Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Well, I guess then it matters to you personally.
Do you think it will change their minds at all?
Trump is against everyone having an electric car
- Thread starter KevinJ
- Start date
Do you think it will change their minds at all?
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Your impression?
And yet her administration has just taken action to block affordable options.
So why is it "your impression" when the actions say it is not?
The liberals did that for years when Trump first got elected, also death threats to Trump became a joke. I remember comedian Kathie Griffin being one of the first getting in trouble for it. Politicians on that side continue to say Trump used Russia etc to get elected, even though this still hasn't been proven.
I can't think of an election where this behavior wasn't present on the side of the loser. And it keeps getting worse.
The behavior of both sides is so disgusting to me, that i won't vote for either. That's just getting blood on my hands unnecessarily. Both choices are awful and don't represent a real choice to me ( we the citizens do not pick the nominees at all, to begin with.. then the electoral college can override our vote if they feel like it.. according to the dictionary definition, that's not how democracy works.. )
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
When even trump admits he lost, yea that should change minds, and if it doesn’t change minds then at least the problem is them individually
When did dems running for president ever not concede when the results were given?
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
When even trump admits he lost, yea that should change minds, and if it doesn’t change minds then at least the problem is them individually.Won't change any non-Trump voters either, now that he has admitted it.
Can't you get your head around the idea that it is already baked in and does not matter to anyone, on either side, as to who they vote for. You are missing the forest for the trees.
Hillary.
Man, your memory is short lived.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
We are not a "democracy". We never have been.
On September 17, 1787, as delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have?
“A Republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
Remember, a democracy voted for Socrates to drink Hemlock, and a democracy instituted the Reign of Terror.
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
Hillary conceded as soon as results were given
Hillary Clinton concedes presidential election to Donald Trump: 'We must accept this result'
Former secretary of state addresses supporters to formally concede election a day after Donald Trump pulled off stunning victory
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
P
We are a representative democracy. We vote. If you want to omit that we vote and just say we’re a republic ur missing an important part of American government.
The united states government calls itself a federal republic, not a representative democracy.
Our Government | The White House.
We don't actually vote, we tell people to vote a certain way, then they vote for us. They can override our vote with little to no penalty.
What is the Electoral College?
That doesn't fit the legal definition of a democracy at all.
Our Government | The White House.
We don't actually vote, we tell people to vote a certain way, then they vote for us. They can override our vote with little to no penalty.
What is the Electoral College?
That doesn't fit the legal definition of a democracy at all.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
We are a representative *Republic*, which elects representatives in various ways, not always democratically. Senate seats were *appointed* by some State legislators until 1913, when an amendment to the Constitution changed it to democratically elected senators.
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Hilary continues to claim the election was stolen:Hillary conceded as soon as results were given
Hillary Clinton concedes presidential election to Donald Trump: 'We must accept this result'
Former secretary of state addresses supporters to formally concede election a day after Donald Trump pulled off stunning victorywww.theguardian.com
In an October 2020 interview with The Atlantic, Clinton said, “There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’”
And she has never stepped back from that claim.
If it is just "concession speech" then Trump gave the speech in January 2021, and your original claim is incorrect.
Again,
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Hey, that's just kinda throwing tinder on the ground.. let's not turn this into an internet cage match please!
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Hey, as it says, "liberal friends". No need to make it nasty.
But they keep spouting things that are "not so" and thus must be addressed.
If you don't want that to happen here, I am perfectly fine with you deleting both sides of the conversation.
Well let me put it this way.. most forum members are liberal here.. and some can't resist getting into an argument.
& these discussions typically devolve to a dumpster fire where just everyone is mad.. basically a net negative to everyone reading this site.
But.. if we can keep it respectful & avoid painting people with a broad brush stroke let's say.. it's all good.
No need to retroactively change anything.. just try to not press those buttons too hard, pardner.
( BTW this goes for everyone including me )
& these discussions typically devolve to a dumpster fire where just everyone is mad.. basically a net negative to everyone reading this site.
But.. if we can keep it respectful & avoid painting people with a broad brush stroke let's say.. it's all good.
No need to retroactively change anything.. just try to not press those buttons too hard, pardner.
( BTW this goes for everyone including me )
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
I am a liberal too, a classic 90s Bill Clinton liberal.
That puts me to the Right of even Trump these days. I haven't voted for Trump, don't plan on voting for Trump, but the Democrat party left me way behind.
If there had been a Democrat Primary, I could have at least voted for RFK Jr.
Alas, it was an Anointment.
i'm... beyond blackpilled 
I don't know a lot about RFK but i've helped campaign/worked for a lot of good guy moderates in both parties a long time ago and was shocked at amount/variety of mechanisms the system has to use to keep those people out of the nomination & keep the status quo going.
You basically can't elect good people.
I don't know a lot about RFK but i've helped campaign/worked for a lot of good guy moderates in both parties a long time ago and was shocked at amount/variety of mechanisms the system has to use to keep those people out of the nomination & keep the status quo going.
You basically can't elect good people.
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
Saying there’s something not right and bringing light to the known Russian involvement is fair given what we know from the meuller report, the numerous trump admin indictments, and the REPUBLICAN-run senate intel report
Hillary conceded. Many say trump did not concede and given that he spent years saying it was a fraud it’s hard to dispute.
6.4 Presidential Election Concession Speeches and Messages | The American Presidency Project
www.presidency.ucsb.edu
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2022
- Messages
- 1,175
K, the thread opened as an off topic discussion regarding policies about EVs. Let's reel it back in please and try not to discuss the nuances of american politics in general. Start a new thread if you want.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Ok, you have a double standard here.Saying there’s something not right and bringing light to the known Russian involvement is fair given what we know from the meuller report, the numerous trump admin indictments, and the REPUBLICAN-run senate intel report
Hillary conceded. Many say trump did not concede and given that he spent years saying it was a fraud it’s hard to dispute.
6.4 Presidential Election Concession Speeches and Messages | The American Presidency Project
Trump conceded for one, after the results were certified in January. That you are spreading that false information is concerning. It is easily googled to see the transcript or the video. If you don't accept that, I think we are done here because there are certain minimum requirements for having a civil discussion, and refuting something with clear evidence is one of them.
Hillary STILL claims it was a fraud, and has never said it was not. I challenge you to find a recent video of her saying it was NOT questionable result.
The Russian thing is just another red herring, as we KNOW, and have known since Solviet Russia was formed they interfere in our elections. So do the British, and the Chinese, and anybody else with a finger in the pie... and so does the US.
The false implication here is that any of the candidates have welcomed it, or have sought it out. You can't stop Russia from interfering, or any other world power for that matter.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
i'm... beyond blackpilled
I don't know a lot about RFK but i've helped campaign/worked for a lot of good guy moderates in both parties a long time ago and was shocked at amount/variety of mechanisms the system has to use to keep those people out of the nomination & keep the status quo going.
You basically can't elect good people.
Good people certainly are at a disadvantage. Even George Washington benefited from his Presidency. You have to have a certian level of Will to Power to even WANT to be President.
Gerald Ford might get a pass, but it might also be he realized he was out of his depth.
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
The link I posted and you reposted also views trump as having not really conceded. trump’s continued claims the election was stolen is not the same as Hillary bringing up the known involvement of Russians in that election. She is telling a known reality (if u trust our own intelligence service). Trump on the other hand has no stolen election evidence that anyone would consider real so apples to oranges.
Hummina Shadeeba
1 MW
Yes the trump
Admin welcomed and even asked for it. Saying “everyone does it” isn’t the case.
Your claim that “everyone does it” is not the case.
Last edited:
sandshifter
1 mW
This is an old ideology that stretches back to Thomas Malthus and is responsible, variously, for the Irish famine, the late 19th century Indian famines reponsible for 10s of millions of deaths, and arguably the death toll of WW1 (whose primary function was really to massacre the unemployed population of Europe in a failed attempt to forestall the end of the aristocratic age), and God knows what else. Liberals who endorse it are essentially in bed with eugenicists like Peter Thiel and Bill Gates, but the Fabians had more or less the same position so this kind of ideological unity among liberals and fascists is nothing new.
It's not surprising this shared outlook exists because it's based on a common anthropology, namely that human beings are merely self-interested animals who as you say "breed like rabbits". The truth is that this anthropology of selfishness is historically specific, it's produced by the pressures of class society. Whether in slave societies like the Roman Empire, or capitalist societies where money regulates all social life, to not be self-interested is tantamount to suicide, so it's no surprise that extreme consumption, waste and thoughtlessness dominate. This isn't a "natural" state of affairs but one maintained at great cost and brutality by the class that reaps its economic fruits, the normative state of humanity is one of shared interest and the fragments of this are everywhere to see (and always being renewed). We're not mechanically doomed to the Malthusian catastrophe, past and existing societies show that it's possible to live in balance with nature (even in very large complex social formations) and extremely basic things like not flooding the earth and water with all kinds of frocking poison can be rationally managed. The current world does have its own mechanical impetus though, the frequent comparison to a cancer is totally apt.
The other reason the Malthusian hypothesis is wrong is that, as even von Braun said, nothing is created and nothing is destroyed; life begets life, the jungle isn't on the verge of depleting the environment even though it's teeming with life, the problem with human societies is that they're full of metabolic rifts, i.e. imbalances in the reproduction of life cycles. It's totally possible to sustain existing humanity and its future, though not solely through technological innovations since self-interest is perpetuated by class society hence a political solution is the precondition. I mentioned this in another thread but liquid thorium nuclear reactors, which are currently being built en masse by China, are basically 100% safe (since any leak in containment results in killing the chain reaction, look it up) and forms almost a perfectly closed cycle with minute quantities of waste relative to older nuclear technologies. The kicker is that thorium reactors were invented in the 1960s by the American government at the Oak Hill Laboratories, but axed for "technical problems" - i.e. the prospect of almost limitless, safe energy would have upended the established order built on scarcity. The Chinese government has no such qualms because its overriding interest right now is national economic development and since it doesn't occupy the hegemonic position in the world system (as the U.S. does) it doesn't particularly care about upending things a little.
Concerning global warming, it's almost certainly some kind of problem, but as Jason W. Moore says there isn't just one ecological crisis but a whole multitude of them. Like eventually it'll be a problem (and already is for many people) but the reason for the mass extinction event currently happening in the oceans, the insect world, and the incredible rise in cancers and disabilities generation-upon-generation (carefully concealed by the "War on Cancer" in mortality statistics, although even this is starting to fail), is probably due more to the omnipresence of pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, glyphosates, dioxins, plastics, PFAS, PCBs and only God knows what else since we're pumping out more of them every year with no real oversight) than the water being a few degrees warmer. I think a lot of the resistance to the global warming narrative (which I believe is evidently true) exists because it's also evidently true that the current rulers absolutely don't care about global warming and are only using it as a scare tactic to push through their desired political changes (which are ironically devised with the coming political upheavals over environmental crises in mind).
Last edited:
The Toecutter
100 kW
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2015
- Messages
- 1,405
A good place to start would be to address the over-consumption of resources by the wealthiest 1%, strip them of their political/military power, get rid of the intelligence agencies that spy on everyone on their behalf, and cut this socio-economic class down to the living standard of the upper-middle class. That would free up a lot of resources, more than consumed by the bottom 90% of the population combined. Then the rest of us in the middle class won't have to give up our cars, live in pods, and/or eat bugs, while the poor would have resources available to raise their own living standards.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Please read more carefully. Putting words in my mouth is not appreciated.
I did not say that about denial, although you are attempting to move the the goalposts here, it was about PRESIDENTIAL elections, per your original statement.
Anyway, I was referring to other countries interfering, not denial.
