Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, Putin annexed it. Putin will do what he wants to do, Dems or no Dems.

We''ll never know. What we do know is that the Dems knew what Putin would do, and they did what they did anyway. So much for their mercy to Ukraine.

No. There’s no evidence that Democrats wanted Russia’s war on Ukraine to happen

There sure is.

Here's AI on it: "U.S. intelligence and political leaders explicitly knew [Bill Burns' warnings to the White House in 2008 highlighted in Stephen Wertheim: The West Cannot Ignore Role NATO ... that Ukraine joining NATO was a hard "red line" for the Russian elite]."

Here's Farage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWmMnmTvRDE (2014).

They'd been warned. They knew. They did it anyway.

[Radagast]

No, I'm just pointing out that in a two party system, if you don't choose "door number 1," then there's no possibility but "door number 2." So the Dems have themselves to blame, if they don't like Trump: they could have chosen somebody competitive to run against him, and they didn't.

I THINK what you are saying is that however terrible, incompetent, repressive, vacillating and sometimes downright dangerous Trump may be as President, his presidency is nonetheless entirely the Democrats' fault because they failed to beat him? If so, I agree with you. It is 100% the fault of the Democrats for sticking with the rather silly bi-partisan U.S. convention that however bad a President may be, he should have a chance to be re-elected for a second term. If they had broken with that convention and instead run a candidate who was a vigorous, reasonably charismatic, middle-aged white, male centrist, non-woke about social issues and showing some indications of economic competence, and of understanding both the needs of businesses and the worries of increasingly marginalised working class patriots, then they would definitely have won. In a big organisation like the Democratic Party there must be hundreds of dudes who fit that description, yet the Democrat leadership failed to identify one of them. Therefore Trump being President is 100% their fault. I quite agree.

However, and this maybe is where it get a tiny bit philosophically interesting, Trump's Presidency being 100% the fault of the Democrats is entirely compatible with Trump's Presidency being 100% the fault of a stupid choice by those Americans who voted for him. After Trump's 1st term and his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election result, it was entirely obvious that the man is so dangerous that voting for him is the political equivalent of hitting yourself on the head with a club hammer. In fact even if Sleepy Joe Biden had slipped into an actual coma, his non-actions still would have been more conducive to the safety and prosperity of Americans and foreigners alike than the actions of Trump when wide awake.

So if that's 100% the fault of Democrats and 100% the fault of the stupidity of 2024 Trump voters, it is obvious that something interesting is happening. Trump's 2nd term could also be 100% the fault of other factors too. What about the twit of a tv executive who made him a household name by recruiting him to host Apprentice? What about the judges who pussyfooted around sending him to jail for his various crimes because he was a political candidate? What about the many airline pilots who have ferried safely him on countless journeys thanks to their competence and professionalism? What about Trump's mentor Roy Cohn who taught him such wisdom as never ever admit any wrongdoing, never admit you were beaten, never apologise? What about countless other people since Trump's childhood who in a myriad ways, wittingly or unwittingly, directly or indirectly, deliberately or accidentally, aided his survival, his development, his career and his path back to the White House? It is their fault too. All of these percentages of fault add up not to a hundred percent fault but to many thousands of percent. (And you could say the same of any other life too, obviously). In other words, there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I'm just pointing out that in a two party system, if you don't choose "door number 1," then there's no possibility but "door number 2." So the Dems have themselves to blame, if they don't like Trump: they could have chosen somebody competitive to run against him, and they didn't.

I THINK what you are saying...

It's not hard. It's that if you want to win, you have to put somebody competitive in place, or you give people no alternative.

Trump's Presidency being 100% the fault of the Democrats is entirely compatible with Trump's Presidency being 100% the fault of a stupid choice by those Americans who voted for him.

That doesn't make sense. You'd be saying that the two are the same group. They're not, obviously...unless you think Democrats voted for Trump.

Again, I don't know whether or not Trump can be said to be a good choice. I can say that the two complete doofuses the Dems were trying to run against him was not going to leave people with any alternative. They were going to vote for Trump, if for no other reason than that there was no other reasonable choice offered to them.

And strangely, the Dems must have known this. Remember that they coronated Kamala without any primary at all. They must have known she couldn't even survive a primary, just as we now know that they already knew that Biden was senile. But after the scam they pulled with Biden, they just seemed to underestimate the perceptivity of the electorate, and to imagine that they could put up anything, slap a Dem label on it, and get it elected.

Apparently not, though.

[Radagast]

That doesn't make sense. You'd be saying that the two are the same group. They're not, obviously...unless you think Democrats voted for Trump.

No, I'm saying that the total blame for Trump being President easily exceeds 100%

Well, I'm not actually saying that but instead am implying it in jest. What I was actually finding philosophically interesting is that when people say "X is 100% to blame for Y" then two very different meanings of that phrase are usually being conflated. The two meanings are (a) "X is completely to blame for Y because if only they had acted otherwise then Y would not have occurred" and (b) "X and X alone is to blame for Y". But (a) does not imply (b).

In the case of the election, I agree that the Democrats are completely to blame in sense (a). However I disagree that (b) they are solely to blame. I would say that the stupid choice made by Trump 2024 voters is also to blame - along with many other choices made by many other people.

Aha, you say, but the choice made by Trump voters was not stupid, because the alternatives with which they were presented (first Biden, later Kamala) were not reasonable. However, I doubt that. Contrary to what you say, Trump was not a reasonable choice either. He was a choice even worse than Biden or Kamala. It would have been more reasonable to vote for Stormy Daniels, or even for Stormy Daniels' pet chipmunk, Albert, if either of them had been on the ballot, than to vote for Trump, and either choice would have resulted in a safer, saner world than that we now inhabit.

[Immanuel Can]

That doesn't make sense. You'd be saying that the two are the same group. They're not, obviously...unless you think Democrats voted for Trump.

No, I'm saying that the total blame for Trump being President easily exceeds 100%

Mathematically impossible, of course.

Well, I'm not actually saying that but instead am implying it in jest.

Yes, I see that. You hate Trump. I get it.

In the case of the election, I agree that the Democrats are completely to blame

Nobody said "completely." But the Dems do bear some responsibility for what they did. They didn't put up a credible candidate. That was their choice; and it actually has nothing to do with Trump. I'm sure they never asked him, in fact.

Contrary to what you say, Trump was not a reasonable choice either.

I didn't say that. Yet if nobody provided any reasonable alternative, then reasonable or not, he would be the only choice left. It would have nothing to do with Trump himself, and it would have nothing to do with "stupidity." It would simply be that there was no longer any alternative.

This is what puzzles me. The Dems must have somebody smarter than Kamala. They absolutely must. There's no way she's the peak candidate of the Dems. We can't have that low an opinion of them, reasonably speaking. So why didn't they put forward somebody better? And it makes me wonder if maybe they had so underestimated the intelligence of the average American voter, that they didn't even bother to try. They must have thought they could win with that absolute nobody they put forward...even though they knew she couldn't survive a primary by her own party. It's really astounding.

But it turns out the Dems were wrong. Maybe the American voters are not so completely "stupid" as the Dems imagined. They certainly saw through Kamala. She didn't win a single swing state.

So again, whether Trump is good or bad, it's obvious now that the Dems misfired with the Harris-Walz ticket. That much, even Dems must now know. But personally, I can't even understand why they tried it. It just seems obvious to me they could have done better with practically anybody else. And they must have other options.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, you've already realized she got the whole derivation of American education thing wrong.

No, that is just you making things up

Really? So you're going to go back to the view that America's school system was created in the Prussian-industrialist pattern, even contrary to all the evidence I gave you? Okay, you can do that. It's just not true, though.

Again:
"This video is not arguing that Americans are stupid. 335 million people have the same range of intelligence as any other population on Earth. The same distribution of IQ, the same capacity for brilliance, the same capacity for analytical thought. Some of the most rigorous thinkers, scientists, journalists and critics in the world, are American. What this video is arguing is that a system was deliberately built to prevent a very, very large portion of the population from developing and using the skills of critical thinking, self awareness and emotional intelligence, and that is a very different claim. And if you genuinely think all Americans are stupid, you are clearly deficient in critical thinking skills yourself, so you might not want to throw stones."

However, If her analysis satisfies you, then I guess it satisfies you. I don't think you'll find that it satisfies the facts of history, though.

So what are those facts?

I've cited some, such as her errors about educational history, her failure to understand the effect of the American frontier on differences with European psychological patterns, her facile characterizations as if Americans were somehow created of a stuff less "empathetic" or "intellectual," than Europeans, or the rubbish about "systemic" causes (which simply glosses over the question of who creates "systems," why and how) and so on.

And again:
"This video is not arguing that Americans are stupid. 335 million people have the same range of intelligence as any other population on Earth. The same distribution of IQ, the same capacity for brilliance, the same capacity for analytical thought. Some of the most rigorous thinkers, scientists, journalists and critics in the world, are American. What this video is arguing is that a system was deliberately built to prevent a very, very large portion of the population from developing and using the skills of critical thinking, self awareness and emotional intelligence, and that is a very different claim. And if you genuinely think all Americans are stupid, you are clearly deficient in critical thinking skills yourself, so you might not want to throw stones."

You do not understand her argument and proceed as if she had claimed what she explicitly states she is not claiming. That is stupidity.

[Walker]

When focusing on methods of teaching ...

The zeitgeist view of British Education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs35t2x ... rt_radio=1

An alternative to the zeitgeist
https://brockwood.org.uk/

[Dubious]

This is what puzzles me. The Dems must have somebody smarter than Kamala. They absolutely must. There's no way she's the peak candidate of the Dems. We can't have that low an opinion of them, reasonably speaking.

Are you seriously contending that the Dems lost because she was less intelligent than Trump who got elected by a majority who now regret having voted for him!

Even the most loyal sheeple will eventually see the human mutation they chose to lead them. Nevertheless, however criminal, obscene and repugnant that miserable tapeworm is, a maga cultist will never object to anything he does or says. To them Trump is almost a biblical figure beyond any kind of reproach. These are the true "deplorables" of which the US clearly has more than its share. This is the group to which the TDS designation, word for word, as a mental contagion properly belongs.

Based on the dangers now apparent in American politics, one can still hear Franklin's admonition..."we have a Republic, if you can keep it." In effect, it's up to its citizens to uphold and maintain it, the Constitution being only a blueprint for a Republic.

Relating to the principles which requires its continuance, to quote Shakespeare...what a falling off was there.

[Walker]

Campaigning from the basement worked for Biden so they tried it with Kamalala, but when they finally had to trot her out for inspection the world got a good gander, and it was curtains. Not a serious person. She will be remembered for her laugh (so that others join in and are with her).

All the fresh blood is radical in all kinds of ways. The guy who just won the Dem senate primary yesterday in Maine is a doozy. And in The Party, women's issues definitely take a back seat to Power ... note the silence about female oppression in Iran as Democrats undermine the president's objectives.

Radicalism and destruction of the system, for power ... but ostensibly for the children.

[Immanuel Can]

This is what puzzles me. The Dems must have somebody smarter than Kamala. They absolutely must. There's no way she's the peak candidate of the Dems. We can't have that low an opinion of them, reasonably speaking.

Are you seriously contending that the Dems lost because she was less intelligent than Trump who got elected by a majority...

That's very obvious, actually. Nobody thinks Kamala's brain is working properly.

...who now regret having voted for him!

That's an interesting assumption. What's your evidence for that? I'm not personally hearing any news that anybody but the Dems is particularly unhappy with him, apart from the ongoing perplexities in the Strait of Hormuz.

Here's another thing I find interesting. The Dems tell us both that Trump is dumb (incompetent, mentally-impaired, in his dotage, rash, greedy, foolish...whatever) AND that he's an evil mastermind, one bent on becoming "king" and ruling the world with sinister calculation. I wonder which story it is that they actually believe -- or if they believe either. They certainly can't believe both, because they're opposite stories. Or is it just that any "stick" is considered "good enough" to beat Trump with? I don't know.

Personally, I don't have any particular feeling about Trump, one way or the other. He might be a villain, for all I know, or he might be the best of a bad thing, or he might actually end up doing some good. The jury's out on that, and if my own politicians weren't wrecking my country faster than anybody, I might even see him as a problem to us. But as for America, I wouldn't think that a country run by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz would be up to any good. I feel quite certain they wouldn't be running it anyway; as with Biden, somebody behind the scenes, somebody unelected, would be "running" them. I don't think we should be easy with the prospect of "puppet" rule, whoever is in charge.

Relating to the principles which requires its continuance, to quote Shakespeare...what a falling off was there.

That makes me think of California, right now.

If you've been, you know it's the most beautiful state in the Union, by far. It's just gorgeous...sprawling deserts, mountains, green valleys, sunshine, the Pacific coast...and so on. But now, its two most key cities are trash bins, after years of Democrat rule. And the same is true in multiple other places where the Democrats have reigned uncontested for generations: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Portland, Seattle...

"What a falling off was there," indeed. Each of these proud towns has been reduced to a standing dumpster fire. And I'm curious: how does anybody imagine that more Democrat rule would improve what the Democrats themselves have so clearly caused? Does anybody ever ask that question?

[Immanuel Can]

Campaigning from the basement worked for Biden so they tried it with Kamalala, but when they finally had to trot her out for inspection the world got a good gander, and it was curtains. Not a serious person. She will be remembered for her laugh (so that others join in and are with her).

All the fresh blood is radical in all kinds of ways. The guy who just won the Dem senate primary yesterday in Maine is a doozy. And in The Party, women's issues definitely take a back seat to Power ... note the silence about female oppression in Iran as Democrats undermine the president's objectives.

Radicalism and destruction of the system, for power ... but ostensibly for the children.

Yes, the whole Democrat Party is very Nietzschean. You'll remember that he claimed that "the will to power" was the secret behind all ostensibly "moral" language. Well, power seems to be the total game for them, but they frame everything in moral language. It's very strategic and really inauthentic.

"Inauthentic" is a good word for the Harris-Walz ticket. They both came across as entirely phony and salesman-like people, but without even that modicum of intelligence that might conceal their limitations from the world. I just can't figure out why the Dems believed they would be the best option to put up for the presidency: they clearly weren't, and they weren't the brain-trust of the party, for sure.

In that way, I think the Dems handed the election to Trump. Had they put up somebody more credible, they surely would have created a tighter race, even if they didn't win. But as it is, they got slaughtered, because I think that the American public turned out to be nowhere near so oblivious as the Dems had come to believe them to be.

By the way, I have to say that the selection of leaders in the UK, in Canada, in Australia, or in Europe generally has not been a stunning demonstration of public intellection lately. If there is a "bloody stupidity" going on, it most certainly is not peculiar to America. It's everywhere, right now. Nowhere does the public seem to be making good electoral decisions. I wonder what's causing that.

[Impenitent]

voting

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

voting

-Imp

Maybe.

But if that's the case, then it doesn't speak well of public intellectual capacities anywhere in the West, currently.

[mickthinks]

I'm not personally hearing any news that anybody but the Dems is particularly unhappy with him,

This may be true, but like all Manny’s personal testimony, it’s worthless. His ignorance of a fact isn’t and never has been grounds to deny it.

The Dems tell us … that he's an evil mastermind,…

I doubt Manny can cite even one instance of a Democrat describing Trump as a mastermind. He’s made it up. He does that all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not personally hearing any news that anybody but the Dems is particularly unhappy with him,

This may be true,...

It is. Do you have any contrary evidence?

I doubt Manny can cite even one instance of a Democrat describing Trump as a mastermind.

How about the "No Kings" protests? Is their assumption that he's too dumb to fool anybody into making him "king," or anything like it, or that he's malevolently and strategically plotting to crown himself, in some form? Well, is that a real danger, or are they just making a mistake?

And how about things like this: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/machiavellian-p ... ald-trump/

Or this: https://www.ft.com/content/734613aa-ff5 ... 25a6b1a6=1

So...it seems your doubt is misplaced.

Here's another interesting question. If the last article is right, then it would be the expectation that Trump is not a mastermind that would make his opponents perennially susceptible to underestimating him, and thus to losing to him. So could all the venom, the rage, the unthinking resentment, (the TDS, if you will) of Trump actually be playing a role in crippling the Democrats' real ability to deal with him strategically? Or do you consider that simply impossible, unlike the writers of the article? Honest question.