This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How did the candidates do in terms of "it's not what you say, it's what they hear"? That is, we're not talking policy, just politics and feelings for the average undecided voter.
Trump dominated tonight. I think some voters could tell that Biden was more focused on policy, and he was much more specific about some things he did do and will do; I think they also noticed that Trump dodged a few questions, at times repeatedly and blatantly. But overall, it's no question at all. Trump sounded more like someone who cares and understands people than Biden. He was usually short and to the point, especially in the first half. He fell into some old habits, but did so with force and personality. He didn't even need to say anything other than raise an eyebrow as Biden melted down in his response about Medicare where he clearly lost his entire train of thought.
On abortion, Trump responded very vigorously about late-term abortions and clearly talks about exceptions, while Biden defended Roe, which seems tactically like at best a middling choice that pleases almost no one. On immigration, Biden took an "everything was good" tack and Trump talked about terrorism and violence, which is probably the more effective tactic. On veterans, a muddled and personal exchange about the losers and suckers quote, but Trump's logic (independent of whatever the fact is) seems more sound. Israel comes up, but nothing of substance is discussed. Biden talks about how a deal is near-done, while Trump implausibly claims it never would have happened with him at the helm and calls Biden a "weak Palestinian". We have a tussle about retribution and democracy, I don't know if anyone landed any body blows here, much of this info isn't new.
Worth noting that many viewers tune out in the first half hour or so, so this was the entire debate for them.
After the break, we see again the "what they hear" be so important. Trump talks about "clean air and water" while Biden talks about Paris and vague talk of pollution; Trump's framing here is always going to play better. Similarly to before, Trump dodges a question on childcare entirely, and he really hits Biden hard on being afraid to fire people when stuff goes badly. Biden seems to suggest, and does so again several times, that America is the best. Trump says the vibe is actually that things are going wrong and need fixing. Easily Trump wins the feelings side here, Biden framed this badly. Later on, when they start name-calling about the worst president (!!), Trump refers to Biden's bad poll numbers, and later, when they have some absolutely asinine smack talk about golf, (and confusing for non-golfers) Trump says "let's not act like children". Moral high ground, kind of crazy to see.
And the age question! Biden reminds voters, unhelpfully, that he's been in politics a long-ass time. Why would he think this is a good answer? Trump talks about his cognitive tests and says "knock on wood", which is quite frankly a pretty relatable answer. Biden brings up Trump's... weight?
They then accuse each other of starting WW3, which I don't think most undecided voters are going to have an opinion about. Closing arguments, Biden paints a picture of good progress on a handful of issues. This is okay. He improved a bit in the second half. Trump in closing is brutal, mimics Biden and makes fun of him, talks about respect being gone. I don't think he actually wins that many points here because of how personal some of this gets, which voters tend to dislike actually, but overall the impression is still vigorous and strong.
And there we have it. Biden is clearly declining, and Trump is just bringing back the Greatest Hits. Overall, the fundamentals of the race are still pretty similar, but I don't think anyone on the fence will swing left. The only undecided voter action will be pro-Trump, almost guaranteed (as a result of this debate). Focus group testing seems to agree quite strongly.
This was by no means a good debate for Trump, at least in terms of his individual performance. He blatantly refused to answer some questions, and they were the pretty important questions involving stuff like Putin and J6. Others were bad for different reasons, e.g. "will you accept the results of the election" with his response being basically "not if I lose". Worse than any of that though is that his responses were just incoherent. It's like if a lobotomized chatGPT was told to act like Trump, and it spewed a random collection of things that individually sounded like something Trump would say, but without any coherent structure or chain of logic. Trump has always had a meandering speaking style, but compare his performance tonight to the debates in 2016 and there's a world of difference. He's pretty clearly suffered a substantial age-related mental slowdown since then.
Of course, Biden's performance was way, way worse so it'll likely just be forgotten.
There's no such thing as a good debate for Trump. He's an incoherent windbag.
There's also no such thing as a good campaign for Trump. He's an incoherent windbag with non-existent managerial and executive skills.
None of that matters.
47% of the country votes blue. 47% of the country votes red.
Because of the demographic makeup of states and the electoral college, that remaining 6% has slightly advantage to Red team. So, it's always Blue team's job to hold a bit of an edge. Incumbency advantage is 1-2%, the rest is usually the economy.
Biden has needed to find a simple narrative on the economy plus one major issue (default: abortion) on which to campaign. He's failed to do that. I wondered why for a long time. I thought it had to do with internal conflict within the Democrat party or an inability to sustain a consistent core narrative through the constantly shifting news cycle.
Nope. The fact of the matter is that candidate himself isn't up to the task at all. That's what we learned conclusively tonight after a few months of secret-not-secret speculation. This election has been Biden's to lose all along and he probably just did.
Now, can The Democrats still win? Probably. Their biggest obstacle is themselves. I doubt Kamala will go quietly into that good night, but she's utterly un-electable and Gavin New some was in the Biden green room tonight. Trump? His debate performance was exactly as it has always been - pretty much abysmal and an easy win for anybody not named Joe Biden. His strongest issues are immigration and inflation and he consistently overplays both (that's how we got into "We're living in hell right now!" territory). Trump will not win votes, you (the Democrats) can only lose them.
I agree Trump has never been a great debater, but he generally held his own in 2016 against both the Republican challengers and against Hillary. I encourage anyone who doesn't see the difference to watch some clips from 2016, and then watch some of his responses from tonight right after. The difference is quite stark.
I don't disagree that the Dems have some tough choices ahead for them. If they try to nix Biden, that's unprecedented and causes chaos and is undemocratic. If they don't get rid of him, he'll probably lose. Trump would probably even get to 47% and beyond in that case (he didn't in either of his previous elections).
I don't know if you intended this to be a subtle "ha ha, I got you!" If not, nbd. If you did -- it's not the win you think it is. You're absolutely correct Trump got less than 47% in both 2016 and 2020 which means he unperformed a replacement level Republican candidate - and came out on top the first time. Donald Trump is the worst Presidential candidate in the modern era .... except for Hillary Clinton. Depending on this years results, he might end up in a weird tie for second-worst candidate with Joe Biden - and also be a two term President.
Again, Donald Trump is a stationary target highlighted in high contrast paint. The Democrats have perfect data on windage and distance, and have the ability to sight in with lasers and use a bench rest to take their shot.
Their first instinct, since 2016, has been to shoot themselves repeatedly in the face.
The problem with this is that the Dems are also held hostage by a galaxy of personal interests and corruption - the uniparty policies that Trump makes vast amounts of noise about taking down (his actual effectiveness at doing so has been mixed, of course). Sure, the democrats COULD change things around and run a real candidate who can stand up to Trump both in terms of personality and policy... but they won't, in the same sense that I COULD spontaneously type in the private key to some random BTC wallet and transfer myself a vast sum of money.
Apparently Trump is going to be getting big oil and gas money this cycle, among other billionaires. He's even letting them write executive orders for his team, allegedly in part because the corps don't trust that he'll get enough talent to write them good enough themselves. I wouldn't hold my breath for any swamp-draining from either candidate this time around.
But I think the Democrats are genuinely echo-chambered, rather than being ruled by deliberate PMC plants. Too much college education, I hate to say it.
Would trump’s oil and gas policies be any different from what the industry wants?
More options
Context Copy link
The unprincipled calls for "windfall" taxes blackpilled a lot of people in the energy industry, who were very much willing to join the uniparty in 2020.
Most people assume that oil is this incredibly profitable industry. That hasn't been very true since 2014, when U.S. fracking flooded the world with cheap oil. Since then the price of XOM stock has flatlined, while tech companies like Apple and Microsoft have increased by 500% or more. Many smaller energy companies failed to survive the 8 year downturn.
When a small positive cycle came around in 2022 (with inflation-adjusted peak prices still far below the 2010–2014 norm), some oil companies were finally, after nearly a decade, making profits again. To be immediately hit with calls for windfall taxes was a powerful reminder that the Democrats hate energy companies and want them to fail. It is quite literally the inverse of what people think. In energy, the profits are socialized while the losses are privatized.
You make a great point. More voters should certainly be aware of this, and I agree that looting the oil/gas industry isn't the best policy prescription either. However, it's worth noting that the oil and gas industry is one of those that has a particularly nasty personal history in terms of how they encourage certain foreign policy objectives, and also their treatment of the environment overall as well as people who interfere with traditional pollution. It's a bit naive to think that some of these at least slightly evil executives are all gone just because 10 bad years have passed. Some institutional skepticism, then, I feel is still warranted. But yeah, skepticism != hate and desire for failure. Also worth noting that at least my perception is that actual anti-oil Democrats are still the minority in the party. Oil, after all, still gives a fair amount of jobs.
More options
Context Copy link
Request: General write-up on your views on the Energy industry. Genuinely curious as I nerd out on anybody who has more than a surface level of how different sectors work. Too much "financial analysis" is Bloomberg levels of "Well, apple sells phones and I used my phone this morning, so I guess apple is a great investment!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder how different the executive order writing (assuming it would indeed be happening as presented) is from the standard lobbyist contribution to legislation? Obviously, the latter at least has some sort of check in the form of other legislators having to vote on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link