Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple. I used to know a couple of people who had been on the far left (indeed thats how i met them) who went to the alt right who had mental health problems or other issues to do with some sort of trauma and they ended up blaming trans people and 'leftists' and ultimately going towards trump and MAGA after alienating all their friends. :(
 
I bet a lot of them don't even truly want an America as it might well be under a second Trump presidency. The consumption of conspiracy theories and factionalism as some kind of entertainment or celebrity rather than the reality of shrill fascism, upheaval and societal crises and degradation.
 
frogwoman said:
I wonder how much Gaza is going to impact the vote in places like Michigan, where there is a big Palestinian community and a lot of anger at Biden for being so pro Israel. No way are they gonna go for Trump, but some people will end up staying at home I imagine.
Click to expand...

"Green Party candidate Jill Stein leads Kamala Harris among Muslim-American voters in the three key swing states of Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin, according to a new poll ..."
Click to expand...

US elections 2024: Jill Stein leads with Muslim-American voters in three swing states, survey shows
 
scifisam said:
Yeah, all I see is people hoping against hope, really.

I have to say, Trump was better than expected in those excerpts. He was mostly using full sentences and real words and didn't walk around behind Kamala like he was trying to stick a "kick me" paper on her back.
Click to expand...
well - he didnt have complete meltdown and he was mostly coherent - so only came over as an angry, unfocused, bullshitting, racist narcascist. His own side are calling it a disaster . Yes it could have been even worse - but harris (and the factcheckers) ruthlessly exposed him . Will it move the polls? - probably not by much or possibly not at all . But it was great to watch.
Possibly best/most damaging bit was when he clearly had no plan whatsoever for healthcare - it was such transparent, feeble bluffing on a hugley imporatnt issue that effects nearly every american. Feel thats the sort of thing that might cut through to the undecideds who are otherwise cool with his rape, racism, courruption, fascism, dementia etc
 
Kaka Tim said:
well - he didnt have complete meltdown and he was mostly coherent - so only came over as an angry, unfocused, bullshitting, racist narcascist. His own side are calling it a disaster . Yes it could have been even worse - but harris (and the factcheckers) ruthlessly exposed him . Will it move the polls? - probably not by much or possibly not at all . But it was great to watch.
Possibly best/most damaging bit was when he clearly had no plan whatsoever for healthcare - it was such transparent, feeble bluffing on a hugley imporatnt issue that effects nearly every american. Feel thats the sort of thing that might cut through to the undecideds who are otherwise cool with his rape, racism, courruption, fascism, dementia etc
Click to expand...

I wonder if they think it was a disaster because he wasn't the meandering weird Uncle his fans love. They don't want him to be the kind of person who can even halfway make sense, because that gives cogent points to argue against rather than arguing about WTF covfefe means. His lack of intelligibility means people can interpret him in the way they want. But here he genuinely did say he loves solar. There's no playing around with that.

For one of the cogent remarks he made, I hate myself for thinking this, but his comment about the states making their own choices about abortion rights will play well with some anti-federalist undecideds and I can kinda see their POV. Not that I want abortion banned, obviously, but the US is SO big and varied that I can understand anti-federalism.

The one thing that doesn't makes sense is that the states that benefit from federalism the most are the ones who hate it the most.
 
cupid_stunt said:
Well, that was just weird, I liked how Harris came on and walked over to Trump to shake hands in his space on stage, he didn't like that, but she came across as a little nervous answering the first couple of questions, but after that she found her feet and rattled Trump on several occasions, and when he was coming out with complete bollocks, she was just shown laughing, ridiculing him, which was perfect.

The fact that she was fact checked, IIRC, just once to shedloads for Trump, would have stood out to anyone that was paying attention.

None of it will matter to the MAGA lot, but I hope it will shift some of the undecided voters.
Click to expand...
I thought that was a clever move on her part, not just in terms of taking the initiative to greet him and tell something like 'Let's have a good debate' so she sounded civil and reasonable, but because she introduced herself as 'Kamala Harris'.

Maybe the team who did his interview preparation had warned him not to mangle the pronunciation of her name, which he's done on numerous occasions?

And/or maybe he realised he'd look stupid if he tried to take the piss out of her name when she'd literally just told him the correct pronunciation at the start of the debate.

So she kind of boxed him into a corner in that sense. Because he does like to be disparaging and disrespectful towards people. But she took control from the start over that particular issue, effectively telling him very clearly 'this is my name'.

ETA: I thought she started off relatively poorly. She did that politician thing of swerving the question with the first question, which iirc was about whether she thought the American people were better off over the past four years (or something like that). And if you're a politician and you're campaigning on attributes like honesty and trustworthiness versus your opponent's lies, it would be preferable to answer at least the very first question directly and honestly. She flunked in that respect, I thought. It was disappointing that she seemed to reel off a pre-prepared spiel about the economy, rather than answer the question. And she seemed hesitant and lacking in confidence in her delivery. Of course, she improved as the debate went on, but I thought she got off to a disappointing start in the debate (aside from going over and introducing herself to him, which was a bit of a power move).
 
Last edited:
Zapp Brannigan said:
Very few people will be consciously swayed by a single TV debate, and very few will switch a vote directly from Trump to Harris or vice versa. But that's not what it's about; it's about picking up the number of "maybe Harris, probably not voting" and turning them into actual votes in the right places, and sowing enough doubt to turn the "maybe Trump, possibly not voting" into staying at home.


This, coupled with the line about "I've spoken with world leaders and they're laughing at you" forms a subconscious link; portrays Harris as being 'World Leader' material vs 'The Laughing Stock'.

Having lived through Covid with a partner who happens to be an academic psychologist, I was taught a hell of a lot about 'Nudge Theory" and how effectively the government's scientific teams were able to mass-manipulate behaviour (even in the face of Johnson's foghorn of ignorance). In a similar vein, I'd say that Harris had a very, very successful night - perception matters, and when only the far-right (NewsMax) are even attempting to put a positive slant on Trump's performance, the narrative that will stick will be nudging vast numbers of people a tiny fraction towards voting for Harris and a tiny fraction away from voting for Trump.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget how much of that nudging is done 'behind the scenes' via social media channels/algorithms rather than mainstream media ads and news coverage/analysis.

We're all in our own little social media bubbles and don't know exactly what 'the other side' are doing, what their supporters are seeing and hearing. Trump's public lies are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the misinformation that's being shared and which is influencing opinions and voting behaviour.
 
story said:
The thing is that by any reasonable metric Harris DID win.

I'm not saying she didn't.

But that could actually play to his favour.
Those who support Trump even just a little don't want him to be beaten or embarrassed. They associate with him so deeply that they feel personal affront, personal danger, when he's in the firing line.

This is more than politics. There's something existential and weird going on.
Click to expand...
I think to most sensible, rational observers Harris won.

But simultaneously, to Trump supporters, he didn't lose. They're not having a Biden moment after this debate, thinking their candidate performed terribly and is on course for losing the election like many Democrats after the Biden v Trump debate, many of them are still intending to vote for him and are still quite upbeat about his prospects.
 
two sheds said:
I can just imagine trumpies going "yay" as he landed each of his killer blows .. they're eating your pets ... biggest crowds in the history of politics ... nobody goes to her rallies ... Afghanistan was the most embarrassing day in the history of America ...
Click to expand...
Agreed. He will have played relatively well to his base, hit all the dog whistle talking points that appeal to them.
 
frogwoman said:
I wonder how much Gaza is going to impact the vote in places like Michigan, where there is a big Palestinian community and a lot of anger at Biden for being so pro Israel. No way are they gonna go for Trump, but some people will end up staying at home I imagine.
Click to expand...
And isn't there quite a large Arab community in places like Dearborn, iirc?

Btw, Gaza was an important issue in the UK election. There were many voters in the big cities with large Muslim populations that switched their votes away from the (left wing) Labour Party to another smaller centrist party (LibDem) or Greens or regional/national parties in Scotland and Wales. There was also a sufficient number of vote switchers over Gaza to vote in 4-5 independent MPs, some were former Labour MPs/Labour Party members/candidates who decided to stand as independents at least in part because of the Labour Party's stance over Gaza. And it's not just Muslims, but also Jewish Labour for Peace and interfaith groups, also anti-war activists and people generally appalled at the humanitarian catatrophy and genocide being carried out with impunity.

So there is a risk that politicians focus on and emphasise support for Israel and will lose other votes in the process.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
And isn't there quite a large Arab community in places like Dearborn, iirc?

Btw, Gaza was an important issue in the UK election. There were many voters in the big cities with large Muslim populations that switched their votes away from the (left wing) Labour Party to another smaller centrist party (LibDem) or Greens or regional/national parties in Scotland and Wales. There was also a sufficient number of vote switchers over Gaza to vote in 4-5 independent MPs, some were former Labour MPs/Labour Party members/candidates who decided to stand as independents at least in part because of the Labour Party's stance over Gaza. And it's not just Muslims, but also Jewish Labour for Peace and interfaith groups, also anti-war activists and people generally appalled at the humanitarian catatrophy and genocide being carried out with impunity.

So there is a risk that politicians focus on and emphasise support for Israel and will lose other votes in the process.
Click to expand...
Is there a leftwing Labour Party? They weren't on the ballot paper on East Ham.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
And let's not forget how much of that nudging is done 'behind the scenes' via social media channels/algorithms rather than mainstream media ads and news coverage/analysis.

We're all in our own little social media bubbles and don't know exactly what 'the other side' are doing, what their supporters are seeing and hearing. Trump's public lies are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the misinformation that's being shared and which is influencing opinions and voting behaviour.
Click to expand...
I feel I need to point out that nudge theoy seems to be largely bullshit. Which I'm happy about as it always sounded like it to me.

If you have the time I really enjoyed a podcast on this, part 1 is here



But a quick Google gives me this article

theconversation.com

Nudge theory: what 15 years of research tells us about its promises and politics

The idea of gently tweaking our behaviour still makes political sense.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

What's funny is that one of the examples in that article about a successful nudge is this.

For instance, the nudge of automatically enrolling UK workers into pension schemes (they have the right to opt out) has substantially increased the number of people saving for retirement,
Click to expand...

This is one of the points made in the podcast this is not a nudge, it's a fucking shove.
 
I now feel the need to point out that nudge theory is not so much “bullshit” (you can definitely apply it successfully in particular contexts) as it has far too narrow a scope of understanding of human social behaviour. It starts from the idea that the (deeply flawed) standard economics model is “correct” but reality is wrong, and that humans should and would be best understood by forcing them into that framework. So it then seeks to “fix” people. But humans intuitively resist, because the vast majority of social interactions don’t make sense through a marketised lens (eg, you don’t pay your mum when she cooks a family dinner). And one of the ways this resistance shows up is that the more people know about nudge theory, the more likely it is not to work on them.
 
kabbes said:
I now feel the need to point out that nudge theory is not so much “bullshit” (you can definitely apply it successfully in particular contexts) as it has far too narrow a scope of understanding of human social behaviour. It starts from the idea that the (deeply flawed) standard economics model is “correct” but reality is wrong, and that humans should and would be best understood by forcing them into that framework. So it then seeks to “fix” people. But humans intuitively resist, because the vast majority of social interactions don’t make sense through a marketised lens (eg, you don’t pay your mum when she cooks a family dinner). And one of the ways this resistance shows up is that the more people know about nudge theory, the more likely it is not to work on them.
Click to expand...
Any examples of it working as claimed?
 
Behaviour can be (and regularly is) manipulated by an understanding of human psychology. Painting flies on urinals improves aim, chewing gum and lottery ticket sales go through the roof when they're sold next to checkouts; these are examples of less than subtle "nudges", we all know what they're doing yet it still works. And the more subtle it is, the less pushback there is; some of the most effective would be almost completely unnoticeable.

Marketing teams, HR departments, governments; all have teams upon teams of people with a psychology background ready to nudge at a moment's notice.

Hands up who hummed "happy birthday" even once as they washed their hands during Covid? Plenty of people did. Those who didn't, probably at least once thought "I'm not singing happy sodding birthday" while washing their hands. Either way, you've been nudged - handwashing rates went up (admittedly from a surprising and horrifyingly low bar, especially amongst men).
 
kabbes said:
The infamous archetypal case, where HMRC sent out some reminder letters saying “most other people like you have already paid” and other letters without that wording. The first type of wording was materially more successful.
Click to expand...
I need to listen to the podcast again as the discuss something very similar to this but can't remember it now. :D

But I'm not sure if a better letter is really a nudge, as it is oftern used though?

Also I think I should be clear that nudging can have an impact just far less than is claimed.

One example from the podcast was about displaying fruit in a school canteen so more kids took fruit. And claims were made about a huge increase in the number of kids taking fruit, whihc was reue. But that is not the point, what mattered was how much more fruit the kids were actually eating, which was much less.

But the point they don't make is that there was an increase, so it did work to an extent just no where near as much as was claimed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
549
frogwoman
frogwoman
Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
290
Views
16K
agricola
agricola
editor
  • Locked
  • Poll
Merging the two Trump threads yes/no?
Replies
27
Views
873
editor
editor
Back
Top Bottom