The overall thing I think is better with him, is a bit vague, hence why I said culturally. I do believe there was something of an organic movement behind him in 2016. His election came as a surprise to me, and I wasn't a fan. I followed headline level stuff at the time, and legitimately thought he was crass and non-presidential, somewhat racist, etc. it took about 3 years for me to start to accept that maybe his election should inform my view a bit, and that there really was a large swath of "fyy over states" who felt unheard. In addition, I began to finally notice there was truth to the fake news claims. The news, once you looked a bit past the spoon fed msm narratives, was more biased and unfairly against him than I thought possible.
So, overall it was a wake up call that shook me out of my bubble a bit. I even get joy out from the types he seems to upset the most (the types I mostly work with).
Not a fan of big gov etc, and not cheering him on, but I do like his style sometimes, and I prefer that to the plastic prompter-reading stiffs I imagine we'd have as president if anyone else were elected
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.
See, you are safe. People I know get treated different than strangers dropping into my replies and opening with some dumb shit.
Thread collapsed
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
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 nostr:nprofile1qqsqzr0se9y0ax44f5kt06jzplaq34tetzvpkm4x36p64flt9hflqkspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wghxcctwvshsz9nhwden5te0dp5hxapwdehhxarj9ekxzmny9u5gfsqy 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.
Familiar with the ice cream salesman paradox?
Are there branches of game theory that look ways of making things more optimal for consumers? For instance if the location of the crowd was unstable it might change the calculus for the vendors. Maybe we just need built-in perturbations to keep equilibrium points from being to predictable.
People acting less predictably...might be something there.
There is a concept of mixed strategy equalibria, to account for games that have probability distributions rather than fixed states each turn.
More parties than two comes with its own issues as well.
Don't know more about it than that
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
There's a beach, and two ice cream vendors. People will walk to the nearest one and give their business to that one. The salesman can position anywhere they like, yet the equilibrium outcome is for them to be side by side in the middle.
Often cited as why candidates campaign in the middle and close together in a two party election.
Not entirely relevant, but somewhat
Relevance is related to your 50/50 comment I guess.
Good points made too. Think the solution is a ground up sort of thing. Dare I say religion?! Haha, just pandering.
But for example, I'm inspired by the type of stuff max hillebrand writes, and maybe as more and more individuals move that way, we knock ourselves out of this local equilibrium state (the ugly politics).
Yup, my optimal strategy is to just tell as many people as I can that I vote third party. It gives them licence. If people hear it enough from different corners they will begin to believe that it can move the needle.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Ok. I am moving to a coast where I will set up ice cream stands with a delivery service and an app. The runners will stop periodically to stamp qr codes for the app in the sand. I'm putting everyone out of business.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
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.
Yes, I recall the ranting about national guard. And I see generally where you're coming from. Big fan of non aggression principle, though more of a recent thing, so still not really applying it to my views in practice.
Not sure I can agree with you on the inciting violence thing, but don't wanna go there. I wonder, would you change your tune if it came out that the election was in fact stolen? I don't have proof, but I think it was. And the stuff coming out now about Jan 6 suggests it was trumped up (no pun) to get people riled up against maga folks. Too deep a rabbithole for me, today anyway.
Stats I have seen make me question both 2020 and 2024 being stolen. I think both were pretty bad with voter fraud given the statistical anomalies I saw. Speaking of way deep rabbit holes and having important shit to do today.
I wasn't there. I can't say how bad Jan 6 was but it wasn't good that is for sure.
On a lighter note, or not, I'm over a decade deep with non aggression principle and still finding things I need to change to align with it better. I started highly motivated by an existential crisis over nearly shooting a meth head too. Kinda scary how engrained violence is in our seemingly peaceful society that it takes that long to uncover all the sources violence.
I recall testing something on Twitter in 2020. There was a viral post about Benfords law going around after the famous Biden chart shooting up moment. I tried a simple retweet of it, and bam, banned for 12 hours. The principle is used to detect financial cooking of books, but it's somehow disinformation worthy of an instaban should you try and apply it to election numbers...nothing weird there.
Would need to know more about the incident with the shooting to weigh in, but probably good that you avoided that haha...I prefer Bill Cypher the pacifist over Kill Bill (bad, bad attempt at humor)
Pacifist nothing. Definitely trying to do the peaceful not harmless thing. I had decided and after tons of reflection I'd make the same decision again.
Not too complicated a story. Meth head bouncing off the walls charged me. Fast reflexes all around meant he saw the gun and stopped far enough away to leave me time to me to process that he stopped and not pull the trigger. Then he just ran away.
No idea if the world is better this way or if I killed him. Maybe it scared him into sobering up or maybe he brought a weapon next time. It isn't like we get together once a year on the anniversary to catch up.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
