How is that relevant? How many lives need to be destroyed and how much does your democracy need to be damaged to bullshit and lies alone for it to be an issue?
I've only used his character and actions to highlight how manipulated and misinformed people have to be to still vote for him. That should be clear.
Go watch the interviews/campaign speeches and almost every article regarding the project before the election. There was no lack of warning about what was to come, anyone who was unaware either didn't care or was just another one of the misguided sheep. If you don't already think the damage done to American democracy on Jan 6th doesn't, by definition, have an impact on the average American then you have some other grave issue in your "philosophy". If you just don't care about democracy because you're some kind of brainlet tankie then RIP, waste of time.
Because you're trying to argue that it's something that has a direct material impact on the average person. Again, as always, you're getting distracted by moralizing, "This should be an issue" but that's not what we're discussing. The fact is, regardless of what people should or shouldn't care about, regardless of how bad a given event is or isn't, the fact is that people care the most about things that materially impact them or people they know personally. Inflation, therefore, is more important to the average person than January 6th, and if you go on and on about Jan 6 while failing to address their economic concerns, you will lose. Again, like what happened.
Again, it's not about what is important or what I think is important, you're getting distracted by moralizing. It's about understanding reality as it is. And reality as it is is that people care about things that affect them in direct, material ways more than things that don't, and January 6th had no direct, material impact on the vast majority of people.
You can whine all you want about how people "should" be more concerned about it, but all you're doing is railing against the realities of human psychology. It is what it is, not everyone cares about the stuff you care about, even if the stuff you care about really is genuinely important. You might as well complain about the laws of physics, maybe the universe would be better if the second law of thermodynamics didn't exist, but that doesn't really matter, because you can't change it, and, similarly, you can't wave a wand and get people to stop prioritizing their direct, material interests.
Understanding and adapting to what voters actually care about is what allows you to win elections which is what allows you to take power and address the concerns you have and keep the other side out of power. It doesn't matter what you think is important if you can't win.
You keep repeating this meaningless slogan as if we live in a world where morality doesn't exist or matter.
Agreed, not full picture though. Let me know in what way did Trump do a better job of addressing economic concerns given his already shit economic policies during his first term and his inability to communicate any meaningful plans.
But they don't genuinely care, because if they did they'd try to be minimally informed. It's all just based on emoting and slogans, It's all morons falling for braindead propaganda by bad actors.
Sure, but I'm not talking about anything related to morality. I'm talking about the way the world is and does work, not how the world ought to work. I'd be happy to discuss morality some other time, but when we're trying to understand physical reality, we need to be able to set it aside. But you refuse to do that. You aren't capable of looking at things objectively because you're always immediately trying to inject you opinions about how it ought to be.
He didn't do much, beyond positioning himself as an "outsider" as he does. Mainly, it was less than Trump did it right and more that Kamala did it horribly wrong. Inflation had had a direct, negative material impact on everyone in the country, and Kamala failed to distance herself from the Biden administration, which people assumed was responsible because that's when it happened.
And this is where you inject, "But Biden wasn't responsible," even though that's already been established and it doesn't really matter. People still made the connection and prioritized the issue, in both cases, because of how brains work.
Ok then, great, should be easy then. Just be a bad actor and get the morons to fall for your propaganda instead of theirs. Then you can get elected and address whatever concerns you like.
You can complain that voters don't care or aren't informed enough, but unless you have an actual plan to change psychology on a mass scale, you're just whining that the laws of physics don't work the way you want them to.
No, you're just trying to cleanly separate morality from real events as if this is a fucking video game. The moral fiber of politicians for example, is and should be a concern because it does have an impact in pHysiCaL rEaLiTy.
Oh really? was it Kamala that ranted about Haitians eating pets? danced for 40 min onstage to ave maria and ymca like a senile kook? She shouldn't have to distance herself from the Biden administration because the administration objectively did a good job. It's really hard for you to admit that people are just uninformed or misinformed by propaganda.
This is also another opportunity for you to realise that morality actually exists and is something to account for.
Even that statement is missing the point. "Is and should be a concern." You can be concerned about it all you want, but we're talking about how voters will and have behaved, and their behavior has clearly demonstrated that an insufficient number of people care about such things for it to be decisive. Should they care? I don't care whether they should care.
To clarify, sure, Trump's character has an impact on material reality once elected, but we're discussing voter behavior, which doesn't necessarily see that connection or care as much as they perhaps should. But how much they "should" care is an altogether different question from how much they do care.
Did those things have a direct, material impact on broad segments of the population? Maybe some Hatians faced more discrimination and were alienated, but that's a hell of a lot fewer people than were affected by inflation, so the impact it had on the outcome of the election was probably negligible.
And there you go again. Whether she should or shouldn't have to is irrelevant, you're drifting off into "ought's" again. Regardless of whether she should have had to, she did have to.
I already said that they were ages ago. In fact, I was the one who first pointed out that "a wave of global inflation caused incumbent parties in many countries to lose elections." You only assume I can't "admit" it, despite me explicitly telling you it, because you can't wrap your head around the fact that *even though they were uninformed, Kamala still failed to make the case to them." Again, unless you can wave a magic wand and cause uninformed voters to become informed, you're just complaining about how reality works.
I never said it didn't. What I said is that we have to be able to look at reality rationally and objectively without our preconceptions of what "should" be true getting in the way of things.
Also, I'm very confused about what you even mean by this or how it's in any way a response to what I said.
Yes, because they're heavily brainwashed by foreign and right-wing propaganda. Just waiting for you to finally concede this basic fact.
The fact that the candidate outed himself as a senile retard should have the material impact of shifting votes to the opposition.
And how exactly should Kamala distance herself realistically from the administration she herself was in? Do you think you can come up with some gem of an insight that all the top advisers failed to see? Cool
YES I AM. I'm not sure why you insist on pretending the current state of US politics is a normal reality that people are meant to just conform to, where you can still calculate what the right move is or isn't according to any kind of rules that make sense. It's completely fucked. Good faith politicians can't function normally in this dogshit environment where people think that random social media posts are a genuine substitute for real news, or spend their days listening to pundits who are literally paid by Russia.
THE WHOLE POINT IS HOW DISINFORMATION IS KILLING DEMOCRACY YES.
Sure, some people are, but the broader trend is people following their perceived material interests.
😑
I don't know why I'm bothering. It's always this "should" nonsense. It's completely irrelevant to understanding voter behavior.
It did not have the impact you want it to have because people vote according to their material interests, and Trump's various antics did not make them change their minds about which candidate was in line with their material interests. Because they were directly, materially affected by inflation, and not by "Trump dancing."
Of course I do. Those "top advisors" are the same incompetent morons that bungled the Clinton campaign.
You have to provide an alternative explanation to the right's narrative. When things are bad, people look for who to blame, the right tells them to blame immigrants, while liberals tell them not to blame anyone because things are fine, actually. It's no wonder people go with the narrative that actually tracks with their lives experience of material conditions. The solution, the way to answer the right's narrative, is to blame the rich, the billionaires who are hoarding wealth and price gouging and who were (in part) actually responsible for inflation. The democrats don't want to do that though because they would risk alienating their rich donors.
Even if they weren't willing to do that, Kamala was directly asked what she would do differently than Biden on the economy and had *absolutely no answer," which was an extreme political fumble. Saying virtually anything would be better than that. She is a terrible politician with poor political instincts, which is why she bombed out of the 2020 primaries despite being the frontrunner.
What I'm saying is that reality and the current state of US politics should be recognized for what it is. And it's impossible to do that if you keep injecting your ideas about what should be into analysis of what is.
Because you can. You just have to view things through a materialist lens rather than an idealist one.
I don't know why I bother. They didn't vote according to the REALITY of their material interests you dumbass, they voted according to their MISINFORMED INTERPRETATION of their material interests. WHY YOU ASK? Because the administration did objectively well MATERIALLY and NOBODY CARED. Trump is also OBJECTIVELY BAD for their MATERIAL INTERESTS, this is proven by both the FACTS of his first term and the DOGSHIT or NON-EXISTENT PLANS for his second term.
This is just a dogshit tankie take. Trump filled his cabinet with billionaires and was supported by the richest man on earth. Nobody cares about this "blame the rich" nonsense, evidently. It's clear that you just see everything through this trash tankie lens which is why it feels like I'm talking to a schizo. Hilarious that you genuinely think that you would've been better at coming up with a successful strategy for Kamala than people who do that shit for a living.
Ah yes, I know that in your world of non-existent morality this would've had an easy counter. But shitting on your current boss by making up nonsense about how he actually did things poorly (when he didn't) doesn't come easily for people who are more genuine/honest than you. Also, isn't the obvious answer to anything Kamala could say "why didn't you do/push for that policy as the vice president?"
I do recognize it as the piece of shit it currently is yes.
Engaging in and furthering the decay just to win isn't the way to go. Clear out the trash so that democracy can actually function. Ridding ourselves of this dogshit disinformation environment and returning to normal politics isn't "idealist", we've been there not too long ago.
I guess Bernie Sanders is a tankie now 🤣
I already explained this. When the options are, "You are struggling, and the reason you're struggling is minorities" vs "You're not struggling, it's all in your head, the economy's doing fine actually," people are inclined to listen to the narrative that tracks with their lived experience. If you want to actually compete with that narrative, you need another explanation of why people are struggling, ideally a simple one, and that's where a leftist narrative is necessary.
The idea of Kamala Harris being more genuine/honest than me is too absurd to even take offense at, it's just hilarious.
I guess you got what you wanted then. Kamala chose to fall on her sword and "do the right thing" and now you can pat yourself on the back for being on the side of the good guys while the right takes power and fucks up all the stuff you claim to care about. If we keep getting such "noble" people, then the right's dominance is assured for the foreseeable future. How important is stuff like Ukraine to you, really, if you're fine with that result? Seems to me you're fine with them being sacrificed as long as your side keeps it's hands clean.
Not that it would even "dirty her hands" to simply offer some kind of policy. The Biden/Harris administration was constrained by a divided government, she could've said they wanted to go further with stuff but were held back. Is that not the truth?
Also, for the record, my position is not that morality doesn't exist, just that you have to set it aside when assessing the world as it actually is.
Because the vice president doesn't have much power? Obviously.
Yes, we were there not long ago. And then we proceeded from that state into this one. Even if we could somehow return to that state, the root causes that pushed us into this one would still remain.
But you don't seem to have any actual plans for achieving the change you want in the first place. You just seem to want politicians to fall on their swords for no reason so they can be heroic martyrs and you can revel in your "correctness" about things. I guess I owe you an apology, when I tried to explain to you what could've been done differently in order to win, it was under the assumption that you actually wanted to. If you just want to whine about things not being the way you want them to, idk what to tell you, you do you ig.
If you're suggesting that she should've thrown Biden under the bus in her response, then it's not absurd at all.
Ah yes, all of a sudden voters are aware of the facts "oBviOusLy" lmao. Let's just pretend that whatever real or imagined failures of the Biden admin weren't successfully thrown onto her during the campaign. zzzzzzzzzz
It's more like “You are struggling, and the reason you’re struggling is minorities” vs the basic facts of how the country is actually performing and what actually caused inflation all over the world. Too many Americans are just too dumb and misinformed, that much is clear.
As I explained, she wouldn't have had to throw Biden under the bus, unless you consider "distinguishing herself from him in literally any way" to be "throwing him under the bus."
It was very easy to associate her with the real or imagined failures of the Biden campaign because she did nothing at all to distinguish herself from them.
Almost as if complex economic explanations either go over people's heads, don't reach them, or they don't believe them. I wonder if there's some kind of simpler, but also true narrative that would acknowledge people's struggles while blaming them on people much more responsible for the situation than random minorities. Something like, blaming the rich. But no, can't do that, because Bernie Sanders is too tankie for you.
Again, what is your actual strategy for addressing the problem of uninformed voters? I just gave you mine, yours seems to be "lose, but it's ok so long as you were right."
should be easy for you to give an actual example then.
No, it was easy because people are dumbasses and don't know basic facts like "the VP doesn't have much power". Again, she can't real distinguish herself much from her own administration if troglodytes aren't even aware of what a VP can or can't do. Trump literally just copy/pasted his critiques of Biden onto her and people ate that shit up lmao.
basic facts like how the economy is performing and covid caused global inflation is "complex economic explanations" now?
An example of her... not doing that? I already did, when she was asked in an interview what she would do differently.
Again, what's you're plan to account for people being dumbasses? If people are dumbasses, and you want politicians to keep running campaigns as if they weren't, then the inevitable result of what you want is that you lose.
Yes. How "the economy" is performing doesn't necessarily reflect on the average person's lived experiences as they watch prices go up and don't own enough stocks to really benefit from that. I don't recall Kamala ever actually bringing up covid as the reason for global inflation, which was probably smart doing so probably would've just increased covid skepticism, it would've played right into their hands. It's no surprise that the right was able to cut through that rhetoric by talking about the price of eggs and such.
I really feel like you're underestimating the challenge of communicating ideas to a broad population. Any message you want to communicate, you should imagine someone acting in complete bad faith trying to present you in the worst possible light and shouting over everything you say, because that's what cable news is, and it's also what political content on platforms like Twitch and YouTube are like, except then they don't even have to bring you on at all, they can go through clips and shit cherry-picking and taking things out of context. I can shout "YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY BECAUSE THE BILLIONAIRES TOOK IT" and that's a lot more likely to get through than like, "You don't have any money, but you could have even less money, and actually if you compare our inflation levels to the global median you'll see that it was actually unavoidable," which can easily be distorted and shouted down.
An example of how she could've distinguished herself successfully...
I'm not trying to present a plan. I'm trying to explain the sources of disinformation and how people were manipulated by them. The media environment needs to be fixed, but people have already been successfully manipulated into distrusting traditional media and trusting Russian bot farm accounts on Twitter instead. How to fix this environment now? God knows
I feel like I'm highlighting that, if anything.
I already did. She could've said that the administration wanted to do more about inflation but was held back by Republicans in Congress. She could've also pointed a finger at the rich and say that she would do more to confront them and stop price gouging.
Ok, well some of us actually do have ideas on how to win and haven't resigned ourselves to this defeatist martyrdom nonsense. So, like, maybe we should toss out your ideas at least for a while and give mine a try, since they involve a practical, coherent strategy adapted to the present situation which you have no answer for.
Like why on earth would I ever come around to your position if you can't even come up with a theoretical solution to the most important political questions of our time? If even you see your political project as a sinking ship, I'm sure as hell not coming aboard.
Ah yes, because voters clearly cared when it was pointed out that republicans blocked the border bill just to avoid giving Biden that win, on the orders of Trump.
Yes, voters were also clearly concerned about "eating the rich" when they voted for billionaires who are backed by the richest man on earth. Truly a guaranteed winning strategy. Genius, that's really a grounded take from someone who actually see's how "things actually are" rather than "ought to be".
Your "ideas" are shit, nobody cares. You're clearly incapable of identifying what's wrong in the first place so what chance do you have of coming up with any workable solutions that aren't just schizo tankie delusions lmao.
Who's "we"? Quit larping like a schizo, you're not the opposition rebellion leader lmao. Nobody's implemeting any of your tankie dogshit.