Random Politics Thread

[Virtual ghost]

I suspect the option of a comfortable life is the most appealing step down from dictatorship? He doesn't seem like the "if I can't have Russia, then no one can!" type to me. If he starts nuking, surely he knows Russia will get nuked right back.

If his invasion succeeded without any majors consequences, that'd actually make me worry more about him starting to nuke with abandon.

This opinion is based on my many years as an armchair psychologist.

Yeah, but even if he mentally brakes I am not sure that the army would follow through with that order. Especially since the generals would know that he mentally struggles with defeat.
The nuke stuff were mostly said as pressure on negotiations and as a signal that he is not happy with the situation and behaving of others. But pushing him to the very limits probably isn't too wise.

 

[Kephalos]

Yeah, but even if he mentally brakes I am not sure that the army would follow through with that order. Especially since the generals would know that he mentally struggles with defeat.
The nuke stuff were mostly said as pressure on negotiations and as a signal that he is not happy with the situation and behaving of others. But pushing him to the very limits probably isn't too wise.

You don't need to push Putin to the limit. Other countries can, however, push all other Russians (with, say, economic and other kinds of sanctions), for a long time, so that all the other Russians (the ones who are not Putin or the Putinists) themselves will make the whole thing stop, make Putin desist.

Make the situation in Russia so untenable that it ceases and desists -- and make Russia's execution of its war plans as difficult as they can possibly be made from the outside. Maximum pressure on Russia, but most importantly, maximum pressure on the Russians and maximum pressure on Putin's and Russia's supporters as well.

 

[ceecee]

Using Facebook’s Own Data to Understand the Platform’s Role in Jan. 6

A team of reporters from ProPublica and The Washington Post have obtained a unique dataset on Facebook groups, providing the clearest evidence yet that the social platform was an important source of misinformation that led to the Jan. 6 attack.

www.propublica.org

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

To quote twitter:

Lafayette Lee

@Partisan_O
1. Sometimes I can't believe this is the same place grew up in. When I was a kid everybody recited that ancient American catechism: "It's a free country, isn't it?" But I can't remember the last time I heard it. These days it's halfway between a joke and an insult.
2. I miss what it feels like to be free... to not have a pair of eyes on my back and a pair of hands at my throat. I miss the days when I didn't have to remember a thousand lies to appease a thousand enemies who don't even know my name. I miss wild places.

3. Some years ago I worked in Africa and South America. I learned to love the rough-and-tumble nature of those places. Corruption was widespread, petty crime a given, and most people I knew were penniless- but there was also an exhilarating sense of freedom there

4. Authority is haphazard and arbitrary, and it pierces through the chaos at the strangest times- always when you least expect it- a sloppy police officer beats a pickpocket senseless, a swarm of bureaucrats arrive for a shakedown, you don’t have the proper stamp...

5. Order is always lurking somewhere in the chaos- it’s invisible and emanates from a strange cast of characters bound to one another by a million unspoken rules. Everyone knows the rules. And it keeps everything humming along, regardless of what some old parchment says...

6. Sometimes the freedom is so thick you can taste it- and it’s delicious... other times it knocks you down and steals your shirt. Every now and then I’d grow tired of the sweat, flies, noise, and muddle, and dream of hot showers, comfortable beds, and orderly queues

7. I’d want some of that good ole-fashioned American comfort with a side of orderliness. I'd daydream of endless rows of well-manicured lawns in the suburbs...

8. And yet here I am, dreaming of those wild places- Drowning in creature comforts and trying to recall what freedom tastes like. Authority is everywhere here. It stares you in the eye and glares up at you from the palm of your hand

9. Here order is cold, hard, and heavy, and it grips you like a pair of manacles. There is no invisible world. All the rules have been written. But even that doesn’t stop the optimists from pining, nor the elderly from remembering.

10. All the comfort and structure and certainty here came with a price, and it took endless war and a pandemic for the bill to come due. They finally showed us that beneath the endless leaves of parchment, there really wasn’t anything there.

11. But those rough-and-tumble backwaters are still humming along, problems and all- likely the same cast of characters moving and shaking. It will take more than a virus or a foreign war to defeat them- for freedom’s still in the air- maybe the last traces of it on earth.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Just venting: I'm not sure whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep one eye on moronic GOP Twitter, which systematically mistakes the 'tyranny' of cancel culture (and/or simply living amongst others, with all the consequences for one's own actions that that implies) with "oppressive government" and "communism". Somehow absolute retards like MGB, Boebert, Cruz, et al - POSs who rail on about being patriots and loving the Constitution, even though none of them would be able to pass an 8th grade civics exam to save their lives - manage to convince their rabid followers that voting for a mentally deranged authoritarian will give them freedom. From "cancel culture." Which isn't something enforced by government at all, it's a social movement. And one that probably most Democrats are finding tiresome too.

Ignoring them isn't safe because they have a lot of followers (and could result in more attempts to overthrow the government by "people" who literally smear their own shit on the Capital walls). But engaging them while angry - and it takes the patience of a saint to not feel angry - only cements their convictions.

We really need to start testing candidates on their knowledge of the Constitution before allowing them to run for office. And the test needs to be more thorough than the ones we give 8th graders. If lawyers need to pass the Bar exam before interpreting the law, it shouldn't be considered unreasonable to test the people who *make* those laws. (And not just once - they should have to pass it every time they run).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ignoring them isn't safe because they have a lot of followers (and could result in more attempts to overthrow the government by "people" who literally smear their own shit on the Capital walls). But engaging them while angry - and it takes the patience of a saint to not feel angry - only cements their convictions.

Yup.

I think for individual citizens to ignore them might not be so bad; it seems to really bother them because they want to feel like martyrs in a "lost cause".

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yup.

I think for individual citizens to ignore them might not be so bad; it seems to really bother them because they want to feel like martyrs in a "lost cause".

And a lot of them delight in making people angry. Many - if not most - wear their MAGA swag *hoping* it will trigger someone. So you can give an immaculate refutation of something they've claimed, but if you present it in an angry tone then the "mission accomplished" light goes on in their head and the actual content of the discussion is 100% lost on them. (Arguably, actual content is 100% lost on them regardless - but I hold fast to my belief that exposed to correction without any anger enough times would cause some to rethink their position. Idealistic, I know. If only because they'd need to walk through a Buddhist monestary to find enough consecutive interactions without anger.)

 

[ceecee]

This is legislation by Christian fanatics and right wing autocracy.

Mississippi assistant principal fired after reading children's book 'I Need a New Butt!' to second graders

Toby Price says he didn't think twice about reading the "fun, silly book" to second graders, and isn't aware of any complaints from parents. WLBT's Holly Emery reports.

www.nbcnews.com

Missouri Lawmaker Wants to Imprison Those who Facilitate Abortion Meds for Ectopic Pregnancies

The bill's sponsor has also considered backing death penalty sentences for abortion providers.

truthout.org

Idaho bill would make medical treatment for trans youth punishable by life in prison

Idaho’s state House of Representatives has approved the most far-reaching bill yet to criminalize medical treatments for transgender youth, a measure that threatens anyone who facilitates that trea…

thehill.com

Tennessee bill would ban most abortions, allow private residents to sue providers

The legislation mirrors a similar bill Texas passed into law in 2021 which deputized citizens to enforce the law through civil suits.

www.tennessean.com

 

[Red Herring]

I've been wondering for a while...

There is a whole lot of comments underneath internationally read English-language media like The Economist or The Guardian from young men from "non-Western" countries, mainly Africa, especially Nigeria, that are almost exclusively viciously anti-Western and Pro-Russian. Now, I get how they'd be anti-Western (what with a long history of colonialism, exploitation, racism, etc) but is that hatred for anything Western so big they cheer for a (also white) dictator wageing a war of invasion?

I am a bit perplexed. Are these folks for real, is the disconnect between different spheres so large or is this the infamous troll army at work?

 

[Blackmail!]

All three at the same time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I've been wondering for a while...

There is a whole lot of comments underneath internationally read English-language media like The Economist or The Guardian from young men from "non-Western" countries, mainly Africa, especially Nigeria, that are almost exclusively viciously anti-Western and Pro-Russian. Now, I get how they'd be anti-Western (what with a long history of colonialism, exploitation, racism, etc) but is that hatred for anything Western so big they cheer for a (also white) dictator wageing a war of invasion?

I am a bit perplexed. Are these folks for real, is the disconnect between different spheres so large or is this the infamous troll army at work?

There is plenty of combination in this mix. However over the years Russia has build an entire network of supporters around the world that exists mainly on resisting anything that is considered to be liberal. They used social networks as well as their own state media and banks in order to gain supporters around the world. There are paid trolls in this mix for sure but in the end such people can indeed attract people that become genuine supporters. Which then spread the info/agenda further.


If there is one positive thing in the current sanctions that will be that they will cripple this network globally.

 

[Blackmail!]

There is plenty of combination in this mix. However over the years Russia has build an entire network of supporters around the world that exists mainly on resisting anything that is considered to be liberal. They used social networks as well as their own state media and banks in order to gain supporters around the world. There are paid trolls in this mix for sure but in the end such people can indeed attract people that become genuine supporters. Which then spread the info/agenda further.


If there is one positive thing in the current sanctions that will be that they will cripple this network globally.

In France, there is a sudden awareness of the scale of these networks, all financed and helped by the Kremlin, both at the far right and the extreme left, the goal being to weaken our democracies by all means, by both ends.
Their positions more and more untenable in front of the facts, before the recent and tragic reality of the war in Ukraine, allows them to unmask them, to reveal them to the open for what they are really ... finally but a little late.

 

[Blackmail!]

In each country, in each democracy, Putin and the FSB used a different tactic. In the US, they put Trump in place to demolish and weaken the Republican Party ... In Germany, they organized gas dependence as well as exports of fossil energies from Russia. In the United Kingdom, they invested in the entertainment economy and helped Brexit to isolate the country. In France, they financed political parties directly.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In France, there is a sudden awareness of the scale of these networks, all financed and helped by the Kremlin, both at the far right and the extreme left, the goal being to weaken our democracies by all means, by both ends.
Their positions more and more untenable in front of the facts, before the recent and tragic reality of the war in Ukraine, allows them to unmask them, to reveal them to the open for what they are really ... finally but a little late.

In each country, in each democracy, Putin and the FSB used a different tactic. In the US, they put Trump in place to demolish and weaken the Republican Party ... In Germany, they organized gas dependence as well as exports of fossil energies from Russia. In the United Kingdom, they invested in the entertainment economy and helped Brexit. In France, they financed political parties directly.

I agree and to be honest in a way I am actually glad that all of this has happened. Suffering is evident but at least we managed to drag things out in the open, what means that we will probably not be chocked democracy by democracy. Anxiety over these network is there for a while but no one really dared to blow this out in the open for years. So in the end we kinda had the luck that Putin himself has miscalculated and opened the Pandora's box. In other words all of this exploded exactly since the pressure was pilling up for many years.


I mean I am EU citizen so you don't have to explain this to me, for years I am watching democracy getting strangled by events and groups that can't really be pinpointed. It is evident that something is wrong and there is constant drama, but it is hard to find exact source. But all of this isn't a coincidence, the scale is too big and there is just way too many "weird" posts/pages on the internet. Also the other day I passed near the local HQ of what was Russian bank and the place is getting redecorated, since the place has a new owner. What is because the sanctions have fried the whole bank to the point that is can't function (the bank was involved in various fishy stuff and with local pro-russian politicians). So what the media are saying isn't just a show, the sanctions are doing their share of the job. I mean all of this is indeed nasty but at least clarity has gone up. What is decent start.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In each country, in each democracy, Putin and the FSB used a different tactic. In the US, they put Trump in place to demolish and weaken the Republican Party ... In Germany, they organized gas dependence as well as exports of fossil energies from Russia. In the United Kingdom, they invested in the entertainment economy and helped Brexit to isolate the country. In France, they financed political parties directly.

Trump didn't really demolish the Republican party. Rather, he knew what the majority of Republican voters wanted (which was not a form of conservatism that was willing to, albeit slowly) evolve with the times which the mainstream GOP seemed to be inching towards), and played to that. Trump represents the "mask off" that shows what Republican voters actually value (which I always suspected was the case, but I had a lot of "very informed" "experienced" people [who never saw 2016 coming] telling me the opposite for decades). I never got how Trump was supposed to destroy the Republican party when he just says all the things most Republicans I've talked to seem to believe. Most Republicans are not like the college buddies of liberal commentators who they like despite being a Republican. They are far closer to Trump in terms of attitudes (well, his professed attitudes, anyway), which is why the cult of Trump eclipsed the cult of Dubya before that.

He also attracted a certain subset of people who were white and working class with only a high school education and somewhat understandably bitter about their position; in 2016 he benefitted from the fact that Hillary's entire campaign was... "hey, if you elect me, you're going to get more of the same". She ought to have learned from her primary battle and try do do more to appeal to the Democratic base to get them to turn out (which Biden did, thankfully), but her entire general election campaign followed the John Kerry playbook of appealing to "moderate Republicans" of which there aren't that many.

I know this is not really the narrative that has been pushed but I probably have had more personal contact with people who have gotten on board the Trump train then the people writing op-eds in the New York Times or whatever. The caricature they embrace of Republicans as snooty upper-crust types who care a great deal about decorum, acting respectfully, and preserving institutions, is not an accurate picture of the rank and file of the Republican party. It's mostly a combination of religious fundamentalists, upper/upper-middle class people who enjoy being pricks despite having everything handed to them, rural types, and white dudes without a college degree at various levels of the socioeconomic spectrum, these aren't the sort of people who care about "gentlemanly" behavior). I have a certain level of sympathy for some of those folks depending on their social position; people with high socioeconomic status who possess a malicious streak towards anyone like them while professing to love this country can fuck right off, though. Those folks have no excuse.

I do apologize about this, but I find myself very puzzled by the idea that Donald Trump somehow destroyed the Republican Party rather than embodied it, and I really do have to conclude that the people who came up with this meme don't know what the average Republican voter is actually like.

In November we'll all get to see whether he weakened it or not.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Trump didn't really demolish the Republican party. Rather, he knew what the majority of Republican voters wanted (which was not a form of conservatism that was willing to, albeit slowly) evolve with the times which the mainstream GOP seemed to be inching towards), and played to that. Trump represents the "mask off" that shows what Republican voters actually value (which I always suspected was the case, but I had a lot of "very informed" "experienced" people [who never saw 2016 coming] telling me the opposite for decades). I never got how Trump was supposed to destroy the Republican party when he just says all the things most Republicans I've talked to seem to believe. Most Republicans are not like the college buddies of liberal commentators who they like despite being a Republican. They are far closer to Trump in terms of attitudes (well, his professed attitudes, anyway), which is why the cult of Trump eclipsed the cult of Dubya before that.

He also attracted a certain subset of people who were white and working class with only a high school education and somewhat understandably bitter about their position; in 2016 he benefitted from the fact that Hillary's entire campaign was... "hey, if you elect me, you're going to get more of the same". She ought to have learned from her primary battle and try do do more to appeal to the Democratic base to get them to turn out (which Biden did, thankfully), but her entire general election campaign followed the John Kerry playbook of appealing to "moderate Republicans" of which there aren't that many.

I know this is not really the narrative that has been pushed but I probably have had more personal contact with people who have gotten on board the Trump train then the people writing op-eds in the New York Times or whatever. The caricature of Republicans as snooty upper-crust types who care a great deal about decorum that they embrace is not an accurate picture of the rank and file of the Republican party. It's mostly a combination of religious fundamentalists, rural types, and white dudes without a college degree at various levels of the socioeconomic spectrum, these aren't the sort of people who care about "gentlemanly" behavior).

I do apologize about I find myself very puzzled by the idea that Donald Trump somehow destroyed the Republican Party rather than embodied it, and I really do have to conclude that the people who came up with this meme don't know what the average Republican voter is actually like.

In November we'll all get to see whether he weakened it or not.

To be honest I don't fully agree here. You are right that Trump was some kind of a logical continuation of where the party was sinking anyway, but that doesn't mean he can't destroy the party. In my book he has blown up a few things in a way that this was really his work. His attack on NATO for example has huge geopolitical consequences. What cost the party abroad quite a bit. The other countries have conservative parties as well and this was like WTF. He also lowered the level of public debate even further than it already was in the party. He ran so high deficits that you can't really call this financially responsible (and here he kinda pushed plenty of business people to the democrats or out of the picture). Him shitting on McCain and similar people also wasn't that good for the party as a democratic organization of citizens. Plus the riot at the end ..... etc etc.


So in a way he destroyed the remaining dignity that as a concept is vital for having a genuine conservative party. Therefore in that sense he really has sunk the party for quite a few levels. What is to such a degree that it is really questionable if the things would go this far without him. What means that he wrecked the party even if he didn't truly destroyed it to the point of ending.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To be honest I don't fully agree here. You are right that Trump was some kind of a logical continuation of where the party was sinking anyway, but that doesn't mean he can't destroy the party. In my book he has blown up a few things in a way that this was really his work. His attack on NATO for example has huge geopolitical consequences. What cost the party abroad quite a bit. The other countries have conservative parties as well and this was like WTF. He also lowered the level of public debate even further than it already was in the party. He ran so high deficits that you can't really call this financially responsible (and here he kinda pushed plenty of business people to the democrats or out of the picture). Him shitting on McCain and similar people also wasn't that good for the party as a democratic organization of citizens. Plus the riot at the end ..... etc etc.


So in a way he destroyed the remaining dignity that as a concept is vital for having a genuine conservative party. Therefore in that sense he really has sunk the party for quite a few levels. What is to such a degree that it is really questionable if the things would go this far without him. What means that he wrecked the party even if he didn't truly destroyed it to the point of ending.

I suppose, but I consider it a rather meaningless statement unless this means that the Republican party actually loses votes because of this.

This is why I consider 2022 a test as to whether he really "destroyed" anything. If Republicans win in a landslide, and they win by following his playbook and catering to him, the destruction is purely symbolic and thus not worth fixating on to the degree that people have. If they underperform (so even if they win but far less than is usual in this situation), then yes, it might be meaningful to conclude that he "destroyed" the Republican party.

I think the jury is still out. The Republican party was supposed to be "dead" in 2008, how did that pan out? One presidential election is really insufficient to determine anything.

It is interesting that redistricting has favored them less than predicted, however. That may mean something. But the data isn't in yet. I don't think people should use the word "destroy" to refer to some kind of symbolic act that could very well be meaningless in terms of results or the actual direction of this country. I see no point in doing that.

 

[Red Herring]

I'd say he destroyed the Republican party in the sense that the GOP is now fully unable to fulfill the function it would have to fulfill in a better, more ideal world. In a functioning democracy and civil society you should have a large number of organized moderate conservatives (as well as several other political forces, obviously). The civil, moderate conservatives have to outnumber the radical tear-everything-down fanatics and semi-fascists or the whole system blows to pieces. The trend preceded Trump (in fact he is likely a product of it) but he speeded it up and is more or less the official face of it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I suppose, but I consider it a rather meaningless statement unless this means that the Republican party actually loses votes because of this.

This is why I consider 2022 a test as to whether he really "destroyed" anything. If Republicans win in a landslide, and they win by following his playbook and catering to him, the destruction is purely symbolic and thus not worth fixating on to the degree that people have. If they underperform (so even if they win but far less than is usual in this situation), then yes, it might be meaningful to conclude that he "destroyed" the Republican party.

I think the jury is still out. The Republican party was supposed to be "dead" in 2008, how did that pan out? One presidential election is really insufficient to determine anything.

It is interesting that redistricting has favored them less than predicted, however. That may mean something. But the data isn't in yet. I don't think people should use the word "destroy" to refer to some kind of symbolic act that could very well be meaningless in terms of results or the actual direction of this country. I see no point in doing that.

Well for me destroying the party in US means that you made a mess out of it and destroyed the values. Since in two party system you can't really destroy a party. You can make it less popular but not really destroy it in the sense that it is truly gone. Kinda what the Herring said. The point of the party is simply lost.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well for me destroying the party in US means that you made a mess out of it and destroyed the values. Since in two party system you can't really destroy a party. You can make it less popular but not really destroy it in the sense that it is truly gone. Kinda what the Herring said. The point of the party is simply lost.

I think the values were always kind of a fake front, which we can see by how easily they got abandoned.

We don't know that he made it less popular.

As the only in this situation who actually knows people that voted for Trump (some of whom have been committed Republicans for a long time), I just feel that this analysis of Trump "destroying" the Republican party is based on a theoretical understanding of what American conservatism before Trump was that didn't actually reflect most of the rank-and-file. Most Republicans aren't David Brooks.

I guess I find the idea that Donald Trump destroyed America an easier sell than "Donald Trump destroyed the Republican party". He didn't really do anything that wasn't what the GOP rank-and-file wanted, which is why they loved him. To me it seems like people are operating off of a different understanding of what the GOP was before Trump than me. Trump's success in the GOP isn't really as shocking if one has proper context; I find that it was ultimately the liberal-centrist pundits who got the GOP wrong by thinking that it was an organization with any kind of principles and who still expect to this day that those principles are going to re-emerge in the GOP. (it would really depend on what happens in November and whether or not there is a political benefit to adhering to some kind of principles.)

I think it's more likely that these so-called conservative principles have been dead for a long time, way before Trump, if they ever existed. I suppose one could make an argument George H.W. Bush was legitimately committed to say, balancing the budget by *gasp* raising taxes because that was the only way to do so. But that was 30 years ago at this point. His son didn't really care about such things.