I’ve been consuming a lot of political content on both sides lately, but there’s one thing that seems to be common among the Republicans. They always point out Kamala’s shortcomings as a way to justify Trump’s right to be president. They constantly bring up Kamala’s wavering stances on fracking, the fact she hasn’t been to the border, and a lot of other stuff. And i just think to myself “okay, so what? She’s lied. So has Trump though”. Why are republicans making it sound like Trump hasn’t lied even moreso than Kamala?
Maybe the things Kamala lies about are so terrible? I really don’t know. Maybe I’m just too biased. Am i missing something?
Because politics?
Both political parties do this often. It’s much easier to attack your opponent for their transgressions than it is to prove your own aptitude and it seems to be just as, if not more, convincing to the average person. I don’t think this should be particularly shocking.
I never really cared for politics until very recently, so i always thought its discourse would be grounded in logic and not logical fallacies. So i am quite shocked.
You should try reading actual political theory. You’ll find that western politics isn’t and has never been grounded in reality. It does not have a material basis and as such it gains support primarily through the people’s emotions, especially fear and anger.
Here’s some easy reading to get you started
- The Communist Manifesto[Text][Audio]
- Blackshirts and Reds[Text][Audio]
- The Principles of Communism[Text][Audio]
- Introduction to Political Economy[Text]
I don’t expect to shove books like this in your face and actually have you immediately read all of them. You may not be at the part of your political developement where you have any motivation to do that. So here are some youtube channels that cover the material in them and apply that material to modern reality in a more easily digestable way. These are great resources that can teach you a lot but they are not and should not replace reading actual political theory. In my experience these helped develop my understanding of political economy to the point where I had sufficient motivation to read that theory.
None of these people get everything perfect all the time but they are generally good in my experience. Best of luck learning.
Sorry that the reality is that most humans who are pursuing power are doing it simply for powers’ sake because they’re self-centered garbage.
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Douglas Adams nailed it down in 1980.
IMO the best feature of democracy is not that it results in better selection of who gets to lead, because it doesn’t really - the vast majority of the electorate is not educated in the sorts of things they’d need to be educated in to make truly good decisions about this. The best feature is that every few years we “throw the bums out” and put a new batch of people in charge.
I used to be kind of ambivalent about term limits, I figured it was kind of suboptimal to have to get rid of a leader who’s doing well at some point. But with the size of the population of most democracies there’s really no constraint on the pool of perfectly adequate candidates to draw on. I’m starting to think that “one and done” might be an even better approach, at least for the highest levels. Make it so that there’s no motivation whatsoever to cling to power. Do the same with congressmen and senators, perhaps. Let them prove their capabilities with a political career in local politics, where it’s less important if someone ends up with some kind of corrupt fiefdom because the higher levels of government can keep them in check.
Sortition has the same benefit.
I absolutely agree, a lot of this can be mitigated by the right kinds of regulations…
Bear with me a minute, this goes pretty far back…
https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3370
But in 2007, the New Zealand government launched a wiki to allow NZ residents to help define the language of a new police law bill, to ensure there was a more equitable way to get people involved, and it’s been kicking around in my head for a long time.
We could reduce congresspeople to figureheads who just vote on bills if we really built a big system like that around every bill that comes to congress, always letting citizens be involved. Of course, it would require rigorous controls, tight security, and likely need you would need to provide photo ID/Social Security number to be able to access the site to prove you’re a citizen and not a foreign actor. However, if citizens had more clear access and control to drafting laws, a lot of what incentivizes congresspeople to take bribes from lobbyists would be taken away because now the lobbyists have to lobby involved citizens on changing the language. Lobbyists can’t just write corporation friendly bills for congresspeople when the citizens are directly involved in drafting bills to their final form.
Also, fucking Version Control on bills for fucks sake. I want names attached to each sentence in every bill that is put before congress. No more of this “sharing the blame” shit by not attributing who wrote what part of each bill. Fucking own it, the tech has been there to monitor this since the 70’s.
At one point it was more grounded, but that was before Rush Limbaugh.
One party does it based on reality and the other based on whatever they made up that is getting traction with their userbase.
If only that were true
Vance literally said this. “I will make up whatever story is needed to draw attention to a subject that is important to my
votersdonors”I wasn’t suggesting that Republicans don’t do this
That’s what they’ve done for like 8 years now, it’s the foundation of Whataboutism. No matter what you pin on Trump, they’ll jump on some other real or imagined wrong, no matter what it has to do with the conversation, and use that as justification for anything that Trump has done or will do. It’s just a way to sidestep or confuse the issue.
- “Trump is literally talking about becoming a fascist dictator.”
- “Yeah, but in the 12th century, Genghis Khan killed like 20–40 million people, that’s what we’re facing from Chi-na, they’re going to slaughter everyone if we don’t do anything about them and their takeover of China-store Kamala, she’s bought and paid for!”
- “WTF is wrong with you?”
It’s so widespread though which is what baffles me. Even political commentators i used to follow when i was still a young conservative make arguments like this. Surely they can’t all be this dumb.
Surely they can’t all be this dumb.
They are that dumb.
Surely they can’t all be this dumb.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
–George Carlin
Surely they can’t all be this dumb.
After a few decades following American politics you’ll realize that yes, yes they can all be that dumb.
Just have a general conversation with your most conservative neighbors about basically anything and you’ll quickly learn that there’s nothing they don’t have an opinion on and their level of ignorance is… Impressive.
Like, dude, you’re 60+ years old and you think hurricanes are a conspiracy‽ The point where they lost their mind was long ago.
Sooner or later you can’t help but wonder if they ever had sanity or they just faked it long enough to have a career/survive until retirement.
Yeah, I remember almost 20 years ago, an older dude telling me that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams, and giving me a copy of a movie called Zeitgeist on CD-R. That dude would be in his 60’s or late 50’s now.
Before that, people like Art Bell made a living on AM radio late at night with things like the Taos Hum and UFO’s and paranormal stuff.
Like, a lot of early US settlers got sent there because they were batshit crazy and a danger to society. The Puritans were kicked out of England, and then they were kicked out of the Netherlands of all places, how does that even happen, before they ran off to America and did a bunch of crazy shit. We think of the “Salem Witch Trials” with horror and then sing “Land of the Pilgrims’ Pride” without batting an eye, who do you even think the Pilgrims were?
So a bunch of criminals and wackos settled the United States, and when they got too crazy for their village, they just moved west, killed the native men, fucked a bunch of children, and made another crazy village. Pocahantas was like 12. And then if someone got kicked out of that village for being crazy, rinse and repeat until you get shit like Mormonism in Utah and Branch Davidians in Waco Texas and bombing the Olympics and speaking in tongues and sponsoring genocide through Biblical Tourism of the Holy Land.
America is a land of crazy people who have been rewarded for generations for being batshit crazy, and have an ability to not see things clearly in front of their face. This is really nothing new.
The repeal of fairness doctrine played a huge role in terms of how we got here
Which was the goal.
Oh, most definitely.
The strategy is “Never Play Defense”.
“Nothing is wrong with me. My eyes are open! You need to do your own research and learn the truth. Not from any mainstream sources though, nor any of these so-called experts. Just listen to trump and he’ll set you straight. FOX news reports it like it is. Then you’ll know the truth!”
It’s just what you do when your side doesn’t have a justifiable platform on it’s own merit: See: All the people who keep telling us to ignore all the bad stuff corporate dems do because Trump would be worse.
IF you could actually run on things people liked, you’d talk about that and perhaps only call out your opponent’s opposition to the things you support or show how they might be lying about claims that they want similar things.
But when your core platform is “let rich people keep doing what they want,” you have to find ways to deflect from that.
There are three practical reasons Trump does this:
- Deflection: Trump doesn’t have an affirmative platform. As a populist strongman, Trump’s platform is situational and entirely based on what his supporters want to hear in any given moment. If health care is in the news, Trump will say his plan is coming in two weeks (it won’t ever come). If immigration is in the news, Trump will say he will build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it (he won’t). But what’s even easier? Focusing on the shortcomings of the opponent’s platform. Any time this works, Trump saves himself an opportunity to be put under the microscope.
- Deflection: Manipulating the media works. Trump knows that the more ludicrous things he says about Kamala, even if the media then starts to talk about how he’s wrong or fact-check him, the focus is still on the thing he said rather than Kamala’s platform. It’s subtle, but it really does focus the media effectively on whatever he says, and use his frame of that issue as the media’s frame.
- Filling the echo chambers and other spaces. We’re in our own echo chambers like never before. Trump says these things so that the people in the right-wing echo chambers have a plausible response to Kamala’s policies, or even just need filler for their broadcast/websites/Facebook groups. Ultimately there is only so much media people can consume every day. If Trump has filled all relevant supporter spaces with his own opinions & framing, there is no time or energy left to explore other opinions and framing.
Why are republicans making it sound like Trump hasn’t lied even moreso than Kamala?
Because it works with their idiot base.
Some people choose to belittle others to make themselves feel bigger rather than strive to be better.
Repubs have nothing but DARVO to work with when mudslinging.
Because it’s nothing more than a popularity contest for them. This isn’t the future of the country (or world) for them, it’s junior prom.
It’s the opposite everytime someone criticize Kamala, her defenders can’t stop bringing trump in the picture
I was sitting at the doctor’s office and overheard an old man claim Harris was so stupid that she couldn’t figure out how to use a vacuum.
It broke MY brain trying to wrap my head around that one.
Why do democrats bring up trumps “lies”/shortcomings as a way to claim kamala is better?
This isnt unique to a particular political party they all do it they always have they always will.
Because its the only thing he does ? Just my two cents because Im from Europe.
Not really he does stand for some things that isnt just fabricated bullshit. He primary purpise of a politician is to lie ur way to getting as many votes as possible u would be blind to think otherwise. I dont like the guy buy i just fund the whole trump is hitler narrative is an exaggeration that is making the political divide worse than it actually is.
Just my 2 cents because im an aussie mainly here to piss off the American left and right equallity thats how i know im doing a good job.
Bro, he talks so much bullshit its the only incredible thing he does. The purpose of a politican is not to lie, where I come from they make promises, where you know a lot of them wil not be fulfilled, but he is just spitting lies and saying stuff that never happened.
And yeah, he is not hitler and shouldnt be compared to him because in comparison he is a little frog eating his shitflies.
They know what’s going on, they know what they’re doing. They just don’t care, they like Trump they just can’t argue their case and don’t care to.
Generally speaking, a politician considers their voter base to either be the stupidest motherfuckers on the whole planet, or the most gullible. More often than not, it’s the former
Some words.
There will always be sombody to disagree.
A good example, you could full whole heartedly be a kind and genuine person. And lets say theoretically, there is a poor starving man. You have food and give it to the starving man knowing your intention is to help and to not have any social, poltical, economical gain.
There will be people that claim he is not poor, people that will claim you did it a poltical, or social stunt. Are you sexist? You chose to help a man and not a women?? People that will paint you as the devil himself because your giving away food that sombody else could have had. Maybe there was sombody starving more? How dare you give away that bread!! There are millions of people and there will always be sombody who drinks the cool-aid.
Damn or be damned Make your choice with your best intent and live with it. For you will never know if it was the right decision, the world is emencly complex. I hope this helps explain politics and social antics.
I have learn alot of this lesson being autistic and seeing how others interpret mine or others actions and the potential outcomes.
You are right. I get too obsessed with objectivity sometimes, but it seems like there’s no such thing as the right choice only the one that’s best for me
