Cameraimage cinematography festival in the bin

[Andrew Reid]

https://www.screendaily.com/news/backlash-to-camerimage-directors-misogynistic-op-ed-on-women-in-cinematography/5199103.article

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/camerimage-film-festival-sexist-editorial-change-1236059689/

https://variety.com/2024/film/global/camerimage-controversy-festival-director-1236207572/

Apparently, this is a story of intolerance, of good vs evil.

The festival director is evil - he doesn't tolerate mediocre cinematography, and thinks that if you select for jobs based on gender, you encourage it and deprive somebody more talented (presumably a man) of an opportunity, and deprive filmmaking of meritocracy.

The film industry replied - we don't tolerate this kind of free speech. It's against our rules on sexism.

The festival director replied - sorry... let's have a discussion about it.

The film industry replied - we doesn't tolerate sexism.

And Steve McQueen replied... goodbye, I'm out of Cameraimage 2024.

But does the festival director really have an intolerance towards mediocrity?

After all a lot of what is shown is indeed mediocre.

And even when it comes to a proven genius such as Deakins, he's involved with the occasional mediocre movie.

And does the film industry really have an intolerance discrimination? After all the entire purpose of the industry is to be highly selective of to whom they give money. They are also very discriminatory in what they do and don't allow in terms of freedom of speech and editorial comments... and even more discriminatory when it comes to which projects they will fund and which ones they won't. And also, the film industry doesn't seem to like some groups (such as poor people) - and won't give them jobs, hence you nowadays only really hear middle class voices chattering on set.

So in the end, perhaps the Polish festival director is indeed more tolerant of mediocrity and does in fact select cinematographer's work based on factors other than just talent.

And perhaps the film industry is indeed a LOT less tolerant than they like to make themselves out to be.

Because by the very definition of the world, tolerance allows for all sorts of different opinions and cultural views, even when it comes to Polish festival organisers.

And that by definition, is diverse.

Whatever the culture war victor in all of this... wouldn't it be a genuine shame however to lose an event like Cameraimage in Poland?

It's the leading cinematography community and good for all involved, yes even women. So when Steve McQueen and others pull their support, perhaps they should think about whether this is truly a good thing for cinematographers or not, and if filmmakers can afford to lose yet another community event, in a rapidly more lonely corporate world, during a major industry crisis.

[ND64]

Right wingers has X, liberals have Threads and BlueSky. Maybe we're heading for a situation where there is a film industry for conservatives and another film industry for liberals. 

[PannySVHS]

Liberals and conservatives, yeah just two kinds of humanbeings.;) Liberal cinema, conservative, both sounds dull as a freaking polit talkshow with all these dull broadcasters and podcasters with their framing and then their framing about framing.

Talent? I haven't read from Reed Morano in a long time. Her direction of the first three episodes of Handmaids Tale were the best of the whole thing. She did these as a Dop turned director and it has shown in the visual power. Any episodes later had a tough time to keep up with that level of quality. Quiet a few did a good overall job, possibly sticking to the visual concept of the Moreno episodes in an attempt to use it as a blueprint. A whole bunch of the last two seasons was mediocore and in that with even nervewreckingly annoying parts and unappealing talking heads galore.

So where is Reed Morano? She did three exceptionally outstanding episodes of cinema for that show. This industry doesn't really do as much for diversity as it does against it. In Germany filmsets have been, until recently, spaces of labor exploitation and psychological abuse. Middle and upper class kids taking the trophies. But they are scared too not to get their project financed.

I had the great pleasure of talking to Oliver Stapleton for a few minutes at Camerimage 2019, the edition before Corona. He told me that filmschools in Brittania are much rather accessible for wealthy kids. He found that to be not ideal. He was frank to point out his disappointment with a pretty desasterous shortfilm, infront of an audience, which also agreed on his assertions. Oliver Stapleton and any of the viewers had respect for the cinematography and technical prowess and they were showing acknowledgement. But story, acting, direction of acting, dialogue, and tone aka mood were just disappointing.

I have seen another highly mediocore mid length film at that very same Camerimage, which also had a screening at a pretty prestigous German filmfest, just like the film I mentioned above. Both shorts were from technical showcases. Then I've seen two dull shorts from another famous German filmschool, which both made it to that same German prestigeous festival. The DoPs did good pro work in all these films, but story, acting, dramaturgy, mood were all dubious. Camerawork and tech aspects were pro level. So camerimage has shown some lacklaster student films. Btw Berlinale has too. I am not competent to say by any means if it is the festivals fault as a lot of good stuff is running there too. They can only choose from the films which are sent to them.

[Andrew Reid]

On 11/14/2024 at 7:33 AM, ND64 said:

Right wingers has X, liberals have Threads and BlueSky. Maybe we're heading for a situation where there is a film industry for conservatives and another film industry for liberals. 

I wouldn't mind one internet for Trump cult members and one for the rest of us.

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Liberals and conservatives, yeah just two kinds of humanbeings.;) Liberal cinema, conservative, both sounds dull as a freaking polit talkshow with all these dull broadcasters and podcasters with their framing and then their framing about framing.

It used to not matter once upon a time.

Politics didn't even factor in dating... you had young people getting married with totally different opinions, yes shocking.

And even today it's possible to agree with certain things that people say no matter who they are or what end of the culture war they belong to.

It would be nice to have a bit more of that and a bit less of the divide and rule, but I am also equally fed up with the stupidity and naivety coming out both ends of the same toilet... from extremists on the far right (Trump cult) and far left (unrealistic ideologues)

10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

So camerimage has shown some lacklaster student films. Btw Berlinale has too. I am not competent to say by any means if it is the festivals fault as a lot of good stuff is running there too. They can only choose from the films which are sent to them.

The cameraimage thing is quite sad really, it was a force for good as far as I can see and the festival organisers have done a great job over the years of supporting talent, and it's right that student films should be shown even if they're no masterpiece. Every talented person looks back at their earliest work and it's imperfect.

I think where the BSC is right (but didn't say so) is that Marek has been really insensitive with his interview comments given he is hosting the debut screening of RUST at Cameraimage... Halyna's last work and she died shooting it. 

Whether it is tasteful to show it is a whole other debate.

It's hard to square it being her last work behind the camera, and it being the film set that was incompetent enough to get her killed.

[majoraxis]

Just because the majority of voting Americas voted for Trump, does not make them conservatives or right wingers. Many of them simply voted against Harris, just as people voted against Trump in 2020.

Picking the lesser of two evils is what it comes down to in American politics today and not some type of ideological victory as the media would have you believe.

So when I encounter liberals - I happen to rent a room from one. When we actually talk about the issues, it turns out we have more in common as Americans than the media would have us believe.  All these labels do is divide people...

I'm pretty sure the hierarchy of needs is something like shelter, food, and sex rather than "believe what I believe or we can't work together to help each other get our common needs meet"...

Ironically every day has now become "be kind to a liberal day" because the media completely lied to their base about the election forecast - no wonder people for Harris are upset about the election results - same thing happened on 2016. 

The situation is not people vs people - it is divide and profit by the media - it makes sick the brain washing the has taken over society.

People are people and may the best film maker win regards of how they voted in an election, or what race or gender or creed they are.

The facts is, it is the people against the media rather liberals against conservatives - what a deception - I happen to like pulp fiction and tropic thunder... great cinema is great cinema and great comedy is great comedy no matter who makes it and who is offends...

The price of freedom is me allowing other's to express ideas that I don't agree with and other's allowing me to express ideas they don't agree with... hopefully the first amendment is practiced on this forum. ; )

[Leon Postma]

It is pretty easy to spot the bias in MSM if you still have your critical faculties about you. I haven’t read newspapers or watched TV since early 2000’s. So now when I ocassionally see coverage  with my arguably obsolete frame of what objective reporting should be I can point out factual error, bias, and vested interests in seconds.
 

But much like in advertisement the repetitive nature of installing fear and sowing divisiveness takes a hold when tuning in to it daily I’m sure.  Glad most of the American people are seeing they have been fed bullshit this cycle. Talking to 50+ Uber drivers when I was over in the USA in 2017 after Trump won  it struck me people just want to live their lives and have more in common than not on both sides of the aisle.
 

Could in general not care less about which side wins as party positions have drastically shifted through the years.   I’m a one issue pro bitcoin voter so I’d have voted Trump this time.  And Dems will undoubtedly co-opt bitcoin in 4 years like nothing happened if it brings them to power again. Really curious to see what the UK stance will be towards Trumps policies.  Pro bitcoin will keep London relevant as a financial center and move them further away from doomed  centralizing hungry Europe - we’ll see.  
 

On a personal note as  Dutch citizen facing new capital gains tax regulations and an exit tax possibly within 2 years I’m actively planning to emigrate the continent altogether. F that - sure as hell won’t be  held financially hostage by my country of birth. I am voting with my feet 🦶

[fuzzynormal]

"The media completely lied about the election forecast"

Yet I was out here voting and worried about Harris winning.  Why's that? 
 
All the reported polling forecasts I was reading about had it at a statistical tie.  All polls were within the margin of error with many polls showing Donald trending to a slight lead.

I was incredulous about it being so close going into election day because it's Donald, and, you know, all he does, how he behaves, and all the ridiculous authoritarianism he represents, but never thought for a minute the election wasn't a toss up. 

After all, eggs cost more now.

All MSM I saw was reporting these fact.  Lo and behold, look what happened.

So, friend, where's the lie in that?  What media do you consume that implies otherwise? 

And, bare with me here, could that particular narrative potentially be what is not true? 

The stories we tell ourselves.  Ever curious.  I suppose a good story always needs a bad guy?

[Andrew Reid]

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Just because the majority of voting Americas voted for Trump, does not make them conservatives or right wingers. Many of them simply voted against Harris, just as people voted against Trump in 2020.

Correct.

Although when you look at who Trump has appointed in the cabinet, you have to say that the majority of those Americans aren't a very astute judge of character, or perhaps they're simply unawares.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Picking the lesser of two evils is what it comes down to in American politics today and not some type of ideological victory as the media would have you believe.

Lesser of the two evils?

Trump's tariffs will destroy the US economy and triple inflation, and it doesn't need a 'mainstream media outlet' to tell you that. It's simply logic. If he does what he says he will, and nobody stops him, then he could also crash the global economic outlook as well. The stock market has already fallen following his batshit crazy cabinet picks.

I can't in any way deny that the Democrats completely messed up this election... Too cozy with corporate culture and lobbyists, ignored men, ignored Bernie Sanders, can't claim a good record on the economy when normal people aren't feeling it and only big businesses are... And involved in two depressing wars.

But the fact that people think Trump is the lesser evil just seems completely wrongheaded to me. It's as if you folk have been brainwashed by a cult leader.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

So when I encounter liberals - I happen to rent a room from one. When we actually talk about the issues, it turns out we have more in common as Americans than the media would have us believe.  All these labels do is divide people...

I agree... Too much divide and rule in today's pre-war world.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

I'm pretty sure the hierarchy of needs is something like shelter, food, and sex rather than "believe what I believe or we can't work together to help each other get our common needs meet"...

Absolutely... Shelter is unaffordable, food is a rip off, and society is becoming clinical, sexless, dull.

In fact property prices, rent prices, food prices, are a big reason Biden lost the election.

And he ain't responsible for any of it.

Global population is growing, resources are not keeping up, and the US public will find out soon enough that whether they elect a politician or a celebrity, it won't make a damn difference in the long term.

You have a celebrity apprentice government with unserious, inexperienced demigods and narcissist in it, and somehow they have been able to resonate with the public.

That shows how vast the failure of the liberals are... That a convicted felon was able to resonate with the everyday American family better than the morally posturing vacant Harris.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Ironically every day has now become "be kind to a liberal day" because the media completely lied to their base about the election forecast - no wonder people for Harris are upset about the election results - same thing happened on 2016.

They didn't lie at all the polls were very accurate, it was a close outcome in the few key states where the voting mattered, 51-49% is a similar margin to Brexit referendum in the UK which was always on a knife edge, and in these situations even a Joe Rogen podcast can sway the result last minute.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

The situation is not people vs people - it is divide and profit by the media - it makes sick the brain washing the has taken over society.

Why do you think Trump is the lesser of the two evils then, he is the ultimate divide and profit by media candidate.

He is not out for you.

He is not out for anybody but himself and his racist rich friends.

11 hours ago, majoraxis said:

The price of freedom is me allowing other's to express ideas that I don't agree with and other's allowing me to express ideas they don't agree with... hopefully the first amendment is practiced on this forum. ; )

I am all for it.

No hardened personal feelings towards you at all.

[majoraxis]

On 11/16/2024 at 3:03 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Why do you think Trump is the lesser of the two evils then, he is the ultimate divide and profit by media candidate.

He is not out for you.

He is not out for anybody but himself and his racist rich friends.

Thanks Andrew!

Based on the poll data below, it seems to indicate that on at least two key issues: the economy and national security, voters thought Trump would do a better job than Harris. 

Economic Management

A CNBC survey conducted in October 2024 found that 42% of registered voters believed they would be better off financially if Donald Trump won the election, compared to 24% who felt the same about Kamala Harris.

National Security

According to a Gallup survey published on November 1, 2024, 53% of voters believed Donald Trump would better protect the U.S. from foreign threats, while 45% favored Kamala Harris in this regard. The same Gallup survey noted that voters were split on which candidate is best for democracy and national security, with Harris leading on protecting democracy and Trump ahead on keeping the U.S. safe.

So, who will be better for inflation moving forward? Despite 54% of voters saying in a recent Gallup poll that they favor Trump to lead the overall economy, most economists pick Harris. 

In a new survey of 50 economists by the Wall Street Journal, 68% said inflation would be higher if Republican Trump's policies were to go into effect, while only 12% said it would be higher under Democrat Harris' plans. The other 20% said there would be no material difference.

Economists predict Trump would be worst for inflation... so your opinion matches the experts...

As you asked me specifically - personally, I do not like war - and heaven forbid a nuclear war...

November 2024: Following his election victory, Trump communicated with Russian President Vladimir Putin, advising him "not to escalate the Ukraine war," signaling his proactive approach to de-escalation. USA Today

Trump did not start any new wars during his presidency from 2016 to 2020. I can't imagine Harris doing as well when negotiating with Putin or Xi Jinping as Trump has, and I hope, will.

The US does not need a war with China over Taiwan, so we need to end the war in Ukranie (as Trump is trying to do), so that China won't attack Taiwan thinking that the US can't fight a war on 2 fronts...

Then there's the Iran-Russia connection and Gaza...there's a lot for Trump to be proactive on, just like he did with the Abraham Accords.

To me, Trump is the lesser of two evils when it comes to national security as compared to Harris.

Thanks for asking!

Why do you think Trump "is not out for you (me)."?

Why do you think Trump "is not out for anybody but himself and his racist rich friends."?

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

I can't imagine Harris doing as well when negotiating with Putin or Xi Jinping as Trump has, and I hope, will.

Trump doesn't negotiate for shit with Putin.  His negotiations with that guy basically involve "how high did you say you asked me to jump, sir?"

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

The US does not need a war with China over Taiwan, so we need to end the war in Ukranie (as Trump is trying to do), so that China won't attack Taiwan thinking that the US can't fight a war on 2 fronts...

On the contrary, ceding Ukrainian to Russia as Trump will almost certainly do, will serve as a signal to China that the international community is allowing forced annexation of other countries and embolden them to crush Taiwan.  The current US involvement in Ukraine is not "fighting a war." It's "supplying arms."  The US military doesn't have boots on the ground.  At best, you could say the US is fighting a proxy war there.  That's a huge difference.

Again, the only way that shithead can "end" the Ukraine war is by refusing to supply arms and letting Russia have what they want.

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

Then there's the Iran-Russia connection and Gaza...there's a lot for Trump to be proactive on, just like he did with the Abraham Accords.

And like how he encouraged Iran to restart their nuclear program by ending the program that prevented it?  Yeah, the guy's a real fucking winner.

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

Why do you think Trump "is not out for you (me)."?

Why do you think Trump "is not out for anybody but himself and his racist rich friends."?

Quite literally everything the guy has done in his entire goddamn life.  That includes fraudulent businesses, fraudulent charities, 34 felony convictions, a long history of refusing to pay contractors to force them to settle for less money, sending covid testing equipment to Russia when the US didn't have enough, the attempted implementation of schedule f, the upcoming implementation of project 2025, choosing a series of dangerously unqualified idiots for his cabinet positions, and just about anything else you want to name.

[Andrew Reid]

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

As you asked me specifically - personally, I do not like war - and heaven forbid a nuclear war...

We are all on agreement on that one!

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

November 2024: Following his election victory, Trump communicated with Russian President Vladimir Putin, advising him "not to escalate the Ukraine war," signaling his proactive approach to de-escalation.

There was a big escalation in the week following this phone call, with the attacks on Ukraine's power grid and civilian infrastructure including homes, so this didn't have any material impact on Putin.

Putin is not the kind of person who is going to make a deal over the phone unless Trump does as Elon has suggested, and basically allow Putin to win a mid-term objective - that is, Crimea, territory in the east, and probably removal of the government and replacement with a Belarus style puppet.

Then, out of that Russia will also get the added benefit of being able to rebuild themselves economically for a while, replenish their forces and weapons stocks, and first and foremost take a win instead of a loss.

The fact is NATO and the US are stronger both militarily and economically than Russia...

So ask yourself why does Trump want to give them the chance to take a victory?

Because he doesn't care about NATO, he doesn't care about Europe and he has much more in common with dictators politically than a Kamala or Biden type politician.

If Russia gain anything at all from this attack it will embolden them in the future to do even more damage and Soviet empire building.

Equally with China, what sort of message does throwing Ukraine under the bus give to them? They will be straight into Taiwan knowing it will split NATO and the US down the middle.

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Trump did not start any new wars during his presidency from 2016 to 2020.

No, but he did feed Afghanistan to the dogs.

Trillions of dollars down the drain and Taliban in charge.

That is sheer weakness.

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Why do you think Trump "is not out for you (me)."?

Because he's a convicted felon on genuine (non-conspiratorial) fraud charges, who has a show-business flair for being an authentic con-artist, unburdened by any sort of moral complexity or nuanced world view, at the same time as being a refreshing antidote to the traditional career politician who we blame for all the lack of progress and bad governance.

And he is willing to use tariffs to bully the world's second largest economy, which means he is willing to play Russian roulette with the price of your food and your job.

His interests come first.

America first is only a con trick.

It's Trump first.

8 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Why do you think Trump "is not out for anybody but himself and his racist rich friends."?

He does have a lot of racist rich friends.

I'd have thought this would be pretty obvious?

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

On the contrary, ceding Ukrainian to Russia as Trump will almost certainly do, will serve as a signal to China that the international community is allowing forced annexation of other countries and embolden them to crush Taiwan.

This is certainly what will happen, and then we're really at the midnight hour as far as nuclear war or apocalypse go.

China have been training their troops for years on the invasion, even so far as with replica Taipei streets built in military complexes around the country.

Trump won't want the US involved in a defence of Taiwan, he won't want to pay for it.

America first... Except in this case it will destroy America's AI and tech capabilities to lose TSMC and Taiwanese + Chinese manufacturing, and inflation will probably be up in the 50% region within 6 months.

Trump could do what he and his Fox TV talk show host military commander deem to be a deterrent in place... Likely tariffs on Chinese imports.

This only makes it even more likely a war will occur as the very productive economic partnership between China and the US is currently pretty much the only deterrent to war.

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

And like how he encouraged Iran to restart their nuclear program by ending the program that prevented it?  Yeah, the guy's a real fucking winner.

Indeed... It was all being dealt with diplomatically for years and he drove a horse and cart through it all, and let's not forget Trump put the Taliban back in charge in Afghanistan.

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Quite literally everything the guy has done in his entire goddamn life.  That includes fraudulent businesses, fraudulent charities, 34 felony convictions, a long history of refusing to pay contractors to force them to settle for less money, sending covid testing equipment to Russia when the US didn't have enough, the attempted implementation of schedule f, the upcoming implementation of project 2025, choosing a series of dangerously unqualified idiots for his cabinet positions, and just about anything else you want to name.

He lacks the IQ to win.

All of his winner persona is fake.

It's all showbusiness, no substance.

[Ilkka Nissila]

In Trump's first term, Americans generally felt they were better off financially. On the other hand, Trump had promised to cut down on the federal spending and yet he increased the federal debt dramatically even before COVID-19. The pandemic lead to pumping money into the economy with subsidies and this lead to subsequent inflation which was witnessed during Biden's presidency. However, the inflation rate has been declining towards the end of Biden's term and the increase of federal debt was slowing, so things seem to be moving towards a better foundation. Trump again promises to cut down on government with Musk's help. He also says he will end inflation and bring industry back to the US by using heavy tariffs on imports. 23 Nobel laureates in economics say that Trump's policies will increase inflation. This is where the con is: he will not help the ordinary American to have better purchasing power by applying these (counterproductive) policies. On the other hand, Trump may not actually implement what he said he would. He didn't make Mexico pay for the wall, either. 

I saw a documentary series by a Finnish journalist traveling through the US and talking about the reported division in the country with regular Americans. It seemed a lot of people there believed that Trump would help ordinary people be economically better off. Trump claimed that China will pay for the tariffs but that's not how tariffs work: the consumers pay them in increased prices. There is no easy way out of this, and it seems unlikely that ordinary people would be happy to pay for goods the prices that American-made products would cost (in many cases). America doesn't have the trained workforce to replace Chinese imports by made in the US products, neither will the Americans be happy to experience return of industrial pollution on a massive scale. One another policy that will increase the prices that Americans pay is deporting illegals. They are responsible for a large part of the workforce and typically they are hungry and willing to work hard for less money than born-in-the-US Americans. Thus if the illegals are removed, agricultural and other products will become more expensive. So, the rich will be better off (because of tax cuts for the rich), but the poor and middle class will be worse off economically because they do not have the buffer to take the price increases. People were told these things but they didn't believe it. 

 

I am constantly surprised why Americans think their "national security" and "freedom" are somehow threatened. US is the most powerful country militarily and economically and is not threatened by anyone. However, the US is very important for European security as the post-WWII security framework is based on US presence in Europe. Why this was implemented is simple: European countries have a history of starting wars with each other that lead to world wars where tens of millions of people die. By outsourcing security to the US, a lack of (hot) war has been maintained in most of Europe for nearly 80 years. This is an amazing achievement. US military and economic presence has prevented France, UK, Germany and Russia from having another go at each other. I think Europeans are very grateful for this and hope the policy can continue.

 

I doubt Trump will really have power to change US foreign policy in a major way. This is largely controlled by the establishment and even though Trump is rich and soon a second time president, he is not a career politician or part of the establishment. And he will not have the power to change major foreign policies. Musk and Trump will try to take down the establishment but they will most likely fail because neither of them have an intimate understanding of how the country works as they are not career politicians nor did they study a relevant field. However, I do expect a lot of chaos in the US for the next 4-5 years.

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

I doubt Trump will really have power to change US foreign policy in a major way. This is largely controlled by the establishment and even though Trump is rich and soon a second time president, he is not a career politician or part of the establishment. And he will not have the power to change major foreign policies. Musk and Trump will try to take down the establishment but they will most likely fail because neither of them have an intimate understanding of how the country works as they are not career politicians nor did they study a relevant field. However, I do expect a lot of chaos in the US for the next 4-5 years.

One can hope that you're right, but Trump's handlers are a lot smarter and more powerful than he is.  For many things, he's basically a useful idiot for the far right.  For instance, he did not write Project 2025 and probably had very little to do with it.  Yet, he's already announced that he'll be appointing many of its authors and architects to positions of power over their areas of interest.

Project 2025 specifically calls for transformation of NATO and insists that allies should be self-sufficient in defending against Russia. And even if Trump (theoretically) doesn't have the power to unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO, he does have full control of the military and could refuse to engage them if Europe requested help.  Even the guardrails on NATO withdrawal aren't guarantees, given that our Supreme court is now packed with right-wing partisans - and they'd be the tiebreaking vote in a showdown between the executive and legislative branches.

[Andrew Reid]

With control of the entire judicial system from the top down, Trump could end democracy and he's already given himself criminal immunity.

The clever thing is that he has convinced a lot of Americans that the "other side" are the real threat to democracy.

I've lived through similar in the UK. We had a right-wing government promising all sorts of things like reduced immigration and a better economy and they never delivered. The only thing they were effective at was adding zeros to the end of their own bank balances.

I know that Biden's term hasn't been easy for people but there was a global pandemic for petes sake.

Had Trump not lost in 2020 he would be taking the blame for that now, and not Biden.

When he lost in 2020 he gave the reputation of democracy a good kicking, for good measure. As a result many of his voters don't even trust the same process they used themselves last week which gave rise to their voice electing President Trump.

If Trump believes so firmly that US democracy is corrupt and the votes rigged, he would be whining about it all the time and not only when he's losing.

Project 2025, ending democracy, stitching up the justice system, removing checks and balances, abolishing department of education, destroying people's trust in gov. institutions and the courts, enabling Communist Russia and China to do as they please to the rest of the world is serious shit.

And we have barely scraped the surface of the shit!

Look at the character of those around him... Some of them are truly monsters. I think the people who voted for him did so for a variety of reasons... Some liberals believe that a majority of them did so out of sexism and racism. I don't believe that. I think undecided voters and swing state voters had good economic reasons to want change, and a change of government, but struggling people no matter where they are or who they are, are much more susceptible to con tricks and their critical thinking goes out the window in a social media age of mass rumour, misinformation and hysteria.

They believe the wrong stuff but think that the other side is equally as wrong.

As usual the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle and I dislike the extreme right / extreme left viewpoint, it is not the way to have a unified nation.

Believe me I don't just watch the mainstream news and see the US from the outside - I am living the same shit in the UK, we are the same kind of society with the same kind of two party politics and the same interference from Russia, the same hybrid warfare and same problems brought about by globalisation, technology and social media.

Good luck to US democracy you will need it, and good luck to the rest of us who are living ever closer to a time of world war or potential nuclear war.

[IronFilm]

Has anybody got a link to what Żydowicz wrote? I can't find it on their website, or anywhere else: 

https://www.cinematography.world/?s=Żydowicz

Seems utterly pointless for these people to try and beat up some kind of controversy over what Żydowicz wrote if nobody can actually read for themselves what he said. 

[IronFilm]

 

On 11/16/2024 at 12:41 PM, majoraxis said:

does not make them conservatives or right wingers. Many of them simply voted against Harris

Let's not forget that many of these most prominent people who were on the other side to Kamala Harris and the Democrat Machine were people who had for most of their lives been Democrats (or at the very least liberal / Democrat leaning / voting), until that is the Democrats lurched to the extreme left, and left them behind: Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Elon Musk, Dave Rubin, etc

For all of these people to have called them "conservatives or right wingers" would have been flat out wrong for most of their lives. 

https://theconversation.com/the-intellectual-dark-web-just-won-the-election-meet-the-coalition-of-joe-rogan-rfk-jr-tulsi-gabbard-and-elon-musk-243380 

On 11/17/2024 at 12:03 AM, Andrew Reid said:

The stock market has already fallen

The Dow Jones is still up a massive two thousand points since the election (nearly five percent)

16 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Based on the poll data below, it seems to indicate that on at least two key issues: the economy and national security, voters thought Trump would do a better job than Harris. 

Let's not forget that democracy was also an issue too, and on this point the exit polling showed that Trump was beating Harris as the better candidate for people who cared about democracy:

Honestly this shouldn't be too surprising when you look at how the Biden Administration behaved over the last four years, and when you consider the palace coup which took place to put in place Kamala Harris, and how the Democrat Machine just totally ignored the will of their own voters in mattering in the process. 

16 hours ago, majoraxis said:

According to a Gallup survey published on November 1, 2024

Exit polls are much more accurate than polling done prior to an election, which is why I was referring to that in my prior comment. 

 

16 hours ago, majoraxis said:

Trump did not start any new wars during his presidency from 2016 to 2020. I can't imagine Harris doing as well when negotiating with Putin or Xi Jinping as Trump has, and I hope, will.

People forget how unusual it was what Trump did! He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to not start a new war! Hopefully the next four years will in this particular matter, be the same as his first term of presidency.

USA has been so eager to jump into new wars for so long, hopefully this is another trend that Trump can break, and maybe even end. Perhaps if after Trump's presidency if we can get elected someone such as say Tulsi Gabbard perhaps, then we could see another four years then eight year added on top of there being "no new wars". And we could see created a new normal, of USA not going to war every other second. 

A lack of new wars would also go a long way towards drying up new funding towards the military industrial complex.

16 hours ago, majoraxis said:

The US does not need a war with China over Taiwan, so we need to end the war in Ukranie (as Trump is trying to do), so that China won't attack Taiwan thinking that the US can't fight a war on 2 fronts...

THIS. USA has gravely depleted its weapon stocks. USA needs to immediately stop sending hundreds of billions of arms to Ukraine, as all it is accomplishing at the moment is: 1) needlessly perpetuating yet more deaths of Ukrainian men (they truly are trying to take literally the saying "until the last Ukrainian", this is going to be a demographic disaster for post war Ukraine) & 2) running dry USA's own stocks which is putting at risk USA's own security should they need it for themselves.

Although in the long run, the better approach is to onshore more of USA's critically strategic manufacturing. Which has been part of both this administration's plan, and a very major part of the incoming administration's plan as well. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, but he did feed Afghanistan to the dogs.

The terribly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan happened under the Biden Presidency.

6 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

However, the US is very important for European security as the post-WWII security framework is based on US presence in Europe. Why this was implemented is simple: European countries have a history of starting wars with each other that lead to world wars where tens of millions of people die. By outsourcing security to the US, a lack of (hot) war has been maintained in most of Europe for nearly 80 years. This is an amazing achievement.

How much of that was due to "outsourcing security to the USA" vs being due to: 1) having a collective living memory of the recent horrors of WW1 & WW2, with zero desire whatsoever to repeat that under any circumstance 2) having ever close economic ties with each other now within Europe than ever before (the more you're trading with a country, the less likely you wish to go to war and ruin all that prosperity)

6 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

I doubt Trump will really have power to change US foreign policy in a major way. This is largely controlled by the establishment and even though Trump is rich and soon a second time president, he is not a career politician or part of the establishment. And he will not have the power to change major foreign policies. Musk and Trump will try to take down the establishment but they will most likely fail because neither of them have an intimate understanding of how the country works as they are not career politicians nor did they study a relevant field.

Unfortunately true, because no matter who the people elect to represet them in Washington DC, its "the establishment" (the unelected bureaucrats) who hold all the cards. 

5 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

calls for transformation of NATO

NATO primarily existed to oppose the USSR, and the moment The Cold War ended then NATO itself should also have been wound down and abolished. 

But unfortunately many people (such as the John Boltons, Victoria Nulands, and Dick Cheneys of the world) liked The Cold War, and wished that it never ended. And thus did everything in their powers to try and perpetuate The Cold War, to justify their existence and to keep the dollars $$$ rolling into the military industrial complex.

In fact in their wet dreams they don't just want the old Cold War to carry on as a forever war, but they're even happy to see a hot war. 

And in Ukraine they're seeing those wishes play out as they wanted. 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Let's not forget that many of these most prominent people who were on the other side to Kamala Harris and the Democrat Machine were people who had for most of their lives been Democrats (or at the very least liberal / Democrat leaning / voting), until that is the Democrats lurched to the extreme left, and left them behind: Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Elon Musk, Dave Rubin, etc

To describe the Democrat presidential platform as "extreme left" is just plain inane. As a person who is somewhere between extreme left and centrist, I can say that their platform is insufficiently left for me.  My leftist friends hate the Democrats and a number of them describe the party as indistinguishable from Republicans.  Mostly, when people complain about the Democrats swinging too left, it's a warning sign that they're homophobes, given that just about the most "left" thing in the platform is equal treatment protection for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Many of the Democrat candidates who lost their races this time around were actually running on hard-core centrist platforms, denouncing their more left-leaning counterparts in Washington.

FWIW, my Congressperson (Ilhan Omar) is just about as left as any Democrat in congress and in many other countries, she'd be considered only moderately leftist.  

For reference, this is the Democratic party platform for 2024.  It is not a "far left" platform.  I'd describe it as more of a left-of-center populist platform (about what one would expect as a series of compromises in a coalition party encompassing center and left-of-center).  Before you repeat inane right-wing news pablum, please familiarize yourself with it.  

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

To describe the Democrat presidential platform as "extreme left" is just plain inane.

"The data shows Democrats taking a sharp turn leftward on social issues over the past decade. This has distanced them from the median voter. Notably, the shift began in 2016. This suggests that Trump’s election radicalised the left, not the right."

https://www.ft.com/content/73a1836d-0faa-4c84-b973-554e2ca3a227

The data does indeed show there has been a clear swing to the extreme left (but it happened even earlier than 2016), thus why I said that.

It's now the Republicans who are closer to Democrats of the past (such as the era of Bill Clinton) than modern Democrats of 2024 are, who have abandoned what the Democrat Party used to be, leaving that ground instead to only Republicans to claim. 

If Democrats want to win elections again, they should look to reclaim this lost ground they've given away to the Republicans. But it might be a multiyear process to regain the trust of voters (as it's been a decade plus long swing away from the median voters the Democrat Party has been doing, you can't change that overnight), otherwise voters will just suspect politicians are doing what they usually do to voters: lying to them. (take for instance Kamala Harris suddenly trying to be "tough on the border" in the final weeks of the campaign, come on man, nobody is taking her seriously over that! It's just pure political spin, and not what she truly believes, in fact her doing that out of desperation just made her look even less authentic)