USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris (pt II)

[LuvtheKangas]

not sure you understand what I wrote.
Trump is not just acting in his own "self interest"
He is acting in the interest of substantial sections of the capitalist class in the US who agree that their interests would best be served by the immediate installation of a fascist dictatorship.

Sorry, didn't realise that I would have to spell it out so much for comprehension to occur.

Duh. Any acting in the interests of those others is purely a consequence of acting in his own self interest. He doesn't know or care about any outcomes beyond the payoff to him.

Comprehension 101.

 

[jatz14]

Appreciate your position but must reject it as internally inconsistent.

That objective reality is perceived through organs composed of matter is entirely irrelevant, particularly if objective truth (presumably also shaped and composed of matter) is construed by those parties in radically different ways. In short my view is objectively truthful to me, as yours is to you.

The imposition of an evolving universality that governs a moral response is to me a more practical tool than the broad determinism implicit in the Marxist position. This notion that class struggle will eventually be resolved in a way that is irrevocably agreeable to you is reductive at best and an article of faith at worst.

I would have said, stupid, but reductive is cool.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rotayjay]

What???

It was Biden, (with Harris in tow) who has funded and supported Netanyahu every step of the way.

They have provided him with the weaponry, and likewise given him the political cover.

Biden and Harris have backed Netanyahu thus far in murdering close to 200 000 Palestinians (if you base yourself on the Lancet's figures), and dropping several nuclear bombs worth of munitions on the tiny territory of Gaza.

How can you possibly cite the record of the Democrats in relation to the genocide in Gaza as a reason to vote for them rather than an Independent??

Because in American presidential elections there are only two choices: Democrat and Republican. You can send a message with an independent vote, but all it will practically do is help the person who lost fewer voters to independents. Therefore, if you're against the war, you can vote for Harris knowing she's probably on board with Netanyahu, or help Trump get elected and he's much more pro-Netanyahu. If you stay home, it's a vote for the candidate you like least.

 

[GreyCrow]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger
For the bottle hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself
Is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker but a
Bugger when he's pissed

 

[blackshadow]

Because they know they can easily manipulate the simpleton by convincing him that doing what they want is in his own self-interest. Of course.

This is so ridiculously obvious, I can't fathom you not getting it.

But but the workers will rise and smash the state!

(They actually won’t)

 

[GreyCrow]

The workers will be playing Fortnite and doing duck faces

 

[Dazzler9]

Feels like I've strayed into the Political Science 101 thread.

 

[IlovethePies]

Appreciate your position but must reject it as internally inconsistent.

That objective reality is perceived through organs composed of matter is entirely irrelevant, particularly if objective truth (presumably also shaped and composed of matter) is construed by those parties in radically different ways. In short my view is objectively truthful to me, as yours is to you.

The imposition of an evolving universality that governs a moral response is to me a more practical tool than the broad determinism implicit in the Marxist position. This notion that class struggle will eventually be resolved in a way that is irrevocably agreeable to you is reductive at best and an article of faith at worst.

Let's agree to disagree.

I will just say that the statement in your post that I bolded is a post modernist position, which bases itself on the rejection of objective truth.

The Marxist standpoint is that objective truth exists, and mankind's efforts to cognise it, through the development of scientific theory (via his own interaction with the material world) produces ever closer approximations to the objective truth.

Post modernism is a right wing, pro capitalist philosophical view which ultimately claims that it is impossible to understand the development of human society, and therefore impossible to change it. The standpoint of postmodernism is to defend the status quo by proclaiming the hoplessness of scientific thought.

 

[Dazzler9]

^^^

Feels like I've strayed into the Political Science 101 thread.

 

[IlovethePies]

Duh. Any acting in the interests of those others is purely a consequence of acting in his own self interest. He doesn't know or care about any outcomes beyond the payoff to him.

Comprehension 101.

Wrong. Individual politicans reflect class interests.
Politics 101.

 

[IlovethePies]

Because in American presidential elections there are only two choices: Democrat and Republican. You can send a message with an independent vote, but all it will practically do is help the person who lost fewer voters to independents. Therefore, if you're against the war, you can vote for Harris knowing she's probably on board with Netanyahu, or help Trump get elected and he's much more pro-Netanyahu. If you stay home, it's a vote for the candidate you like least.

Wow, i am glad that i am not confined to your binary, binary world. (no, not a Cool Cool world)

 

[QuietB]

The technology that exists today has strengthened the hand of revolutionary forces.

Who are these “revolutionary forces”?

 

[Satan]

Who are these “revolutionary forces”?

Do they have space lasers?

 

[IlovethePies]

Do they have space lasers?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Wrong. Individual politicans reflect class interests.
Politics 101.

It is patently obvious that this one doesn't. Certainly not consciously, it's just an outcome of who he is, the self-focused, self-interested narcissist. I'm no psychologist, but there are plenty of articles where qualified people assess his psychological state. None go near to suggesting he consciously represents class interests.

Psychology 101?

 

[IlovethePies]

Who are these “revolutionary forces”?

wsws.org

 

[IlovethePies]

It is patently obvious that this one doesn't. Certainly not consciously, it's just an outcome of who he is, the self-focused, self-interested narcissist. I'm no psychologist, but there are plenty of articles where qualified people assess his psychological state. None go near to suggesting he consciously represents class interests.

Psychology 101?

That's because none of them have a clue.

 

[Mick F]

Duh. Any acting in the interests of those others is purely a consequence of acting in his own self interest. He doesn't know or care about any outcomes beyond the payoff to him.

Comprehension 101.

The shallowest of men - ‘his soul is a hollow space, drained of empathy, honesty, and compassion’. Trump may best be described as a phallocentrist.

When the New Yorker’s Mark Singer was working on a profile of Trump in the 90s he wondered what went through his mind when he was not playing the public role of Donald Trump.

“What are you thinking about”, Singer asked him, when you are shaving in front of the mirror in the morning?” Receiving a baffled look, Singer tried a different tack, hoping to unearth a reflective Trump. “O.K., I guess I’m asking, do you consider yourself ideal company?”

“You really want to know what I consider ideal company? A great piece of arse.”

 

[LuvtheKangas]

That's because none of them have a clue.

LOL. Everyone else is wrong.

Good way to shut down a discussion when you're unwilling to concede the obvious. If you can't see this aspect of Trump (which I suspect even many of his supporters would concede), there's nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[QuietB]

wsws.org

Good luck with that - I’ll be at the beach with the rest of Australia

 

[FireKrakouer]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger
For the bottle hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself
Is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker but a
Bugger when he's pissed

Credit where it's due, your Monty Python quote here was well timed.

As an intellectual philosopher myself, I'll add this: the ideal amount of time one should spend pondering philosophy is zero. Just be pragmatic and get on with it m8.

 

[IlovethePies]

Credit where it's due, your Monty Python quote here was well timed.

As an intellectual philosopher myself, I'll add this: the ideal amount of time one should spend pondering philosophy is zero. Just be pragmatic and get on with it m8.

Pragmatism is a philosophical school of thought.

 

[IlovethePies]

What do you mean

LOL. Everyone else is wrong.

Good way to shut down a discussion when you're unwilling to concede the obvious. If you can't see this aspect of Trump (which I suspect even many of his supporters would concede), there's nothing more to say on the matter.

I didn't say everyone else was wrong.
I just said that the authors of the articles you are referencing are wrong.

 

[IlovethePies]

Good luck with that - I’ll be at the beach with the rest of Australia

Slip slop slap mate.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

What do you mean

I didn't say everyone else was wrong.
I just said that the authors of the articles you are referencing are wrong.

How did you know the specific articles to which I was referring?

Are you going to keep digging here? I'm happy to leave it at you having an interpretation of Trump's motives that is generous but unsupported by evidence.

You're not on your own, lots of his supporters have convinced themselves of the same thing.