I was wrong - and that makes me angry.

[Revoltingest]

????

I think she's trying out her
"inscrutable Chinese" persona.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think she's trying out her
"inscrutable Chinese" persona.

I know some people who have visited China. They tell me they're actually quite scrutable.

 

[Koldo]

I may not totally agree with some of his actions, but I don't see anything that directly affects me, except for you opinion/assumption that his actions will cause higer prices that has not been proven.

It is the logical consequence. Increase tariffs and the price will be increased because imported products will become more expensive. Massively kick out illegal immigrants and the prices will be increased because many of them work for low wages. Create a lot more jobs in a country with low unemployment and the employers will need to offer higher wages thus increasing the prices. All of those things increase prices.

But I will not have to put up with someone who I think would be a detriment to the country.

I am curious. Why would Harris have been a detriment to the country?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I tried to look up [Menschenbild]
but everything is in German so ...

I did a search on "meaning of menschenbild" and got a list of responses in English, the first being:

The definition thus runs as follows: A Menschenbild is a more or less coherent bundle of crucial convictions about the human being in general. This definition is very wide. It encompasses all sorts of views about the human being.​

Pretty easy.

What do you think?

I think the "'evil' vs 'stupid'" framing is simplistic.

The fact is:

• We, as a species, are wired to be socialized, not civilized.
• We are wired to look at the world (a) from our comfort zone, and (b) through the lens of self-interest.
• We are wired to be pragmatic, not progressive.

Sadly, wiring tends be short sighted rather than informed. This is the subtext of the well known Martin Niemöller confessional, First they came ...

One of the better retrospectives I've read was Saturday's Maureen Dowd opinion pieces in the New York Times. Under the headline Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics, she begins:

Some Democrats are finally waking up and realizing that woke is broke.​

​

Donald Trump won a majority of white women and remarkable numbers of Black and Latino voters and young men.​

​

Democratic insiders thought people would vote for Kamala Harris, even if they didn’t like her, to get rid of Trump. But more people ended up voting for Trump, even though many didn’t like him, because they liked the Democratic Party less.​

So, as for the poll, I vote:

People are people and woke is broke. But broke is not the same as bad. Rather, it's something that needs to be fixed. In the mean time, most Kamala and Trump voters alike, will continue doing the best they can while persisting in random acts of kindness.​

 

[Revoltingest]

I know some people who have visited China. They tell me they're actually quite scrutable.

She's trying the stereotype on for size.
So that posters won't "scrute" her.

 

[Koldo]

And during all that traffic today, I missed posting a 20,000th post OP, so belatedly ...

I was too optimistic. While I was prepared for a Trump win - the polls were close enough - I didn't expect such a decisive win.
But what's more is that it rattles at my Menschenbild. I know that people are lazy, fearful and dumb, but I believe that most people are good, most of the time.
Are they? While most on the left excuse the voters with being misled by the media and simply too dumb to know what they were doing, I question that position. And members on the right agree with me, they deliberately voted for Trump, insisting they knew what they were doing. Were they?

I'm torn between my positive Menschenbild and the fact that those with a negative Menschenbild had the better hypothesis, i.e. predicted the outcome of the election better.

What do you think?

People tend to be self-serving. Or greedy.

 

[EinGeheimkonto]

I read the whole post with interest.

Honestly I believe that the world is becoming more and more multipolar. Meaning that the so called West is not a significant majority any more, considering the big numbers of population in China and in India.

In this multipolar world, peace is fundamental because wars damage the West enormously, both economically and socially.
And as a matter of fact, it's those wars which indirectly caused inflation in the U.S.

The Democratic Party is funded by speculators and warmongers...who couldn't care less about making some people's dream come true, like free healthcare. No...they have stakes in the Military Industry so all that they want is wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars, wars and wars.

So warfare is sold, and they gain billions.

I think we are a movement towards a Multipolar world.

On the one hand: NATO/AUKUS will exist for some time. There would even be some echoes of its legacy into the next century, I think.

On the other hand, we can't really deny the rise of the Eurasian/BRICS sphere.

In addition, both "Poles" have different foundational ideals.

For the West, the basis for the state is the Westphalian Model and in the East, the notion of a Civilization-State.

For the West, the basis of ideology in Liberal Democracy is the "individual," but in the East it is either Tradition or perhaps more abstractly, Existence (dasein) itself.

 

[wellwisher]

And during all that traffic today, I missed posting a 20,000th post OP, so belatedly ...

I was too optimistic. While I was prepared for a Trump win - the polls were close enough - I didn't expect such a decisive win.
But what's more is that it rattles at my Menschenbild. I know that people are lazy, fearful and dumb, but I believe that most people are good, most of the time.
Are they? While most on the left excuse the voters with being misled by the media and simply too dumb to know what they were doing, I question that position. And members on the right agree with me, they deliberately voted for Trump, insisting they knew what they were doing. Were they?

I'm torn between my positive Menschenbild and the fact that those with a negative Menschenbild had the better hypothesis, i.e. predicted the outcome of the election better.

What do you think?

The fact of the matter was Harris never said what she believed; her vision. She would direct you to her web site, instead of summarizing to show she knew what the writers, wrote for her. Who wants a President who cannot give a straight answer? I got the impression she was to be a rubber stamp; just face of the president.The DNC expected a blind coronation with no questions asked. Trump was straight forward and you knew where he stood and also who was in charge.

Trump made history by appointing the first woman chief of staff to the President. She was the mastermind for his campaign, able to pivot when Biden was removed and the Trump campaign had to deal with Harris and the DNC spin machine. She is a strong and intelligent woman who is loyal to her boss. She reminds me of an old fashion executive assistant who is a bull dog to those who wish to see the President but a kitten to her boss. She will simplify his meeting schedule; get things done.

The DNC and Harris campaign out spent Trump by double. The DNC relied heavily on celebrity endorsements, like they were selling Harris as a breakfast cereal. Pop singers are not experts when it comes picking a President. None of them picked the champion. Then there were the same old lies; Trump is Hitler, and then the shaming; black men who do not vote for Harris are misogynists. It never dawned on the Left Harris was not fit for the job as President and their Coup of Biden was ill advised.

A big plus for Trump was capturing iconic moments. It was also him doing the podcast circuit, to reach younger people. That was a not a good format for Harris, since she is appeared to be limited as to what she could say; skate around. Trump can and will talk off the cuff and many young people got to meet the person, the DNC propaganda label as Hitler. They were surprised he was not what they thought, based on the propaganda. He did a 3 hour podcast with the top podcaster, Joe Rogan who has 15 million followers. The Harris camp were not willing to do the same and lost out.

Rogan used to be a Democrat who backed Bernie Sanders. But he was sort of pushed aside by the current DNC for not walking lockstep to the DNC authodoxy. This was too confining, for his show, so he went free lance and left the party. The DNC drove out many aces in the hole; like RFJ jr., whi went to Trump as drew their supporter to Trump. Being arrogant and nasty was a losing formula.

The DNC and Harris approach seemed to geared to emotional thinkers; air heads, willing to walk lockstep, and the air heads lost, but still don't to get it.

 

[David1967]

Liberals are soooo smart that they trotted out kam the harris
forvan election that was yours to lose.

You Americans are suh a perpetual disappointment.

Dont be surprised when you lose everything that you never did deserve.

Well, Audie you are direct.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think we are a movement towards a Multipolar world.

On the one hand: NATO/AUKUS will exist for some time. There would even be some echoes of its legacy into the next century, I think.

A multipolar world implies peaceful coexistence of different poles.
It doesn't mean that these poles wage wars against each other.

On the other hand, we can't really deny the rise of the Eurasian/BRICS sphere.

It's a matter of numbers.
Developping countries which will have the same standards of living as the West.

In addition, both "Poles" have different foundational ideals.

Totally agree.

For the West, the basis for the state is the Westphalian Model and in the East, the notion of a Civilization-State.

India and China surely are.
But Russia is just a huge European country...that is also totally americanized, culturally.

Not economically, of course. They have another vision of economy. Other than the American one.

For the West, the basis of ideology in Liberal Democracy is the "individual," but in the East it is either Tradition or perhaps more abstractly, Existence (dasein) itself.

Interesting philosophical concept. What do you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact of the matter was Harris never said what she believed; her vision. She would direct you to her web site, instead of summarizing to show she knew what the writers, wrote for her. Who wants a President who cannot give a straight answer? I got the impression she was to be a rubber stamp; just face of the president.The DNC expected a blind coronation with no questions asked. Trump was straight forward and you knew where he stood and also who was in charge.

Actually, it's hard to know where Trump stands on
many issues because so much of what he said was
pandering that he'll never implement, eg, making
tips tax exempt, making it illegal to criticize judges.
His candor is of the largely unreliable stream of
consciousness type.
BTW, Harris was also weak on taking clear stands.
She appeared to be just Genocide Joe's DEI clone.

Trump made history by appointing the first woman chief of staff to the President. She was the mastermind for his campaign, able to pivot when Biden was removed and the Trump campaign had to deal with Harris and the DNC spin machine.

This doesn't make her look so good. Trump handled
the replacement of Biden poorly at first. He kept
campaigning against Biden for a while after Harris
became the candidate.
The question is to what extent this failure was her
strategy, or her inability to control him.

She is a strong and intelligent woman who is loyal to her boss. S

Better it would be if she were loyal to her country &
the Constitution. But that's not what Trump values.

 

[an anarchist]

Pretty easy.

Good for you

 

[Audie]

I think she's trying out her
"inscrutable Chinese" persona.

Try ta scrutate me and see what it gets ya,
ya bloomin’ swab!

 

[Audie]

Actually, it's hard to know where Trump stands on
many issues because so much of what he said was
pandering that he'll never implement, eg, making
tips tax exempt, making it illegal to criticize judges.
His candor is of the largely unreliable stream of
consciousness type.
BTW, Harris was also weak on taking clear stands.
She appeared to be just Genocide Joe's DEI clone.

This doesn't make her look so good. Trump handled
the replacement of Biden poorly at first. He kept
campaigning against him for a while after Harris
became the candidate.
The question is to what extent this failure was her
strategy, or her inability to control him.

Better it would be if she were loyal to her country &
the Constitution. But that's not what Trump values.

I don’t think she’d have needed any strategy
if she had a trace of the “ gravitas” that used to be valued.

Watching from way over here, it appeared there’s no “ there” there.

Did I miss something?

 

[Revoltingest]

Did I miss something?

Yes.
Strategy is useful.
Hers was a failure.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Better it would be if she were loyal to her country &
the Constitution. But that's not what Trump values.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[BrightShadow]

I'm torn between my positive Menschenbild and the fact that those with a negative Menschenbild had the better hypothesis, i.e. predicted the outcome of the election better.

Hate to be the party pooper at the liberal international post election convention for the mourners.

I see some here are trying to cheer you up or rub it in your face.

Maybe you don't mean it but seemingly you are saying - folks who rooted for Kamala have positive Menschenbild and the other side got negative.
Did I get that right?

Are you saying - the liberals project positive image as a man and conservatives project negative image as a man?

If you said that then that was an insult wrapped up with a fancy German word addressed towards the conservatives.

It is not cool and I obviously disagree with that notion. The majority of the conservatives are not projecting negative image. While their counter part continue to spread hate and lies via their deplorable comments against the conservatives and quite a few of them have joined the convention and posting in various threads.

And that is the true NEGATIVE!

If the losing party aka liberals continue to try and project that they are intellectually superior - it will cause them to lose again and again and possible everywhere around the world!

Folks in the middle tolerated those liberals long enough. It is time for them to pack up and take a hike.

It is time for the new the modern conservatives to take control of the helm!

And lets see if we can stop the wars and killings and fix the economy. You know... the important stuff that actually matters!
And Germany will benefit from it all. You certainly don't want war to continue so close to you - do you?

 

[Stevicus]

I don't want to blame the voters, I want to understand them.

Actually, I find it to be just the opposite. The voters are an open book and easy to understand. It's those at the top - the politicians, pundits, party leaders - they're the mysterious ones. Even the media never fully explain themselves.

 

[Koldo]

A multipolar world implies peaceful coexistence of different poles.
It doesn't mean that these poles wage wars against each other.

Not gonna happen.

 

[an anarchist]

Actually, I find it to be just the opposite. The voters are an open book and easy to understand. It's those at the top - the politicians, pundits, party leaders - they're the mysterious ones. Even the media never fully explain themselves.

I think that’s why a part of me is more comfortable with old Donny on top rather than a regular politician. I suppose most politicians on top are sociopaths (they run the American war machine with a smile) and I don’t understand them. They are fake and people buy into the smiles. But Trump is an open book. He is wacky… like me! When people say that others vote for Trump because he resonates with them, I mean, duh? The part of me that was tempted to vote for Trump was a part of me that was comfortable with having a wacky mad lad up top.