site banner
Goodguy  2d ago (text post)   Edited 2d ago   9320 thread views

Midterms Megathread

Cause otherwise midterms discussion will be scattered around a bunch of separate Culture War thread posts. And it's nice to have more off-the-cuff rapid reactions in a dedicated megathread.

The first thing I've noticed so far: if the exit polls are correct, Americans are very pessimistic about AI.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Announcing that I voted democrat because I didn't like this or that, maybe I was told that I shouldn't like this or that - simplified, I know, but...

We all should know what is good for our lives, the lives of our families, neighborhoods, communities. We should know right now what we should be voting for next election, and the next, and the next. Doing the ultimate cut-your-nose-off to spite your face is unintelligent and should not be allowed.

I declared that there ought to be an intelligence test for US voters back in 2010.

Hypotenuse, harmony, harpy, hiccup. If you need to look up more than one of these words to either spell it correctly or to get its definition, then you should not be voting.

Given the existence of Hilary Clinton and Marjorie Taylor Green, the meaning of "harpy" is a matter of partisan controversy in a way which makes it inappropriate to include in a literacy test for voters.

Hey Mad, I was probably drinking one afternoon in 2010 and that sequence of words just popped into my head. I liked the simplicity and the alliteration.

Forget the figurative meaning; they just need to know the mythological monster.

Hypotenuse, harmony, harpy, hiccup.

Why are you spelling hiccough wrong?

Could be because he doesn't live in the 19th century?

Doing the ultimate cut-your-nose-off to spite your face is unintelligent and should not be allowed.

You appear to believe that outcomes you don't agree with should be against the rules. It is hard to imagine a less productive concept of politics, particularly where you have no rule-making or -enforcing power.

Trump ran on no foreign wars, and then started a stupid, destructive foreign war. Republicans prominently mocked the idea of using government power to help the objectively most disadvantaged and most loyal constituency they had. You think they should be rewarded for these actions?

Republicans prominently mocked the idea of using government power to help the objectively most disadvantaged and most loyal constituency they had

You didn't like what I wrote - OK.

I wouldn't foist unwanted things upon my family or community because I was unhappy about even a dozen things, but let's include these: the war, sending aid we cannot afford, and objectively for me, paying about $1/per gallon more for a gallon of gas.

--------------------------------- This is from AI---------------------- For regular unleaded in Florida:

Today (Nov. 5, 2026): average about $3.83-$3.84 per gallon according to AAA. Start of 2024 (January 2024): Florida's average fell to about $2.99 per gallon in late January, the first time below $3 that year. The lowest state average in January 2024 was $2.988/gal on Jan. 22, 2024.

So compared with the beginning of 2024:

Then: about $3.00/gal Now: about $3.84/gal Difference: roughly +$0.84/gal, or about 28% higher.

These “wars” end up in America whether you like it or not. Iran I guess you can say wouldn’t. Venezuela we already had millions getting US benefits here on asylum. While they also destabilized other neighbors.

They really don't if you don't let them look at Syria. Also Trump nabbed Maduro it's not like that got rid of the Venezuela asylum seekers. Iran was at peace before there wasn't a war to end up in the US if Trump didn't start one.

I think Trump has removed a lot of Venezuelans status. If you want less risks of immigration from Americas where they can just walk here then America needs to be doing war on this side of the globe when there are bad governments.

So I think war in Americas is completely different than Middle East Wars.

Republicans prominently mocked the idea of using government power to help the objectively most disadvantaged and most loyal constituency they had.

What is this referring to?

Young white men, the $20 burrito affordability question, prominent Republicans pretending that they're going to balance the budget and that's why intervention in the economy just can't be done.

Can you tell me what policy could have helped the white men? Removing labor market competition they tried to do and was partially successful at. They did a solid job at hitting DEI which removed some roadblocks to jobs. Cutting food stamps and other UBIs in the economy would help with inflation and they should ramp that up.

But for 2 years in power they an ok jump at the “help the white man” levers.

Looting the treasury to give them money directly would have been a pretty good option. Serious retaliation toward the institutions that had been targeting them wouldn't have been bad. But actively mocking them and their concerns was a very bad idea, and a lot of Republicans chose to do that.

Which is why young white men refused to fight in the civil war-by-proxy.

There’s plenty of room for other nations to pick up the 100 dollars on the ground, at least. Ironically, a successful reform party seeking that demographic should probably be female; at least that way you’d have a leader that is at least attracted to the idea they exist.

(Glances at Alberta.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats