Election Day 1

[Doctor Steuss]

And why in the world do you think Trump wouldn’t sign a nationwide anti-abortion bill? It’s what his base wants, and he wasn’t punished at the polls in the slightest for the Dobbs decision.

I think he won't do it because he knows firsthand that wealthy and powerful sexual predators, and playboys need access to family planning services. Even when you're wealthy, sending a mistress or assault victim over state lines is vastly easier and more advantageous than sending them to another country.

[Res Ipsa]

And why in the world do you think Trump wouldn’t sign a nationwide anti-abortion bill? It’s what his base wants, and he wasn’t punished at the polls in the slightest for the Dobbs decision.

I think he won't do it because he knows firsthand that wealthy and powerful sexual predators, and playboys need access to family planning services. Even when you're wealthy, sending a mistress or assault victim over state lines is vastly easier and more advantageous than sending them to another country.

I think the rich will have access to state of the art medicine and abortions right here in the US regardless of legality. It turns out that you CAN buy anything with money.

[canpakes]

And why in the world do you think Trump wouldn’t sign a nationwide anti-abortion bill? It’s what his base wants, and he wasn’t punished at the polls in the slightest for the Dobbs decision.

I think he won't do it because he knows firsthand that wealthy and powerful sexual predators, and playboys need access to family planning services. Even when you're wealthy, sending a mistress or assault victim over state lines is vastly easier and more advantageous than sending them to another country.

Trump himself sidestepped a question about ever being a party to an abortion related to a pregnancy that he was responsible for.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... t-partners

[Dr Exiled]

1. I think you ought to avoid calling things dumb but whatever.

2. How do you think censorship plays into this post-truth, post-fact world? Recently, we saw Hillary Clinton propose censorship and John Kerry lament the corporate media's loss of control and also calling for censorship. The Harris campaign wanted it as well. https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-right ... ee-speech/

Do you think censoring the wrong kind of speech would ameliorate the post-truth, post-fact world of which you complain? If so, how does one decide on what is right speech and wrong speech? What the King wants or the latest incarnation of king like people? It seems censorship leads to the post-truth, post-fact world and so, it seems more speech is the answer. Better speech is the answer. Calling out bad speech and showing evidence of it and maybe a little self-reflection from everyone would solve the problem?

3. I think people are stubborn and don't want to hear contrary ideas to their worldview. I have teenagers at home and deal with it all the time. No one likes to be told they have a wrong outlook on whatever subject.

LOL! The Hills’ political stances crack me up. One need only look to Florida where DeSantis used the power of the state to punish Disney for speaking. He sent his very own goon squad SWAT team to intimidate and prosecute voter registration non-profits who dared to ask why the registrations they submitted weren’t showing up on the voter rolls. He threatened to criminally prosecute doctors for appearing in a commercial supporting Floridas’ abortion proposition.

Several states have barred any discussion of climate change in state government. Several states have passed laws making it a crime for doctors to give standard of care information about abortions to their patients.

Across the nation, Republican controlled governments have absolutely passed laws to criminalize speech that contradicts their political agenda. And yet, here you go with a scary article about some things that Ds have said but not done, while turning a complete blind eye to what Republicans have actually done. At the same time, when someone does the same as the Hill did with things Trump has said he will do — criminally prosecute the media and democrats who say bad things about him, you downplay the threat as if it didn’t exist at all.

The crazy position that lies are not protected by the first amendment comes from that out of control progressive lunatic Clarence Thomas.

The empirical evidence that more speech leads to better speech is pretty depressing. Musk’s experiment in free speech, in which Musk platforms speech he agrees with, has become a virtual cesspool that ranges from nonsense to outright lies. Brandolini’s principle is a real thing, as evidenced by the stunning fact that Republicans believe that up is down when it comes to the prevalence of crime in the United States.

After the experience with rampant disinformation in past elections during the pandemic, with disinformation being used as tool by our enemies to polarize Americans and weaken the country, Biden formed a commission to investigate and at least try to address the problem. The right reacted as if he’d killed their puppy. A few other non-institutions outside the government tried to address the problem as well, meeting with an extreme reaction from the right that had them shut down.

Trump taught the right that there is no penalty for lying to the American public. And, in fact, tell the right lies to the right audience in the right ways, and the public will award you with the presidency. They’ve got a good gig going there, and they don’t want any pointy headed professors ruining it for them.

Where this leads next shouldn’t surprise anyone. Both political parties have the same experts on human behavior. They understand our cognitive biases and how to exploit them. They know what we all should understand about ourselves: that the portions of our brains that reasons is fragile and easily overridden by our cognitive biases and threat responses. Trump was able to win with the big lie because the big lie works. What should we expect from politicians who see that telling Americans that up is down in a way that makes them angry and resentful is a winning strategy?

You’re a smart guy, but it’s tough to take you seriously when you wave around democrats as a scary bogeyman while turning a blind elite to what Republicans in office are actually doing to make the government’s political position the truth, punishable by prison for people who speak in opposition.

You misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is a discussion board that overwhelmingly goes for one side and has a hard time with self reflection. Someone needs to point that out, especially after the favored side has basically betrayed it's prior principles in favor of wall street cash.

Sure, the Republicans sin as well and any violation of free speech should be condemned.

[Res Ipsa]

See, ironically, I think you and I have a fundamental point of agreement there. I expect most rich folks to do what most of us do — act in their own self interest. That doesn’t require any conspiracy in the shadows. It just assumes that people act like they normally do.

Where we are today, in my opinion, illustrates what happens when we take our eyes off the distribution of wealth. Post WWII, e had a period where a rising tide lifted all boats (or at least white boats). That ended starting in 1980, when we started giving ever larger portions of the wealth we created as a nation to the rich. We did that under the naïve assumption that the rich would use the money in a way that would trickle down to benefit all Americans. It was naïve because what we should have expected was that the rich would use the money to do whatever would make them the most money.

So, what we got was “vulture” capitalism. The rich went on a spree of buying existing companies, stripping many of them for parts. Little, if anything, trickled down. Besides this frenzy of companies buying each other, they also bought the government. I think Reich calls it “regulatory capture.” They can do it because we handed them lots and lots of money in the form of tax cuts.

Now we’ve given the ultra rich so much money that they invent and invest in their own private money or NFTs. Now they are in the process of financializing everything through private equity: veterinary practices, dentists, lumber yards, hospital emergency rooms, single family homes: all are being bought and rolled up into private equity bundles that the rich buy from and sell to each other. They don’t do this because they are evil. They do it because there is no amount of wealth that is enough for anyone. We are driven to use wealth to make more health. But they can only do it because we let them. And we let them by giving them enormous tax cuts over the last 40 years, while giving the middle and working classes next to nothing.

Does that sound about right?

But there still remains a pragmatic problem: If both parties operate for the benefit of the rich, how do we fix that without breaking everything in the process? How do we make the tremendous wealth creation machine that we’ve created work for all Americans and not just Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos without replicating the brutal and totalitarian mistakes of the past?

Right now I focus on the right because that’s where I see the most danger. There is this destructive narrative that seems to be prevailing that the Republicans are a rag tag band of patriots fighting against a shadowy evil empire controlled rich puppet masters like GEORGE SOROS!!!!

In fact, it’s evil empire and puppets all the way down. The prevailing narrative is so effective on the right that the billionaires don’t have to hide in the shadows. Peter Theil buys JD Vance and inserts him as the VP candidate. Trump brazenly hits oil barons up for millions and promises to reward them if he wins. The richest man in the world casually drops a bundle into Trump’s campaign and drops a bunch more into a super PAC and buys himself a place in the government. In past elections, every R was backed by their own rich family: the Mercer, the Kochs, the Adelsons. It’s all out in the open, and yet they’ve deluded somewhere between a third and a half of the country that their movement is all about freedom for the little guy.

On the left, we have a group of folks who see the distribution of wealth problem and take it seriously. We have a Bernie Sanders and we have an Elizabeth Warren. But I don’t see any equivalent on the right. So that’s what I focus on. I think the only shot we have at fixing this problem is to have substantial agreement from ordinary folks on the left and right. Otherwise, what we get is capture by an authoritarian mass movement, resulting in single party rule, loss of individual freedom, and rampant corruption.

That’s why I focus on the right today, because if we become Orbanized, the Trump's and the Musks and the other ultra rich will bleed The rest of us dry.

[Kishkumen]

I wonder why IHAQ acted the way he did? Seems outlandish.

Honestly, I am just weary of you guys’ interactions with me on politics. I apologize. I am busy, and I react.

[Dr Exiled]

I wonder why IHAQ acted the way he did? Seems outlandish.

Honestly, I am just weary of you guys’ interactions with me on politics. I apologize. I am busy, and I react.

No problem and I still like coffee with Kish.