The Trump Presidency - Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
That means nothing in this WH.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/21/politics/trump-temporary-security-clearances/index.html
Abstaining is a political action. Of course people who didn't vote can complain.
Friend just told me this guy is very influential to a lot of Trump's backers like Peter Thiel and likely Musk and his current staffers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
"he argues that American democracy is a failed experiment[5] that should be replaced by an accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure of corporations.[6] Yarvin has been described as a "neo-reactionary", "neo-monarchist" and "neo-feudalist" who "sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy""
"In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.[36] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
"he argues that American democracy is a failed experiment[5] that should be replaced by an accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure of corporations.[6] Yarvin has been described as a "neo-reactionary", "neo-monarchist" and "neo-feudalist" who "sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy""
"In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.[36] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch."
The can but they have abdicated all moral right to do so.
Voting should be compulsory like it is here. You still have the right to not vote by spoiling your ballot or not putting it in the box of course. Funny enough when people turn up they tend to remember they have an opinion/preference.
It's much easier for people to not vote and then spend the next 4 years complaining.
Exactly. I’m fed up of voter shaming. People should not have to choose between shit or shit. Shaming third party voters is even worse.
These people are fecking evil.
Absolute bs as far as I'm concerned. Someone who refuses to vote for either a fascist or a genocide enabler has all the moral right to complain.
It's actually hard to take a moral stance and not vote for genocide joe when everyone around you is screaming in your hear about how wrong you are.
Same energy being shown here:
Vote for Chase Oliver, Jill Stein or hell, Claudia De La Cruz (The Socialist Party candidate!)
If everyone who didn't vote because of the above, decided to back one of the other party candidates, the world would be a much different place.
Easier still to mandate voting as it turns out most people who don't vote are just too lazy.
You vote in blank. Like I did in the past. Then you can complain
At the same time, I am of the opinion that not many times matters who you vote. Lately... I dont think that much anymore
There are other options available, so it is more moral cowadice than anything else - hedging your bets so everyone is to blame except you. Or if someone really thinks not voting is some sortof important political starement then all you havetodois turn up if it is manadated. You don't have to vote. Funnily enough most people do when they are forced to get off their lazy arses and get to the polling booth.
Exactly
I disagree. Voting blank and abstaining send two different messages. Complaining is part of politics, regardless of your actions on election day. It's just another way some people get to feel superior over others.
Guess we have different views on what being moral is.
Dont get me wrong. I coudn't care less what you voted. You should be able to complain always. But lets say that with less reason. Is not "shut up! you didnt vote" and more like "well, you maybe shouldn't have sat that up" with a mix of schadenfreude. But shutting someone for this reason is poor because is better to have discussions and arguments than give less validity to the arguments because of that reason. Also people can change their minds
But certainly not going to vote is the lazy approach while voting blank is not believing in the system and/or current parties
Very accurate, who would have thought self proclaimed liberals are only liberal when you do what they want you to do.
This is actually kind of dumb. Kamala did not lose because of the Black vote. 92% of Black Women and 80 something percent of Black Men voted for her. We can't save the country from idiocy alone. We tried to tell them.
Not a follower of Kant.
feck no. I am (or was) a scientist.
Yeeehaww we ride
Thank god Trump got rid of those 20 or so athletes that are ruining it for all the girls.
Far more of a priority than the 23 kids that are shot, on average, every day in America.
Far more of a priority than the 23 kids that are shot, on average, every day in America.
One of the perks of being President, you're the boss, you can give a security clereance to whomever you want, another perk is you can declassify anthing you choose as well
Well they shouldn't but they do
You could spoil your ballot by put neither of these dickheads or whatever
Like the majority of things the Republicans say - almost very accusation is an admission.
"Dems/Soros and the deep state are creating a new world order that wants to take power away from the common man!"
- Republicans: 'ha thanks for voting for us morons, now we can do exactly that"
Which means feck all when they bend over and are willing to take it without lube a few days later.
His lunatic fanbase is going to have a field day.
Voters rejected democracy - democratically even. After that it's just a case of protecting your historical legacy and avoid too much trouble with the history books.
Hey as long as Americans don't read, this is probably very effective. Can be repeated ad nauseum on Fox too.
Nonsense. Both options are a vote for genocide.
In your world, (if American) I'd need to vote for one of the genocidal villains so I can complain about the other one? feck that.
No, I agree with that, they should take a huge share of the blame for this. As others have said here, not voting for the lesser of two evils because you are an idealist in a binary vote is not going to work out for anyone.
Let's remember though that the majority of people who live in the USA aren't even able to vote, and the system likes things to be that way. And then you have the electoral collage that means that one person's vote in Delaware only counts the same as half a vote in Wyoming. And that the 3m people in Puerto Rico have no vote at all unless they leave their home and move to a the literally any other part of the US. On top of that you have all the voter suppression tactics, that will likely be increased yet again over the next 4 years.
Nevertheless, this came about because I said I'd be attempting what is likely impossible and boycotting US goods and services. I realise that we take for granted daily interaction with the likes of Google because of email accounts and things, but so long as I don't pay or subscribe and use adblockers, at least I'm minimising the value that my interaction with that is worth.
Neo feudalism?
I can't wait to be a neo serf.
I can't wait to be a neo serf.
No, in that scenario, given that both are enablers of genocide, you must make a choice as to which you think would cause the least damage and be the most likely to be held to account.
In the last election, they could have voted to ensure that the rule of law and international norms were still important. And then they could have protested the decisions made by that administration in terms of their foreign policy rather than handing control of their own country over to a fecking lunatic whose victory has essentially proven that the laws and norms no longer apply in the US and whose now unlimited rule can be tested against the norms of the entire planet.
There's an episode of Gabriel Gatehouse's BBC podcast The Coming Storm about these guys and their movement to setup "Network States". Absolutely terrifying.
I'm not delusional enough to believe what I genuinely think and understand means I know which president is best for the Palestinian people or resolving this war.
Trump is a loose-cannon. He could conceivably end the war right away, and he could conceivably level Gaza to the ground in one day as well.
He'll do whatever he thinks is best for Trump, and as much as it pains some people to accept, that might actually might be better to what Harris would have done.
I'd have voted for Harris, thinking that's probably best (obviously not entirely related to Israel). But I can very wrong obviously.
She's a career politician and somewhat sane, and that's better than Trump. But it's still a coin-toss when it comes to Israel, in my view. It's a coin-toss because America wants to rid Palestine of Palestinians, no matter who is in charge.
So yeah, given I believe that, telling other people they're wrong for abstaining would be horseshit.
Last edited:
For me this is the only sensible answer, but holy fecking crap we have exhausted this very discussion for months and months!
There were 24 candidates running for President....