No Stupid Questions

I think the phrase is, "It's the economy, stupid."

The economy had been trending upwards under Obama, and it peaked under Trump. If you're a Keynesian, you might gripe that Trump increased spending when the economy was doing well rather then saving for a rainy day. Then, the rainiest of all rainy days hit with the pandemic, which shot spending through the roof. That caused rapid inflation that became most noticeable after Biden came in. Most Americans either don't pay enough attention or attribute cause and effect to more or less random factors, so the experience is, Trump economy good, Biden economy bad.

Second, skepticism of the government is a facet of American culture, fed into from the national mythos regarding the Revolutionary War, by anticommunist propaganda about how the government doing stuff makes things worse, and also from experience with getting disillusioned from politicians not delivering on promises and the government generally not acting in people's best interests. Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn't tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature.

Third, people feel like they're getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them. And the narrative scapegoats people at the bottom of the social structure, who are least able to push back against said narratives, and who already have negative stereotypes about them. If you're not going to do that, then you either have to tell people they're not getting fucked, or you have to blame the people who are actually doing the fucking, who are at the top of the social structure, who are most able to push back against your narrative. Imo, in order to employ the latter strategy most successfully, you need a sense of solidarity, a sense that everyone is included in your movement and you won't allow anyone to be scapegoated or sacrifice anyone for your own advancement -and it's kind of hard to do that with the whole genocide thing going on.

Seriously, how the f*** is this guy still in the race?

Some very deep pockets.

People want to say it's just racism, but we have to stop ignoring how much of this is happening because of obscenely wealthy media moguls who don't give a damn about the future of the country and are only worried about ratings, and holy shit, Trump brings in ratings. The crazy fucks who vote for him are deeply influenced by this media, like Trump, they believe everything they see on TV.

It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS

-Leslie Moonves, CBS CEO in 2016, on Trump

I worked in local television news from 2000-2010ish. I watched it spin out of control during the Bush years. I remember the President of Dinsey-ABC (waaaaaaaay prior to Disney+) claiming she would nail a TV to her child's dorm room wall since her child had expressed she didn't need a TV because she had a laptop.

“You’re going to have a television if I have to nail it to your wall,” she told her daughter, according to comments she made at a Reuters event this week. “You have to have one.”

-Anne Sweeney, President of Disney-ABC in 2009

These fucking dinosaurs did fuck nothing for twenty fucking years while the internet ate their lunch. The only idea they ever had was doubling down on insane shit to grab views. They never once considered becoming a better source of news or providing any kind of real local value to communities.

It's the money, especially the money in traditional radio and television media, that is propping him up. He's truly the last gasp of a dying generation, desperate to keep control over people who are way more informed than ever before and the only tool they have in their toolchest to fight that is misinformation and disinformation.

The same deep pockets that were able to kick Joe Biden off the ticket. They didn't give a fuck when people like you and I said Biden was too old, but once the folks with the money started talking about it being an issue, Biden got curbed.

Unlike Biden, conservatives are in a cult and losing Trump would lose their voters. They're attached at the hip and they can't dump him in the same way without essentially just admitting they will lose hard this year.

Conservatism is a social cancer that primarily affects unintellectual people and sociopaths.

This cancer metastasizes as fascism. Social progress is sometimes an effective treatment, but a permanent cure is long overdue.

If he doesn't win he goes to prison, possibly for the rest of his life.

Republicans have been taught to ignore reality and give in to their hatred.

It's all that side has. Who else would run in his place? Nobody comes close to that sort of name recognition. The Republicans are betting on a culture war to win and who wages that war more than trump?

While there may be "No stupid questions", there are many, many "Stupid answers".

A cult of fanatics who worship him due to his ability to let them display their complete lack of empathy as well as their extremely racist and misogynistic views.

It's easy. They don't believe Harris will do any of the things she has said, and they don't believe trump has done any of the things you've said. Additionally, some of them don't like the things Harris is saying she'll do, even though they're positive things to you.

1. Polls are unreliable and the press will always make it “horse race” because not to do so means foregoing revenue.
2. Nearly all the major media outlets are owned by people who have said they’ll vote Trump.

In other words … follow the money.

Brainwashing most simply.

Edit: I found the image that I was thinking of when I posted this...

Why is he still in the race or why are his supporters?

For him I think it's obvious. Narcissism and the fact that he has a lot of federal crimes in the courts that he can stop when he is elected.

His supporters are more complicated. He pretty decently still owns the GOP so even if they are getting cold feet, they don't seem to have a plan to overthrow him. I feel like they are planning on just stonewalling for 4 more years and then try to win the next one and cut the checks to the billionaires then.

I got nothing on his base though. I haven't understood them for 10 years now. Not sure I ever will.

Whole two party system, we vs them sport mentality has fucked their brains up.

Know how yous get upset when people say "Americans are stupid"

Literally a third of you have demonstrated that you'd eat gravel if someone said it'd cure immigrants

A third. So lets just say only half of the other two thirds are stupid

That's quite a few. Almost a quarter pounder

Everybody will answer "greed, racism, idiocy, and bigotry" or some such rubbish, because morally and overall psychologically, that's the most comfortable answer.

The real thing is somewhat complex, and most people won't buy it.

Of course, part of it is those things, but there's way more going on here, some of it is cultural dynamics, some of it conscious intent. Those specifics are the symptoms, not the disease (though they may be diseases in their own rite).

• structural weaknesses in the US government, which was barely meant to handle the complexity millions of people, much less tens or hundreds of millions of people. I.e., bandwidth issues. As more people push their views and goals into the system, all of that needs to get governed or implemented somehow. But there is no cohesive operating principle that guides US (and even other western) culture. There is no razor - not even material necessity (staying in-budget, or managing debt effectively) is accepted. There is no means to trim implementation that all parties will be happy with, so things don't get trimmed. They get crammed in, the laws (in the sense of legal structure, not crime) are consequentially self-conflicting, improbable, or impossible to fulfill. This leads to an intrinsically unstable environment, ripe for (and rife with, by all parties) abuse. What you are seeing is, in part, the breakdown of the rule of law. This breakdown can be allayed, to some degree, with authoritarian means, but that only goes so far, even if that authority has a willingness and capability to work with the people as a whole - which none of the active authorities do, anyways, except maybe Bernie, and he's been written off by the authorities because he can't work with them well, and they also have valid concerns that must be addressed. But, in any case, whether centralized or not, this breakdown is to be expected, because the rule of law, unless supplemented with common principle, becomes.. well.. legalistic, and rife with abuse.

• governance that doesn't match underlying principles: we have no conscious least common denominator. People often point to distinct nations and say things like "see? they are doing X right!", but that nation has a cohesive culture, and isn't dealing with anywhere near the level of cultural complexity that any melting-pot nations are dealing with. What is enforceable must be agreed upon by common culture - or you must sacrifice the reality (though not necessarily the pretense) of diversity, and enforce your way. But that has obvious flaws. Instead, it is better, in my opinion, to enforce sovereignty, which is intrinsically what all the different cultures want, anyways, except that they also want to take control of everyone - which they don't get to do in a system with sovereignty as a basis, except by people ascribing to that culture. What you are seeing, is in part, a breakdown of unity due to a lack of agreement about what can be universally enforced. I.e., the system implemented does not address underlying cultural commonalities.

• the need to incorporate raw power and personal responsibility into the governing body. Bending the rules, breaking the rules with impunity, changing the rules, explicit and implicit coercion are all possible, and as such, the existing system or ruling party must be able to address these things, and incorporate them where needed, for the larger good of upholding the spirit of the law. This relates to the breakdown of the rule of law, but is more primal: you know raw power must be met with raw power. That power can be of a different form, but it must be effective.

• unconscious cognition of complex truths: or, in some senses, the "vote of no confidence". People understand, or are at least impacted, by the above issues. They have instinctive reactions against external control, and for good reason, as individual sovereignty is the source of a solid collective. But in any case, many people are aware there is a problem, don't see a solution, and are see no option but to let things burn. This may not even be a conscious choice, but simply an overall feeling - and thus, more powerful and deeply-rooted.

• genuine mockery and rejection of opposing views. Nobody gets each other, unconsciously, and everyone else treats others outside their worldview like shit, and pretends that doesn't matter. A lot of the left separated from the "Christian" right due to this - only to turn around and do the same thing to the center and right, feeling just as justified in doing so. But it creates real alienation and aggravates the already deep wounds and rifts that exist. One's personal actions, thoughts, and feelings may not seem to matter, but they resound loudly in the whole - and making personal change does, too. For those who are genuinely growing and facing their hearts and minds - my respect.

All of these contribute to Trump's rising and staying power. Of course, he's just riding a wave of unconscious thought, and if it weren't him, it'd be someone else. But people like to fixate on a face.

The actual thing we're trying to do (integrate diversity into a cohesive whole) requires genuine acceptance and support of differing world views (including non-scientific or non-Christian ones - why do I have to say this?). That means that your group, your ideology, must make room for the people who are "wrong", and wish to live their lives wrongly in abhorrent wrongness - though they never gain the right to enforce participation in their culture, above and beyond what is a natural requisite by birth, upbringing, or other dependency.

That is, each person and organization has a sovereign right to rule their own life and the lives of their dependents as they see fit, but does not have the right to force others to use their system, nor to prevent others from abandoning their system and starting their own or joining another. This integrates the very opposite of federation (well, not in the Lemmy sense, which is actually confederation, but that's a no-no-word because some people thought that confederation did give them the right to force others through slavery - but it doesn't).

But Sovereignty Culture isn't simply confederacy, like Lemmy is, but it heads towards the same things. That which can be federal is only that which we fundamentally agree on. The federal must not be used as a means of furthering ideologies, but as a means of resolving disputes between differing ideologies. It can have as much power as the people grant it, and no more - else it loses the people. By making sovereignty a keystone of culture and governance, we intrinsically grant and naturally enforce rights of others, but without placing a burden on others (except the burden of self governance, which you already have, and can't avoid).

Because people like my idiot brother think “he trounced that ho in the debate.”

Because his voters don't believe any of the points you make about him. Trump is able to dismiss any criticism of him as "fake news." You can make any legitimate point about him and they will never believe it.

The GOP's desperation for relevancy in a world where literally every problem can be blamed on Republicans

probably the same drive that will make him a candidate in the 2028 election. 😁🙂

​

(this posted 06:01 UTC (2:01 AM EDT), 13 September 2024)