What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
I have no problem with people voting for trump as I have said many many times. Doesn't make them bad people. My own father is likely voting for trump. He is an amazing man. He just happens to be glued to fox news and his remaining friends in his life feed him pro trump emails constantly. Plus some people hate trump or think he sucks but will vote for him reluctantly. I got no problem with that. Im doing the same thing with Kamala.

Its the ones wearing the hats, flying the vulgar trump flags, going to the rallies, believing he was sent by god to fight evil etc that I have a problem with. I dont even necessarily see those people as bad people. Just extremely confused and manipulated like other members of past cults. The branch davidians lead by David Koresh weren't necessarily bad people. They just believed everything told to them by a bad dude.
 
The Thriller said:
I’m going off evidence. This is literally my job, history and political science has been my career for almost twenty years and what you’re regurgitating are 2016 talking pts that have been refuted For years now.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a cohesive worldview if you can't understand my position and why I advocate for what I do. Good job having a job and a degree though.

The Thriller said:
blaming globalism, immigrants, poverty, etc for American democracy de-stabilizing and voting for Trump.
Click to expand...

You're just yapping off right here. This is an unfocused rant. Poverty and income inequality, yes and no to the others. Immigration in any form is an unequivocal positive for society, obviously. Globalism has its perks.

The Thriller said:
just doesn’t have any evidence to support it. Authoritarian personality disorder and racism do. If you look at the evidence people who vote for Trump are overwhelmingly motivated by race and gender.
Click to expand...

You're conflating what people espouse with the underlying issue that drives them to feel like they do. Do you believe people are born with xenophobic and racist opinions?

The Thriller said:
Those are disproportionately being found among the (bored) non-college educated upper (white) middle class.
Click to expand...

This is my whole point. We don't need those guys to win an election, guy. My question would be why is the Harris campaign focused on winning the vaguely racist, white, small business owners when working-class people have been leaking to the right for decades?

The Thriller said:
Again, you haven’t refuted my central pt:

“If the poverty aka the poor sweet innocent “forgotten man” who’s living better than any prior generation is really so angry with his lot in life, why aren’t we seeing worker revolutions across the world?” Instead, these right wing authoritarian movements are sprouting among the much better off who share cultural and racial grievances for a past that never existed. You see this in Brexit, Le pene’s France, Orban’s Hungary, Justice party in Poland, and Italy. It’s not the ****ing economics, it’s the racism. It’s the culture. It’s the social hierarchy folks who are angry that in the 21st century, their privilege is now being shared amongst those they deem to be lower class than they.
Click to expand...

Meh, reality refutes this point pretty hard tbh. You're lost in that lib sauce my friend. My reading of current dynamics is informed by historical material analysis. The above is toddler thinking. "why don't people advocate perfectly for their own self-interest if they're so economically insecure??" You know perfectly well that there are reasons for "no worker revolutions" but you're refusing to, maybe on purpose. Do you deny that rich and powerful folks from the Republicans to the Tories, to the Rassemblement National (you misspelled Le Pen) have a material interest in gaining power and holding it for themselves? If so, isn't it good for them to redirect frustration from an insecure working class into xenophobia, and racism through propaganda and manufactured consent? Controlled opposition gives an alternative for ethical and higher-minded individuals but ultimately works to maintain the status quo. What power currently exists that would be incentivized to push for a worker revolution? Come on. I mean this is basic stuff.

Under a capitalist organization of the world economy, the economic inequalities will result in a lot of societal ills and one of them is inevitably the rise of fascism in the imperial core. Until you reckon with the underlying conditions, fascism is always going to gain ground. The outgroup changes but the fundamentals stay the same.


This is off the rails thanks to your crappy posting but

My main point is, once again, in terms of strategy in winning elections and also for the good of society in general. If you speak to the insecurity and promise to do enough to improve the lives of working-class people (and follow through on it) maybe enough of them recognize their own self-interest to come back and vote for you and will eventually be secure enough to self-actualize and reject attempts to propagandize them into fascist ideologies for the long term. Instead, we're talking about big-boy militaries and letting Liz Cheney on stage in a silly attempt to appeal to the rich white people in the suburbs.

I don't want to Trump to win, very badly.
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
Alrighty then. lol you sound like one of those too online Bernie bros who wishcast a progressive utopia in a Harris loss and a Trump win. Except, progressive utopias have never displaced a fascist dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I don't want Trump to win. I'll tell you what though. If Harris wins, which I hope she does, She better pop the **** OFF in the presidency otherwise this fascism problem is just going to be delayed for a few years. So far, based on her campaign's messaging, I don't feel great about both prospects: winning the election and popping off.
 
Last edited:
On that note, who's voted and who did you vote for?

I did and I voted for Harris/Walz, big ****ing surprise.

I also wrote in Phil Lyman of course. j/k
 
Safetydan said:
On that note, who's voted and who did you vote for?

I did and I voted for Harris/Walz, big ****ing surprise.

I also wrote in Phil Lyman of course. j/k
Click to expand...
I too voted for Harris. I looked for Lyman on the ballot and was suprised to not see him there. Yet I saw so many signs and stickers and knew about him. Why wasn't he on the ballot anyway?
 
www.yahoo.com

Arnold Schwarzenegger Makes a Rare Move by Publicly Endorsing a Presidential Candidate Ahead of Election

The former California governor said he usually doesn't 'do endorsements.'
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Schwarzenegger said, "Let me be honest with you: I don't like either party right now."

"It is probably not a surprise that I hate politics more than ever, which, if you are a normal person who isn't addicted to this crap, you probably understand," he continued, adding, "I want to tune out."

"But I can't," Schwarzenegger added while calling out Trump's rejection of the 2020 election results "as un-American as it gets."

"To someone like me who talks to people all over the world and still knows America is the shining city on a hill, calling America [a] trash can for the world is so unpatriotic, it makes me furious," the Austria native said.


He added, "And I will always be an American before I am a Republican."

"That's why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz," Schwarzenegger declared while urging his followers, "We need to close the door on this chapter of American history, and I know that former President Trump won’t do that. He will divide, he will insult, he will find new ways to be more un-American than he already has been, and we, the people, will get nothing but more anger."

"Vote this week. Turn the page and put this junk behind us," the Total Recall star concluded, before encouraging all of his followers—even those who disagree with him—to cast their vote on Nov. 5.

Well said Arnold.
 
Whats going to happen to GD after Kamala wins? I truly wonder what these Trump people will do in a post-Trump running for President world
 
The Thriller said:
actually, Lyman lost his primary to Spencer Cox over the summer 45-54 percent.

Why should he be listed as the Republican nominee if he lost? What would the point of the primary be?
Click to expand...
That would be the point of a Republican primary. The Democrats have a slightly different system. The point of a Democrat primary is to go through the motions then throw away all the votes along with any claim to legitimacy, and instead conspire with delegates to rig the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top