2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[HenrySwanson]

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but while this view of humanity is awful, I think it's pretty accurate. A large part of Americans (and I assume elsewhere in the world) are idiots and will continue to be idiots. Trump and the Republicans have figured out how to speak to idiots, whereas the Democrats have not. Should the Democrats have to cater to the stupidest people? No, in a perfect world, they wouldn't have to, but we live in a world populated with morons.

I support democracy, which is why I ultimately voted for Harris despite not agreeing with many of her policies. However, I also know that most voters will not do the bare minimum to determine where they stand or what a candidate stands for. Still, to this day, many people believe Harris had an open border policy with Mexico despite her a.) not being the president and b.) the Biden administration never having an open border policy. People also believe that the only thing Harris did was tell migrants "not to come to the US," which is far from the only thing she did. To know what Biden's policy on the border is and what Harris did, you need to look at it and read it. A majority of people aren't going to do that. They're going to believe what the ads, the billboards, and the media tell them, which is why I say you need to spoon-feed it to people in bite-sized chunks and why I said you need to cater to those people.

Yes, voters should be informed before heading to the polls and should take the time to actually figure things out, but very few do. Of those who do research, many are duped by manipulated media or things that are straight-up lies. Of those who aren't tricked, even fewer actually understand what it all means, and when they go searching, they end up being at risk of being duped or manipulated again. The number is likely shockingly small when you get to the informed voter who understands and wasn't duped.

I still believe much of this goes back to schools not teaching critical thinking skills. People have lost the ability to look at something and use reason to wade through the information. The whole QAnon thing is ripe with that. You have to throw all reasoning out the window to think that Democrat elites are abducting children to perform Satanic rituals on them while drinking their blood and that somehow Trump is going to change all that despite being a pedophile rapist himself. That kind of stuff used to be reserved for you weird uncle who sat around smoking weed all day trying to convince people that aliens anally probed him; now it's mainstream.

I think social media is a huge reason why people have become dumber, too. We gave charismatic idiots a platform to be loud and reach other idiots. It doesn't help that the world's richest illegal immigrant is also running a social media site and can manipulate it to his will while reaching millions of people. Sure there were always charismatic idiots preaching, churches are full of them, but it was much harder to get that message out before everyone could essentially reach everyone.

And the thing is, I have no idea how you can fix this or if it can be fixed without destroying the country's founding principles. I don't think it can be, so we need to learn to live with stupid people.

Spoiler

You can't fix stupid

 

[Joey D]

This is the point of contention. Either they're capable of rational action or not. If they aren't democracy is not viable. If they are it is, but steps may need to be taken to ensure that it works. I'm in the latter camp and if you're saying that a lack of education is responsible for poor decision making, it sounds like you're in the same camp.

Yes, they're capable of making a rational decision. I think most people are capable of it. But they don't do it. And yes, I believe a lack of education is a huge reason for it, but it also goes back to the anti-intellectual movement in this country (and probably elsewhere). It's "cool" to think you're smarter than everyone else because you have "street smarts" or "went to the school of hard knocks" when, in reality, you're just dumb, and you're ok with being dumb. COVID showed me this more than anything because while I spent hours every day looking at data and trying to figure things out, there was some asshole on Xitter saying you need to take horse dewormer and that vaccines would make your heart explode.

You cited a possible reason above. It will take time to fix a cultural problem, but I don't see it as impossible at the moment. We haven't even tried.

I think the biggest culprit, though, is social media. You can't regulate or change that without dismantling the First Amendment. In the long run, I'd rather have stupid people being loud and still have the First Amendment versus having stupid people silenced and not being afforded the freedoms the First Amendment provides.

It will take decades to shift the culture and improve education. While, in theory, it would eventually work, I'm not sure we have enough time. Every day, I see our society moving closer and closer to making the film Idiocracy a documentary.

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, they're capable of making a rational decision. I think most people are capable of it. But they don't do it. And yes, I believe a lack of education is a huge reason for it, but it also goes back to the anti-intellectual movement in this country (and probably elsewhere). It's "cool" to think you're smarter than everyone else because you have "street smarts" or "went to the school of hard knocks" when, in reality, you're just dumb, and you're ok with being dumb.

Those two things are probably related and if so, education would be a good place to start reigning in those problems. We should also be looking for the roots of the anti-intellectual movement and addressing them. It might be very difficult to get people who are set in their ways to change but if the allure of fringe movements can be diminished then at least the movements will struggle to grow and likely collapse with time.

I think the biggest culprit, though, is social media. You can't regulate or change that without dismantling the First Amendment. In the long run, I'd rather have stupid people being loud and still have the First Amendment versus having stupid people silenced and not being afforded the freedoms the First Amendment provides.

It will take decades to shift the culture and improve education. While, in theory, it would eventually work, I'm not sure we have enough time. Every day, I see our society moving closer and closer to making the film Idiocracy a documentary.

The First Amendment doesn't have to go anywhere. If people learn how to evaluate information and know how it can be faked, that's a step in the right direction. Many people today struggle with the technology we currently have and the science behind it. The huge success of things like internet and phone scams is owed in part to this, but awareness helps in preparing people for them. We need to find the vulnerabilities that con artists exploit (the Trump campaign was one big con) and teach people how to recognize them and how to build defenses against them. It could very well take decades but if we have to choose between a long an expensive process and just giving up I'm picking the former.

 

[Danoff]

And the thing is, I have no idea how you can fix this or if it can be fixed without destroying the country's founding principles. I don't think it can be, so we need to learn to live with stupid people.

So "learn to live with stupid people" means blame the political party that doesn't do enough to manipulate stupid people. This is just a race to the best manipulator. It's not a recipe for success for this country or any country, just "who can trick people the best". I'm not going to blame the democrats for being less manipulative than Trump. If that's the game, we might as well just let Trump be a dictator, because whoever can manipulate better than him will be as well.

So the blame is not with the democrats. The blame, in your view, seems to be with human beings. Your take appears to be that democracy does not work because humans are too dumb for it. I'm not with you there, but I can respect that take given the evidence of the failure of the US experiment with democracy.

I think/hope democracy can work, but the US is now a history lesson in how it fails. It very well may be that the US failed in part because of the first amendment. Or some other. Or our system of checks and balances was not balanced properly. This will be for any existing or future democracies to learn from.

 

[inCloud]

What makes the law "correct"

That it is product of democracy, it is will of US citizens.

 

[Danoff]

That it is product of democracy, it is will of US citizens.

No, that makes it law (sometimes).

 

[UKMikey]

That it is product of democracy, it is will of US citizens.

But Trump has and wants to again overturn initiatives like Temporary Protected Status for people fleeing warzones and the like which were instituted by democratically elected bipartisan committees on the very iffy grounds that some of those people may eat people's pets.

Are you saying that those weren't what the people wanted or that right and wrong switch places every four years?

 

[Kriptical]

I’ve wondered for a while if all of these endlessly scrolling short video clips of stupid people, and cute animals, is slowly turning the population’s minds into tapioca. A primer, if you will.

 

[inCloud]

Are you saying that those weren't what the people wanted or that right and wrong switch places every four years?

Yes, right and wrong could switch places after every elections, that's how democracy works.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, right and wrong could switch places after every elections, that's how democracy works.

So a party comes to power democratically, makes a law that mandates every firstborn male has to be executed, that makes that law 'right'.

I only have one word for that, idiotic.

 

[Joey D]

Those two things are probably related and if so, education would be a good place to start reigning in those problems. We should also be looking for the roots of the anti-intellectual movement and addressing them. It might be very difficult to get people who are set in their ways to change but if the allure of fringe movements can be diminished then at least the movements will struggle to grow and likely collapse with time.

I've been researching anti-intellectualism for the past couple of weeks and have read that it comes from several sources. The biggest of those is that those in the "working class" don't think those in the "upper class" know what it's like to be them. On some level, this is true, but even I get it from working-class people. They think I don't know what it's like to be out there working hard because I'm not digging a ditch, and instead, I sit at a desk at work on a computer. It's weird. We both work hard, we're both trying to provide for our families and live our lives. The fact that I do something more mentally demanding than physically demanding shouldn't really matter, but apparently, it does.

Another big issue is religion. Religion, by nature, opposes intellectualism because intellectualism proves religion to be wrong. It dismantles beliefs and proves that things in various holy books are completely wrong. The leaders of these religious movements don't like that because it means they lose believers, and more importantly, they lose money and control.

There's also human nature. People don't like to be called stupid, and it's not lost on me that the ones who hate being called stupid the most belong to the "🤬 your feelings" crowd. I get that it's difficult and that it's a hard thing to overcome. Even I'm guilty of it, but I recognize that I'm guilty of it and attempt to make an effort to understand that I am wrong on many things.

As for how you address those things, I'm not entirely sure.

The First Amendment doesn't have to go anywhere. If people learn how to evaluate information and know how it can be faked, that's a step in the right direction. Many people today struggle with the technology we currently have and the science behind it. The huge success of things like internet and phone scams is owed in part to this, but awareness helps in preparing people for them. We need to find the vulnerabilities that con artists exploit (the Trump campaign was one big con) and teach people how to recognize them and how to build defenses against them. It could very well take decades but if we have to choose between a long an expensive process and just giving up I'm picking the former.

You're right; the First Amendment doesn't have to go anywhere, but I think if you want to combat the problem before it's too late, it needs to be trampled on. I don't want that. I agree that we should definitely attempt to change course because maybe it'll be easier than I think, but right now, it seems like we're stuck between having a "thought police" and letting idiots shout loudly.

As for struggling with technology, this seems very much like a generational thing. A computer and the internet are second nature to me because I grew up with them. Older people didn't get that, and, for whatever reason, boomers seem hellbent on completely resisting learning technology. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but it's like the boomer age group wants to keep on doing the analog way of life because digital is just "too difficult." If my kid could figure out how to use an iPad at 3, then I don't know why someone can't figure out how to use one at 73. The generation before boomers though seemed to have been at least OK with technology. My grandma bought a computer and used it daily. She wasn't exactly a wiz with it or anything, but she played games, talked to friends and family, and shopped more than she should have. Now I look at someone like my dad who's broken several iPhones because he thinks they're useless garbage and doesn't even know how to make a phone call on it.

So "learn to live with stupid people" means blame the political party that doesn't do enough to manipulate stupid people. This is just a race to the best manipulator. It's not a recipe for success for this country or any country, just "who can trick people the best". I'm not going to blame the democrats for being less manipulative than Trump. If that's the game, we might as well just let Trump be a dictator, because whoever can manipulate better than him will be as well.

So the blame is not with the democrats. The blame, in your view, seems to be with human beings. Your take appears to be that democracy does not work because humans are too dumb for it. I'm not with you there, but I can respect that take given the evidence of the failure of the US experiment with democracy.

I think/hope democracy can work, but the US is now a history lesson in how it fails. It very well may be that the US failed in part because of the first amendment. Or some other. Or our system of checks and balances was not balanced properly. This will be for any existing or future democracies to learn from.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, politics have become a race to determine the best manipulators. Candidates get up there and promise this, that, and the other then never deliver on it because they either don't care to or they straight-up can't. They are also beholden to money. If you're not greasing them financially, you don't matter, or you matter less than the person/company who is donating large sums of money to them. Lobbying is part of the reason I have difficulty trusting so many politicians since they will follow the money instead of doing what's right. Look at how many Republicans were crying on January 6th that they were going to die. Still, when it came time to actually do anything about it, they became mealy-mouthed weasels who didn't want to put the country ahead of their desire for money and power. I'm sure many of them thought Trump was wrong and that he deserved to be ousted, but they knew voting to remove him from office was a death sentence for their careers and the end to their bottomless checkbook.

I don't think humans are inherently too dumb for democracy, but being stupid has definitely won out for the time being. Humans are capable of making rational decisions, we do it every day, but when it comes to politics we seem lost and unable to make that rational decision.

I don't know how you change it, but it seems like if you want to actually win an election, you need to manipulate your opponent better. Is this ideal? Not by a long shot, but at this point, I think I would rather have a Democrat manipulating things than a Republican. Had the Democrats manipulated their way into the presidency this time, I think the country would be better off, or at the very least would've be on the brink of having some of the worse economic policies possible.

I’ve wondered for a while if all of these endlessly scrolling short video clips of stupid people, and cute animals is slowly turning the population’s minds into tapioca. A primer, if you will.

I know it's all conspiratorial, but it sure seems like China is in control of TikTok, making it a cyber weapon. Yes, American "content creators" are making the videos, but the engineers behind the algorithms to promote these creators seem to have nefarious intent. It's pushed false information that acts as election interference time and time again:

TikTok: AI fakes, abuse and misinformation pushed to young voters

A BBC project investigates the election content promoted by social media by tracking dozens of phones.

www.bbc.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/11/china-is-using-tiktok-for-influence-campaigns-odni-says-00146336

On TikTok, Election Misinformation Thrives Ahead of Midterms (Published 2022)

The fast-growing platform’s poor track record during recent voting abroad does not bode well for elections in the U.S., researchers said.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TexRex]

That it is product of democracy, it is will of US citizens.

Why? Why does that make the law "correct"? You must have seen that I asked this because you selectively quoted my post, omitting that from your selection, rather than quoting it in its entirety.

As we all know, Hitler famously kept Germany out of wars and brought world peace.

Look there was only war because someone decided what Hitler was doing was bad. If they'd just let him do his thing, war could have been avoided. Hitler was actually a victim.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know how you change it, but it seems like if you want to actually win an election, you need to manipulate your opponent better. Is this ideal? Not by a long shot, but at this point, I think I would rather have a Democrat manipulating things than a Republican. Had the Democrats manipulated their way into the presidency this time, I think the country would be better off, or at the very least would've be on the brink of having some of the worse economic policies possible.

I can't even begin to worry about economic policies in light of some of the other stuff.

I agree that if the democrats had stepped up and lied and bullied their way to the whitehouse that this would be better than Trump. But it's not good, and it's not democratic. I also don't think it would have worked - because I think fundamentally voters already knew everything they needed to know going into the whole thing. They wanted the bully asshole. I don't think the democrats had any candidate like that.

Trump is popular because he's an asshole. If you're going to beat Trump, and you're going to do it with voters who love assholes, you have to be a bigger one. This is not a recipe for good government.

The Trump victory is a victory of corruption and lawlessness. It eats away at the very structure of the country. We need to do something about our military. It needs to be dismantled and given away before it's in the hands of lawlessness and corruption. Or we need to break the rules and not give it to that person.

 

[Keef]

so we need to learn to live with stupid people.

So you're telling me that Republicans aren't going to implement stringent driver training programs?

My entire career is the antithesis of America at large. I imagine most progressional industries are like this - constant learning, recurrent training, high expectations. It becomes a part of your personality and frankly it's painful to deal with society on a daily basis because there are so many retards out and about, unchecked, unmotivated, held to no effective standards.

I think we should amend the constitution because frankly I think the "freedom to be stupid" puts a burden on others, and therefore infringes our rights, and therefore shouldn't be allowed.

 

[inCloud]

Why? Why does that make the law "correct"

US belongs to its citizens, US citizens elect representatives that approves the law. Considering that only citizens could decide what is good and what is wrong, this is what makes law good or correct.

I think we should amend the constitution because frankly I think the "freedom to be stupid" puts a burden on others, and therefore infringes our rights, and therefore shouldn't be allowed.

Who would decide what is stupid and what's not? What if criteria of stupidity wouldn't be beneficial to you and you lose you constitutional rights?

 

[Scaff]

US belongs to its citizens, US citizens elect representatives that approves the law. Considering that only citizens could decide what is good and what is wrong, this is what makes law good or correct.

So when slavery was legal in the US it was good.

Got it /s

 

[TheHun99]

Another big issue is religion. Religion, by nature, opposes intellectualism because intellectualism proves religion to be wrong. It dismantles beliefs and proves that things in various holy books are completely wrong. The leaders of these religious movements don't like that because it means they lose believers, and more importantly, they lose money and control.

Thank you for this. Whatever respect I had for religions, I lost it in 6th grade when we learned about the crusades. I don't care in general what BS people choose to believe in but organized religions will be and already are partially the reason for humanity's downfall, I'm absolutely sure of that. With all the 1A talk the MAGA/GOP/"conservatives" seem to forget that 1A also talks about religious freedom and that also means - at least according to the guide we used to prep for the citizenship test - that you're not just free to observe any religion but also to choose to observe no religion, at all. So all this mandating the 10 commandments or Bibles at school etc. steps are actually directly unconstitutional. Not like it matters for them...

 

[TexRex]

US belongs to its citizens, US citizens elect representatives that approves the law. Considering that only citizens could decide what is good and what is wrong, this is what makes law good or correct.

This is profoundly stupid. In a representative democracy like that in the US, legislative action rarely represents the will of the majority of the voting public.

 

[Keef]

Who would decide what is stupid and what's not? What if criteria of stupidity wouldn't be beneficial to you and you lose you constitutional rights?

Somehow we need to establish a culture of accountability in America, and a desire to do good things and follow rules. Currently, our culture is lawless and is getting more lawless by the day. People can't even use their blinker while driving. Americans do not care about the details. They aren't taught or trained how to do anything that isn't job related. Contrast this to a place like Germany, where society has generally high expectations of conduct and anybody who doesn't conform is chastised rather than ignored or even celebrated like they are in America. American culture is not cooperative at all and it makes things difficult.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Hope everyone that didn't vote for Harris due to Biden's handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict is happy with this ending:

Trump Israel ambassador pick Mike Huckabee is longtime ally of settlers

I'm nearly certain Gaza won't exist in 4 years, and its looking increasingly likely that the West Bank will be annexed too. But I guess the protest vote is really important.

 

[Biggles]

So Mick Huckabee is to be Trump's ambassador to Israel - someone who, like many evangelicals - openly supports Israeli settler expansion into the West Bank & Gaza.

"Huckabee has previously signaled he opposes negotiating a cease-fire deal with Hamas, arguing the only way to end the war is for the Islamist militant group to surrender. In June, Huckabee told NewsNation there is "no valid reason" to pursue a cease-fire with Hamas, which the Biden administration has worked for months to secure."

I don't know how anti-war American protestors ended up voting ... or Arab-American voters in Michigan, but this is a predictable outcome.

* What Eunos said!

 

[HenrySwanson]

Hope everyone that didn't vote for Harris due to Biden's handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict is happy with this ending:

Trump Israel ambassador pick Mike Huckabee is longtime ally of settlers

I'm nearly certain Gaza won't exist in 4 years, and its looking increasingly likely that the West Bank will be annexed too. But I guess the protest vote is really important.

Democracy dies in dumbness.

EDIT: Yee-ha!

 

[Tornado]

I'm nearly certain Gaza won't exist in 4 years

Months, probably. But remember, it didn't really matter unless you lived in a swing state (but even then it was still Harris' fault).

 

[Blitz24]

People can't even use their blinker while driving.

Driving while BMW is a recognized disability.

 

[Biggles]

The unholy nexus between Trumpism & "religion" is one of the most disturbing aspects of all this. Ok, Trump is obviously areligious, but his ascent to political power is intimately linked to the religious right ... not just evangelicals, but also the assortment of conservative Catholics in his inner circle - most obviously J.D.Vance and Steve Bannon.

This was just a battle,” Woodland Park-based evangelist Andrew Wommack wrote last week, triumphant in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory. “The war is yet to be won. The left is not going away, because they’re inspired by the devil – and the devil has never quit!” Wommack is far from alone in seeing Trump’s victory as the beginning of an era in which Christians will be empowered to “take back the country for God” – a notion which usually entails legal crackdowns on abortion, a restriction of LGBTQ+ civil liberties, and strict media regulations, among other more transient details.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The unholy nexus between Trumpism & "religion" is one of the most disturbing aspects of all this. Ok, Trump is obviously areligious, but his ascent to political power is intimately linked to the religious right ... not just evangelicals, but also the assortment of conservative Catholics in his inner circle - most obviously J.D.Vance and Steve Bannon.

This was just a battle,” Woodland Park-based evangelist Andrew Wommack wrote last week, triumphant in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory. “The war is yet to be won. The left is not going away, because they’re inspired by the devil – and the devil has never quit!” Wommack is far from alone in seeing Trump’s victory as the beginning of an era in which Christians will be empowered to “take back the country for God” – a notion which usually entails legal crackdowns on abortion, a restriction of LGBTQ+ civil liberties, and strict media regulations, among other more transient details.

At least we'll get some good reactionary punk music.

 

[Exorcet]

As for how you address those things, I'm not entirely sure.

It will almost certainly be a long and involved process. All of the factors that you point out sound like reasonable sources to tackle. Education weighs heavily on all three while I think one and two also have a lot to do with social interactions across the population. It's easier to demonize a nameless and faceless representation of a group of people than it is someone you actually interact with up close. Maybe what we need is some way to encourage conversations across different groups of people.

You're right; the First Amendment doesn't have to go anywhere, but I think if you want to combat the problem before it's too late, it needs to be trampled on. I don't want that. I agree that we should definitely attempt to change course because maybe it'll be easier than I think, but right now, it seems like we're stuck between having a "thought police" and letting idiots shout loudly.

Trying to force people into compliance is a tricky thing. If you give the government the power to do that it's only helpful, if it is ever helpful, so long as the government doesn't overstep its boundaries. The Democrats could have tried to lie and manipulate and even do it with good intentions, but I could see it backfiring easily. Loyalists are just going to listen to their favored liar unless one side is exceptionally more manipulative than the other, and at that point would the reasonable onlooker even be able to tell which side was which?

As for struggling with technology, this seems very much like a generational thing. A computer and the internet are second nature to me because I grew up with them. Older people didn't get that, and, for whatever reason, boomers seem hellbent on completely resisting learning technology.

I haven't gone looking for a trend vs age but I do know people that do struggle with learning how to use modern tools. I've found that they're not unteachable, but it takes significant effort. Somewhat ironically they're probably the ideal target for AI assistants, at least once those assistants obtain a high enough state of maturity.

 

[Famine]

I saw someone earlier comment that a second Trump term delivers approximately the same feeling as the second plane hitting the towers...

I'm not seeing any flaw in that analogy. Except that he already killed 300 times as many people the first time round.

 

[McLaren]

And other countries are already starting their own response to tariffs.

"If you put 25% tariffs on me, I have to react with tariffs," said Ebrard, who served as Mexico's foreign minister during the previous incident.

"If you apply tariffs, we'll have to apply tariffs. And what does that bring you? A gigantic cost for the North American economy," he added.

Ebrard went on to stress that tariffs will stoke inflation in the U.S., which he described as an "important limitation" that should argue against such a tit-for-tat trade spat.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-economy-chief-suggests-possible-tariff-retaliation-against-us-2024-11-12/

 

[Spacegoat]

And other countries are already starting their own response to tariffs.

Who could have seen this coming? I mean aside from anyone with an ounce of sense.