Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

Bill Cypher bill@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago

I'm not convinced he's better than Kamala mostly because of the clear escalation of police violence against citizens. I rank violence right at the top of how I inform all my morals so that is a huge non starter for me. Though I admit we'll never really know what she would have done. The one thing I do like is that I've heard multiple Democrats admit that his election is their fault and they need to change or it will only get worse. If Kamala had gotten elected it might have pushed the Republican party even more extreme, where now I see some Republicans pulling back a bit. Of course all of that supposes that one theory I believe is untrue. I can't find the video now but the theory is that the goal of the democrat party is to lose. The party's old core platform is still wildly popular with the people of both parties today. Basic Kennedy protect the little working man from robber barons stuff. If they focused on that they would win every election and then be forced to implement those things. But the party leadership are robber barons so they don't really want those laws. So they drag up just enough divisive bullshit to keep the elections 5050. This way they can blame the Republicans for every new law that screws the little guy. We tried so hard but we just didn't have the seats, sorry voters. This is why the party keeps railroading Bernie and putting up other candidates when polling shows Bernie would smoke Trump but Hillary and Kamala can't beat him. Bernie is old Democrat party basics but the other 2 make the election about gender instead of class.

↑ Parent

Replies (4)

Bill Cypher bill@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago

See, you are safe. People I know get treated different than strangers dropping into my replies and opening with some dumb shit.

YODL yodl@nostr.land 4 months ago

Interesting theory, and one I don't totally dismiss. I hard disagree that Kamala would have been better. Hell to the no! I won't even elaborate. Thinking that suggests a bit of TDS to me. Taking the anti-violence position against trump is convenient right now, as I can't really defend some of the recent aggression (abroad mostly...the at home stuff too I guess, but part of me is glad there's a pushback against the overly welcoming immigration policy). As you can see, I still wrestle with the first principles vs pragmatic side of things. If I really stop and think about things, I lean more toward your views, but I can't fully let go of my practical side either. My defense for fence sitting is kind of a Nash equilibrium argument (recently had this notion/excuse); there is a better state for the world to be in, the one that is more libertarian, but we find ourselves stuck on the current game and one can't necessarily make the first move to take the higher road without losing. This applies more to foreign policy. Anyway, this is why I don't usually delve into politics. I don't have a very clean position on much, and don't know as much as I should to soapbox like some do. Just an observer mostly

2 replies ↓

Daniel Wigton dwigton@getalby.com 4 months ago

There just aren't good sources of truth. I don't like just claiming ignorance, but man are there no good roads out of it. Best I can do is local politics maybe. On the national scale I vote Solidarity Party because my motto is when all roads lead to hell you don't pick the slower path, you turn around and and run the other way. Ok not really my motto but it makes a nice sound bite and I agree with @Bill Cypher that they just find 50/50 issues to keep the gravy train rolling. As long as we can keep our half more worried about the crap the other side might pull than the crap our side is pulling then we can do all the shenanigans we want.

1 replies ↓

Bill Cypher bill@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago

It isn't a new or right now position for me. You may recall me ranting about the national guard deployments too. I have imperfect information always and I know it. I can't let that paralyze me from choosing the best path as I see it to get to the most universal application of the non aggression principle. Trump's last term ended with riots in the Capital building where people died. Kamala had no such direct tie to aggressive acts of violence. I simply return to my home base of the non aggression principle and do the best I can by it based on history as I understand it. I don't know what Kamala would have done and never will for sure but I knew Trump incited violence and history tells me 2nd terms are usually escalations. So far my prediction about Trump was true. My prediction about Kamala was a do nothing lame duck because the Republicans would have controlled congress, maybe I'm wrong. But the other guy is worse thinking is what allows the parties to run 2 shitbirds like that and know the people won't just give it to a third party.

1 replies ↓