By Katharine Moody*
To console myself, I have to believe it was all about tax. No tax on overtime. Millions are working it, many don’t get paid for it – but, the very mention of the word resonates. No tax on tips. 43% of all adult Americans have at some stage in their lives worked in a job relying on tips to supplement below the poverty line wages. No tax on Social Security benefits. Already tax free if the benefit is USD $32,000 or less, but a significant benefit to many millions of wealthier seniors. It is a path to draining the fund more quickly to ensure its demise.
But, I’m a bleeding-heart liberal – or as my son living in the USA says, a libtard. Tax is a necessity of governments and those of us more comfortable need to welcome our greater contribution. My heart bleeds for other things in life that are far more important.
I bleed for the women, their children and their families who have been unable to access medical treatment for a miscarriage. I bleed for the children killed in their classrooms with no respite going forward. I bleed for those who will fear for their life under a brutal re-incarnation of stop and frisk. And the list goes on.
In my previous article Normalising Psychopathy, I expressed a foreboding concern for the ‘epic struggle to retain the rule of law and the separation of powers’ in the United States. At the Federal level, all chance of bringing the leader of the insurrection to account is now gone.
However dire and real it now is, I have titled this article, The Show Must Go On.
Show must go on
Show must go on
Inside my heart is breaking
My make-up may be flaking
But my smile still stays on
Show must go on
Show must go on
I'll face it with a grin
I'm never giving in
On with the show
That show now turns to the sovereign powers granted to individual States by the founding fathers of The Constitution.
In that regard, there is still a candle flickering for the rule of law being upheld, even if it is only in a symbolic way in this immediate aftermath. To that, the hopeful news is that, Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis won re-election on November 5th and in New York State, the insurrectionist is to be sentenced by Judge Juan Merchan on November 26th for his hush-money felony convictions.
These rule of law initiatives survive, for the time being, and remind me of what Reagan in his Farewell Address to the Nation referred to as the ‘shining city upon a hill’;
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
As other’s have said (and as I would lovingly caution my State-side son): MAGA is not your parent’s Republican Party. The Grand Old Party had morals. MAGA ought to give them their name back.
*Katharine Moody is a senior tutor at Massey University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences in Palmerston North, who comments on interest.co.nz as "Kate". The views expressed in this article are her own and don't necessarily reflect those of Massey University.
135 Comments
My wife & I lived and worked in the USA twenty five years ago. This was in a proud blue collar locality, full of humour and good will. We learnt a lot about patience, tolerance and politeness, that that improved us is for certain. It was a rewarding and enjoyable experience but we were not far from some big cities on the east coast, you knew there was everyday danger, much more so than in NZ, and you took precautions sensibly. We have returned five time, last year the latest. It has changed so much that we no longer feel comfortable in our old neighbourhood. We talked to our friends obviously. There are three main contributions we believe. Firstly covid, it’s aftermath, the fear factor and the insecurity caused by the financial impact on families etc. Secondly Trump, his presidency rubbed off on everybody, divisively so and deeply so. Thirdly crime, always widespread and always bad but now drug fuelled crazy.
Yes, crime but now (what differs so much from my growing-up life there) is the proliferation of guns.
Hand guns - where most states have conceal carry laws (so a majority of folks in cities in particular are packing a lethal weapon). And semi-automatic rifles - which are also able to be carried in many states that don't limit carry to conceal-only. Down in Georgia, the Secretary of State who wouldn't find the insurrectionist his 12,000 votes had mobs with AR15-type weapons across their shoulders standing on the sidewalk outside his house during that awful period.
I agree - crazy - and add in drug users to that mix - it's just a tinder box of fear. But I'm firmly of the belief that they can no longer blame the gun owners, or the Police not getting there soon enough, or the schools not being fortified adequately - but instead they need to blame the guns.
"but instead they need to blame the guns"
Indeed, but the yanks have such a fascination with guns, they will sadly never be outlawed. There were 18,854 gun deaths in the USA last year, excluding suicides. That's 52 people being killed every single day, by guns. Most avoidable, by simply banning guns… But nope, we're Americans, we want our guns, you know, to protect ourselves, from other Americans who carry guns to protect themselves. What idiocy.
You nailed it, sadly.
Here, if you attempt to commit suicide (by any means) and have a gun license, that license is immediately taken away and you own a gun(s) they must be forfeited or seized. That's my understanding anyway.
In the US gun owners aren't licensed, of course.
Wrong. Suicide is the number one (54%) cause of death by gun;
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-a…
If the over 90% you reference relates to murders by gun by gang members - they above link doesn't break it down by that stat. But, if you have a link I would find that interesting. I suspect the majority of murders by gun are by family members (domestic violence, not gang violence).
Happy to be proven wrong though!
That was an assumption not a reference which is why I said "probably". I also thought we were talking about homicides since the initial claim was "Most avoidable, by simply banning guns". I doubt banning guns will prevent suicides, we just need to look at NZ to answer that question sadly.
I dug around a little regarding gang related homicides and apparently the numbers are actually difficult to ascertain as people typically don't "snitch" in neighborhoods where the majority of gang violence occurs. The best estimate I could find was around 50% of all homicides were gang related. I'd say it's likely to be higher though but again that's just an assumption.
I recall reading that the majority of mass shootings in the US were also gang related ("drive-by" shootings) but apparently that depends on the criteria used. I wouldn't be surprised if all of this data is being somewhat suppressed for political reasons though.
Most avoidable, by simply banning guns…
I think with the proliferation of guns in the USA, it is impossible to put the cat back in the bag there. They wouldn't have enough police to enforce this, and it is too bigger country to effect change on such a scale based on law alone. To emphasize my point, look at the impact of law enforcement on the prevalence of cocaine in America.
Hi Foxglove, I have also lived in the USA where I met my current wife in San Francisco. That's actually the reason why I live in NZ, she's a Kiwi who was studying there and I was working there. Very much like you, we have returned to SF a few times over the last 25 years and, sadly it has deteriorated significantly. To me the demise started after the GFC, today the city feels unsafe and the streets are littered by the poor and homeless. A sad situation, as it used to be such a vibrant and lively city.
Where did you used to live ?
You could see it in the nz interviews of Trump supporters, when asked what policies etc of his appealed, it was literally a look that said they hadn't looked past the slogans .
Or just that he was bad ass, the lefts concentration on showing how bad he is was a mistake.
I'd like to hear your take on eligible voters numbers, the 150 million voters or so that voted seems low for a population of 500 million or so. Yet it is said to be around 65% of eligible voters. Not thinking any conspiracy or wrong doing, just wondering who is eligible to vote.
just wondering who is eligible to vote
Only US citizens over the age of 18. My mother was a Canadian who married my Dad, an American from Chicago, and as such she was classified stastitically as an "alien" - yes that's the word they used (and maybe even still use!) for non-US citizens who immigrate to the US, but do not change their citizenship.
Our term here is permanent resident, but in the US (unlike here), permanent residents cannot vote.
My son living in the US is a dual citizen, US and NZ. Available to children with one parent an American and the other a NZer (my husband being the NZer) - hence to live and vote there, all he had to do was apply for a US passport as a citizen born abroad. That unusual exception granted to NZers by the US government arises from WWII when many US soldiers took their leave from fighting in the Pacific here in NZ (and many marriages between citizens of both countries took place). I think now, the US does allow dual citizenship under a wider range of circumstances, but not sure.
US has a population of close to 335 mil, not 500mil, that's why your numbers don't make sense to you. 65% of eligible voters makes sense when you consider that the total population is about 335 mil and out of those roughly a 1/3 is underaged or ineligible to vote for other reasons.
So you want the same morals in a leader like JFK who sh.g everything with a pulse. Or how about Clinton I did not have sex just a BJ and was also impeached. You call yourself a liberal yet alot of Latino, Mexican Black voters voted for Trump so obviously there is alot more reasons than what you point out that concern them
Yes, I agree - tax.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife is only one of the 10 Commandments. It is only a small slice of the insurrectionist's immorality. And I'd add to that, that I'm guessing where the other two presidents you mention were concerned, their indiscretions were consensual..Whereas the insurrectionist himself admitted in one of the many depositions he's given that "Stars" (himself included) can grab women by the you-know-what and get away with it.
I can provide a link to him saying that in deposition should you require proof of it.
And just to ensure I answer all your points, political liberalism takes no stance on sexual (in)fidelity. Nor does it take a position on ethnicity.
That's because you didn't have the technology Luke today even back in Clinton's day to prove the things they got upto we only heard a handful. Still dosnt made it right Clinton lied about Monica so means he would lie and mislead about alot of other things. But of course the left quickly forget that. Just like Hipkins here forget about his minster of justice running away from a police road stop etc yet wants a minster in the coalition to stand down because he called someone a lower. The left really need to do some inner searching rather than try and throw stones in glass houses
For sure the left need to do some soul searching particularly around how they are letting down or ignoring the working class/blue collar class.
Nevertheless trump has an absolute disdain for the truth and would quite like to be an autocrat, he admires dictators like Putin, you would think that would be a deal breaker for president.
Where am I getting this unbiased info? Oh.. just those that worked with him in his first term.
I've not heard of any of Clintons or Obamas ex staffers or Generals come out and say they were completely immoral and want to be an autocrat.
I think the philandering by former presidents is hardly unknown. For instance the handsome Harding in a hall closet in the White House. The second Johnson, always competitive if not jealous on his predecessor, something like - hell, I’ve had more women by accident. Clinton’s fall down only occurred because the media then, no longer turned a blind eye, and salacious headlines sell well. In all of that sort of history, of all of the presidents, either post, during or before office has there ever been any suggestion of the abhorrence of rape in any manner. In fact likely presidential candidates such as Hart and Edwards had their prospects shattered by the exposure of affairs.
Oh and Kate since we are talking about protecting women and of course children don't you find it strange J. Low was telling people to trust her endorsement of Harris but yet when she was romantically involvedl Diddy who liked the young ones was she there for them . And alot of Harris big time donors were also good friends of Diddys
MSM (fox news excepted) pushed pretty hard one way. Meanwhile social media platforms were going the other way.
I got fooled.
Same thing happening locally. The 'controversial' Treaty Bill as msm keeps calling it. Controversial to who? MSM locally determined to push their view and control the narrative. They don't want people to actually listen, understand and make their own minds up. THEY have decided its disruptive and a terrible evil - and will give air time to every minor public assembly grizzling about it.
It will back fire,
I think part of the reason Trump did well (better than I expected TBH) is because he won a lot of votes from Gen Z/younger people, particularly males.
From what I can observe, this cohort does not consume mainstream media. They get their news headlines from TikTok, or YouTube, or from podcasts like Joe Rogan. It was a smart move of Trump's campaign to dedicate time to appearing on these types of platforms, whereas Harris' campaign was probably "preaching to the converted" by focusing on appearing in media that is already more aligned to the existing Democrat voter base.
Then add the 1-2 punch combo of older generations (Millennials and older) having decreasing trust in the mainstream media, and it's little wonder you wind up with this scenario where the mainstream talking heads say one thing an the livestream talking heads say another.
He also targeted the Amish in Pennsylvania who predominantly don't vote are mostly just farmers physical workers who the democrats overlooked (most likely were beneath them) but the Amish are a big voter block in a critical state with old fashioned principles and Trumps people got them in to vote
My grandson (17 years here in NZ) agrees with you on the social media - and particularly the younger male response to it as being a key factor. He came across a lot of the posts and showed me examples of the comments.
It's a sad development for me, in that not only is there a rural/urban divide in the US, but now there is a gender divide too.
That does not auger well for the future.
It's a good development Kate. Find the reliable sources on alternative media and the news and info is far more informative than msm like TV1.
The news on 1 is terrible, instead of report they try and tell us how we should think. As I mentioned above, the are already trying to drive a narrative on the Treaty Principles Bill. Posey Parker an older example.
It's not just the young who msm have lost.
Although we watch TVOne news every night at 6 - we spend most of our other time on news from a variety of youtube clips and sources. We prefer watching things 'in full' where this US election was concerned. We 'attended' many a live Trump and/or Kamala rally - and I got through 2.5 hours of the Trump/Rogan interview before I couldn't keep my eyes open anymore! I was a bit annoyed as it only lasted another half hour but it was already 12.30am (NZT) when I had to give up :-).
That was the oddest one-on-one interview of all. Joe Rogan could not keep him on subject - the first 20 minutes or so Trump described his first seeing the Lincoln bedroom in the White House. Trump was at pains to describe every tiny detail of the furnishings - so to try and get him off that subject, Joe's producer found a file photo of it. They put it up for all to see, but Donald still went on for another 5 minutes!
It was weird in so many ways - kind of like a fireside chat as opposed to an interview. And they spent a good 30-40 minutes talking about wrestling - lol. But my grandson tells me this is where the young male vote came from - no woman could match that type of machoistic appeal, eh?
The rural/urban divide, the gender divide would appear to be a thing here too. It's interesting that we can observe it in the US but be almost oblivious to it in our own backyard.
The gender divide has of course been a thing for thousands of years. Traditional gender roles have had to change under the economic environment. I think many young males are disillusioned in many ways, and the calibre of role models on social media, in leadership etc may not be the healthiest.
The traditional/conventional masculine/feminine beliefs would appear to be going through a bigger picture pendulum swing. The old and current ways, may not be the healthiest ways.
There appears to be power shifts happening everywhere, seen and unseen, and this is one of many.
you bleed for many things that Kamala and the dems did nothing about for 4 years -- you moan that people voted for his soundbites not the policies -- yet what were Kamala's --- her entire message was Dont voteTrump - hes mad -- nothing else -
As ever the left blinded themselves to what the public were thinking - their friendly media kept telling them how great they were how bad the other side were -- their Pollsters for the third time promoted the Dems and did not reflect Trumps actual vote share ( the betting agencies did though - so no excuses for pollsters they published what they wanted to publish) And their flashy / Trashy hollywood do gooders flew around doing concerts and stuff with their millions of $$$ and even more alienated their core voters -- Bernie Sanders nailed it!
Not a Trump fan - but was getting increasingly annoyed at the biased coverage on all media outlets -- and TBH m enjoying their bloody noses! they still wont call the house even though the republicans have made 4 gains on top of their existing majority-
you bleed for many things that Kamala and the dems did nothing about for 4 years
Let's look at each of those named, separately.
1. Abortion law
The Biden administration tried to challenge Texas' no exceptions, physicians can be liable law in Court. But it was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court and their appeal would not be heard by the US Supreme Court.
2. School shootings
The Biden administration successfully implemented (after failed court challenges by the NRA advocates) to regulate ghost guns;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/11…
And in both the House and Senate, too many to mention gun control bills have been fought back (either not passed or more frequently not debated) by the GOP.
3. Misuse of force committed by the police
A lot of positive news on that front both locally and federally. See about half way through this article regarding the Biden/Dem administration actions in that regard;
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/06/how-policing-has-and-hasn…
So, I do not accept the basic premise of your argument above. But, I would note it was one of those "slogans" (falsehoods) used frequently by MAGA.
The disaster economically relates to price inflation - both goods/services and housing/accommodation. At least that's what my son tells me. His investments are doing just fine and he's never been out of work. He is annoyed that the only jobs he can look at are those that offer subsidised health care benefits (and the co-pay on those have increased dramatically as well).
We've had that price/asset inflation here too but we're hardly looking for a 'strongman/authoritarian' to solve it.
Or are we? I don't think so.
" so, i do not accept the basic premise of your argument above" sounds like a Jacinda type comment -- reject the premise of .......
School shootings continue on a very regular basis -- no change in that -
Policing has changed -- and has been changing in America for the last 20 years -- but mainly due to the impact of body cams - the public videoing the assaults and courts being prepared to punish offenders -- not anything that was Biden led -
You mention one states attempt was challenged not the other 49 -- Trump may have appointed right leaning members -- but no Democrat president ever did any different they all appointed left leaning members! -- He did not overturn Roe Wade -- they did! --- And BTW -- he has four years now if a democrat appointed judge dies to appoint even more right wingers -- and that could take decades to overturn -- especially if he can convince one of the older republican leaning judges to step down and can appoint a 50 yr old into the role ! -
Fact is now that its up to each state to make the judgement -- Biden could have done a whole heap more at that level than challenge one state !
And the basic premise you are rejecting - that virtually her entire message was dont vote trump - it was and that the media presented it coverage very biasedly - just watch one news on the last day before the election about 70 30 Harris trump time -- and all positive for her -- still focusing on negatives for trump -- or lets have two days about a comedians garbage joke -- but within 30 mins - Bidens comments were all about what he meant to say -- not what he- the PRESIDENT actually said in a rehearsed tv broadcast with notes in front of him! Its been very very one sided in coverage -- and i daresay that had its own impact on many voters -- who hate beign told what to do by press and celebs when they cant afford food
Seconded. I'm not a Trump enthusiast by any stretch (well not this time around, I thought he was rather entertaining in 2016 though when I was in my early 20s, much less mature, and the meme culture surrounding him was off the charts which appealed to my sensibilities - or lack thereof - at the time) but the Democrats ran a crap campaign after a crap term. It's the political equivalent of Mike Tyson losing to Buster Douglas ... shouldn't have happened.
It seems pretty clear where they went wrong:
- Forcing an unpopular VP and otherwise failed former candidate (wasn't she like the worst performer in the 2020 primary) as the presidential candidate probably wasn't the soundest idea. Particularly when the party has a track record of pulling iffy stunts to avoid the will of its grassroots members, as poor Bernie Sanders previously found out.
- Walz turned out to be a rubbish VP pick with a bit of a weird history. Vance - whom the media told us was going to be a total fail - smoked Walz in the debate, and was much better in interviews. Walz came across like Elmer Fudd.
- Way too much focus on attacking Trump as opposed to pushing policy, and leaning on achievements of the term e.g. economic performance where it could be pointed to. Harris couldn't start any answer without 'Trump this' or 'Trump that'.
- Relying on a friendly, compliant traditional media that is increasingly at odds with public perception and perspective. Trump's campaign instead did well getting in with alternative media particularly that which appeals to younger (especially male) voters e.g. Joe Rogan and Adin Ross.
- Relying on polls that at best don't capture the 'real world' mood, or perhaps if you're being more cynical are in fact push polls designed to shape a narrative.
- Putting too much value in celebrity endorsements. Normal people don't care about what celebrities think any more. Doesn't mean we can't listen to their music or watch their movies, but who cares what they think. They are all hypocritical weirdos utterly divorced from reality thanks to their wealth and power (or worse, they are like P Diddy)
- Continued Democrat obsession with not coming across as serious enough about stopping illegal immigration.
- Alienating typically more socially conservative voters in key groups previously taken for granted (e.g. Hispanic men) by making abortion/reproductive rights such a big issue. I'd like to think most people understand the importance of allowing women the choice and ensuring access is safe, effective and reliable - at least up until a certain number of weeks - BUT the Democrat campaign and celebrity clingers-on and media seemed to instead pitch abortion as being the lifeblood of the universe and something to be celebrated as the greatest achievement in the history of human civilisation. Taking that "position" I suspect was off-putting to some (borne out by the data) particularly from more traditional backgrounds or who might face fertility issues, who find that a step too far and ultimately distasteful. For example, my wife mentioned the other day while we were watching the election coverage how offputting she finds a particular NZ radio/podcast personality who never stops talking about her abortion "journey" and how she so nonchalantly seems to pitch it as one of her crowning achievements. While my wife cannot vote in the United States, I can see how the same mindset could play out amongst voters there. Absolutely not a judgement of people who choose what is ultimately a difficult and agonising personal medical decision (that is my position, end of story), but equally voters are entitled to feel "squeamish" about certain topics and I think we saw that play out.
At the end of the day, if your campaign is so trash that people turn out in droves to vote instead for hollow soundbites from an ancient, neon-orange rambling, former reality TV star who is a convicted felon of universally-acknowledged dubious character, and who is probably the most controversial figure in modern political history, then you've got only yourselves to blame.
A lot of good points, but to my mind the Democratic campaign went wrong as soon as Biden announced he was running again. When he did step down there wasn't the time to run a primary. There is a strong 'bench' in the Democratic Party - many contenders their members ought to have been given the chance to freely elect via the standard process.
Kamala's campaign was as good as they get under such a short timeframe - never known of this type of circumstance before. Closest to it in my experience was when Bobby Kennedy was shot during the primaries - and the Dems fell apart in the wake, understandably.
Gun violence in the US has altered history in so many ways.
Well Humphrey did run Nixon very close all the same. But your point about Biden is painfully correct. It should have been obvious that he was only good for one term and I had thought that was initially signalled especially as in the primaries he had almost given up after New Hampshire having been given the message he was too old. Along the way though I think from that long long burning ambition for the presidency, and once finally obtained, created an obstinate obsession if you like, he couldn’t let it go and from the look of it in my opinion, his wife was more than ditto. On standing down he exclaimed it as for the good of the country, but if he had been the true statesman in that regard, that decision would have come 18 months earlier at the latest.
The whole thing stems from Biden's nomination right from day one. Why he was even considered as a suitable candidate, let alone president is beyond me. He should never have run for office and was ineffective in his four years. Too old.
Harris was an ad hoc solution to the insane idea of Biden running for a second term.
In the lead up to 2020 Biden was down and out & had gone home, he’d been messaged he was too old and too much of the establishment, Then the Democrats suddenly woke up, all the other candidates were unelectable including Harris who had dropped out by then anyway. Biden was then resurrected and Harris was chosen in a manner of whatever it takes, female, coloured, hispanic - that must be worth a few votes. Those circumstances & features, four years later had considerably worsened but the Democrats still had their heads buried in the sand. Nothing had been thought ahead, absolutely nothing about the presidency from 2024. Just deserts I would say.
Look on the bright side Kate, you're less likely to see a ***** in the girls changing rooms or bathrooms, nor come up against a man in a combat sport. A number of women/girls have been murdered by undocumented migrants as well. Surely these count for something and go someway to dispelling the "anti-female" hysteria?
Regarding miscarriage, is this hyperbole or a genuine medical concern for women in certain states?
I'm a trained nurse so not bothered about seeing men's parts (if that was your point?). Not sure about combat sports, but these days women serve in combat roles the world over;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
Regarding miscarriage, is this hyperbole or a genuine medical concern for women in certain states?
A genuine concern - some have died; others have become infertile; others can't get an OBGYN at all during their pregnancy because many of those specialists will not practice in the states that have criminal liability in their statutes. A D&C (abortion procedure) is performed for both a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy as well as a woman who has a wanted pregnancy, but experiences complications. Those complications are not life-threatening normally. It's a crisis of women's reproductive health. Maternal mortality stats have shot up in those states implementing these draconian laws. Have a watch of the link provided.
Oh dear, I should have known LOL. Trans folks in sport - a seriously, serious world problem, eh?
When I went to school in the US, a girl made the boys basketball team, because my high school didn't have a girls basketball team. No one thought twice of it! And she was amazing.
In Pukekohe, a relative's child plays boys rugby - and again, no one thinks twice about it.
Are you a guy? I find this trans- thing is a more a problem for males than females who compete willingly against males in sport. So, it's a male-thing 'protector-type' largely non-issue. That Olympic boxer you speak of was not trans - female by birth - unfortunately another lie swallowed whole by a large swathe of the population;
https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/articles/c3ej8wqw0jjo
It was a previous DNA test that was not false for female, but inconclusive (a minor error/uncertainty as I understood it). Her 2024 Olympics test proved her to be a female..
That’s not true just recently there was a petition by female athletes in NZ about the issue, I’d say almost all professional female athletes are against trans men competing against them.
also the Olympic boxer was likely intersex (we don’t know because the Olympics boxing rules are a bit of a farce in this regard) and that obviously has its own unfair advantages but is a different and much more fraught issue. Same thing with caster samenya and several other women runners.
I think it was both male and female athletes that signed the petition/wrote an open letter to Sport NZ.
Although Sport NZ guidelines were clear about the self-identification rule relating to community sport and recreation, this worried the Olympic/high performance athletes that it would be impractical to then say to a high achiever in such community/recreational sport - sorry you can only go so far under this rule - given the international rules of competition (including the Olympic rules) are very different.
That was a sensible contribution and I assume Sport NZ will re-think their guidelines.
That's what I mean about it being a largely non-issue - it's being sorted/worked on by all agencies concerned. I recall a similar OMG moment across the world when Dolly the Sheep was successfully cloned - sparking all kinds of new rules and legislation needed.
I don’t think it is a non issue as you are making out, the number of teens (especially teen girls) with gender dysphoria has skyrocketed (probably due to social media) and once they take the puberty blockers evidence suggests they are somewhat railroaded in becoming trans. When what they really need is some high quality (I.e non trans leaning) counselling.
I suspect working class parents are (rightfully) scared of all this. They don’t want teachers calling them up saying their kids have been using the wrong pronouns at school. And it only takes this to happen a few times to piss thousands of people off due to the multiplier effect of social media.
Part of the problem with the democrats is they talk condescendingly to working class people without taking their economic and social concerns seriously, it’s a we know best attitude. Whereas they are trump as being in “their camp” he is their guy (obviously he clearly isn’t..).
Agree at the elite level. That's the point made by a number of high performance NZ athletes in an open letter to Sport NZ. Sport NZ put out guidelines for participation at a non-elite (i.e., community and recreational participation) level recommending self-identification, but as the elites athletes said, that's difficult in terms of saying, but this is only how far you can go within your chosen sport. I agree with them, the guidelines need a re-think/clarification. How that works out in wording I assume is being worked on as we speak.
If your definition of elite is anyone playing above community and recreational level then that is a lot of people.
I think the mistake you make Kate is thinking this is a "fringe" issue in general. One of the reasons there is so much talk around this topic is because there are progressives now saying women's sports shouldn't even exist full stop, because like you said in your previous comment, they don't see what the big deal is. Most of us who have played sport at a competitive level know that this will likely just result in woman not playing sport at all.
You also have the whole broader issue about whether or not primary aged children should be educated on gender identity and record numbers (supposedly) of children are currently undergoing gender affirming treatment. There are also cases where this has been hidden from the parents. This brand of progressivism which the Dems are platforming is not connecting with the general public. I'm certainly not defending "Maga", as it clearly has it's issues too, however this is one of the many reasons people did not vote for the Dems this election as far as I see it.
There are also cases where this has been hidden from the parents.
I haven't seen any laws or evidence that this happens. Asked my brother and he could only refer me to Twitter/X posts.
But I stand to be corrected - as I've heard it to be true in memes/blogs (like this one) and from Trump supporters being interview outside rallies time and time again. Here's two informative articles on it;
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/05/scicheck-young-children-do-not-receiv…
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/
It is a genuine medical concern, as you would know if you had actually read the article I posted in the context of a discussion we were having on another thread a few days ago, which described exactly this situation: the article even had the headline: "Texas woman died after being denied miscarriage care due to abortion ban, report finds." You dismissed it because it was from the Guardian and, to quote, "The Guardian (please) article relates to a miscarriage which is not prevented under Texas abortion laws. Of course, it's devastating the lady passed away, however people die in hospitals daily through poor care, over-crowding etc etc"
The point is that the appropriate medical care for someone having a miscarriage and for someone who is seeking an abortion are often exactly the same in terms of the actions a doctor performs. So banning those specific actions when a foetus still has a heartbeat (things like administering certain drugs, or performing a D&C) not only has the effect of preventing abortions, it has the effect of preventing people undergoing miscarriages from accessing the appropriate care, and this can be very dangerous and sometimes deadly.
Lankford: I’ve even heard conversations today about ‘misinformation’ or ‘rhetoric’ or ‘intellectual honesty’ and all these things that have come out in the dialog today, and I want to be able to help bring some things together from hearing that testimony from the entire day on this. Ms. Hacker, just to clarify on this, are there any states where women face prosecution for having an abortion?
Hacker: No.
Hacker: Are there any states that criminalize miscarriage?
Hacker: No.
Lankford: Or the care for any for a miscarriage?
Hacker: No.
Lankford: Are there any states that criminalize removing an ectopic pregnancy?
Hacker: No.
Lankford: Are there any states that prohibit life saving care for the mother?
Hacker: No.
Lankford Are there any states where women have to be actively dying for a doctor to be able to act for her care?
Hacker: No.
Lankford: There’s been a lot of rhetoric on this that I’m concerned pushes people away from getting access to health care."
https://www.lankford.senate.gov/news/press-releases/lankford-warns-left…
Will just give you one article on women being charged/criminalised for having had a miscarriage;
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
One of these personal stories is also covered in the link in my article on the subject.
USA voted to remove the Democrats. If they wanted the Democrats to stay put and really wanted Trump they would have voted for the Democrats in the house, and the senate. They didn't. The GOP is going to have the largest majority in the senate for 100 years. The Democrats are gone because a) They put up an awful candidate, b) They have turned into a far left nightmare that is all about gender politics and other minority nonsense and c) they have offended their traditional base (the working class, African Americans and Latinos), by pushing ahead with a) and b). Trump took full advantage of their failures, and did a very good job. Trump is now going to undo all of their DEI and gender nonsense, along with loads of other pointless stuff. It is going to be highly entertaining.
Correct, and not dissimilar to the result of the last election in NZ.
At the end of the day people want stuff done, the economy, education, health, crime, infrastructure and both the Ardern/Hipkins/Biden left governments could not deliver on this!
As you say too busy sidetracked on irrelevant social issues.
And now the handwringing from left media and slagging off of 'the immoral' American voting public.
Suck it up lefties as in NZ the public are sick of what the left has to offer these days, because they sure as hell do not represent working class people anymore. Nor can they deliver on basic stuff.
Yes....the people wanted progress economy, education, health, crime, infrastructure, and the left set about building toilets for a made up gender. That is a very simple example of everything that is wrong with the left today. No clues about reality, and stuck in some alternative reality that they think people care about (spoiler alert - they don't).
In response to Katherine's POV, a quote from the wonderful Richie Torres helps frame things from within:
"Beware of white progressives who project their own ideological biases onto working-class communities of color. Here’s the ground-level truth. If you’re a young man of color struggling to pay your rent, put food on the table, and keep your family afloat, the furthest issue on your mind is a conflict 5000 miles away. The existential issue for you is inflation. The crippling cost of living is the cause of your discontent. Anyone claiming otherwise is representing their own ideological imagination rather than reality."
The proposed tariffs would likely result in an inflationary spike but that's a one off right? I.e. a 10 - 20% one off increase to the price of imported goods and 60% on goods from China. Local manufacturers would then increase their prices and margins to match.
Tackling illegal immigration might be another one, although that would likely push up wages as the labor pool shrinks. Easily paid for by the increase in margins from local businesses matching the tariffs.
It depends. Often the cost of a duty or tariff is born by the exporter. This will happen if a product has little essentiality and where increasing the price would not be viable. The importer does pay the tariff on clearance but in such cases claws it back from the exporter usually simply by a deduction as relative in the CIF price. Therefore in that situation it is a win win, the US government gets the revenue, the consumers cost doesn’t rise. However for essential product, say minerals like titanium, the price will likely increase in the market especially if the exporter can get better returns elsewhere and that’s where exemptions start to be applied. NZ’s longstanding and valuable grinding beef trade might well qualify as it is essential as a lean ingredient to blend into the massive burger trade. Safe, reliable consistent quality food is always going to be essential.
Not according to this website. Tariffs used to be carried in part or totally by the exporter but more recently tariffs have been carried by the business / consumer
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-really-pays-tariffs/
"Historically, economists have generally found that foreign firms have absorbed some of the burden of tariffs by lowering their prices, meaning domestic firms and consumers haven’t borne the entirety of higher tariffs in the past. In contrast to past studies, however, new studies have found the Trump-Biden tariffs have been passed almost entirely through to US firms or final consumers. "
Yes as I explained, it depends. It’s a mixed bag with many dynamics that influence, as the article in turn identifies , whether the importer or exporter, or they both share the cost. Simplistically it really depends on how any particular product performs on the market. For example NZ chilled lamb was getting some foothold when Clinton slapped on a duty. Now for the retailers it wasn’t exactly a vital seller and a price increase to the customer wasn’t considered viable. Therefore they would sooner stock something else. If to keep the supply up, to continue the market investment, NZ producers had no choice other than to absorb the cost of the duty. On the other hand, as is pointed out in the article for solar panel componentry, if the product is vital and in demand likely enough the market itself will end up bearing the cost.
Lots of comments about MSM and social media. Some, oddly, suggesting that they were somehow 'different'. They weren't. They were working together ... From another post today ...
Methinks that with billionaires owning most of the media, both MSM and social, the left doesn't stand a chance at getting any message across. (In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies, by 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies.)
Way back in the 80s when I was at Uni we had a Political Studies paper about how to achieve a 1984 (Orwell). Obviously, it was a thought experiment that the teachers thought might be fun. (I'd studied how one party took control of Germany and thought otherwise.) In any event, that proved a good grounding.
The answer was pretty simple ... Capture the 'conversation' and direct it to the outcome you want.
Now, with A.I., it has become childishly simple ... Why? Because 1/2 the population that votes aren't much more than children when it comes to economics.
Can you list the MSM and social media platforms that were actively working together to get Trump elected? Fox and? The only other right leaning media company I can think of is The Daily Wire.
Every social media platform was owned by Democrat supporters until Musk purchased Twitter. Musk was also a Democrat supporter until this most recent election also. Google also has a very left leaning culture, I know this first hand. Also, doesn't George Soros have a massive amount of influence on several US media companies who is also left leaning? All of this is what caused so much controversy during the last election because of the suppression of information these platforms were engaging in to get rid of Trump.
Ironically, out of all of the above, Twitter is the one platform actively trying to protect free speech rather than suppress it and it is now owned by a Republican supporter. You can also find political content across the entire spectrum on both YouTube and Twitch. So I don't see a world where the left or the right are having their voices being taken away, the exact opposites as a matter of fact.
By the way there are an endless amount of clips on YouTube showing the exact opposite of what you are claiming here. dozens and dozens of presenters across all the left leaning media outlets all in lock step with the exact same messaging.
EDIT: Forgot all about the Trump interview on Rogan's podcast that for some reason never made it into the trending section and was hidden in the search results despite having probably the most views in 24 hours of any other video in the history of YouTube. Not suspicious at all!
Thanks to woke progressives who dominate the educational system in New Zealand, and vote Green, there is not a bright future for our country. Look at Venezuela. That is where we are headed once the Left gets in again. But without the ability to engage in proper analysis, there is not much hope for our academics.
One thing is for sure, when Labour/Green gets in again, anybody with money to invest in small business will be able to flee to Australia. Same goes for dentists, doctors, and other professional people. Because a wealth tax will mean that on top of paying income tax, there will be a yearly assessment on all assets--including the family home if the Greens get their way.
"Leader of the insurrection". You have to admit, if that was an insurrection, that was a pretty crap insurrection. Was anyone even armed? Tempers flared among devotees who over stepped the line for one moment, I'll grant, but to call it an "insurrection" is hyperbolic. I'll agree with "riot", if you're intellectually honest enough to use it. I would have voted for Trump, and it's gaslighting like this that would only strengthen my resolve to do so.
I wouldn't have voted Trump, but I totally agree with the gist of your comment. I read a bunch of articles in the past few days that illustrate my frustration: one was a list of 'wins' which was largely a list of 'so and so became the first person of insert gender/ethnicity here to win a seat in the senate/congress in State X' or whatever. The other was a long screed about how America has not yet atoned properly for slavery and colonialism etc.
The thing I found frustrating is that that is exactly why people get turned off by the left. A focus on who people in politics are rather than what they do, and telling people - many of whom are poor themselves, or in insecure work, or lack healthcare, etc - that the problem is that they haven't 'atoned' enough for things is just about guaranteed to put them off voting for you. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a false flag, but I've a lot of sympathy with the view that getting the left to focus on identity rather than economic class has been a really successful way to completely undermine it.
Yes, agreed. I noticed on RNZ yesterday morning a despondent Democrat who said she couldn't comprehend Trump's victory because so many people (Democrats) had been out "educating" voters. The left tends to talk down to swing voters, and ivory tower ideas about gender and colonialism only appeal to a few.
A particularly annoying example of this is when people on the Left castigate poor/middle class voters for 'voting against their own interests' if they vote conservative, but applaud the rich people who vote against their own interests by voting for left wing parties. The lesson I take from this is that a lot of people think that if rich people vote their principles rather than vote just in their own self interest, then that's worthy of praise, but poor people who vote their principles rather than their own self interest are dumb. As if only rich people are allowed to have principles, or care about people other than themselves.
To be clear, I'm left in the sense that I belief in social welfare, I think the State should play a role in ensuring that citizens get access to basic goods such as education, housing, and healthcare, and I think that higher taxes are worth it to achieve this (think Scandi style socialism).
But I know there are plenty of people who think, for example, that the state should have a really minimal role in people's lives, that taxes should be as low as possible. I think these people are wrong, but I don't think they are dumb or evil. They just have really different values than me.
Yep, I watched it - agree, very good. Little talking over - revealed their personal and policy differences (and agreements) without the usual shenanigans. Harris-Trump was also very good but for different reasons - what I mostly remember is how hilarious it became at the "cats and dogs" juncture. I'm not sure we comprehended much of anything after that, we were still 'getting over' our laughing fits. If he can be 'baited' that easily (and mind you it was on a totally un-related subject to immigration), it is not a good temperament.
This is an excellent thread, you guys are articulating the situation way better than I ever could. At the risk of ending up falling down some rabbit hole, I'd challenge this statement "They just have really different values than me". I think most of us value the same things we just have different solutions to the same problems.
Not gaslighting - as he was judged an insurrectionist by a Colorado court, but that Judge also ruled that he could not be removed from the ballot as a result.
We watched the trial in full - it went over 2 or 3 weeks (I can't quite recall). Plenty of witnesses called on both sides - fascinating Constitutional arguments. Her ruling on that was solid based on the evidence and the legal dissection of what constituted an insurrection.
So, no not gaslighting at all - rather, legally adjudicated.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-en…
Was anyone even armed?
Yep, for sure - a couple of guys with semis over their shoulders in trees (videoed by FBI); others (who did not go to the Ellipse and were not scanned) but went to the Capitol were carrying concealed weapons. But the arsenal was stored in various hotels - with folks waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. All public evidence used to convict the others charged with insurrection and now imprisoned. But no one is sure why he (Trump) didn't invoke that Act. And we may never know. But, Trump had a burner phone, which Jack Smith now has and the evidence of those digital comms is publicly filed but presently blacked out (redacted by the Special Prosecutor)..
Some involved in the organisation/comms/coordination on the day are now (post-election) feeling emboldened to speak out about the plans they had knowledge of - and I'm guessing when/if Trump pardons all those in prison at the moment, there will be a lot of books written by them and others involved. It was a planned coup/insurrection for sure. Had Mike Pence left the building as security encouraged him to do - it would have gone down very different. He didn't leave because he told the drivers: "I don't trust you guys".
One of the issues that bugs me is the moral bankruptcy of the Republican and Democratic party leaders.
The Dems should had a plan that included Biden standing for one term and then a selection process -they didnt and then were left scrambling when a loss became a likely outcome and Biden was forced out late.
The Republicans were worse - completely without morals - Trump was a moron, a loser etc etc - until he wasnt and then they mostly did an about face totally ignoring how he is seriously compromised as an individual. Even the VP is a complete weasel
Hats off to the likes of Liz Cheney and the few others who stuck to their position
Yes, she commands a lot of respect. I hate to think what Trump might have in store for her in terms of retribution. And the next on the list I fear for is General Milley.
That Trump got elected is of course ( moderately ) bad news.
On the other hand Harris ( and the rest of Dems ) getting booted is of course fantastic news - so on balance pretty good news overall .
The squeals from Kate and her likes is the cherry on top - keep it coming guys.
No. It’s not really. These are the squeals of losers that we are hearing. It will continue for some time. We was robbed they will say. The reality is it wasn’t close and you were useless. They need to get over it, and re-assess their outlook. How they currently view/see the issues, is no longer relevant. No one is listening anymore.
Trump seems to think he can appoint people who can just "fix" things.what their actual job designation is, and how they singlehandedly change things is not specified. While it looks like Republicans control the senate, and likely the house, doesn't mean he can do what he likes. No doubt he will refer to anyone that stands up to him s the enemy within.
If you look hard enough on YouTube you can find genuine clips of some of the talking heads on the left leaning news outlets in the US having what I'd consider a reasonable and healthy self reflection on where they've gone wrong. I think you might find there's much more to it than just tax. Sadly the rest are all resorting to bigoted nonsense while claiming Harris ran the "perfect" campaign. The Republican party is reinventing itself at present, I think the Democrats are going to have to do the same. However, to do that they need to start looking inwards rather than outwards.
Yes, we've been here before and yet it seems no lessons were learnt given 'Trump's stunning election win' according to the radio. Why can't they just say what happened without an angle? It was a win to Trump, if you were stunned by it, then look in the mirror and keep your opinion to yourself with respect to news. Let me decide if it is good, bad or otherwise.
Those that ditched Bernie Sanders seem incapable of learning because there's no shortage of lessons to select from.
They could start here. Nice easy to understand language.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/11/07/a-fond-look-back-at-harriss-…
As I said in that first article of mine (linked to in this article);
Thing is, I don’t see this as a contest between conservativism and liberalism; rather I think it is an epic struggle to retain the rule of law and the separation of powers in the relatively nascent, but most committed democracy in the world. Or so I grew up thinking it was.
So for me the issue isn't left vs right - one good, one evil. Never thought that way about politics. About people, for sure, there are good and there are evil. Evil are those who can kill without remorse - quite different than just good vs bad.
Good vs evil is practically the way the left leaning media in the US have been spinning it, and this was also echoed by a lot of US online political influencers who have tens of millions of followers combined. They even tried to make the association between some Nazi event in Madison Square Garden back in the 1930's to Trumps event there just prior to the election, talk about desperation.
They also continue to play identity politics and shame certain demographics for not voting a certain way, they have been caught taking clips out of context over and over again to run smear campaigns. However, at the same time they try to claim some moral high ground. They gaslit the American public during covid as well which I don't think they will forget any time soon.
He has no one but himself to blame for the comparisons drawn - and given they were repeated over and over, I suspect they are all very intentional;
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-nazi-allusions-analys…
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-poisoning-blood-rem…
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigrati…
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-enemies-from-within-5c4a3477646…
I would describe myself as a lefty. I voted for TOP. But you're a fool if you think every single one of those millions of people that voted Trump don't know something that you don't. You're kind of saying that you're smarter than the majority of the voting public in the US. I would argue that's hubris.
Both sides have good and bad policies. But to be honest I think America and the world needs to swing back to sanity on social policies. There's been far too much racism and sexism brought about by the left. It's time to go back towards egalitarianism.
But you're a fool if you think every single one of those millions of people that voted Trump don't know something that you don't.
I think you meant "... you do" at the end of that sentence. But that puzzled me, so I went back to my article and can't see anywhere I might have implied that every single Trump voter was ill-informed/un-knowing. I think the opposite - they all know exactly who he is; what he says; what he intends... my sister will benefit a lot from the no taxes on her Social Security benefits. But, there are indeed many who have not read Project 2025 - I'll admit that. Indeed no one I've spoken to by way of relative or friends have. I did - and yes, took me days to get through it, but I'm recently retired!
Heck, Trump voters know him and the latest/fashionable 'joke' about him - they dress up in garbage bags, mug shots and diapers at his rallies. Those that dress up are proud anti-establishment. I've got no problem with that. But, when referring to Kamala stating, "she's a C-word" - they all started chanting in unison "c$nt". He, of course explains no, no, no - "I meant C for Communist". I watched that one play out live, I don't know how many times.
He is a master at this kind of showmanship stuff. same as his "we can't say fat person.. you can't call [name] fat" - pointing to someone in the crowd as having shouted that out about a particular opponent of his (i.e., blaming some anonymous/unidentified person in the crowd). It's odd/cultish that many of his supporters don't see him as fat/overweight - so many folks interviewed about that at his rallies believed his self-reporting at the Fulton County District Court to be true;
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/donald-trump-prison-weight-…
Bizarre, but not necessarily ill-informed, just gullible.
+1 for the TOP vote and I think you make a good point. I have plenty of time for Kate and her excellent work around affordable rents, but I do worry that statements like the below could be interpreted as not being open to other possibilities (and therefore no other policies need reconsidered eg border/immigration):
I have to believe it was all about tax
I don't know anyone that thinks Trump is a person of 'good character' (I'm sure some do), but that is a known/given (just as it was in 2016), so racking it up over and over isn't likely to bring a different result in my view. Plus, he got shot and got up again this election...as scripts go, that's hard to beat. How many votes did that get vs the tax policy? I don't know, but I'm open to it and other policies being a factor is the point.
As I said, I console myself with it being all about tax. I know it's not all about tax. The statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I was giving myself as reason/excuse for the result to be more palatable/comforting to me.
For those that will benefit (like my sister), it (no tax on SS) is a major benefit (another overseas trip) - for others who benefit directly from his presidency - it's much, much bigger than the tax/money benefit - it's power: the ideal of oligarchy as opposed to democracy. Peter Theil, for example, once stated "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". His support for Trump was obviously for other reasons. Anyone's guess, but in context I understood it as 'freedom' meaning libertarian ideals of freedom, vs democracy as we know it are incompatible. A more authoritarian state, in his mind might be more compatible with his libertarian ideals. The old adage about democracy being 'messy' and hence inefficient.
You are right - there are a plethora of other reasons why Trump won the popular vote and the EC.
How long since you have lived in America and paid tax? I ask because you seem to think a lot and make statements that I would say are not form anyone who has lived in America recently.
People in New Zealand should worry more about their country rather than the States. Maybe you should stop believing everything you see on CNN. I have had this debate with many of my Kiwi friends who really have no clue about what really is going on.
The bottom line is Trump won fair and square (in a land slide) because Americans are over Libtards, as your son so kindly calls you for forcing their far-left agenda.
I moved to NZ at he age of 21 and I'm now retired! So, haven't lived there as long as I've lived here :-).
And it's a fair criticism, and as I said in Normalising Psychopathy, altho I could vote in their elections, I haven't since moving here. In fact I've been completely silent on anything political with my relatives and friends state-side. Until this second run by Trump.
And like you say, those I know who support MAGA tell me I have no clue about what's going on. But what I do know is the rule of law and the separation of powers are threatened - and with that, rights are threatened. If you read Ronald Reagan's Farewell address, you'll get how different the ideals of republicanism vs MAGA philosophy are.
It isn't Trump who was trying to separate the people, again this is media BS, they have honestly twisted so much that has been said and in all honesty a lot of it is what Biden and Harris have done or tried to do.
What amazes me, is the amount of left that spout of about stuff Trump has meant to of done and yet they have no proof, I had an argument with my own mother about it and when I said prove it, she simply couldn't, her reply was "Well I saw it on the news and my friends told me" that's the general answer by most of the left or they say Google it, I have my facts and can Google everything I say to back it up, providing Google is being honest that is.
One thing I think we can all agree on is he loves America, the guy is a billionaire and doesn't need the hassle and if you look back at interviews on TV with Opera etc. They all loved him until he switched parties and started to go against the narrative, he is a capitalist, they are Globalist, the difference is he isn't interested in ruling the world like the media make out, he has said many times on the Russian Ukraine war, I just want people to stop dying, yet the media say he supports Russia, Obama, Clinton and Bush all have photos taken with Putin yet Trump has it and he's classed as a traitor.
People go he will start World War three, he didn't last time he was in, in fact no new Wars at all, plus heaps of other first. Yes, the guy might appear deranged, but think about it, if your enemy think your deranged and might just set of a nuclear missile, would you take the chance of him doing it?? NO so they all conformed, most world leaders are bullies and once you stand up against them, they back down, none of them knew if he was crazy enough to do it? they didn't want to take the chance, all these leaders are for war, but not when it involves their own family, yet happy to send your kids to fight.
The reason I know media push BS, I have been to Trump rally and the BS the media made up about it was unreal, same as Kamillas rally.
The real sad thing here is this: The media with the BS they have posted has coursed more divide in families and friends than ever before and that is very sad.
That's why we have watched so many rallies and speeches by both candidates in full, and if we can, we watched them live. That's why I tried my hardest not to fall asleep during Trump's Joe Rogan interview (made 2.5 of the 3 hours); that's why we watched the Colorado and Georgia insurrection cases in full over many hours; that's why I've read Project 2025 in full.
If I see a short/clip on the MSM media about something that interests me, I search to find the original source of the quote or paraphrased/'talking head reporting in order to make up my own mind.
Call me obsessed but the US democratic republic, The Constitution and the rule of law are that important to me.
If you fell asleep then was that due to the time of day you watched/your level of tiredness or the fact there wasn't anything/enough controversial things said?
Agree it was a long watch, I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it too; I went back a week later after someone prompted me to. The fact it was boring and lacked controversy was kind of the point to me. It was benign when it should have contained plenty of ammunition to the Democrats if their narrative was going to ring true. Then they were a no show.
Anyway, good job on clickbaiting me with the 'it's all about tax' above!
Yep, tired and bored. It was like a fireside chat with your grandfather who loved to tell the same stories you had heard so many times before, but you listened with intent because he was your grandfather and there is mana in that no matter what.
My son in the US asked me what my impression was and I said he sounded like a sweet grandad. My son asked, so not a scary person? I explained he still said his scary things we'd heard so many times before (i.e., "enemy from within" and all the propaganda-lines sort of stuff) but he was less animated, not shouting; not grimacing and more gentle when saying it.
As someone else commented who had watched it - he sure can rattle on and on and on. It does remind me of patients I used to enjoy sitting with and listening to when I trained in geriatric nursing. I think it is what that special investigator, Robert Hur felt having interview Biden over the classified documents case.
100% Kate. I even turned it up to 1.25x for a bit and slow me could still understand it.
"so not a scary person"
Sounds like your son and I are on the same page. Perhaps I don't read as much into those bits you refer to, but would completely agree there are some genuine areas of concern.
I just wish the Dem's would take a look at themselves for why Trump got in! Twice! Do they not realise when the terrible fate that they portray doesn't materialise, it is a plus for Trump?
I wish Labour would do the same here too. Three-legged coalition of chaos blah, blah, blah. Then all Nat-Act-NZF have to do is keep the wheels from falling off and the coalition has already achieved above expectations in the minds of anyone that listened to Labour.
It was me who found him to be like a sweet old grandpa - talk, talk, talk, talk, talk - but not about how he sees the role of the President of the USA. He had no policy aside from I'll fix it (whatever it was) - but of course. no plan or detail provided over the three hours of bluster.
Two things strike me;
1. I don't blame the Dem party at all for the loss - I stood/stand for all the things they were promoting: women's rights; restoration of a healthy middle class; addressing gun violence; addressing the high cost of prescriptions; instilling hope and confidence in youth; and the list goes on and on. It was a short but great campaign. The democratic world is full of examples of ping pong. Instability is not a uniquely US thing.
2. Do they not realise when the terrible fate that they portray doesn't materialise, it is a plus for Trump?
The terrible fate has more (far more) of a chance to be realised this time around. Think Presidential immunity - and a Supreme Court that granted it..
The 2016 administration achieved nothing of substance (aside from the US getting out a COVID vaccine in record time and stacking the Supreme Court). Trump did not effect a withdrawal from Afghanistan; Trump did not get his big beautiful wall built, and no did Mexico pay for what few miles of it were built.
Prices at home were lower then for sure, but they were lower here too. Every Western economy suffered inflation arising from COVID-effects - as everyone followed the Fed into lower rates and money printing.
You need to read 2025 to get a feel for how impractical/ideologically-based the blueprint is. A new great experiment. But ne I feel will be an ugly experience.
Good chatting with you, I've no way to know if my ideas are correct even though the result was what I anticipated.
In 2016 I was really unsure, thought Trump was the underdog, even though I'd have voted Trump over Clinton. That said, I'd have voted Bernie Sanders over Trump.
And yet, no matter how personally repellent you might find the result, the majority of the American voters gave the Republicans their vote in what looks to be a sweep of presidency, congress and senate, and for all its flaws, it's still a democracy.
What might hopefully cause a bit of introspection is: why?
Could it be that some in the centre are exhausted by a progressive movement that doesn't look a lot like a broad-church "leftism" any longer, and voted in a way they wouldn't and couldn't normally countenance - or simply didn't vote at all in a display of no-confidence?
A democracy on a knife edge. While on the campaign trail, Trump is quoted as saying;
"Get out and vote! Just this time. You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote anymore.
I take everything he says at face value - I believe him.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/
Did you read what it says at the bottom of the link? "Later, Trump told Fox News' Laura Ingraham he was trying to encourage Christians to vote for him in the 2024 presidential election and said he doesn't care if they "don't want to vote" after that because "the country will be fixed, and we won't need your vote anymore.""
Yes, I read his follow up explanation - I read the whole link. Whenever politicians of any political persuasion have to explain themselves 'after the fact' of what they said - I'm skeptical. Just like Joe Biden trying to walk back his garbage comment. Both know the power of their words. Both are fallible - both say things they regret afterwards, or wish they phrased differently. In most cases, they spoke their mind first time around in my assessment.
Agree with that thought. More often than not that first “blurt” is indicative of the true nature and opinion of the “blurter.” Don’t want to single him out, because he is hardly alone, but Chris Hipkins is a consistent example. Often too, alcohol will elicit the same characteristic. That is undoubtedly why Joseph Stalin liked to ply his underlings copiously with booze and observe the resultant utterances. People once sober, by way of an excuse, are prone to say it was the booze speaking but my view is that it is in fact, rather revealing.
I actually doubt Trump would be all that much different drunk than he is sober as he already has no filter. He never stops to consider that what he is saying could get taken out of context or be deemed offensive and the media have a field day with it. This is why I don't think you can compare Trump to other politicians, because a politician he is not.
I've read as much of this as I can stand.
In short, you don't get it. I'm not sure you ever will.
For instance: Someone mentioned in the comments about trans kids in sports. You then go on to give 2 examples of girls playing on boys teams and how no one minded. I have no idea if a)You're totally uninformed, or b) Deliberately obfuscating.
Surely you must realise the problem lies with boys playing on girls teams? And let me help you out with why that is: 1) Boys are better at pretty much every sport than girls. This means that a girl on a boys team is actually a drain, whereas a boy on a girl's team is an advantage. 2) In adult sports, you just very rarely find women trying to compete with the men. They lose - only worse. 3) When a 3rd category is offered - all trans people in 1 group - suddenly the cheating men don't want to compete.
I could go on about other issues. But there's probably not much point. You believe the things you believe because you're in a bubble (how many conservative voices in your department at uni? Zero? Thought so), and virtue signalling will be very important to you. You are part of a tribe. A cult.
And voters voted to reject that cult. Overwhemingly. And to try and make it all about tax? Oh well, it's the best you can do I guess.
In my comment above, concerning the trans kids in sports example, I meant to add that most normal, everyday people know this. Because it's just fact. Easily understood.
But the left wing intelligentsia seem to jump through hoops to come up with reasons as to why this is all OK. In fact, good. Kind and inclusive.
And it's these sorts of Orwellian (in respect of having to believe what is patently false) ideas that the average person has rejected in the election.
PS: to refer to Trump as "The Insurrectionist" is just childish. It really just shows the level of indoctrination.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.