This title makes me mad

Removed by mod

Yah, I mean realistically, I can only really see tariffs working if a nation is trying to enter an industry. That’s not the case here, but even so, these tariffs differ from the ones you mentioned because they would be against Chinese imports rather than a specific product, so I can’t imagine there’s as much risk of that sort of market manipulation from happening again… but then again, I’ve got no idea.

Realistically though, that’s how tariffs just work. With products costing more, theoretically that should drive demand down and eventually lead to fewer imports. Of course, if there’s still no competing product or the product is a basic necessity, then it’ll likely just result in people paying more.

This has literally been a thing for like… 60 years

Not too strange of a phenomenon if one considers what populism focuses on, the fabrication of divides in order to drive tribal responses from it’s followers.Trump’s rhetoric is only one variety of it that happens to be very effective at creating that divide, those that are swayed shouldn’t really be seen as people that support all of his nastiest views, but as people that have been taken in by that sense of tribalism.

The loss of community is increasingly problematic for individuals in this day in age. There exists too many groups vying for our attention, many of which being communities that span across the globe. And with all these options, local communities may not always seem preferential to these global ones due to comparative size or accessibility. However, they still generally offer much more, and can prevent people from feeling isolated in their lives. Populist campaigns seek to take these people that are divorced from a community, often socially isolated people, and give them a group that seemingly supports them. So long as it’s welcoming, it doesn’t really matter who’s at the head of it, nor it’s beliefs.

I feel the fact that older people that aren’t quite retirement age and younger men being the people that are most likely to vote for Trump kinda speaks to this theory. I feel like these groups are the most at risk when it comes to developing rewarding communities, so a group like MAGA could be appealing to them.

Yah I mean, if your narrow understanding of what war is is Trumpets trying to take over the white house than yah, I guess one would hate the idea of using violence for the greater good.

Still, that sort of sacrifice should be expected if you want to make changes in your country (the US)

Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus… probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It’s more accurate to say “The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race”. Which is kinda obvious and doesn’t make much of a headline.

I can’t see how relying on the preference from North Korea could possibly help one’s election campaign.

I hate pacifists, man. They always try to publicly shame you by making it seem like violence is never justified… stupid deontological thinking

While I’m sure there would be a net positive, it’s also a completely absurd hypothetical. To get rid of hateful and rightwing propaganda networks, you’d have to completely change the political donor system in the US. You’d have to change the political landscape, you’d have to change the population, the rules on election and numerous other things.

You can’t just get rid of something that’s so beneficial to those in power. You have to completely remove that power in its entirety.

What are you talking about dude? Have you read anything regarding the shooter?

Need a source on that or I’ll just assume you’re lying through your teeth. As literally every major news outlet is reporting he made that donation

If radical change is what’s necessary. Then civil wars should be on the table. Besides, I’m sure the shooter’s goal wasn’t to depolarize the masses.

I think, looking at what has been published on him, it’s pretty clear as to why he shot Trump. For one, his personality lended itself to a hero complex. He was really nice, shy, intelligent, informed, and helpful. He clearly had respect for the Republican party, but given the info on his friend group, it was likely due to peer pressure. This is mostly made obvious by his political donation to the Progressive Turnout Project he made. A project that no conservative really should want to encourage.

In all likelihood, this guy saw the direction the States was headed in and realized there was no way to stop it from imploding without resorting to extreme political violence. I imagined he was upset with the fact that he wouldn’t be able to do much through official channels in his life, so he made the ultimate sacrifice to will the change himself. That’s why this guy’s a hero in my books, not because he took a shot at Trump, but because he realized there’s nothing any of us normies can do about the States’ political situation through normal means, so he went above and beyond. He probably spent some time weighing the options as to whom to shoot, and realized Trump was the better pick.

Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.

No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I’m inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This’ll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he’s likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.

Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.

Idk if I’m back on the accelerationist train or not yet. Not that I can vote in the States, so it doesn’t matter. Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly. As a progressive, you’d have to weigh the pros and cons of the value of the Dems possibly reevaluating and restructuring if Trump gets back in, vs the absolute abysmal reactions and policies that Trump will cause if he does, especially outside the US. But then if you vote the Dems in again, the neo-nazis around the world will feel less empowered, and there will be less terrible decision making in the short term. All at the cost of Dems not having to change the status quo, and effectively being the lesser evil for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I don’t envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn’t want to vote in this election.