reliv3

I find Michael Moore neither smug nor obnoxious. You and others interpret Michael Moore's messages as being smug and/or obnoxious, but there are a lot of other people who listen to his messages without animosity. This pattern is also true for Joe Rogan. I am certain that there are people who interpret his message as being smug or obnoxious.

The reality is the nature of conversation is complicated: the result relies on how information is produced by the speaker AND how it is interpreted by the listener. So the root of the problem is twofold. It's not just that people are having a hard time speaking to those outside their circle. It is also that people are having a hard time listening to those outside their circle. The blame is not on the left or the right, it's on both. Both exist in their own circle jerk, and neither groups are able to talk and listen to each other.

I think the fact that we all aligned once this CEO died reveals why this division is important those in power (Top 1%, billionaires, and multi-millionaires). If we did all team up, these people in power would be in trouble. Instead, we are being divided into two sides that cannot even communicate with each other. And because of that, we are being conquered by these oligarchs and we are too busy fighting each other to know what's going on.

The left did not lose touch with the working class. The left is what started and continue this populist movement.(Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election cycle; AOC; and the socialist/communist parties that go out and encourage organization to fight for worker rights)

Trump (a billionaire who spent his career exploiting workers) acted like he was picking up the baton to fight for worker rights after he saw people's reaction to Bernie Sanders losing the primary against Clinton. Unfortunately, workers like these in the steel industry WERE tricked into thinking that Donald was gonna support their professional cause, this is objective. Now many people are calling them stupid because to many other Americans, this was the obvious outcome due to Donald's track record both as a businessman and as President. For some reason, these steel workers were blind to it all...

Could you better explain this cause-effect relationship between higher tariffs coupled with reduced migration and increased blue-collar salaries?

I think one misunderstanding is the goal behind karma. It's not to achieve good karma, but to have a net zero karma. A way to reach zero karma is to perform good deeds without announcing or advertising it.

Yes, we are comparing the numbers to the highest voter turn out (which was last election). Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.

Voters have to take some responsibility here. Trump's base are all being con'd because they are ignorant on how most of the world works beyond their own backyard. Its possible that this is partly true for the 6-7 million people who didn't vote this election cycle.

The issue isn't so much that they didn't vote for Kamala, but rather they did not have the ability to recognize Trump as the con that he is. Me being of average intelligence feels like this should have been easy to decipher.

Hmm, careful. It was not a majority of American people. Trump didn't win over 50% of the popular vote, and this doesn't consider the people who did not vote.

This is precisely what puts them in a unique perspective.

Nonbinary folks are in a unique position to comment on the definition of "being a man" or "being a woman".

I imagine that it is kinda like asking a person who is mixed race (white and black) about their view on racism in America. At some point in time, a mixed race person finds a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that occurs when discussing race, since they have family members they love on both sides of the spectrum.

Depends on who you're talking to. For people who are egotistical and lack introspection, I agree with you. For people who are humble and critical of their own thoughts and behavior, then being blunt can be helpful because it initiatives the cognitive dissonance.

Unfortunately, the Gen Z'ers who are falling for this manosphere bullshit are likely egotistical, so may be it would be better to not be blunt. These guys obviously don't do to well with cognitive dissonance; hence why they'd rather believe that cisgendered "manly" men are the victims rather than accept a different (and more correct) model of reality.

Communists don't have a monopoly on "the left". There are socialist liberals who also fought for these things, not just communists.

There was a time when "centrists" were largely Republican. Many of them have jumped ship due to Trumpism, so they are now part of the very mixed coalition that is the Democratic Party. Problem is we were so focused on fighting each other that we forgot to fight the fascist fucks on the other side of the aisle.

I mean, it works with the Republican campaign, why didn't work for the Democrats campaign? Literally, Trump spent most of his campaign demonizing the other side.

That's what irks me about the "Harris lost because she ran a terrible campaign" argument. The reality is, Trump ran a far worse campaign. In the final months, the dude was up on stage saying stuff that made medical physicians think he was mentally declining. The guy wasn't forming sentences, and he was talking about the size of some dudes dick.

We have all of these people trying to explain Harris's failure without also recognizing the campaign that Trump ran. This is not a genuine way of analyzing the results of this election. The reality is Harris's campaign had some blunders, but the Trump campaign had far more major blunders in comparison; but he still won. I would like to know how that happened...

Okay, this notion is just incorrect. Harris, during her time as senator, was one of the most left leaning senators out of all Democrats. Her votes almost completely aligned with Bernie Sanders.

Was misogyny THE reason Harris loss, probably not; but it definitely played a meaningful role. During the campaign race, there were a lot of information being pushed to American citizens. It was up to us to process the information and choose what to believe and what to throw away. Post-election, we are learning that people were judging Harris based on false premises. Americans were willing to believe a lot of bullshit about Harris, whereas Trump got the opposite treatment: Americans willingfully ignored terrible truths about Trump. I think misogyny played a role in defining this difference in how we treated information regarding each candidates.