No. This is drama, not things happening.
The real joke is this stupid fucking discourse. Trump got a "cool" photo taken. That's news? Could give him a boost in the polls. That's not news, that's conventional wisdom, repeated. Republicans are already complaining about Biden's "bullseye" comment. Already, this non event is just more discourse fodder.
I honestly think there's nothing to discuss or learn here. Of course, it's also fun to say Nothing Ever Happens.
Don't tell me about things that almost happened.
Yes, if Trump had died, that would have mattered. Not in of itself, but because someone else would be the next President and presumably do things differently. But he didn't! He's not seriously hurt. He might get a cool scar out of it.
Assassination attempts aren't unusual. If anything the lack of serious attempts to kill DJT is unusual.
I don't think this event is historical. It will at best become a piece of trivia.
I do have an opinion on DJT and this assassination, but I don't want to share it - it's counter to consensus reality. You would probably just disparage it. And, like the ending of Game of Thrones, having an opinion on it doesn't make it important!
Things actually happening, not Things Almost Happening.
Oh, I'll add, I think the person in the crowd who actually died is news. One person dying is more important than DJT having his picture taken.
What else should I do? It's Sunday afternoon, I'm bored and slightly depressed. This is light entertainment and stimulation, like playing a video game. That's why you're here, that's why everyone's here. Why is it that people need to know, now, exactly who fired the shot? If you really wanted to know... Wait 72 hours and you'll find out. Instead people are scouring photographs and speculating online. Because it's entertainment! How many people went to CNN to get mad about them using the wrong words to describe this non event? Because the event and the reaction and the discourse are entertainment - they wanted to feel mad, not to get information.
Why share my opinion? I've opened on Trump before, it makes no difference. I'm just adding to a mountain of shit.
Right, clearly this place is now for consensus building and pushing people to have the same opinion and agree. If you think it's wrong of me to think, say, that Trump is ugly, then fine, I'll fuck off, because you're not going to debate me into thinking otherwise. And quite frankly a mod should have better sense than to operate as an enforcer of public opinion.
My opinion on Trump is that opinions on Trump don't fucking matter. When I don't vote in the US, does it actually matter if I find him to be likable? My opinion is that this event doesn't matter, beyond the sad death of two people and perhaps the increase in security at Trump events in the future. Those are legitimate opinions to hold, you just don't like them because it goes against the consensus here.
It is, in fact, a nothing. I'm happy to argue this point, but I can't prove a negative.
If you don't want me to post about myself, don't ask.
Do you know what an opinion is?
What exactly, is worth saying about it, given that we don't really know what happened? Even if we did know what happened, what gems of insight are likely to come out of front page Reddit? That it's good for Trump? That it's really cool that he put his fist in the air? You might as well ask ChatGPT.
The prospect of a President or major party candidate being assassinated is in 2024, positively quotidian, to the point where the real story isn't even the assassination but that it might improve Trump's chances of being reelected. Not news but drama.
That will not begin to ameliorate the damage this idiotic war has caused to Russia and Ukraine, but at this point it is the least bad option. The only question now is how Russia can best ensure a relatively fast recovery from the self-inflicted harm it has created.
That more or less explains why it can't happen. If the goal of the West is to weaken or destroy Russia, then it benefits them to drag the war out as long as possible.
To the extent that history is just a series of interesting photographs (or, I should say, a series of photographs that 105IQ historians think are interesting enough to command the attention of what they think average people are), sure, this is history. A hundred years from now, bored teenagers will read about it on the 22nd century equivalent of cracked.com. Because they certainly won't read about Trump's meagre achievements. The people of the future will write history, not us. And chances are, they'll value very different things to us. "Making history" is what - putting on a performance, a show, for the benefit of alien, unborn observers.
The UK was not ready for war in 1938 either. Those who bring up the example are simply bloodthirsty warmongers.
For the most part, pro-CICO people seem to reject the idea of fast or slow metabolisms.
Directly inciting rebellion (which is more or less what his opponents accuse him of) is illegal and not protected by the Constitution. I don't believe Trump incited rebellion, but I think he did act through others to obstruct the lawful operation of the Senate, which is probably illegal, but not disqualifying.
My understanding is that DHT is critical for the development of many traits that are strongly associated with men, including baldness, body hair, and penis and testicles. If you want to claim that having a penis and functioning testicles are not essential parts of maleness you may certainly try, but I would find it very unconvincing. There is a reason we call it a "manhood"!
Is it actually productive to try and understand Russian motivations? Regardless of their motivations, they're trying to use force to conquer an independent nation, one that was attempting to align itself with the West. The fact that they might see this as part of a broader conflict with the West isn't news, and it doesn't change matters on the ground.
In addition, it seems like most people in Western countries, including many people here, come at the issue of trying to understand Russia from the perspective of trying to justify war - the Russians are inherently authoritarian/imperialistic/belligerent/orcish, and therefore must be destroyed. I don't think this attitude is helpful or should be encouraged.
There's a difference between something being known and something being known. There is no reason to believe that Kamala knew anything that wasn't published in the New York Times. And when I say "know", I don't mean in the smug way that people online apparently know everything, usually after it happens and rarely before. So what actually, should Kamala have said or done? Given a press conference to say that he stopped calling her? To say that he's old? To say that China should invade now while Biden's napping?
You do understand, I hope, the difference here? That actually, every level of government and business in the universe is built upon a certain expectation of loyalty and trust, and that is infinitely more true when we're talking about POTUS? It's not the job of the Vice President to brief the media against the President. If it's believed he's truly incapable, invoke the 25th. Otherwise, what exactly would be gained by gossipping to journalists who have no power?
There's no reason, either, that Kamala would, or should, see undermining the President and her party's Presidential candidate as good for the country.
As far as I know, there are no tangible consequences to the revelation that Biden is losing it, aside from him stepping aside as candidate, which is not even a tangible consequence yet (it might be in six months if Kamala becomes President instead of Trump). If there was some aspect of his responsibilities that was neglected, you'd say so. The real shocking part is not that the President is a vegetable, but that nobody really noticed any material difference in the operation of the country.
Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?
The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things. The rhetoric and rationale is very similar to what the pro Ukraine brigade says nowadays. The Taliban and Saddam are monsters, basically Hitler. America needs to project an image of strength. You can't negotiate with Hitlers. A message needs to be sent to potential state sponsors of terrorism/Hitler. What are you, a pussy?
Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.
There is no onus on anyone. Nobody has to do anything, or prove anything. You do not have to convince anyone, and nobody has to convince you. I'm sure the United States will survive in some form without the people who have decided (not without justification )that they don't like the society that has slowly developed and evolved over 250 years. But then I have to wonder what exactly you think you're doing.
I don't see that they're clearly required. When determining eligibility, the government doesn't have to consider due process - it doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And due process is to do with rights. There's no right to run for president.
I think we both agree that Russia should not have gone to war in the first place. But again, that would just be choosing a slow death rather than a quicker one. Ukraine would have been integrated into NATO, and then Russia could have been destroyed at Washington's leisure.
The United States did not really make a commitment, because I don't believe that commitments or agreements between enemies are binding. Commitments that cannot be enforced don't exist, and Russia is demonstrating right now their inability to enforce anything even on their own doorstep. But they certainly let the Russians think they made such a commitment!
I didn't scold the OP at all. It's quite normal to judge others, particularly men, for being small or weak, and I've been on the receiving end of that judgment many times. Of course, there is a difference between observation and judgment. I can observe someone's behaviour without forming an opinion on it. I also don't agree that judgment is always necessary. This is not meant in a cuddly liberal way. Rather in a kind of sense that one should treat events and people sort of like passing clouds. And I would add that I also think that I am very judgmental - I just don't think that's a valuable or desirable trait in myself.
- Prev
- Next
Man who isn't President doesn't die. Is this what passes for Things Happening these days?
More options
Context Copy link