Sociopath Community

Maybe you extrapolated when I said Democrats have stayed away from policies in the DNC, as that in general politicians are better off to not reveal positions. In the case of Dems currently it's true, which is why the DNC was all about abortion and unions. But no, I think you can actually own policies if they are good. Americans don't want to hear about funding Ukraine or Israel, or woke, and if you watched the DNC you would have noticed how quiet things were in those regards.

Turncoat said: 

Examples? 

The only one the right's been able to dig up is implied dick sucking over Willie's willie. The rest have just implications built on her party, race and gender from a lack of actual material. 

The argument right now spans as far as "she's dumb lol" in a variety of words. I'm surprised by how few have tried to call her weak, but I guess her career history would make attacking that look silly.

It's rather hard to find an example that truly encompasses everything I have to say.

My main problem with her is that she appears to me incapable of internalizing issues brought up by the democrats. That's why she appears as a figurehead for the democrats as opposed to a real person. I don't respect anyone who is incapable of gaslighting themselves to believe what they actually say.

Check up for example Tulsi Gabbard interviews on right-wing talking points. It comes across as truthful, as though she believes what she says. Kamala on the other hand sounds empty. Look up for example how she defended Joe Biden after the debate with Trump on CNN. I think 'optics' matter in the sense that I trust my gut feeling on many things. She comes across as a lawyer and a career politician. I think it matters.

What Tryptamine pointed out is also a big thing for me. She's there to inherit Joe Biden's position after being elected the least popular vice president in recent US history. There's nothing there that convinces me that she had to fight for the position and was elected as the best candidate as opposed to the most convenient candidate. The most convenient candidate does not speak to competence.

Do you think she is competent?

Tryptamine said: 

I will reply more when I'm not drinking.

I was happy to hear you quit. I'm always surprised when someone can steer their life in a completely new direction, but I guess it's hard.

i would not stop drinking; too much fun. it's just been a matter of being able to hit the brakes as necessary

I get that. Once the dopamine addiction hits in, life appears so gray without your daily dose. That's why the AA needs God to remind themselves it matters. For me, it's more to prove to myself I can do it and nothing and nobody has power over my life.

Jada said: 

Turncoat said: 

Examples? 

The only one the right's been able to dig up is implied dick sucking over Willie's willie. The rest have just implications built on her party, race and gender from a lack of actual material. 

The argument right now spans as far as "she's dumb lol" in a variety of words. I'm surprised by how few have tried to call her weak, but I guess her career history would make attacking that look silly.

It's rather hard to find an example that truly encompasses everything I have to say.

I can already imagine why. 😏

It's fine, Right Wing News and Social Media is struggling there too. I'm still laughing my ass of at watching Right Wingers flipping out over White Guy Tacos and Obama implying Trump is small, as while the original jokes weren't that funny the reactions are priceless. 

Even with how cringe they've turned the word 'Weird' to the point that I feel weirder using it now, I can't deny that it's been effective. 

My main problem with her is that she appears to me incapable of internalizing issues brought up by the democrats. That's why she appears as a figurehead for the democrats as opposed to a real person. I don't respect anyone who is incapable of gaslighting themselves to believe what they actually say.

I would prefer someone who isn't gaslit..? 

Weird POV. 

Check up for example Tulsi Gabbard interviews on right-wing talking points. It comes across as truthful, as though she believes what she says. Kamala on the other hand sounds empty. Look up for example how she defended Joe Biden after the debate with Trump on CNN. 

The guy had COVID, was being taxied around the world for his work, and he's old as fuck. His speech at the DNC shows a stark difference, and it makes sense in that respect that he'd be defended even before figuring that it's basically her job as VP to defend him in the first place. 

If you want to see someone who sounds empty, listen to Trump try to stick to the issues. Even his own mudslinging lately feels so half-assed and sleepy. 

‘The Provocateur, Showman, May Not Win This Election’ - Lindsey Graham, 2024

She comes across as a lawyer and a career politician. I think it matters.

So... your point is moreover that you don't feel inspired? Do you really see how Trump talks right now as inspiring? 😂

It's a Prosecutor vs a Convicted Felon, come on now. I don't really see much value bringing this political meme into it, but if you're going to go on about roles occupationally then it's worth comparing the two's careers, especially when it comes to which one is sharper when it comes to answering questions. 

Unlike Trump, she clearly knows what she's doing. If anything I suspect her competence scares people, which is why people keep either trying to downsize her accomplishments or make it out like she's a schemer to give Trump an aura of naive innocence. 

What Tryptamine pointed out is also a big thing for me. She's there to inherit Joe Biden's position after being elected the least popular vice president in recent US history.

Actually that was Richard Nixon, check the numbers.

Edit: I see what you did there by going with 'recent'. How recent is recent in this case? In a 24 year span, if we presume a president will hold two terms for a total of eight years, that's like three people. Are you aiming to make the comparison be between so few people, or are you aiming to have 'recent' be a rather long span of time? 

Do you think she is competent?

I'd been watching her since before she even entered the presidential race, she's been impressive and her resume and work history are quite intimidating. 

Frankly, I'd been presuming she hoisted a lot of the weight while Biden took the credit, largely over how 'America is not ready for a female president'. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

that’s what this rust belt Walz pick was about, this is why they had country music at the DNC and a certain type of vibe the first night, and White Dudes for Harris, and there is a lot less of identity politics (in their presentation; not how they vote). and they are being careful around the Israel topic so as not to activate the Muslim population in Michigan.

Like I said, Walz is a modern DEI Hire. 

Frankly I'm fine with that, and moments like "White Guy Taco" having dudes' panties in a bunch is good shit. 

Yeah, let's just keep everything low-brow and retarded.

Did you even see the 'White Guy Taco' moment?

It was nothing, like it didn't even ping my radar when I first watched it but they are looking for anything to go after right now to the point of appearing desperate. At this point even if they do find something it'll be buried in a sea of nothingburgers. 

RNC was looking like a DNC the way they kept stacking it with minorities for fake appeal, i don’t want to hear another fucking story about how “my momma worked hard and now i’m a senator”

What is your opinion on The Constitution by the way, and a limit to presidential terms served? 

I know you said that a President who sticks with the issues will lose, so he ought to stick with mudslinging, but do we really want to vote in someone who can't stick to said issues? The demographic that ends up alienated over this shouldn't be voting anyway, this is the run for president, it ought to come with the job to know what you're doing further than that of a showman and a mascot to the cause. 

I don't believe I said a president who sticks to issues will lose.

Kinda did? 

You said:

the other night, Trump asked his crowd if he should get personal again. so he’s aware these campaign managers who have been having him pull his punches SUCK.

His sticking to the issues is his 'pulling punches' in this case. 

...or at least that's how I took your statement, rather than if you meant his race and gender fumbles, his long rambles, and his occasional insult towards right wing people in lower positions going far enough for even Fox News to cut his speeches off. 

So what is your opinion on The Constitution and a limit to presidential terms served? We now have it abundantly clear what your positions are on race and gender, but not America's foundation. 

If the issues of the party aren't winning people over, it's because the issues aren't good enough to make it on their own merits. Mudslinging being the backbone of Trump's approach isn't working either, not while he's the slow and sleepy one relatively speaking. It's as simple as him being the slower horse in this race with a perspective that's alienating his potential voters (rather than his captive ones). 

Wrong, the sheep care about what is presented to them as concerning.

So you're saying we shouldn't be concerned with abortion rights and minority status, in the name of taxes and cis-white male privilege? 

Women's rights are such a big deal that it'd destroy even a good candidate's run. That battle's been uphill to consider since what, the 1970s? I can't really imagine what sort of presidential candidate it'd take to convince women to hand their reproductive rights over to other people. Having your campaign stuck with that premise is to work against yourself. 

If you ask me, the real sheep are women who'd vote to give away their own reproductive rights without even backing it up with anything politically motivated. Men at least can be written off as privileged and selfish, women giving away their own rights is downright spooky to me. 

This is why the DNC barely talked about policies and was all about empathy.

It's hard to not make it out to be about Empathy when it's empathic matters that are being put at risk. 

It won't matter what else is couched with it, it's effectively them trying to instate Reproductive Prohibition. It's not the best hill to die on, they'd be better off letting women have those rights so that the attention can then direct towards other issues. 

Before, we had two old guys and people felt disillusioned about voting overall. We're seeing a surge in activity because one of them was replaced. If The Right wants to win this, they need to not be hoisting "The Oldest Candidate in US history". Seeing someone sharper who can stick to the politics at hand is refreshing. 

Kamala isn't sharp, she couldn't even make the primaries last time. 😂

Two things here: 

1) If you look into her work history and watch her interviews, she's sharp in a cutting way. San Francisco's Left had problems with her over how she wasn't lenient enough on crime, and how she's been when addressing people, as we can see in recordings of her doing her job and in interviews, has often reflected a no nonsense attitude. 

2) Even if you can't, or won't, agree to Kamala being sharp over a (willful) ignorance over her work history, I'm sure we can both agree she is sharper than both Biden and Trump, potentially even put together. 

They are literally running her because she is able to inherit the Biden war chest. And Dems will back it because they suddenly have a viable candidate, and they want to win. Let's not pretend that her ratings have not been consistently shit though, and still are bad.

The ratings became a near-50/50 startlingly quickly the minute she was announced as his replacement, and as Trump keeps talking the numbers keep shifting more in her favor. If I were a betting person, she's the horse in this race that I'd bet on. Back when it was Biden it's clear that Trump was going to win, many were staying out of it because they didn't want either of them. 

Again, the guy who WAS NEARLY ASSASSINATED (allegedly) is somehow not an obvious victory. I was sure he was going to be the winner once he had that accolade, yet the current flow of politics has surprised me a few times since then. 

I never thought Biden would drop out, and if not for the assassination he may have tried to stick it out. If the Right wants to win, they're going to need to relax a little over a few issues so focus can divert towards their stronger arguments. I can't really imagine what it would take for me to vote so blatantly Pro-Life, nor can many other people who may have otherwise considered voting for Trump instead. 

 I think that's just it. It's hard to think of anything she's done by herself, good or bad. Its possible to debate whether she is sharp and all of those things all day, but is she competent, or is she just swimming with the flock?

You have followed her much longer than I have. What would you say are her policies and biggest achievements in leading the US, beyond being elected to run out of convenience? What's the difference between her and any Muppet you put there to lead the people? What is her vice president legacy that she's going to leave behind from her current term?

I say she hasn't internalized the issues she talks about because she was never involved with them herself. She's a figurehead for other people.

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Like I said, Walz is a modern DEI Hire. 

Frankly I'm fine with that, and moments like "White Guy Taco" having dudes' panties in a bunch is good shit. 

Yeah, let's just keep everything low-brow and retarded.

Did you even see the 'White Guy Taco' moment?

It was nothing, like it didn't even ping my radar when I first watched it but they are looking for anything to go after right now to the point of appearing desperate. At this point even if they do find something it'll be buried in a sea of nothingburgers. 

No, wasn't referring to that. I was talking about the pandering culture.

What is your opinion on The Constitution by the way, and a limit to presidential terms served? 

I know you said that a President who sticks with the issues will lose, so he ought to stick with mudslinging, but do we really want to vote in someone who can't stick to said issues? The demographic that ends up alienated over this shouldn't be voting anyway, this is the run for president, it ought to come with the job to know what you're doing further than that of a showman and a mascot to the cause. 

I don't believe I said a president who sticks to issues will lose.

Kinda did? 

You said:

the other night, Trump asked his crowd if he should get personal again. so he’s aware these campaign managers who have been having him pull his punches SUCK.

His sticking to the issues is his 'pulling punches' in this case. 

...or at least that's how I took your statement, rather than if you meant his race and gender fumbles, his long rambles, and his occasional insult towards right wing people in lower positions going far enough for even Fox News to cut his speeches off. 

Pulling punches is hurting him, not helping him.

So what is your opinion on The Constitution and a limit to presidential terms served? We now have it abundantly clear what your positions are on race and gender, but not America's foundation. 

Is that so? What are my views?

If the issues of the party aren't winning people over, it's because the issues aren't good enough to make it on their own merits. Mudslinging being the backbone of Trump's approach isn't working either, not while he's the slow and sleepy one relatively speaking. It's as simple as him being the slower horse in this race with a perspective that's alienating his potential voters (rather than his captive ones). 

Wrong, the sheep care about what is presented to them as concerning.

So you're saying we shouldn't be concerned with abortion rights and minority status, in the name of taxes and cis-white male privilege? 

Women's rights are such a big deal that it'd destroy even a good candidate's run. That battle's been uphill to consider since what, the 1970s? I can't really imagine what sort of presidential candidate it'd take to convince women to hand their reproductive rights over to other people. Having your campaign stuck with that premise is to work against yourself. 

If you ask me, the real sheep are women who'd vote to give away their own reproductive rights without even backing it up with anything politically motivated. Men at least can be written off as privileged and selfish, women giving away their own rights is downright spooky to me.

Well I think I already addressed "cis-white male privilege" in another exchange we had, where I showed that this mentality was actively being used to harm whites. But my point was that people are presented a very simple view of what is going on, and in general politics is a type of theater which treats voters like a market. You keep honing in on this abortion thing, like it's the most important thing going on in the world.

This is why the DNC barely talked about policies and was all about empathy.

It's hard to not make it out to be about Empathy when it's empathic matters that are being put at risk. 

It won't matter what else is couched with it, it's effectively them trying to instate Reproductive Prohibition. It's not the best hill to die on, they'd be better off letting women have those rights so that the attention can then direct towards other issues. 

Before, we had two old guys and people felt disillusioned about voting overall. We're seeing a surge in activity because one of them was replaced. If The Right wants to win this, they need to not be hoisting "The Oldest Candidate in US history". Seeing someone sharper who can stick to the politics at hand is refreshing. 

Kamala isn't sharp, she couldn't even make the primaries last time. 😂

Two things here: 

1) If you look into her work history and watch her interviews, she's sharp in a cutting way. San Francisco's Left had problems with her over how she wasn't lenient enough on crime, and how she's been when addressing people, as we can see in recordings of her doing her job and in interviews, has often reflected a no nonsense attitude. 

How she handled crime is what got her blown out of the water by Gabbard on the 2020 primaries stage.

2) Even if you can't, or won't, agree to Kamala being sharp over a (willful) ignorance over her work history, I'm sure we can both agree she is sharper than both Biden and Trump, potentially even put together. 

We'll see about that in the debate.

They are literally running her because she is able to inherit the Biden war chest. And Dems will back it because they suddenly have a viable candidate, and they want to win. Let's not pretend that her ratings have not been consistently shit though, and still are bad.

The ratings became a near-50/50 startlingly quickly the minute she was announced as his replacement, and as Trump keeps talking the numbers keep shifting more in her favor. If I were a betting person, she's the horse in this race that I'd bet on. Back when it was Biden it's clear that Trump was going to win, many were staying out of it because they didn't want either of them. 

Again, the guy who WAS NEARLY ASSASSINATED (allegedly) is somehow not an obvious victory. I was sure he was going to be the winner once he had that accolade, yet the current flow of politics has surprised me a few times since then.

The Republicans got too comfortable, picking JD Vance and not trying to win over their base.

I never thought Biden would drop out, and if not for the assassination he may have tried to stick it out.

He didn't want to. It wasn't his choice.

Turncoat said:

I can already imagine why. 😏

It's fine, Right Wing News and Social Media is struggling there too. I'm still laughing my ass of at watching Right Wingers flipping out over White Guy Tacos and Obama implying Trump is small, as while the original jokes weren't that funny the reactions are priceless.

I dunno, Im a stupid European who can't really relate to the American idea of politics where yall root for your team like it's a football match. At least I'm trying to figure out who the best candidate is instead of participating in the herd mentality.

My main problem with her is that she appears to me incapable of internalizing issues brought up by the democrats.

I would prefer someone who isn't gaslit..? 

Weird POV.

I'm just lazy and expect you to read in between the lines. What I mean is that her words sound scripted, because they are. What we see on TV isn't her, if she exists.

Check up for example Tulsi Gabbard interviews on right-wing talking points. It comes across as truthful, as though she believes what she says. Kamala on the other hand sounds empty. Look up for example how she defended Joe Biden after the debate with Trump on CNN. 

The guy had COVID, was being taxied around the world for his work, and he's old as fuck. His speech at the DNC shows a stark difference, and it makes sense in that respect that he'd be defended even before figuring that it's basically her job as VP to defend him in the first place. 

If you want to see someone who sounds empty, listen to Trump try to stick to the issues. Even his own mudslinging lately feels so half-assed and sleepy. 

---

‘The Provocateur, Showman, May Not Win This Election’ - Lindsey Graham, 2024

Trump is a moron, but he doesn't have that glazed look Kamala has. He's on top of what he does and what he talks about are issues he considers important, when he's not lying his ass off. He has also been highly successful in a multitude of ventures, which I respect. What he's done is not easy.

She comes across as a lawyer and a career politician. I think it matters.

So... your point is moreover that you don't feel inspired? Do you really see how Trump talks right now as inspiring? 😂

Like when he bumped his fist in the air after surviving an assassination attempt and shouted "fight, fight!"?

Yes, I thought this was inspiring.

> Unlike Trump, she clearly knows what she's doing. If anything I suspect her competence scares people, which is why people keep either trying to downsize her accomplishments or make it out like she's a schemer to give Trump an aura of naive innocence.

Weird, I feel the opposite. Maybe it's because you haven't taken as many leadership positions. I can kind of tell when someone is not on top of things, but it comes down to gut feeling, so unhelpful to everyone else. Kamala reminds me of those people who want to be in charge but have no clue wtf they're doing once they're put there. I know the type. No opinions of their own, no accomplishment, and all the ventures they led went to shit, because nothing got done.

 What can she do for America? Nothing.

 

Actually that was Richard Nixon, check the numbers.

Edit: I see what you did there by going with 'recent'. How recent is recent in this case? In a 24 year span, if we presume a president will hold two terms for a total of eight years, that's like three people. Are you aiming to make the comparison be between so few people, or are you aiming to have 'recent' be a rather long span of time? 

The popularity thing? Yeah it's unimportant. The problem is moreso that she's there because she inherited the position as opposed to having fought for it.

Do you think she is competent?

I'd been watching her since before she even entered the presidential race, she's been impressive and her resume and work history are quite intimidating.

Has she succeeded in accomplishing anything of note? We can disagree on policy, but has she done something?

At least Trump built the wall he said he would. Imagine how he got that psychotic project actually started and funded. It's because he knows what he needs to do to implement his ideas. We can disagree on the effectiveness and the utility of the wall, but he gets stuff done and does what he says. And his ideas are original.

Jada said: 

 I think that's just it. It's hard to think of anything she's done by herself, good or bad.

So google it. 

What would you say are her policies

General Left leaning rhetoric with some Law and Order views snuck in there. 

For a Lefty, she's not full-left. Her time as District Attorney for California has called into question if she ought to be who is representing the party over how she is too tough on crime. She fought to keep nonviolent offenders behind bars which only helped make mass incarceration worse, and called it being "smart on crime" when people accused her of being too tough on them.

She then tried to make this work by doubling down on Job Training and School Enrollment for those involved in drug charges while complaining about the Bail Out system. She is quoted over making it about race over how White Privilege finds it easier to walk out of jail, and over helping young drug users become "reformed" into "productive members of society", and never really relaxed her policies. 


The Right trying to attack her like she's too soft on crime is a joke, they ought to be trying to convince The Left that she's the fucking cops during a time where Marijuana stands to otherwise become widely accessible. She was very heavy-handed against drugs, including weed, in the state that popularized Cheech and Chong, and fought to keep them in jail so they could go through her reformation programs practically by force. 

As a side note I also don't agree with her stance on The Death Penalty, but her stance there is actually pretty classic Left-lean; She'd rather forcibly sign you up for a Prison Boarding School to make you into a "productive member of society". 

Her issues with Truancy were also strict, parents who failed to bring their children to school risked going to Jail over missing 10% of the school year. Googling this for more details yields the name Cheree Peoples, a black mother of a disabled daughter via Sickle Cell Anemia having her miss 20 days of school. 


For real guys, it is not hard to attack Kamala, but people keep focusing on it like a Right Winger. 

and biggest achievements in leading the US, beyond being elected to run out of convenience?

She isn't the president yet. 

What's the difference between her and any Muppet you put there to lead the people? What is her vice president legacy that she's going to leave behind from her current term?

The difference is that she's more Right Wing than she appears, and that through her racial diversity and having her opponent be a floundering idiot she's liable to win. 

She's the better choice between the two, she's a better choice than Biden, but she represents a very different vision of The Left. 

I say she hasn't internalized the issues she talks about because she was never involved with them herself. She's a figurehead for other people.

I'm more surprised the "Defund The Police" types aren't trying to wreck her.