2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[Post War America]

Anarchists definitionally aren't particularly keen on a class of people who have no purpose other than being legislators, that's practically the definition of an unjustified hierarchy. They would have to get real jobs instead of faffing about for six months before going on vacation and making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Which means Politicians, as a class of people, have a vested personal interest in opposing anarchists to the bloody end.

I'd expect, most people won't appreciate my bluntness, which is why I rarely do most of the speechifying, nor do I believe that any anarchist society will immediately be able to complete its endgame, in fact, that's what the labor organization, recruitment, and strike organization are explicitly for. To build popular support, and the viability of interconnected communities that don't rely on a legislative state to function. Participation in bourgeois electoralism conversely, is a dead end ideologically, because relying on elections and legislators to abolish their own existence, or even to reduce their power, is a fundamentally ridiculous concept.

As for practicality, I dunno, generally anarchist societies tend to be invaded by multiple armies simultaneously, and overthrown. So its hard to gauge their viability in the long term. But lemme ask you, do you seriously think the model of health insurance is practical? Having an entire bureaucratic apparatus that serves no purpose other than to serve as a middleman between healthcare providers and healthcare seekers? Or a centralized legislative body that relies on a vast state bureaucracy to carry out its will, particularly in an era where communication literally happens at the speed of light? Do you seriously believe that companies could not function without a managerial class and autocratic organizational practices?

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Warlordism is not the same thing, and I should encourage to lookup the Regional Defense Councils of Aragon to have better idea of the society I wish to create. Then again, you do have a long history of ridiculous thought terminating clichés, so I'd expect you're to intellectually lazy to consider the possibility that any societal organization other than liberal democracy and capitalism to be even worth a second's consideration.

[Post War America]

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Lumen I'm about as far from an anarchist as one can be but holy fuck this is an uneducated statement lol

I mean, they do have a long standing record of using though terminating clichés to avoid educating themselves.

[Cordel One]

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Really channeling your inner PragerU there, Lumen.

[Thermodolia]

Another thread? Dang these move fast

[Thermodolia]

Trump Biden/Harris Hawkins/Walker 2020 Tito/Marx 2020

Fixed it.

Still in need of repairs, I did the rest.

Repaired further

[Thermodolia]

Anarchists definitionally aren't particularly keen on a class of people who have no purpose other than being legislators, that's practically the definition of an unjustified hierarchy. They would have to get real jobs instead of faffing about for six months before going on vacation and making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Which means Politicians, as a class of people, have a vested personal interest in opposing anarchists to the bloody end.

I'd expect, most people won't appreciate my bluntness, which is why I rarely do most of the speechifying, nor do I believe that any anarchist society will immediately be able to complete its endgame, in fact, that's what the labor organization, recruitment, and strike organization are explicitly for. To build popular support, and the viability of interconnected communities that don't rely on a legislative state to function. Participation in bourgeois electoralism conversely, is a dead end ideologically, because relying on elections and legislators to abolish their own existence, or even to reduce their power, is a fundamentally ridiculous concept.

As for practicality, I dunno, generally anarchist societies tend to be invaded by multiple armies simultaneously, and overthrown. So its hard to gauge their viability in the long term. But lemme ask you, do you seriously think the model of health insurance is practical? Having an entire bureaucratic apparatus that serves no purpose other than to serve as a middleman between healthcare providers and healthcare seekers? Or a centralized legislative body that relies on a vast state bureaucracy to carry out its will, particularly in an era where communication literally happens at the speed of light? Do you seriously believe that companies could not function without a managerial class and autocratic organizational practices?

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Step away from the straw Lumen. That’s not even what anarchists support, most of them support things like Freetown Christiania, The Paris Commune, and the Zapatistas.

You can disagree with anarchism without resorting to silly strawmen.

[Kowani]

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Really channeling your inner PragerU there, Lumen.

All we need now are graphs that would make Fox News ask for journalistic integrity.

[Thermodolia]

Lumen I'm about as far from an anarchist as one can be but holy fuck this is an uneducated statement lol

I mean, they do have a long standing record of using though terminating clichés to avoid educating themselves.

When the authoritarians back up the anarchists you’ve done fucked up

[Kowani]

Still in need of repairs, I did the rest.

Repaired further

Except neither of them are eligible...

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Trump Biden/Harris Hawkins/Walker 2020 Tito/Marx 2020 Justinian/Theodora 2020

Fixed it.

Still in need of repairs, I did the rest.

Repaired further

Το έχω διορθώσει ακόμη περισσότερο.

[Kannap]

Ah *deep sniff* mmmm new thread smell.



Must be a slow news day, huh?

Man, you are late by four pages.

The thread is still new, is it not? If I'd stepped in at 50 pages, then you could protest. But you cannot deny the thread is still fairly new.

[Kannap]

Anarchists definitionally aren't particularly keen on a class of people who have no purpose other than being legislators, that's practically the definition of an unjustified hierarchy. They would have to get real jobs instead of faffing about for six months before going on vacation and making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Which means Politicians, as a class of people, have a vested personal interest in opposing anarchists to the bloody end.

I'd expect, most people won't appreciate my bluntness, which is why I rarely do most of the speechifying, nor do I believe that any anarchist society will immediately be able to complete its endgame, in fact, that's what the labor organization, recruitment, and strike organization are explicitly for. To build popular support, and the viability of interconnected communities that don't rely on a legislative state to function. Participation in bourgeois electoralism conversely, is a dead end ideologically, because relying on elections and legislators to abolish their own existence, or even to reduce their power, is a fundamentally ridiculous concept.

As for practicality, I dunno, generally anarchist societies tend to be invaded by multiple armies simultaneously, and overthrown. So its hard to gauge their viability in the long term. But lemme ask you, do you seriously think the model of health insurance is practical? Having an entire bureaucratic apparatus that serves no purpose other than to serve as a middleman between healthcare providers and healthcare seekers? Or a centralized legislative body that relies on a vast state bureaucracy to carry out its will, particularly in an era where communication literally happens at the speed of light? Do you seriously believe that companies could not function without a managerial class and autocratic organizational practices?

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Something tells me you need to read some more about Somalia before you talk about Somalia.

[Cordel One]

Really channeling your inner PragerU there, Lumen.

All we need now are graphs that would make Fox News ask for journalistic integrity.

[No State Here]

“Why are you giving Kanye West any attention” I know people voting him just for the lolz, I’m afraid there are quite a few people doing so

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

So your an anarchist then? Go ask Ilhan Omar how well that worked out in Somalia

Warlordism is not the same thing, and I should encourage to lookup the Regional Defense Councils of Aragon to have better idea of the society I wish to create. Then again, you do have a long history of ridiculous thought terminating clichés, so I'd expect you're to intellectually lazy to consider the possibility that any societal organization other than liberal democracy and capitalism to be even worth a second's consideration.

Lumen's strawman aside, Anarchism simply isn't feasible. If it isn't destroyed by an outside power then it turns into a ruthless authoritarian state or descends into warlordism. This has happened to every single stateless society that wasn't a peaceful hippie commune (which largely broke up on their own, for the most part) that has ever existed. This is because a stateless society lacks cohesion and cooperation once it begins to grow beyond the size of a small town. The more distant people become from one another, the less likely they will want to help each other. It's just basic human nature to distrust strangers. Sad, but true. And no matter what you do you can't reasonably prevent massive cities from springing up without having enough authority and force to constitute and government and military, respectively, which eliminates the statelessness.

Anarchism, Communism, and all other forms of stateless societies are inherent contradictions that cannot be sustained. The removal of power does not put an end to it; it merely creates a vacuum to be exploited by the power-hungry. And those selfish and bloodthirsty few will always exist. You can't fight human nature.

[Andsed]

“Why are you giving Kanye West any attention” I know people voting him just for the lolz, I’m afraid there are quite a few people doing so

What position does Kanye even hold? What does he even stand for?

[Thermodolia]

“Why are you giving Kanye West any attention” I know people voting him just for the lolz, I’m afraid there are quite a few people doing so

What position does Kanye even hold? What does he even stand for?

His album, he stans for more money

[Thermodolia]

Warlordism is not the same thing, and I should encourage to lookup the Regional Defense Councils of Aragon to have better idea of the society I wish to create. Then again, you do have a long history of ridiculous thought terminating clichés, so I'd expect you're to intellectually lazy to consider the possibility that any societal organization other than liberal democracy and capitalism to be even worth a second's consideration.

Lumen's strawman aside, Anarchism simply isn't feasible. If it isn't destroyed by an outside power then it turns into a ruthless authoritarian state or descends into warlordism. This has happened to every single stateless society that wasn't a peaceful hippie commune (which largely broke up on their own, for the most part) that has ever existed. This is because a stateless society lacks cohesion and cooperation once it begins to grow beyond the size of a small town. The more distant people become from one another, the less likely they will want to help each other. It's just basic human nature to distrust strangers. Sad, but true. And no matter what you do you can't reasonably prevent massive cities from springing up without having enough authority and force to constitute and government and military, respectively, which eliminates the statelessness.

Anarchism, Communism, and all other forms of stateless societies are inherent contradictions that cannot be sustained. The removal of power does not put an end to it; it merely creates a vacuum to be exploited by the power-hungry. And those selfish and bloodthirsty few will always exist. You can't fight human nature.

Anarchism only works on the extremely local level. Outside of that it always falls apart.

But anyway its completely fine to disagree with anarchism and its merits or lack there of, as long as you don’t strawman the hell out of it

[-Astoria-]

The thread is still new, is it not? If I'd stepped in at 50 pages, then you could protest. But you cannot deny the thread is still fairly new.

Darn it!

[Major-Tom]

I imagine someone living in Los Angeles doesn't see how Trump has any support. Many Americans live in bubbles, both in their real-life and online communities. It's our job as responsible citizens to try to question those bubbles.

I am still trying to understand why Trump specifically has support. I get why the Republican party has it, by what do people see in Trump?

I'd encourage you to ask some of them, one on one, if you know any. I've heard answers that range from cynical to nonsensical, from individuals who are both rather intelligent and also fucking moronic.

I think the biggest problem the Democratic Party has with identifying how to win back Trump voters is that they often see that base as monolithic. And it's really quite varied, to be honest. I'll never understand why these aforementioned individuals can't admit to themselves that the man is a royal fuck-up, but I can kind of understand the why, even if I completely disagree with it.

[Neutraligon]

I am still trying to understand why Trump specifically has support. I get why the Republican party has it, by what do people see in Trump?

I'd encourage you to ask some of them, one on one, if you know any. I've heard answers that range from cynical to nonsensical, from individuals who are both rather intelligent and also fucking moronic.

I think the biggest problem the Democratic Party has with identifying how to win back Trump voters is that they often see that base as monolithic. And it's really quite varied, to be honest. I'll never understand why these aforementioned individuals can't admit to themselves that the man is a royal fuck-up, but I can kind of understand the why, even if I completely disagree with it.

I have tried asking, the answers have been anything from nonsensical, to owning the libs, to support for the republican party (without saying why Trump should be supported), to things that can and have been outright shown to be wrong. The one explanation I have that made any sort of sense was not about Trump himself but rather about voting for someone who would put conservative judges in place. Other then that, nothing.

[Northern Davincia]

Clearly the Females are another tool of the Liberals to control and influence the minds of young proud men.

In general women are always more the voice of reason. Young men not so much.

Forgive me for doubting this.

What position does Kanye even hold? What does he even stand for?

His album, he stans for more money

Which makes him a more honest candidate than most.

[Major-Tom]

I'd encourage you to ask some of them, one on one, if you know any. I've heard answers that range from cynical to nonsensical, from individuals who are both rather intelligent and also fucking moronic.

I think the biggest problem the Democratic Party has with identifying how to win back Trump voters is that they often see that base as monolithic. And it's really quite varied, to be honest. I'll never understand why these aforementioned individuals can't admit to themselves that the man is a royal fuck-up, but I can kind of understand the why, even if I completely disagree with it.

I have tried asking, the answers have been anything from nonsensical, to owning the libs, to support for the republican party (without saying why Trump should be supported), to things that can and have been outright shown to be wrong. The one explanation I have that made any sort of sense was not about Trump himself but rather about voting for someone who would put conservative judges in place. Other then that, nothing.

Yeah, the nonsensical stuff can be rough to deal with, but at the same time I think it comes from a place of just genuinely believing what the man says. It plays to the idea of "existing in a bubble" that has been toyed around with in this thread. If you hear the same things over and over, from the man himself, from his media friends, etc etc, it's logical that one would come to accept that as their reality. Us "libs" can be guilty of this too.

I do know some folks who support Trump out of self-interest, like a commercial real estate agent who "just wants to pay less in capital gains" or an individual who only votes for candidates that she sees as supportive of the pharmaceutical industry.. I think those mildly self-aware people can be infuriating, because at that point, they're saying "okay, I know he's full of shit, but I'm cool with it because he suits my personal gain."

[Neutraligon]

I have tried asking, the answers have been anything from nonsensical, to owning the libs, to support for the republican party (without saying why Trump should be supported), to things that can and have been outright shown to be wrong. The one explanation I have that made any sort of sense was not about Trump himself but rather about voting for someone who would put conservative judges in place. Other then that, nothing.

Yeah, the nonsensical stuff can be rough to deal with, but at the same time I think it comes from a place of just genuinely believing what the man says. It plays to the idea of "existing in a bubble" that has been toyed around with in this thread. If you hear the same things over and over, from the man himself, from his media friends, etc etc, it's logical that one would come to accept that as their reality. Us "libs" can be guilty of this too.

I do know some folks who support Trump out of self-interest, like a commercial real estate agent who "just wants to pay less in capital gains" or an individual who only votes for candidates that she sees as supportive of the pharmaceutical industry.. I think those mildly self-aware people can be infuriating, because at that point, they're saying "okay, I know he's full of shit, but I'm cool with it because he suits my personal gain."

How does he support the pharmaceutical industry? Also I don't have an issue with supporting your own personal interests to an extent, but is the capital gains thing really enough to undo all the harm he is doing?

[Major-Tom]

Yeah, the nonsensical stuff can be rough to deal with, but at the same time I think it comes from a place of just genuinely believing what the man says. It plays to the idea of "existing in a bubble" that has been toyed around with in this thread. If you hear the same things over and over, from the man himself, from his media friends, etc etc, it's logical that one would come to accept that as their reality. Us "libs" can be guilty of this too.

I do know some folks who support Trump out of self-interest, like a commercial real estate agent who "just wants to pay less in capital gains" or an individual who only votes for candidates that she sees as supportive of the pharmaceutical industry.. I think those mildly self-aware people can be infuriating, because at that point, they're saying "okay, I know he's full of shit, but I'm cool with it because he suits my personal gain."

How does he support the pharmaceutical industry? Also I don't have an issue with supporting your own personal interests to an extent, but is the capital gains thing really enough to undo all the harm he is doing?

Don't ask me haha, these are just some explanations I've heard, IE; "Well, if a public option is created, I'll make less money selling my company's Pharma drug products because it'll allow for generic alternatives to flood the market and thereby decrease my profit margins."

Is it rational? Not really. Is it cynical? Extremely.