Comment on dear republicans, what's the point of alienating every single ally of the US?
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoSure, 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.
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 IRL.
it was less than Trump did it right and more that Kamala did it horribly wrong.
Oh really? was it Kamala that ranted about Haitians eating pets? 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.
Ok then, great, should be easy then. Just be a bad actor and get the morons to fall for your propaganda instead of theirs.
This is also where you realise that morality actually exists and is something to account for.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
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.
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.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
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.
Objection@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
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.
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.
zenitsu@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I don’t know why I bother. They didn’t vote according to the REALITY of their material interests you dumbass, they voting 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 this 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.