JD Vance, Trump and the state of US politics

[accelafine]

At a guess I would say Atla is referring to the fully developed human brain, which isn't the same thing as 'stopping mentally evolving'. Either that or the fact that women reach 'emotional maturity' in their early thirties while men reach it in their early forties (allegedly).

[Atla]

And then some of them make it worse by going the BPD route.

[accelafine]

And then some of them make it worse by adding more deflective insults

That's highly offensive to anyone with actual 'BPD' (is that bi polar or borderline personality?). I'm sure there are several on here.

[accelafine]

Makes a comment and then gets all nasty when someone asks a perfectly reasonable and polite question about it

How very 'mentally evolved'...

[Atla]

And then some of them make it worse by adding more deflective insults

That's highly offensive to anyone with actual 'BPD' (is that bi polar or borderline personality?). I'm sure there are several on here.

Hey weren't you championing the idea that we shouldn't pretend to get offended on behalf of others?

[accelafine]

Yeah. Must be it. You're a veritable Einstein. Perhaps you are still 'mentally evolving'

[Dubious]

Just saw this on comrade Lichtenstein's quora page. In a weird way he's managed to earn one point of respect from me by saying this. It means he's strong enough (or once was) not to have to conceal the entirety of his scumbaggishness. It's when the scumbags try to hide that pisses me off.

Unfortunately, the quote pictured above has been debunked as not true.

True or not, it certainly turned out to be true.

[seeds]

Just saw this on comrade Lichtenstein's quora page. In a weird way he's managed to earn one point of respect from me by saying this. It means he's strong enough (or once was) not to have to conceal the entirety of his scumbaggishness. It's when the scumbags try to hide that pisses me off.

Unfortunately, the quote pictured above has been debunked as not true.

True or not, it certainly turned out to be true.

Check out this short little TV western from the 1950s. It appears as if The Simpsons isn't the only show that foretells future events...

https://youtu.be/M0mcFCS_hYs

From the IMDb website:

1950s Western Predicted a Border Wall From a Fictional Con Man Named Trump
An episode of a 1950s Western drama may have foretold America’s current border wall crisis more than 60 years ago. Politics today and the show both feature men named Trump with a wall that is promised to protect every citizen from danger.

Apparently, even as a wee lad, Trump's stench was already wafting over to Hollywood and affecting the script writers.
_______

[Dubious]

Unfortunately, the quote pictured above has been debunked as not true.

True or not, it certainly turned out to be true.

Check out this short little TV western from the 1950s. It appears as if The Simpsons isn't the only show that foretells future events...

https://youtu.be/M0mcFCS_hYs

From the IMDb website:

1950s Western Predicted a Border Wall From a Fictional Con Man Named Trump
An episode of a 1950s Western drama may have foretold America’s current border wall crisis more than 60 years ago. Politics today and the show both feature men named Trump with a wall that is promised to protect every citizen from danger.

Apparently, even as a wee lad, Trump's stench was already wafting over to Hollywood and affecting the script writers.
_______

A very appropriate analogy! There's certainly a severe overlap between then and now, or any age when it comes down to perverse stupidity. It seems to always persist, whenever and wherever. I used to believe...naively, pre-Trump, that anyone who so overtly and thoroughly displays their abhorrent nature would be rejected by most people. How wrong I was! Despite all the criminal acts perpetrated by humans throughout the ages, this unexpected acceptance of what shows itself to be so completely malicious in every respect and near anti-human - compared to how humans generally like to regard themselves - reveals how dangerous the future is going to be and currently on-route to becoming.

It almost seems we require supernatural help to reset things into a modest state of equilibrium. As it now looks, in its downhill trajectory, it's a hopeless hope to believe the cause will eventually be the cure. Our 'eventually' takes far too long to prevent the consequences. The upward torque required to avert doesn't match the speed of our decline.

[seeds]

True or not, it certainly turned out to be true.

Check out this short little TV western from the 1950s. It appears as if The Simpsons isn't the only show that foretells future events...

https://youtu.be/M0mcFCS_hYs

From the IMDb website:

1950s Western Predicted a Border Wall From a Fictional Con Man Named Trump
An episode of a 1950s Western drama may have foretold America’s current border wall crisis more than 60 years ago. Politics today and the show both feature men named Trump with a wall that is promised to protect every citizen from danger.

Apparently, even as a wee lad, Trump's stench was already wafting over to Hollywood and affecting the script writers.
_______

A very appropriate analogy! There's certainly a severe overlap between then and now, or any age when it comes down to perverse stupidity. It seems to always persist, whenever and wherever. I used to believe...naively, pre-Trump, that anyone who so overtly and thoroughly displays their abhorrent nature would be rejected by most people. How wrong I was! Despite all the criminal acts perpetrated by humans throughout the ages, this unexpected acceptance of what shows itself to be so completely malicious in every respect and near anti-human - compared to how humans generally like to regard themselves - reveals how dangerous the future is going to be and currently on-route to becoming.

It almost seems we require supernatural help to reset things into a modest state of equilibrium. As it now looks, in its downhill trajectory, it's a hopeless hope to believe the cause will eventually be the cure. Our 'eventually' takes far too long to prevent the consequences. The upward torque required to avert doesn't match the speed of our decline.

Agreed.

And you already know that I feel that the speed (or at least the inevitability) of America's decline is the result of (and proportional to) the negative karma it's been sowing across the planet over the last seven or so decades.

In other words, if you are willing to think of karma as being a "supernatural" process that's going to "reset things," then it seems to be already in progress in American society, and especially in the realm of politics.

Right at this moment, I'm not sure if the workings of karma are going to punish the cumulative sins of one disgusting man (Trump) by denying him the presidency and the means of avoiding prison,...

...or...

...if it's going to punish the cumulative sins of America itself and hastening the speed of its decline by allowing Trump to, once again, be the official (and all-too-fitting) representative of the greedy, hedonistic, vulgar, and brazenly imperialistic society we've devolved into.

I guess we'll find out in a few days.

However, there's no escaping the dread that I feel (especially for the young) in that no matter which way the election goes, the decline is already baked into the system.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

JD Vance, Trump and the state of US politics

My take on this and any conversation on this forum about the Trump phenomenon is that it is made impossble by the hatred and contempt that is felt for Donald Trump. People hated Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, and all of them had their reasons, but their hatred, a different form of TDS applied to other political figures, made it difficult, and likely impossible, to discuss the implications of each presidency in each specific context.

Frankly, I do not have a great deal of faith in the Republic and indeed the health of the Republic, and I agree, and many people agree at least in spirit, about what Seeds has referred to when he asks:

...if [karma is] going to punish the cumulative sins of America itself and hasten[..] the speed of its decline by allowing Trump to, once again, be the official (and all-too-fitting) representative of the greedy, hedonistic, vulgar, and brazenly imperialistic society we've devolved into.

However, any of these crimes -- and let's refer to them as the crimes compiled in Chomsky's long Lists of Horror (and I have read 8 Chomsky titles so I know them all by heart) -- are in degree exactly the same crimes of any power operating as an imperialism or semi-imperialistically (Britain, France, Spain, etc.)

It is true as rain though that, after WWll ended, the US consolidated its hegemonic role and power and in this sense I certainly accept Chomsky's general analysis which he bases on an internal security document written by George Keenan:

In PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking:

We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population…. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction…. We should cease to talk about vague and…, unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

One can only begin to try to state that the sociological and the political situation of the United States is at a difficult and strange juncture. Let's suppose that it could be possible to bring this out in conversation. If we were to do that I have a feeling that we would more or less describe those elements that Chomsky does in his books. It would be a Left- or Progressive critique of power-systems, would it not?

How a country -- in this case the US-- came to be so powerful, so influential, and so determining (as a political entity within world history) is a very complex conversation, isn't it? Is the absolutist Chomskian critique the only one possible or valid? (I am uncertain myself since I tend to have internalized Liberal categories).

What will likely happen (here) is that any statement made that seems to defend the appearance of Trump will only call forth the typical condemnation which is common but not very useful.

It is more productive to parse through the various dimensions of the question.

This might interest some who write here (?)

[BigMike]

If you’re a Trump voter, let’s talk. I may not know you personally, but I think I know what you stand for, what matters most to you at your core. You’re the kind of person who believes in personal responsibility, the “if you made the mess, you clean it up” kind of responsibility. And guess what? That’s a value Democrats share, too. You believe that hard work should mean something, that it should allow you to get ahead. Well, here’s the thing: Democrats believe that, too. You value fairness—treating people fairly, doing what’s right, rewarding effort. Democrats do, too. And you believe in family, in values that make life better for our families, that protect them and support them. That’s not unique to one party; that’s an American value we all share.

Now, here’s the thing that often gets lost in all the noise: These are not Republican values or Democratic values alone; they are American values. Every election season, we come together as a country, and we talk about how best to protect and uphold these values. Every four years, we decide who is going to lead us forward, who will make decisions that reflect what we hold dear. And here we are again, with two options left on the ballot: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The time has come to make a choice, and it’s an important one.

Let’s take just one value to talk about: the belief that if you work hard, you should get ahead. I think it’s fair to say that no matter where you live or what your background is, hard work is a value you hold dear. And you’re not alone. People across the country are working two jobs, sometimes three, just to make ends meet, to put food on the table, to keep a roof over their heads. That’s the American way—to work hard and do what’s necessary for your family. But in today’s world, sometimes all it takes is a single medical bill or an unexpected car repair to throw everything into disarray. One little thing can set you back years financially.

So let’s take a look at Trump’s approach to this. His solution to our economic challenges is a tax cut—only it’s a tax cut that overwhelmingly favors billionaires and massive corporations. And you know who ends up paying for it? We do. He’s slapped a 20% tariff on all imported goods, which means that everything we buy—from clothes to toys to phones—is now more expensive. That’s right. All those little things we buy to keep life moving will cost about 20% more, and that’s coming out of your pocket, not his. So let me ask: is that fair? Is that really helping you get ahead?

What happens with those tax cuts, then? The folks at the top, those big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, use them to hide their earnings offshore, buy more shares in their companies, and reap all the profits. Maybe they’ll buy stock in the company you work for. But here’s the rub: no matter how hard you work, that money goes to the shareholders, not to you. The harder you work, the better their stock performance. So, where does that leave you? Still struggling to make ends meet, because no matter how hard you work, those 20% tariffs keep pulling you down. It’s not a ladder; it’s a treadmill.

Now, let’s look at Kamala Harris’s approach. Her solution is to put more money directly into your hands and the hands of millions of other hardworking Americans. She wants to provide tax cuts specifically targeted to middle and working-class folks like you. Imagine what an extra $6,000 tax credit could mean the year you have a child, or a $25,000 grant for a down payment on your first home. And if you’ve ever dreamed of starting your own business, she’s proposing up to $50,000 in support to help make that dream a reality.

Then there’s healthcare. Harris wants to expand Obamacare, which would lower premiums and make prescription drugs more affordable. Imagine being able to pay less for the medicine you need or knowing you’re covered if an unexpected illness strikes. Each of these ideas is aimed at one thing: helping you get ahead by addressing real issues in your everyday life, by putting more money back into your pocket.

So here we are, faced with a choice. One approach favors the wealthiest, leaving you to pay for it, while the other looks out for the people who make this country what it is—hardworking Americans like you. It’s time to decide which vision of fairness, family, and responsibility truly serves your interests and upholds the values we all share.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you’re a Trump voter, let’s talk. I may not know you personally, but I think I know what you stand for, what matters most to you at your core.

You mentioned many different things in your post, yet it is to this that I respond first. I am uncertain what Trump supporters stand for. I have a general sense of what they oppose in the Democrats though. I think that their reasons have to be more fully explored.

Myself, I vote for Trump in some sense for the same reason that (I have read) many will vote for Harris — a vote against Trump, whom they despise, not so much for her.

I do not have much faith in the health of our present. The Republic. I have my sense of things. I have explored many different potential causes for the present disarray.

There are, indeed, two choices on the ballot. But if Trump wins it will be solely for the next four years that he is in power. I vote for him in the hope that the movement he began can develop further. In a sense I can imagine you believing that my reason is be even worse than a vote for the personality of a man like Trump.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So here we are, faced with a choice. One approach favors the wealthiest, leaving you to pay for it, while the other looks out for the people who make this country what it is—hardworking Americans like you. It’s time to decide which vision of fairness, family, and responsibility truly serves your interests and upholds the values we all share.

I do not, myself, agree with your framing. It really smacks of a partisan position. Even a “talking points” speech.

The wealthy, it seems to me, control the present. In at least a general sense this is true across the board. One ultra-wealthy faction dominates the Republican party; and another the Democrat Party.

It’s time to decide which vision of fairness, family, and responsibility truly serves your interests and upholds the values we all share.

“We” certainly share some things but there may be many other things that are not shared.

But I do agree that we (in this conversation) could better define what each faction does desire and hope for.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.