More likely is that there's a lot of source material having to very stridently assert that Trump didn't win in 2020, and it's generalising to a later year. That's not political bias.
It's also extremely weird that Trump did win in 2024.
If I'd been in a coma from Jan 1 2024 to today, and woke up to people saying Trump was president again, I'd think they were pulling my leg or testing my brain function to see if I'd become gullible.
I, a British liberal leftie who considers this win one of the signs of the coming apocalypse, can tell you why:
Charlie Kirk may be an odious little man but he ran an exceptional ground game, Trump fully captured the Libertarian Party (and amazingly delivered on a promise to them), Trump was well-advised by his son to campaign on Tiktok, etc. etc.
Basically what happened is the 2024 version of the "fifty state strategy", except instead of states, they identified micro-communities, particularly among the extremely online, and crafted messages for each of those. Many of which are actually inconsistent -- their messaging to muslim and jewish communities was inconsistent, their messaging to spanish-speaking communities was inconsistent with their mainstream message etc.
And then a lot of money was pushed into a few battleground states by Musk's operation.
It was a highly technical, broad-spectrum win, built on relentless messaging about persecution etc., and he had the advantage of running against someone he could stereotype very successfully to his base and whose candidacy was late.
Another way to look at why it is not extremely weird, is to look at history. Plenty of examples of jailed or exiled monarchs returning to power, failed coup leaders having another go, criminalised leaders returning to elected office, etc., etc.
Once it was clear Trump still retained control over the GOP in 2022, his re-election became at least quite likely.
Sure, all I have to go on from the other side of the Atlantic is the internet. So in that regard, kinda like the AI.
One of the big surprises from the POV of me in Jan 2024, is that I would have anticipated Trump being in prison and not even available as an option for the Republican party to select as a candidate for office, and that even if he had not gone to jail that the Republicans would not want someone who behaved as he did on Jan 6 2021.
And he would have. And might have won. Because his I'm-the-most-innocent-persecuted-person messaging was clearly landing.
I am surprised the grandparent poster didn't think Trump's win was at least entirely possible in January 2024, and I am on the same side of the Atlantic. All the indicators were in place.
There was basically no chance he'd actually be in prison by November anyway, because he was doing something else extremely successfully: delaying court cases by playing off his obligations to each of them.
Back then I thought his chances of winning were above 60%, and the betting markets were never ever really in favour of him losing.
I mean, the presumptive GOP primary candidates at the time were Trump, Trump-lite (DeSantis), about 10 Trump sycophants, and Haley. He had demonstrated a high level of influence over GOP primary voters in the 2022 midterm. It had been (internally) obvious since at least then that he was going to win the primary again. I can't speak to how much of that made it across the Atlantic.
Whether he would win the general was an open question then. In the American system, your prediction should never get very far from a coin flip a year out.
I'm pretty sure you are completely correct on the last part. Nobody in Republican management wanted a second Trump term. If the candidate wasn't Trump, Republicans would have had a guaranteed victory. Imagine that infamous debate, but with some 50-year-old youngster facing Joe Biden.
It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting.
> You think the Democratic White House, manipulated Republicans into Voting for Trump.
Yes, that is what he thinks. Did you not read the comment? It is, like, uh, right there...
He also explained his reasoning: If Trump didn't win the party race, a more compelling option (the so-called "50-year-old youngster") would have instead, which he claims would have guaranteed a Republican win. In other words, what he is saying that the White House was banking on Trump losing the presidency.
Well, I guess, if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation. There isn't much hope for you.
Maybe it was because the Democrats new the Earth was about the be invaded by an Alien race , and they also knew Trump was actually a lizard person (native to Earth and thus on their joint side). And Trump would be able to defeat them, so using the secret mind control powers, the Democrats were able to sway the election to allow Trump to win and thus use his advanced Lizard technology to save the planet. Of course, this all happened behind the scenes.
I think if someone is saying the Democrats are so powerful and skillful, that they can sway the election to give Trump the primary win, but then turn around and lose. That does require some clarification.
I'm just hearing a lot of these crazy arguments that somehow everything Trump does is the fault of the Democrats. They are crazy on the face of it. Maybe if people had to clarify their positions they would realize 'oh, yeah, that doesn't make sense'.
> if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation.
How the heck did you manage to conflate line of reasoning with claims being made?
> There isn't much hope for you.
And fall for the ad hominem fallacy.
> crazy arguments that somehow everything Trump does is the fault of the Democrats
While inventing some weird diatribe about crazy arguments claiming Democrats being at fault for what Trump does, bearing no resemblance to anything else in the discussion.
> They are crazy on the face of it.
As well as introducing some kind of nebulous legion of unidentified "crazy" straw men.
> that doesn't make sense
Couldn't have said it better myself.
> Maybe if people had to clarify their positions
Sad part is that asking for clarification on the position of that earlier comment would have been quite reasonable. There is potentially a lot we can learn from in the missing details. If only you had taken the two extra seconds to understand the comment before replying.
Ok. If you go back to original. I was bit sarcastic. So a sarcastic question, is probably not taken as a real question.
Like when hearing something out of left field, I think the reply can also be extreme, like saying 'Wuuut????, are you real?".
I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. Thus anything that happens now is really a knock on effect of Democrats not beating him, so we blame Democrats instead of the people that actually voted for Trump or Trump himself.
So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary yet completely fumble later, just seems like more conspiracy theories.
> I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump.
If you mean your own comments, yes, I saw that too. Your invented blame made about as much sense as blaming a butterfly who flapped his wings in Africa, but I understand that you were ultimately joking around. Of course, the same holds true for all other comments you supposedly keep seeing. You are not the only one on this earth who dabbles in sarcasm or other forms of comedy, I can assure you.
> Like when hearing something out of left field
The Democrats preferring to race against Trump instead of whomever the alternative would have been may not be actually true, but out in left field? Is this sarcasm again? They beat Trump before. Them seeing him as the weakest opponent at the time wouldn't come as a shock to me. Why you?
> So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary
There was nothing to suggest political astuteness. The claim was that they were worried about someone other than Trump winning the Republican ballot and, because of that, they took action to grease the wheels of his victory. Even the most inept group of people would still see the motive and would almost certainly still take action. That it ostensibly worked is just as easily explained by dumb luck.
>"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting."
This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness"
And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a fiddle", because they wanted Trump to win the primary. Then what happened? Where did all that 'astuteness' go.
I don't know what you think "play like a fiddle" means, but in common usage it generally implies that the one being played is gullible.
1. What suggests that astuteness is required to "trick" the gullible? Especially when we are only talking about a single instance of ostensible "success", not even demonstration of repeatability. Dumb luck remains just as likely of an explanation.
2. Under the assumption of easy manipulation as the phrase has been taken to mean, why do you find it unlikely that Trump couldn't have also "tricked" them?
In fact, if we buy into the original comment's premise, the Democrats not recognizing that Trump could just as easily "play them like a fiddle" suggests the exact opposite of being astute from my vantage point. But the view from my vantage point cannot be logically projected onto the original comment. It remains that the original comment gave no such indication either way. Where do you hear this "sound" that you speak of?
I can't argue with any of that, since technically everyone could have been playing everyone else. Maybe Republicans are easily fooled, or maybe Trump is playing 5-d chess and playing both sides.
I just think 'playing like a fiddle' typically means a lopsided power dynamic where one person has much more knowledge, or skill. So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position. Not, that Democrats just got lucky once. This going back and forth pointing fingers about who was playing , seems like too many layers deep.
> So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position.
And that is an equally fair assumption. But it is not written into the original comment. You cannot logically project your own take onto what someone else wrote.
Since you seem to have a penchant for the pedantic. And I do too. I can retort, of course I can assume the meaning of common language idioms. All language is projecting onto what others say.
You can assume a meaning for the sake of your own purposes, but it does not reflect back on the original comment.
Your quip "So it is the Democrats fault we have Trump???" presumably demonstrates that you understand exactly that. After all, if you could have logically projected your interpretation onto the original comment there would have been no need to ask. You'd have already known.
Still, how you managed establish that there was even potential suggestion of "fault" is a head scratcher. Whether or not the account in the original comment is accurate, it clearly only tells a story of what (supposedly) happened. There is no sensible leap from an ostensible historic account to an attribution of blame.
You seem to indicate, if I understand you correctly, that because you randomly had that idea pop into your head (that Democrats are at fault) when reading the comment that the other party must have also been thinking the same thing, but I find that a little unsatisfactory. Perhaps we need to simply dig deeper, freeing ourselves from the immediate context, and look at the line of thinking more broadly. What insights can you offer into your thought processes?
>>> "It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters"
The original comment did seem to imply that the 'White House' was in control, with a plan, and 'played' the Republicans.
The original comment made the connection that Democrats were taking action. If I'm allowed to assume that when someone makes a comment, that sentences are related. That sentences can follow one another and be related in a context.
And as far as my context viewing the comment. I have heard this idea ::
Trump is doing bad things -> Democrats failed to beat Trump -> Thus Democrats are the cause of bad things.
The original comment seemed to be in that vein. To attribute much greater responsibility to the Democrats for our current situation, instead of the people actually doing the bad things. aka Republicans. They are actually doing the bad things.
> The original comment made the connection that Democrats were taking action.
Yes, it claims that the Democrats took action. That does not equate to blaming Democrats.
You could blame the Democrats for what they supposedly did if that's what the randomly firing neurons in your brain conclude is most appropriate in light of the "facts" presented, but blame is just arbitrary thought. It doesn't mean anything and certainly wouldn't have a place in an online discussion.
I've been surprised by a lot of the values that have been put aside for the elections recently, especially when so many of them were yelled about so loudly in the past few elections (not limited to one side but from my perspective one side does seem more severe).
It's also been really interesting to watch a bunch of formerly non partisan values become polarizing like rule of law, integrity, corruption, decorum, body autonomy, the constitution, the national debt, global alliances, sexual assault, "family values", and "the American Dream" tm.
There has always been this (baffling, to me) concept that most folks vote for a candidate "while holding their nose" but it seems like the proportions are getting wildly out of whack. The pile of bad smells grows tall and the exchange rate seems quite bad.
The 2020s have taught me a lot about the reality of civics and what it looks like to try to govern a giant group of strangers.
I'm grateful to have lived in the US during a period of stability and safety and (some) shared values. My optimism for retaining that and preventing decline, however, is running very dry.
> it is a surprise how many people in the country are supporters of pedophilia.
Do you mean ephebophilia? There is no prominent pedophilia movement. The Epstein saga, which is presumably at least somewhat related to what you are referring to, is clearly centred around "almost adults". Assuming that is what you meant, I don't see what is surprising about it. A revolt to the "Teen Mom", "16 and Pregnant" movement was inevitable. People are increasingly growning tired of being shamed for having children.
I was just referring to the predominant number of cases where Church officials, and Republicans are caught in under-age scandals. It seems like it is coming out of the shadows now, and Republicans are just openly going with it, they like em young and illegal. Epstein is just the case where the 'right' bothered keeping up tabs on it, so now they are clutching their pearls.
? Not sure I understand the point you're making. Maybe we are using different age cutoffs. And Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? Thus making it not pedophilia?
Where in my questions to try and understand what you are trying to say do you find a point?
> Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children?
What has you questioning that? I mean, research has shown a link between exposure to certain chemicals and early-onset puberty. It is technically possible to lower the average age where one stops being a child, but that it is being purposefully done by Republicans as some kind of Trump justification is one of the more, uh, interesting conspiracy theories I've heard.
> Thus making it not pedophilia?
Even if we were to buy into this conspiracy theory, it wouldn't change anything about pedophilia. But this has little to do with the discussion that was taking place. As amusing as this has been, let's get back on-topic: Where did the original pedophilia idea you had come from?
I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok.
It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument.
Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok.
Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12. That would be disgusting to the west. But if Trump does it, it seems like Republicans are happy enough to slide the scale and say "well 14 isn't that bad".
Since so many Republicans and Church officials get charged with having sex with kids, and there are so many arguments trying to justify it, and they continue to vote for and support these people, that I can say Republicans support pedophiles.
> I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults.
You don't say? Try reading it again.
> I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok.
We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are sick of being shamed for wanting to have children and are pushing back.
But my question was about your claims related to pedophilia. That's another subject entirely.
> I can say Republicans support pedophiles.
So you keep saying, but all you've come up with is some groups of people who have no doubt broken the law, but haven't exhibited any signs of pedophilia.
At this point the only logical expiation here is that you've made up a random definition for the word on the spot and are trying to use it as some kind of boogieman in hopes on preying on those who assume you are using the term in good faith. And if that is the case, I have to question why you find your bad faith participation acceptable?
That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up.
You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear.
And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball".
Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans.
I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up.
"Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"
The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean?
But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Regardless, it is quite apparent that Trump's ilk like those who at least show some "development". If they are closeted pedophiles, they have certainly done well to keep that from the limelight.
> Guess I was wrong.
Arbitrarily defining a word doesn't make you wrong. All words are ultimately randomly made up on the spot. That is how natural language works. However, the behaviour that followed was, let's say... interesting. I specifically asked in the very first sentence if you meant ephebophilia to clarify your intent. Rationally, that is where one would say: "Oh yes, that is what I am talking about", "I define pedophilia as...", or at very least "I am not familiar with ephebophilia. What is that?" so that we could converge on a shared understanding. Instead, we got a wild train ride to nowhere, only now finally getting an answer to the original question.
It seemed like you were questioning the definition of pedophilia, so I literally gave you a definition with a link. Republican arguments do typically include wanting to lower the age to match up with puberty. But that seems like a pretty unseemly argument. If Trump was having sex with 14 year olds, but they were 'developed', so it is not technically pedophilia, so can't call him a pedophile. Is a pretty weak argument.
I mean, isn't it a pretty common joke that pedophiles like to argue this point:
"hmm, indubitably, my good sir, it is actually ephebophilia, completely different, totally ok. A common mistake I often have to explain to my 14 year old's girlfriends parents that keep calling the police on me. Why just look at her, very developed, very mature, not a child at all".
But have to agree. Not sure what you are trying to say at this point, or what is the argument?
What argument are you talking about? As I said before, I am trying to understand you. For some reason you continually speak in weird logically fallacies and made up stories that don't make any sense, even though you seem to have genuine intent and are trying to add positive contributions. In the interest of good faith, it is worth trying to figure out what you actually mean.
Yes, you eventually delivered the necessary clarification that allows us to better understand what you were trying to say, but what the hell was that in between?
If you really want to disect where things got off track. I think it was here.
My original comment >>>
"I was just referring to the predominant number of cases where Church officials, and Republicans are caught in under-age scandals. It seems like it is coming out of the shadows now, and Republicans are just openly going with it, they like em young and illegal. Epstein is just the case where the 'right' bothered keeping up tabs on it, so now they are clutching their pearls."
I think is in line with my most recent comment. I think the direction is clear.
When you replied with this >>>
"But even that is characterized by the "choir boy", not the "baby being baptized". Where is this pedophilia idea coming from?"
I was lost on what was being asked. I didn't understand the choir boy reference, or why pedophilia was a question, since it seemed my point was pretty pointed.
