6 ms·

As someone who frequently disagrees with the overwhelming majority political opinion on this site, this is one thing I wish all states could find common ground

As someone who frequently disagrees with the overwhelming majority political opinion on this site, this is one thing I wish all states could find common ground on. The amount of waste and value extraction that corporations force on us, when we could simply repair and maintain what we already have, is downright evil.

mindslight 2y ago
But there isn't really an "overwhelming majority political opinion" on this site? Hence the long threads of comments of people disagreeing on the merits of ideas. Unless you're referring to the anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political as there are obviously a whole bunch of Americans that don't want to see our country destroyed regardless of how we wish it might be reformed.
- cooper_ganglia 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Sure, simplistic populism plays out in wider society where short quips and repetition matter more than coherent ideas. That doesn't really change what I said though. (For context, because I know the tendency is to pigeonhole commenters - I'm a libertarian who shares many of the frustrations driving the destructive fervor)
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tredre3 2y ago
      If you're not American it's easy to lose track but the other option was Kamala Harris, not Biden.
      - tehjoker 2y ago
        that's true they swapped her in, but her policy platform was identical. she said there was no difference between her and biden explicitly. https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/inde...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > 25% of Americans If you’re referring to people who don’t vote, they de facto support the outcome. Particularly if in a swing state. > genocidal dementia patient People who voted for Trump (or threw their vote in a swing state) because of Palestine are the definition of stupid and selfish. By prioritising their interests above those they purported to represent, they will have played a (non-critical) role in the destruction of Palestine.
      - tombert 2y ago
        It baffled me that anyone thought that Trump was going to somehow be better than Kamala in regards to Palestine. I could understand voting for a third party, but Trump outright tried to impose a Muslim ban in his first time, and said that his son in law was going to quickly solve the Middle East conflict single-handedly; seems unlikely that he would be sympathetic to people in the Middle East.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > baffled me that anyone thought that Trump was going to somehow be better than Kamala in regards to Palestine I was in Phoenix in April 2024 when an otherwise-intelligent friend remarked on whether Trump was pro Israel. She wound up remembering his first term eventually. But at that moment I realised that the checkmate Democrats thought they had Republicans in with abortion, Republicans had Democrats in with Palestine: move to the left and you lose moderates and Pennsylvania. Move to the right (or fail to message) and you lose Michigan and your base. Message at all and you lose swing voters who don’t want to hear about foreign policy.
        maxerickson 2y ago
        I'm not sure they thought that Trump would be better. It seems they think that voting is a test unrelated to the likely outcomes. So you should vote "right" rather than compromising and voting for the better among the possible outcomes.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    - tombert 2y ago
      I don't think Kamala Harris has dementia. I'm not sure I like her stance on Gaza either but criticize her for the right reasons.
      - tehjoker 2y ago
        [flagged]
        tombert 2y ago
        That's real funny, bravo, but you didn't say that the policies were identical, you said that the choice was a "dementia patient", and now you've moved the goalpost.
  - tzs 2y ago
    He got 49.8% of the popular vote.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tombert 2y ago
      The first time, didn't he get more than that the second time though?
      - daveguy 2y ago
        No. Trump got a 49.8% plurality of the vote was the second time around. The first time around he only got 46.1% to Hillary Clinton's 48.2% (not even a plurality -- yay electoral college). He did not win a majority in either of his wins, and a plurality only the second time. Amazing what you can do with a $44 billion propaganda platform and another quarter billion in usable funds.
      - tzs 2y ago
        2016: 46.1% 2020: 46.8% 2024: 49.8%44
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        He got more than his opponent the second time. Trump got 49.8%, Harris got 48.3%. This is widely considered to be winning the popular vote; nobody else got more votes than he did. As opposed to 2016 where Trump won the electoral college but received fewer total votes than his major opponent because extra votes in California don't count in the electoral college. Notice that if you want to claim that winning the popular vote requires more than 50% then you can't claim that Clinton "won the popular vote" in 2016 because she got 48.2% to Trump's 46.1%.
    - cooper_ganglia 2y ago
      Yes, when you get 49.8% of the vote and your opponent gets 48.3%, you have won the popular vote, since 49.8% is more than 48.3%.
- DecentShoes 2y ago
  [flagged]
- trinsic2 2y ago
  When you say pan-political do you mean this: a specific term, used mainly in social sciences as a designation for those forms of nationalism that aim to transcend (overcome, expand) traditional boundaries. I never heard of the term before as why Im asking. Also, in my own view. I don't consider myself political, I watch what people do, versus what they say they're going to do. And for me, any political figure can say one thing when the really want to do another. I agree that government needs to be reformed, but somhow, Im thinking the reform issue is just being used as a vehicle to push a Accelerationism agenda.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I have no idea of that specific use of the term and what connotations it has, but maybe it fits? I was using the general prefix to mean across what are usually considered political lines. For example you and I can disagree (and we likely do!!!) on the specific approaches and directions for reforming the government, and we call that politics. But for example, if one of us thinks things would be better if the US was militarily conquered by China, that isn't really the domain of "politics" any longer.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political If such sentiment was across the political spectrum, he wouldn't have been voted in. The notion that what people think in your bubble is what everyone thinks is what leads to conspiracy theories like "Stop the steal", and it has a chilling effect on actually engaging with people who might be voting against their own interests (or maybe even challenging your own cherished viewpoint on something)
  - mindslight 2y ago
    There was another response (flagged now) saying that pro-Trump support was pan-political. I agree with that as well. As far as actually engaging, that's the fundamental problem! Most of his support was basically founded on rejecting discussion and reason, voting the gut feeling of something latched on to from one of the many conflicting things he said, while being happy with other people's frustration because you've pigeonholed them into "the other". Like I'm a libertarian, I personally share many of the frustrations and criticisms that got Trump elected! Yet you've seemingly assumed some caricature of me where I've got a narrow understanding with "cherished viewpoints".
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      We all have cherished ideas, like, say, libertarianism. (I wasn't making a specific insinuation, it was really just an innocent parenthetical.)
      - mindslight 2y ago
        Regardless of the levity with which you intended it, is it not still an assertion that I haven't done the work to understand the viewpoints I am arguing against?
        h0l0cube 2y ago
        Ah no. The use of second person was meant to be applied more generally. You may have taken it personally, but it wasn't my intent.
cooper_ganglia 2y ago
Hard to imagine any reasonable individual being opposed to this, regardless of politics!
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  > reasonable If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Unfortunately the $600B sponsor and $6B president are faaaar on the other side of the invisible net worth boundary where that starts to be the case, so I wouldn't expect RtR to get much traction, but who knows. There is enough chaos to make it worth a try even if it "ought" to fail on grounds of "government by the rich, for the rich."
  - gosub100 2y ago
    You don't expect laws that are already passed to get much traction because the president is rich and has rich friends?
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      There's a gigantic map in TFA that shows what has and hasn't passed, did you even so much as glance at the article?
      - gosub100 2y ago
        It's irrelevant. The president doesn't do the passing. He's not a dictator. This isn't a tribalism partisan issue, as much as you seem to want to make it. I could point to the blue state of Massachusetts which, immediately after passing RTR through popular support, immediately had its democratic government strip all the teeth out of the bill, at the request of several big corporations. What do you have to say about that? Is that Trump's fault too? Even though it happened when Biden was in office?
ReptileMan 2y ago
I think that right of repair stems from the right of ownership. You can't ever really own a black box.

mindslight 2y ago

But there isn't really an "overwhelming majority political opinion" on this site? Hence the long threads of comments of people disagreeing on the merits of ideas. Unless you're referring to the anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political as there are obviously a whole bunch of Americans that don't want to see our country destroyed regardless of how we wish it might be reformed.

cooper_ganglia 2y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 2y ago
  Sure, simplistic populism plays out in wider society where short quips and repetition matter more than coherent ideas. That doesn't really change what I said though. (For context, because I know the tendency is to pigeonhole commenters - I'm a libertarian who shares many of the frustrations driving the destructive fervor)
- tehjoker 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tredre3 2y ago
    If you're not American it's easy to lose track but the other option was Kamala Harris, not Biden.
    - tehjoker 2y ago
      that's true they swapped her in, but her policy platform was identical. she said there was no difference between her and biden explicitly. https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/index.html https://www.cnn.com/politics/harris-2024-campaign-biden/inde...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 25% of Americans If you’re referring to people who don’t vote, they de facto support the outcome. Particularly if in a swing state. > genocidal dementia patient People who voted for Trump (or threw their vote in a swing state) because of Palestine are the definition of stupid and selfish. By prioritising their interests above those they purported to represent, they will have played a (non-critical) role in the destruction of Palestine.
    - tombert 2y ago
      It baffled me that anyone thought that Trump was going to somehow be better than Kamala in regards to Palestine. I could understand voting for a third party, but Trump outright tried to impose a Muslim ban in his first time, and said that his son in law was going to quickly solve the Middle East conflict single-handedly; seems unlikely that he would be sympathetic to people in the Middle East.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > baffled me that anyone thought that Trump was going to somehow be better than Kamala in regards to Palestine I was in Phoenix in April 2024 when an otherwise-intelligent friend remarked on whether Trump was pro Israel. She wound up remembering his first term eventually. But at that moment I realised that the checkmate Democrats thought they had Republicans in with abortion, Republicans had Democrats in with Palestine: move to the left and you lose moderates and Pennsylvania. Move to the right (or fail to message) and you lose Michigan and your base. Message at all and you lose swing voters who don’t want to hear about foreign policy.
      - maxerickson 2y ago
        I'm not sure they thought that Trump would be better. It seems they think that voting is a test unrelated to the likely outcomes. So you should vote "right" rather than compromising and voting for the better among the possible outcomes.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  - tombert 2y ago
    I don't think Kamala Harris has dementia. I'm not sure I like her stance on Gaza either but criticize her for the right reasons.
    - tehjoker 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tombert 2y ago
        That's real funny, bravo, but you didn't say that the policies were identical, you said that the choice was a "dementia patient", and now you've moved the goalpost.
- tzs 2y ago
  He got 49.8% of the popular vote.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tombert 2y ago
    The first time, didn't he get more than that the second time though?
    - daveguy 2y ago
      No. Trump got a 49.8% plurality of the vote was the second time around. The first time around he only got 46.1% to Hillary Clinton's 48.2% (not even a plurality -- yay electoral college). He did not win a majority in either of his wins, and a plurality only the second time. Amazing what you can do with a $44 billion propaganda platform and another quarter billion in usable funds.
    - tzs 2y ago
      2016: 46.1% 2020: 46.8% 2024: 49.8%44
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      He got more than his opponent the second time. Trump got 49.8%, Harris got 48.3%. This is widely considered to be winning the popular vote; nobody else got more votes than he did. As opposed to 2016 where Trump won the electoral college but received fewer total votes than his major opponent because extra votes in California don't count in the electoral college. Notice that if you want to claim that winning the popular vote requires more than 50% then you can't claim that Clinton "won the popular vote" in 2016 because she got 48.2% to Trump's 46.1%.
  - cooper_ganglia 2y ago
    Yes, when you get 49.8% of the vote and your opponent gets 48.3%, you have won the popular vote, since 49.8% is more than 48.3%.
DecentShoes 2y ago
[flagged]
trinsic2 2y ago
When you say pan-political do you mean this: a specific term, used mainly in social sciences as a designation for those forms of nationalism that aim to transcend (overcome, expand) traditional boundaries. I never heard of the term before as why Im asking. Also, in my own view. I don't consider myself political, I watch what people do, versus what they say they're going to do. And for me, any political figure can say one thing when the really want to do another. I agree that government needs to be reformed, but somhow, Im thinking the reform issue is just being used as a vehicle to push a Accelerationism agenda.
- mindslight 2y ago
  I have no idea of that specific use of the term and what connotations it has, but maybe it fits? I was using the general prefix to mean across what are usually considered political lines. For example you and I can disagree (and we likely do!!!) on the specific approaches and directions for reforming the government, and we call that politics. But for example, if one of us thinks things would be better if the US was militarily conquered by China, that isn't really the domain of "politics" any longer.
h0l0cube 2y ago
> anti-trump sentiment, which is more pan-political If such sentiment was across the political spectrum, he wouldn't have been voted in. The notion that what people think in your bubble is what everyone thinks is what leads to conspiracy theories like "Stop the steal", and it has a chilling effect on actually engaging with people who might be voting against their own interests (or maybe even challenging your own cherished viewpoint on something)
- mindslight 2y ago
  There was another response (flagged now) saying that pro-Trump support was pan-political. I agree with that as well. As far as actually engaging, that's the fundamental problem! Most of his support was basically founded on rejecting discussion and reason, voting the gut feeling of something latched on to from one of the many conflicting things he said, while being happy with other people's frustration because you've pigeonholed them into "the other". Like I'm a libertarian, I personally share many of the frustrations and criticisms that got Trump elected! Yet you've seemingly assumed some caricature of me where I've got a narrow understanding with "cherished viewpoints".
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    We all have cherished ideas, like, say, libertarianism. (I wasn't making a specific insinuation, it was really just an innocent parenthetical.)
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Regardless of the levity with which you intended it, is it not still an assertion that I haven't done the work to understand the viewpoints I am arguing against?
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        Ah no. The use of second person was meant to be applied more generally. You may have taken it personally, but it wasn't my intent.

cooper_ganglia 2y ago

Hard to imagine any reasonable individual being opposed to this, regardless of politics!

smallmancontrov 2y ago
> reasonable If your net worth is high enough that anti-consumer policy pumps your assets harder than it dumps your consumption, it's rational. A huge jerk move, sure, and arguably unreasonable on those grounds, but it's rational. Unfortunately the $600B sponsor and $6B president are faaaar on the other side of the invisible net worth boundary where that starts to be the case, so I wouldn't expect RtR to get much traction, but who knows. There is enough chaos to make it worth a try even if it "ought" to fail on grounds of "government by the rich, for the rich."
- gosub100 2y ago
  You don't expect laws that are already passed to get much traction because the president is rich and has rich friends?
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    There's a gigantic map in TFA that shows what has and hasn't passed, did you even so much as glance at the article?
    - gosub100 2y ago
      It's irrelevant. The president doesn't do the passing. He's not a dictator. This isn't a tribalism partisan issue, as much as you seem to want to make it. I could point to the blue state of Massachusetts which, immediately after passing RTR through popular support, immediately had its democratic government strip all the teeth out of the bill, at the request of several big corporations. What do you have to say about that? Is that Trump's fault too? Even though it happened when Biden was in office?

ReptileMan 2y ago

I think that right of repair stems from the right of ownership. You can't ever really own a black box.