Your options and choices of who you can vote for are being made for you, but voting is patriotic, and you had choices, right?
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
2024 US Presidential Election
- Status
i was thinking about the reasons someone would vote for trump. there are some obvious conclusions.
one is that they are weak-minded people who want an authoritarian father figure to just run everything for them. basically so they don't have to think. similar to the "uncle vova" phenomena in russia. i'm sure other authoritarian regimes around the world have their own version of it.
second, they are batshit crazy conspiracy theorists. this group can be divided into the ones who are participating as hobbyist, who just find it all entertaining. and the group who is so fucking stupid that they actually believe it all. it's amazing to me that, out of all the far-out theories that have been thrown out there, none have been proven. there's a reason they're called theories. non-proven ideas.
and lastly, and to me the most despicable group of trump supporters, are the ones who want him to win for financial gain.
one is that they are weak-minded people who want an authoritarian father figure to just run everything for them. basically so they don't have to think. similar to the "uncle vova" phenomena in russia. i'm sure other authoritarian regimes around the world have their own version of it.
second, they are batshit crazy conspiracy theorists. this group can be divided into the ones who are participating as hobbyist, who just find it all entertaining. and the group who is so fucking stupid that they actually believe it all. it's amazing to me that, out of all the far-out theories that have been thrown out there, none have been proven. there's a reason they're called theories. non-proven ideas.
and lastly, and to me the most despicable group of trump supporters, are the ones who want him to win for financial gain.
admittedly, not a lot of viable choices for me, personally. but, you and i have been over this ground before. to me it's about trying to steer the country in at least the right general direction.
I think if the choices are, and mutually include war-mongering while giving blowjobs to the Pentagon/DoD/more nefarious branches of the US State Dept. (alphabet soup agencies) and Wall St. then there's not really a 'right direction' to begin with.
A map to a redneck 'holler' in North rural Georgia won't get us any closer to idealism or Nirvana.
the far right is losing it. in florida, where they will have a referendum on abortion rights, the state government is threatening to sue tv and radio stations that run pro-choice ads.
what happened to the 1st amendment?
trump stated, in response to the 60 minute harris interview, that cbs should have their broadcast license revoked.
again , the !st amendment?
may i submit to you all that the bill of rights is not an "a la carte" menu.
what happened to the 1st amendment?
trump stated, in response to the 60 minute harris interview, that cbs should have their broadcast license revoked.
again , the !st amendment?
may i submit to you all that the bill of rights is not an "a la carte" menu.
Look at what pro-Palestine journalists and professors are experiencing with the Dems when they speak out.
I guess on the bright side, our soldiers aren't yet simply shooting them in the head or sending missiles into their homes and vehicles yet, as IDF is doing..
The 1st Amendment seems to be subject to arbitrary situational ethics these days, at best.
but what is your practical solution, brother? there are only two. one is to vote and try to steer and the other is physical combat.
i understand that you voting for jill stein is an attempt to make a statement that might, just might, have an impact on the steering. but, is it a practical option, as far as predictable results are concerned?
agreed!
"Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
which side is trying to bend the law to suppress the opinions of the other side?
in oklahoma, the state government is enacting pro-christian laws about about the bible and the teaching of christianity in schools! "no law respecting an establishment of religion". this means for or against! clearly a violation of the 1st amendment!
they asked for competitive bids for the bibles they want to put in every classroom in the state. out of over 1900 possible versions the only one that fits the requirements is the "trump" version.
My solution is what it was; that enough people break the self-imposed bonds of this extremely sick duopoly, and realize that they themselves are a part of the answer by voting for genuine third-party solutions. Stop voting out of "fear of THAT guy" (who ever "THAT guy" might be).
I wasn't aware until a couple weeks ago or so that Alaska's Ranked Choice Voting includes the presidential race (though the State duopoly is now opposed to RCV), thus enabling the voters to hopefully feel more free to vote for ideals rather than manipulated fear.
In my and my wife's cases, however, there'll be some races where we don't choose our possible 4 ordered choices, as we've already made it plainly clear to those concerned (as well as former activist associates and candidates' campaigns) that no one who voted to arm/re-arm Israel, or engage in any other boundary-challenged proxy wars, or who lied incessantly in their ads, will receive votes.
When a kid throws a tantrum, you set them in a corner, you don't reward them.
Which side? Depends on circumstances, but BOTH sides.
Look into tenured professors, who, on their own time, merely re-posted a poem by a Palestinian poet on their own private page and were terminated, or others placed on probation with their employers, or shake-downs at protests.
It's really more situational than it is "THAT side!" It's really BOTH SIDES.
"Based on their share of contributions to political committees active in the seven most competitive U.S. Senate races this year, billionaires spent $77 million supporting GOP candidates in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Democrats in those races benefitted from nearly $11 million of billionaire spending. This lopsided partisan split is well explained by the two parties’ opposite positions on taxes paid by the rich: Republicans want to reduce them while Democrats want them raised."
Billionaires Buying Elections: Congressional Races - Americans For Tax Fairness
Read the full report here. INTRODUCTION Just 150 billionaire families alone spent almost $1.4 billion on the 2024 election cycle by the end of August, according to a new study by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) that shows the attempted big-money takeover of American democracy is accelerating...americansfortaxfairness.org
while both parties are up for sale, it's obvious which one is even leaning towards tax fairness.
super pacs should be illegal. individual contributions over $1000 dollars should be illegal.
perhaps the candidates should have equal funding provided by the taxpayers through congress, just to bring a little sanity to the matter.
we need to stop the wealthy from trying to buy elections!
Nationally-controlled frequencies on the airwaves with equal air time mandates for anyone able to show greater than "X" level of support.
Criminalize Super-PACs and buying of representation (*See Ray Metcalfe's anti-corruption initiative proposal, which BOTH primary political parties' in Alaska scoffed at), death penalty or life sentence w/o possibility of parole for -any- public servant or official caught accepting bribes (whether quid pro quo in mere advantageous favors or cash), and more.
my argument was "which side is attempting to use the force of law to repress", not using merely societal or workplace pressure.
agreed!
Law has certainly been brought down upon the people I referenced.
Trespassed from places of employment, criminal charges, non enforcement or protection when assaulted by opposition antagonists, police called by campus leadership over non-violent protesters, etc.
I can think of some police agencies in some locations who might lose a significant percentage of their force with this proposal, by the way, and probably some municipal bodies, too. And some federal and state agencies and representatives, as well
- Status
