US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024

[bugsyblue]

Newsnight last night had a Republican (not sure who) and Piers Moron on, both of whom ardently defended Trump, saying "oh that's campaign talk, he didn't mean it".

Victoria Derbyshire commented that she tends to listen to what candidates say to judge them, to which Moron called her naive.

Not exactly helpful for clarity/trust when the defence is essentially that you can't believe a word Trump says - I wonder what basis anyone is meant to use to decide.

Policies?

I know you’re making a valid point and I too would love for politicians to be held more accountable for what they say but I would argue what they do is more important to judge.

You very rarely get an in-depth analysis of policies on either side in mainstream media either and I don’t understand why. And I don’t mean in the moment analysis like we’ve obviously had a lot of talk on the latest budget from the Labour Party but very rarely do people historically look at policies parties implemented and look at the facts to what benefits it gave or negative impact it had.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Is that what we call Conservatives these days? Nazi?

Don't want to argue blue, there's no point, but when a guy brings up the topic of "true Nazis" and goes on to say how he believes that Trump is "good for the human race" after he's ridden home to victory mainly on the back of the disenfranchised middle-aged male vote, my spider senses tingle a bit, you know?

But maybe I'm wrong, just like I suppose it could be true that many of Nigel Farage's closest friends are actually "darkies" or whatever offensive (but slightly less offensive than it could be) terminology he's learnt to use nowadays. ;)

Anyway, enjoy your day, I won't be reading any more of this thread.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I don’t think that’s fair. You should listen to his Brian Cox interviews on there - fascinating insight into astronomy, physics etc - or his interviews with Bernie Sanders (to keep it in the political sphere) or Edward Snowdon. Rogan’s podcast are interesting when his interviewees are interesting. It’s true he invites the occasional nut job like Alex Jones and people on the fringes of society but intelligent people can make their own minds up about those figures and what is being said. I personally find when he has the less famous names on but specialists in their field (I often like the scientists or computer experts he invites on) they are the most insightful interviews. Each to their own I guess.

I think that’s fair.

The problem seems to be the balance is waaaay off between interesting expert and conspiracy theorist/bullshitter!

I’ll give you one guess which category Trump fell into!

 

[blue for life]

Isn’t convicted felon and rapist enough to put someone off voting for him? Surely it stops right there. I have lost all faith in humanity.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Over the last few years I haven't really seen much of Biden, the press has been ptetty much ambivalent to him. Hopefully the same occurs with Trump.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Isn’t convicted felon and rapist enough to put someone off voting for him? Surely it stops right there. I have lost all faith in humanity.

Welcome to the club. What took you so long?

 

[johnny crossan]

Nope. Not any more. It’s all relative now.

;-)
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don’t. Deconstruction deconstructs itself, and disappears up its own behind, leaving only a disembodied smile and a faint smell of sulphur.”​

― Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Policies?

I know you’re making a valid point and I too would love for politicians to be held more accountable for what they say but I would argue what they do is more important to judge.

You very rarely get an in-depth analysis of policies on either side in mainstream media either and I don’t understand why. And I don’t mean in the moment analysis like we’ve obviously had a lot of talk on the latest budget from the Labour Party but very rarely do people historically look at policies parties implemented and look at the facts to what benefits it gave or negative impact it had.

I think you're aware that I was more thinking of "I will do such and such" under Moron's Maxim is meaningless and shouldn't be a basis of decision. Any policy put forward in that manner is irrelevant as it shouldn't be considered to be truth.

I do agree that the detail of what policies mean or did is lacking as news channels have been cut and cut (see Newsnight for a recent example); this obviously suits the politicians who know that they will rarely get a deep analysis.

Audience is the only metric of interest. The focus is more on soundbites and shock headlines - several minutes on something by someone else said or done, rather than ask a minister about his actual department.

It does still happen in some newspapers, but it's much harder to find.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I wonder if there's a line to bet on Aileen Cannon becoming a Supreme Court Justice in the next 4 years?

Isn't this just wonderful?

 

[The perfect fumble]

This link might help .... you'll see that Trump and many of the Republicans tick many boxes (as does Project 2025)

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism, by Lawrence Britt, Spring 2003

ratical.org

Just as an aside .... there were 24 (known) Republican senators who were paid by and worked for the NAZIs in the run up to the USA involvement in the second world war .

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In establishment circles, both sides of the Atlantic, the Nazis were in vogue with a number of high profile individuals in the 1930s, but this was more a product of those politically chaotic times, the old certainties gone, where the fear of Bolshevism gripped figures like 1st World War Prime Minister Lloyd George "the man who won the war"

In 1936, Lloyd George visited Germany and met with Hitler twice. He admired Hitler's ability to reduce unemployment, and by the country's overall economic and social conditions. He was impressed by the "universal adoration" of Hitler throughout Germany. He said he had never seen the Germans "happier". He called Hitler "one of the greatest of the many great men I have ever met". He also described Hitler as the "George Washington of Germany".

I'm no expert on US politics of the 1930s, but if you believe, as I do, that capitalism in America has two political wings, the Democrats and the Republicans, then communism has always been seen as a greater enemy than fascism, and that includes the war years. It's a myth that the USA, or the UK for that matter, fought the second world war primarily to defeat fascism. In the post war years we were more than wiling to turn a blind eye to fascists if they were a useful bulwark against communism, particularly in the newly independent nations of the post colonial world.

Those inter war years are greatly misunderstood and viewing them through a post war prism is a waste of time.

A Nazi rally held in Madison Square Garden, February 20th 1939​