tobetrained

In principle, agree. Republicans use the likes of Musk and many more, and Democrats have Soros, Clooney, and many more as well. Plus Dems are turning to populist rhetoric and policy like debt forgiveness on college loans, healthcare, or in NYC groceries, child care, housing, etc -- how many millions gave for these purposes as they'll get something back? Broadly, we agree. But to my original response... campaigns sit in a broader messaging ecosystem, and they have to compete there. Say a candidate has a pro-nutrition message. Brands from soda, snacks, candy, etc. are constantly messaging brand improvements -- falsely implying, for instance, real sugar is somehow healthy while using that to try and make the candidate's argument irrelevant... "we're health now" crap. Brands are not political in nature, and don't mention the candidate nor election, so they have no limits on spending. But the candidate has to compete on messaging with those brands. I'm fine with that being bankrolled by a billionaire. money and politics. Where I take issue with the video, equally like those on the conservative side, they're always selective in who outrages them and why.

It's my understanding much of that is for Starlink initiated by the Biden administration, particularly to support UKR but not limited to that.

True re: radio. Newspapers, too, were mass... but neither approached the simultaneous and immediacy which TV delivered. Radio could have been, but its development got undercut (from the launch of TV) by the time it/radio was "maturing" to a national medium.

I probably have not paid as much attention as I should on this. I've read stuff about an AI bubble... more of a correction, maybe. Is this additional?

Interesting. A pro-worker / pro-manufacturing strategy? How will people who want to travel -- city-folk -- take to paying higher prices for international travel? [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjg2rlyvyzo

OK. And he did that role unpaid and did so supporting a party which uncut one of his own businesses -- by eliminating the electric car subsidy. It's fair to call it idiotic but I don't understand the implied vitriol. Campaign finance sits in a the broader consideration of money and politics. That includes politicians who come to power promising to endless goodies. I've previous linked on this site the Penn Wharton analysis of Biden's school debt bill -- a $500billion give-away with the potential to surge past $1 trillion. Government and money go hand-in-hand. It's not great but the video's bias is also grossly evident. I couldn't watch the entire video, but did they even discuss the academic work summarized by the data-cliche: correlation is not causation? Here's an article I read awhile ago I was able to dig out: [think before following links] https://archive.news.ufl.edu/articles/2018/10/money-in-elections-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-does-1.html As for the Census article you site, I don't understand the math. If turnout was 65% -- a clear majority -- how can over half of the population -- another majority -- have not voted? I'm missing something or the article you're reading is missing a word... possibly, this line: "Over half of the adult population did not vote in 2024..." Maybe that should have been, "Over half of the adult population that did not vote in 2024..." so, the majority of those that did not vote did so for "x", "y", and "z" reasons. but they weren't the majority of the possible electorate. Maybe...IDK.

Can you explain your meaning here? voter turn-out rates, over recent elections, are much higher than they've been in decades. Same with the number of people who make political donations and volunteer for both campaigns and non-election political groups. In fact, a large part as to why representatives require your address, which you mentioned above, is due to the volume of people calling, emailing, etc. to voice their support/concern on legislation -- mainly from those aligned to political action groups (e.g., pro-life/choice groups, etc.). But to the issue of campaign finance, I didn't really hear from the video an understanding of money in politics/public interest. Special interest groups, let's say "for environmentalism" or "for religious freedom" can collect and spend any amount from any person at any time, even during an election window....as long as they don't reference a candidate. If you limit the campaigns, they are playing an uphill battle against these groups. The video also missed on the timing. There wasn't "mass media" until TV began to hit its prime in the mid-60s, both for immediacy of media itself but also for the advertising. That, in turn, was the driver of reform in the 70s, in response to that new consumer touch-point. And the reform is due my prior point -- campaigns needed the ability to battle not just their electoral opponent but also the messaging "out there" on politically-related topics (blocking those is the free speech issue). In today's digital/social world, it's more immediate and more personalized....and more fractional-ized!

I feel like I was asking you a similar question to that you were asking to Trump supporters. But you got frustrated and angry with me. But let's go back to the statement: Then let's go to: Ultimately, you answered your own question, "This goes out to Trump supporters. i want to know and, hopefully understand your perspective." Because both sides have their extremes. Under Biden, Democrats had been governing from an increasingly extreme position. Democrats not only failed to offer Republican voters little to switch sides, they alienated over 6 million of their own 2020 voters. I realize I'm direct and that's off-putting to many. I will take my lumps on that...and do so regularly. But I don't understand why it's so hard to understand the vote and his continued support. Let's go to this version: consider this 2013-14 issue in West Hollywood. [think before following links] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rainbow-flag-west-hollywood-20140113-story.html Does anyone in the LGBT+ community feel even a little sad, even if you agree with taking down the flag? If so, that's a conservative principle -- of preserving or conserving culture heritage. If a person feels this way on the political left, why do they demonize others -- e.g., Christian conservatives -- when they have those same feelings in other contexts, say on immigration? We don't have to agree but can't we understand it better? Think about being a Christian conservative, after being demonized on immigration for trying to preserve your culture...and you see people on the political left in WeHo doing the same thing. Don't you get angry, fed up, etc. and some point just shut down? And isn't that as good as any example?

I've recognized this in past conversations. What I've tried to get across to you is this is excessive. Does he take a page out of the book of being a tyrant? Yes, possibly the whole book. But being a tyrant and being a fascist are two wholly different things. But extremism happens on both ends of the continuum. One end, the collectivists -- communists, socialists, etc. -- are using Trump to claim the mantle of Democracy. I have a problem with that. This is purely to gain an advantage in the millennia-long debate over individualism vs. collectivism. In 20th century terms, fascism vs. communism -- but it goes well beyond this. And in so far as that, this effort is the equal-but-opposite reaction to Republicans going along with Trump as they get legislation they like. Which bring me back to the thesis: we simply live in a world of two extremes. And to that end, consider your original question here: "This goes out to Trump supporters. i want to know and, hopefully understand your perspective." in the context of the summary you just stated which I quoted above. Are you trying to understand them or are you really asking "how can you think like this?" or, "why can't you think like me?"

In the definition you provide, it's more an academic use of the word. Words like authority, and I'll add coercion, have very dry neutral meaning. But in conversational-speak, these words typically are used implying a negative meaning of oppression. In the definition, "authority" would be a "manager" (or managing group) and coercion would be the "method of how you manage people." In practice, it can be the negative. But you can do the managing through positive means. You say you're sensitive to authority. I can be coerced with donuts, highly pliable. These authority/managers can be people or groups. This is the foundation of extremism. Once a person believes they're "right" and "doing good" they begin to demonize "the other" as they can't be "doing good" if it's different. We live in world of two political extremes now...both unwilling and unable to understand the other side. This actually gets back to you're original question... and how @PozTalkAuthor suggested adding/editing.

I forgot to add the link. Hopefully you all had seen this at the time, I'm not sure all commentary is aligned to the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling. maybe. [think before following links] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-06-05/supreme-court-rules-that-anti-discrimination-law-applies-equally-to-all-including-majority-group-members

@PozTalkAuthor I think a lot of the DEI stuff we agree. But, in the US (and I'm sure similar if not same in EU), we already had equal opportunity laws -- making a lot of DEI irrelevant. In fact, the Supreme Court rule 9-0 on this last summer. Part of the DEI issue is in ideological "inclusivity" culture, aka campus culture, aka, etc, etc. This is not about hate speech. Even in your response, you defined terms in the norms of that culture -- that creates an "right vs. "wrong" even though those are not quantitative terms, they're qualitative. For many, esp those who argue for separation of church vs state on principle, it's an important distinction. When it comes to religion -- like "inclusivity culture" -- the issue is about preventing a self-justifying ideology from determining how everyone must live. The terms you articulate are among a superficial form of that, e.g. tokenism. A pluralistic society needs objectivity. I'll relate a lunch conversation with a former colleague on this topic, a self-professed Socialist (an American socialism is probably more to the left than in Germany, if I understand those politics enough): he says, "If I'm staffing out 4 roles including me, I'm making sure one is black, one is Hispanic, and the other is Asian." So, where do you start with that!? And, the area I live is 75%-80% non-Hispanic White. All you can do is discriminate against the majority population...besides the fact that it's horribly ethnocentric to say an Arab, Indian, Chinese (among others) are the same, an Asian. And, same goes for other classifications based on the happenstance of the American population composition. This is identity-politics run-wild.

I'll offer some data I posted elsewhere. I think it's important for this recent convo re: what's the correct question: 2020 vs 2024 vote Biden 81.3 million vs. Harris 75.0; Dems lost >6 million voters (~8 million including population change) Trump: 74.2 million (2020) vs. 77.3; he got ~3 million more (slightly greater than population growth) It wasn't about some mass move to Republicans or Trump, not really. It was exhaustion with Democrats and progressive politics and policies. And that's something @PozTalkAuthor is getting at. And, most of the Dem decline came from CA, NY and other Dem population centers...I posted that data elsewhere too, don't have it in front of me. I went into some of my views above but will leave it at @tallslenderguy's ask for Trump supporters. Just realize, there are very few people who "switched sides" (on net) to begin with -- probably <1% of the population -- so this site will have very few of them. So it's really Rep and Rep-leaning voters voting Rep. For myself, I absolutely got what I needed for my throw-away vote (as written above). The conversation has changed. That's what I needed. We oscillate between two political extremes. That's the only way to find balance is to change party in power...not in the actual policies of either side. I don't want to derail this convo @tallslenderguy is bringing up. But to you crime statement @PozTalkAuthor, much to say. Maybe later of a different topic thread...which touches even the this thread itself.

@SDCumPup To continue a discussion of your points, separate from my comment you quoted, I asked AI to list examples of other actions with claims of breaking the War Power Resolution: -- start snippet of AI response -- Richard NixonBombing in Cambodia1970Initiated airstrikes without Congressional approval. Ronald ReaganInvasion of Grenada1983Conducted military action without prior consultation. Bill ClintonAirstrikes in Kosovo1999Launched military action without Congress voting on it. George W. BushInvasion of Iraq2003Approved after a Congressional resolution, but initial actions were deemed rapid deployment. Barack ObamaMilitary intervention in Libya2011Engaged in military operations without Congressional authorization. Donald TrumpStrikes against ISIS2017Conducted strikes without explicit approval from Congress. Joe BidenMilitary action in Afghanistan2021Continued military operations without fresh congressional authorization post-withdrawal. General Observations Frequency: Presidents have often circumvented the War Powers Resolution, claiming the need for swift military action as a rationale. Political Consequences: While some presidents have faced criticism, others navigated these actions without major political fallout. Legal Challenges: Congress has occasionally challenged presidential actions, but courts have often avoided ruling on such matters, invoking separation of powers. -- end snippet of AI response -- Also, there can be a technical different in military vs. anti-terror-related. Lip service or not, if we quote law, it matters. I also made comment on Jan 8 relating to Congress' continued delinquency of authority on the issue: "It takes extreme behavior to create change, right. Here's a possible benefit: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/senate-votes-to-restrict-trump-on-venezuela-00716127 Congress has spent decades abdicating its authority then grandstanding on outcomes, for electoral purposes. Maybe, just maybe, they will get their act together now and reclaim their constitutional duty." Republicans terminated that this week as Democrats have done for their Presidents before them. Bipartisan idiocy there. Over-riding much of your international law argument is that Maduro was not recognized by the US and many other countries as the rightful leader on Venezuela. He stole the last election and was illegitimately in his position. As well, @Rillion's point probably holds for your 2nd and last point. But I would add on this and so much more: I know it's hard, but we need to stop looking at the world through this Trump lens. For those that hate him, and there's plenty of reason to do so, acting and reacting this way is his goal: to make himself the center of attention.

For instance, Trump's healthcare plan includes money in spending accounts. He will tout this with his name. Obama used stimulus checks in a similar manner by "touting money in your bank accounts." Political ideologues will hate one of those two statements. But, that's tyranny and moves us closer and closer to populism.

Maybe we're getting to a real point of differentiation here. I don't believe in those things, social welfare, healthcare as a right. Too many times in history either tyrants or political parties have used government spending for political support. Tyranny can come from an individual or group/political party. So political altruism is not subjective, in these two cases anyway. As I've said before, as a Centrist, I accept things I don't like. I don't demand purity.

@SDCumPup OK. But can you let me know why you're responding to my quoted comment with that info?

I'll leave it simply as "government should facilitate a pluralistic democratic society as efficiently as possible." That would be the answer domestically. Beyond that, add "...and unflinchingly promote our interests internationally." I don't believe in political altruism. People can be altruistic as it's their choice. A government, esp. a representative government, has no business in altruism. That's about values and beliefs. Those have no place in a government for a pluralistic society -- values and beliefs can contradict across its population. key word above is "facilitate" and not "do."

I implied that from "we the people" statement as well as the statements on representation. All of those are statements about democracy. But this is where I was going relative to the overall comments you summarized here: The word "ideals" are highly subjective as well as standards. For instance, the way you started the convo: The term "inclusion" is a modern leftist ideological term. Social conservatives would replace that with "god-fearing" or some such thing. Both imply "those that are like me or think like me" -- and I'm 100% sure that's not your intent, given past convos. The term that's gotten lost is "pluralistic society" as that -- dare I say -- is inclusive, in this case of people "who do not think like me." This is not semantics. You talk about standards and measuring success. If your finger is on the ideologically scale then the measured outcome is different.

I understand the argument. I just don't think it's as simple as this. Consider two modern examples: Iraq. The Iraq war (start 2003) is considered a failure. Yet, the end result removed a dictator -- one of the "strong men" you reference above -- and delivered a to-date lasting democracy to the country. Egypt. The Arab Spring, wrongly simplified in the West as pro-democracy, brought democracy to Egypt by ending military rule. Yet, the popular will was to bring a religiously oppressive party to power -- the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi. Short of it, the military reclaimed leadership, executed Morsi, are still in power today, and the average Egyptian is much more free than in the short-lived democracy. Democracy is as fragile as any form of government. Democracy has regularly failed to extremes of populism.

The problem with this topic and conversation is Trans is an idea and not biology. If that offends, please see HRC glossary [think before following links] https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Competition in sport is typically, but not universally, driven by body size. Body size impact is independent of gender, but highly related given the happenstance of current-state evolution in human size. Here's an analysis the French RMES, Institut de Recherche bioMédicale et d'Epidémiologie du Sport published here by National Institute of Health: [think before following links] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3761733 It should be noted, it's not just gender. There are weight classes in combat sports for this very "body size" reason, i.e., heavyweight, featherweight, etc. in boxing. Tangential point: In some species, the female is larger and more athletic (e.g. big cats) as they are the hunters while males scavenge. As well, in non-movement sports there is little difference between gender, e.g., Archery: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_archery I would hope the Supreme Court keeps those born to a certain body types separate. If not, why would we have women's sports? Physical size is not an idea. I understand @PozBearWI Battle of the Sexes comment. But it's modern equivalent just happened when the world's number one woman -- playing at her career peak -- played a man well past his prime and currently very lowly ranked. He beat her fairly easy. Pre-match discussion [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/c1e4dej01yeo Match results [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/articles/cqlkqxnvdweo This brings up a massive equal pay argument which I will not get into now.

I can't see the article, no NYT subscription. But, for instance, the US does not acknowledge ICC...many administrations, multiple from both parties. At least in some small part, this is nothing new...he just says it in his bloviated way. On a good note, the "new" Venezuela gov't has begun to release (political) prisoners. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mkwl2g499o

This convo was before my time here. So @hntnhole did this come true?

Sorry, the last part of last message (Greece) was method but no rationale. The point of the mixing was to force people from different locations, parties, classes, etc into new groups...to then force communication and conversation.

I think that's just a bad word choice on my part. But not sure best. "belief," "think more important," "preference." That sort of thing. And, yes, to a degree it's about balance in how to do that. Like China, culture norms are based on a conservative philosophy but its political structure, Communism, is based on the collective. Or Europe, most countries have socialistic/collective tendencies but seethe at the idea of losing their individual (country) status. The "boring" topic here would be healthcare. We do the balance, the collective via insurance (some go for co-opts instead) while allowing private market to drive innovation. There have been many attempts to drive this -- starting in ancient Greece. To translate a method, the analogy would be -- an electoral college where random (or almost random) members of across states would be grouped in 700k+ people instead of the geographic allocation now based on state-level district appropriation. But it makes more sense for a population in a single city-state.