Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

Here is even more:


German defense minister slams Trump-Putin partial ceasefire deal

The shit show is back on in Gaza too. Trump's capability as a peace maker appears to be as laughable as Trump's capabilities in everything (outside of hucksterism which he excels at).

 

[The Cat]

Indentured Servitude is back.
​

 

[Virtual ghost]

The shit show is back on in Gaza too. Trump's capability as a peace maker appears to be as laughable as Trump's capabilities in everything (outside of hucksterism which he excels at).

The world will eventually find some kinda of a new equilibrium, however people inside US will probably get wrecked completely.

US updates: Trump orders closure of Department of Education

 

[Red Herring]

It will take a long time. It took Germany 12 years to get rid of their fascists, and they were helped by the allied powers fighting back. There is plenty of grassroots opposition here, but it needs effective leadership to become galvanized into something effective. Good leaders like Bernie Sanders, Tim Walz and Pete Buttigieg are travelling the country encouraging progressives and reaching out to the skeptical. We shall see what comes of the efforts of folks like that.

That is a very benevolent and generous summary of German history. The general consensus in Germany is that we were forcefully denazified and set up to found a liberal democracy (rather like being obducted into rehab and forced to go cold turkey). Who knows how things would have gone if Germany had been defeated less overwhelmingly or been left to its own devices.

Decent Americans will have Canada, Europe and the rest of the "free world" cheering them on from a distance, but there will be no defeat from the outside, no occupation and no Mashall plan. It will all have to come from the inside, I'm afraid.

 

[Red Herring]

Germany warns its travelers about US border crackdown under Trump

For context (mainly for our American friends here):

- It is not just about Germany. I have read similar reports from Canada, France and the UK.
- It is not just about people being deported for minor irregularties. In some cases no reason was given at all and ... U.S. Turned Away French Scientist Over Views on Trump Policies, France Says
- It is not just about these people being deported or denied entry - the US is free to make those decisions - it is about how they were treated. Europeans tend to be appalled by the conditions in American prisons and keeping tourists in a jail cell in shackles under conditions that would not be legal in Europe, in some cases for weeks on end and with no communication with a lawyer or theor embassy, because of visa issues is, well, questionable at best.

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[Virtual ghost]

That is a very benevolent and generous summary of German history. The general consensus in Germany is that we were forcefully denazified and set up to found a liberal democracy (rather like being obducted into rehab and forced to go cold turkey). Who knows how things would have gone if Germany had been defeated less overwhelmingly or been left to its own devices.

Decent Americans will have Canada, Europe and the rest of the "free world" cheering them on from a distance, but there will be no defeat from the outside, no occupation and no Mashall plan. It will all have to come from the inside, I'm afraid.

I think you are underestimating the concepts such as "trade wars" and "stealing of friends". Those two can pretty quickly become major factors in what is going on.

Plus when it come to Canada or Mexico, things might actually get physical if things go far enough. I suppose the same can be said about Greenland.


We are living in the world where all bets are off and we can only guess what will be a month from now.

 

[ygolo]

That is a very benevolent and generous summary of German history. The general consensus in Germany is that we were forcefully denazified and set up to found a liberal democracy (rather like being obducted into rehab and forced to go cold turkey). Who knows how things would have gone if Germany had been defeated less overwhelmingly or been left to its own devices.

Decent Americans will have Canada, Europe and the rest of the "free world" cheering them on from a distance, but there will be no defeat from the outside, no occupation and no Mashall plan. It will all have to come from the inside, I'm afraid.

What's troubleling me is a lot of poling data (that jives with my own conversations) shows that internally, the plurality of decided people (far from the majority) still prefers the chaos Trump to the Democratic Party.

Whether economically for markets or government run services or in between (my interpretation of right, left, or center) there are common threads:
1) Ideally have all people share in prosperity, especially the poor and working class.
2) Whether private or government services, have what's delivered to them be effective, and if possible cost-effective.

By the numbers (which match my own conversations), they don't trust the Trump administration to do these things, but they trust the Democrats even less.

 

[Coriolis]

That is a very benevolent and generous summary of German history. The general consensus in Germany is that we were forcefully denazified and set up to found a liberal democracy (rather like being obducted into rehab and forced to go cold turkey). Who knows how things would have gone if Germany had been defeated less overwhelmingly or been left to its own devices.

Decent Americans will have Canada, Europe and the rest of the "free world" cheering them on from a distance, but there will be no defeat from the outside, no occupation and no Mashall plan. It will all have to come from the inside, I'm afraid.

I can see how Germans would view things differently, growing up in the midst of the fallout. I have always had huge respect for Germany, not only because of how it has, mostly (at least in the eyes of an outsider) owned up to its troubled past, but also its patience and commitment regarding reunification. I hope the US does as well in wrestling with our own troubles and demons.

Yes, we won't have any foreign invasion, but I hope we can rely on "help" from outside nations, in the form of their absolute refusal to appease our current government. They need to be very hard on us. The American people may not deserve that, but our government certainly does, and it will take more ordinary Trump-supporting citizens suffering under the fallout for us to "throw the bums out", one way or another. So: bring on the retaliatory tariffs, the boycotts, the lawsuits, the travel warnings, the cancelled sporting events and cultural exchanges, and whatever else. If the US wants to be treated as a friend and ally on the world stage, it has to act like one. I hope before too much longer, we will again.

 

[SensEye]

By the numbers (which match my own conversations), they don't trust the Trump administration to do these things, but they trust the Democrats even less.

This is part of the reason I have been ranting about the Democrats incompetence for some time now. From senile Biden to DEI Harris and old fossils Pelosi and Schumer the Democrats just refuse to come up with an even remotely palatable alternative. They have created the perfect storm where Trump can come out ahead. And there is no sign of that changing.

Heir apparent Newsome's recent flip flopping on woke issues just shows he is another amoral political opportunist who goes whichever way the wind is blowing. Buttigieg I have not formed an opinion on yet, but when Trump is the alternative, must America chose now to try and break the sexual orientation barrier? Can that not wait until Trump is gone?

 

[ygolo]

This is part of the reason I have been ranting about the Democrats incompetence for some time now. From senile Biden to DEI Harris and old fossils Pelosi and Schumer the Democrats just refuse to come up with an even remotely palatable alternative. They have created the perfect storm where Trump can come out ahead. And there is no sign of that changing.

Heir apparent Newsome's recent flip flopping on woke issues just shows he is another amoral political opportunist who goes whichever way the wind is blowing. Buttigieg I have not formed an opinion on yet, but when Trump is the alternative, must America chose now to try and break the sexual orientation barrier? Can that not wait until Trump is gone?

Regarding DEI: How can anyone be against inclusion? I think diversity is an essential part of more robust and competent groups. The reason is the same as why the wisdom of crowds works and why biodiversity keeps an ecosystem healthier. I don't believe Harris was a DEI candidate, either. I think someone started a whole thread about equity.

I don't want to rehash those arguments. The only potentially legitimate issue is the creation of an administrative apparatus that took more resources than the people it purports to help. Even there, the people hired into those roles are people, too. Having their lives ripped up over an ideology will not end well. If there is a theme for the politically active, it should be that one.

People don't appreciate their lives or livelihoods taken or put under threat for a mere ideology--even if their ideology is as precious as Democracy. I have been told this since I became more politically active. I am part of the problem. This is hard because I cannot make myself care less. I don't want to be politically active. I have had life-altering health issues that made me unable to have much energy and made a lot of daily tasks much harder than they used to be. But I also feel like if I don't at least form my conclusions about what is going on politically, I will be unable to navigate it.

Everyone has their bubble that they live in, and I tend to be in one that is heavily immigrant-based. The age range is high. My most regular work colleagues are much older. Of the two people I collaborate with directly, one is Iranian, and the other is Israeli. But in my regular social groups, I am usually the oldest, with one exception occasionally. The polling data shows that immigrants have made a strong and almost permanent move away from the Democrats. Young people are doing the same. Both these polls reflect reality in my lived experience as well. To give color to the polling data that has a bipolar nature. The movement is away from the Democrats, not toward Trump. However, the less politically active they are, if forced to choose, the more likely they will select Trump (again, polls match lived experience--it's a vibe in terms of lived experience. There is a feeling of wanting to take revenge.) We're having our own "let the madman work" moment.

Luckily, I see a silver lining. I think there is a remarkable grassroots consensus on two problems:
1) wealth inequality and lack of shared prosperity as a problem
2) ineffective government - they generally hate the way DOGE is happening but believe something should be done

Also, people point out a pair of parallel issues about the politically active being the problem:
1) The right likes to break the government and complain about a broken government
2) The left likes to break markets and complain about broken markets

These are my own words. Maybe I am "theory-washing, " but I believe I empathize with my social group.

Edit: I realize I didn't comment on particular candidates after quoting you. Right now, I don't think political strategizing is as helpful as trying to figure out substantively what I believe would be the best path forward. The actual elections are too far away. I think some "soul searching" is in order.

 

[Coriolis]

Regarding DEI: How can anyone be against inclusion? I think diversity is an essential part of more robust and competent groups. The reason is the same as why the wisdom of crowds works and why biodiversity keeps an ecosystem healthier. I don't believe Harris was a DEI candidate, either. I think someone started a whole thread about equity.

I don't want to rehash those arguments. The only potentially legitimate issue is the creation of an administrative apparatus that took more resources than the people it purports to help. Even there, the people hired into those roles are people, too. Having their lives ripped up over an ideology will not end well. If there is a theme for the politically active, it should be that one.

People don't appreciate their lives or livelihoods taken or put under threat for a mere ideology--even if their ideology is as precious as Democracy. I have been told this since I became more politically active. I am part of the problem. This is hard because I cannot make myself care less. I don't want to be politically active. I have had life-altering health issues that made me unable to have much energy and made a lot of daily tasks much harder than they used to be. But I also feel like if I don't at least form my conclusions about what is going on politically, I will be unable to navigate it.

Everyone has their bubble that they live in, and I tend to be in one that is heavily immigrant-based. The age range is high. My most regular work colleagues are much older. Of the two people I collaborate with directly, one is Iranian, and the other is Israeli. But in my regular social groups, I am usually the oldest, with one exception occasionally. The polling data shows that immigrants have made a strong and almost permanent move away from the Democrats. Young people are doing the same. Both these polls reflect reality in my lived experience as well. To give color to the polling data that has a bipolar nature. The movement is away from the Democrats, not toward Trump. However, the less politically active they are, if forced to choose, the more likely they will select Trump (again, polls match lived experience--it's a vibe in terms of lived experience. There is a feeling of wanting to take revenge.) We're having our own "let the madman work" moment.

Luckily, I see a silver lining. I think there is a remarkable grassroots consensus on two problems:
1) wealth inequality and lack of shared prosperity as a problem
2) ineffective government - they generally hate the way DOGE is happening but believe something should be done

Also, people point out a pair of parallel issues about the politically active being the problem:
1) The right likes to break the government and complain about a broken government
2) The left likes to break markets and complain about broken markets

These are my own words. Maybe I am "theory-washing, " but I believe I empathize with my social group.

Edit: I realize I didn't comment on particular candidates after quoting you. Right now, I don't think political strategizing is as helpful as trying to figure out substantively what I believe would be the best path forward. The actual elections are too far away. I think some "soul searching" is in order.

I agree with your assessment of the two problems, although "DOGE" activity is showing just how effective the government has long been for so many people. As the saying goes, sometimes you don't appreciate something until it is gone. As more people, including more who support(ed) Trump, are impacted, this realization will spread. Income inequality is the main problem, something Democrats have been pointing out for decades, though with ineffective and often timid responses. Yes, inclusion is the right approach from a moral and economic standpoint. While many who oppose it may actually believe whites, and men and straights/cis and Christians really are better than everyone else, I see it mainly as a tool to divide and conquer the many who have far less than the few at the top. This is why Trumpers are clinging for dear life to their bigoted policies, and why it is so important for the rest of us to see beyond them, recognize our common struggle, and focus on the real problems, starting with income inequality which drives inequality of opportunity.

I would like to hear more about how you think "the left likes to break markets". If anything, I have seen progressives too wedded to economic gains and indicators, at the expense of the rest of their agenda. The right thing is not always the cheapest, any more than the taxpayer always gets the best value when government agencies buy from the lowest bidder. Progressives' stated goals include putting more money into the hands of ordinary folks through higher wages, expanding education options so people can get good jobs, and regulating business for fairness and safety, all of which should be good for the marketplace. You can certainly argue that their approach to doing so has not always been effective, though at times it has (see the CFPB).

As for Harris and Buttigieg: the latter's sexuality should be a complete non-issue in his political future. People should vote for or against him based on what he wants to do for the country. He brings value to the progressive movement as someone who can talk to conservatives and populists in a way that they actually listen. Harris can hardly be dismissed as a DEI candidate. One might disagree with her priorities or approach to this or that, but her resume is at least as strong as many who have held the office of president. If she were a white man, she would fit in with all the rest.

 

[ygolo]

I agree with your assessment of the two problems, although "DOGE" activity is showing just how effective the government has long been for so many people. As the saying goes, sometimes you don't appreciate something until it is gone. As more people, including more who support(ed) Trump, are impacted, this realization will spread. Income inequality is the main problem, something Democrats have been pointing out for decades, though with ineffective and often timid responses. Yes, inclusion is the right approach from a moral and economic standpoint. While many who oppose it may actually believe whites, and men and straights/cis and Christians really are better than everyone else, I see it mainly as a tool to divide and conquer the many who have far less than the few at the top. This is why Trumpers are clinging for dear life to their bigoted policies, and why it is so important for the rest of us to see beyond them, recognize our common struggle, and focus on the real problems, starting with income inequality which drives inequality of opportunity.

I would like to hear more about how you think "the left likes to break markets". If anything, I have seen progressives too wedded to economic gains and indicators, at the expense of the rest of their agenda. The right thing is not always the cheapest, any more than the taxpayer always gets the best value when government agencies buy from the lowest bidder. Progressives' stated goals include putting more money into the hands of ordinary folks through higher wages, expanding education options so people can get good jobs, and regulating business for fairness and safety, all of which should be good for the marketplace. You can certainly argue that their approach to doing so has not always been effective, though at times it has (see the CFPB).

As for Harris and Buttigieg: the latter's sexuality should be a complete non-issue in his political future. People should vote for or against him based on what he wants to do for the country. He brings value to the progressive movement as someone who can talk to conservatives and populists in a way that they actually listen. Harris can hardly be dismissed as a DEI candidate. One might disagree with her priorities or approach to this or that, but her resume is at least as strong as many who have held the office of president. If she were a white man, she would fit in with all the rest.

The housing market, in particular, was broken by the left—the NYMBY wing of the left in particular.

I realize that the forum has kinda changed into a group of blog-like threads and some interaction ones, so I can post some:
The latest:

Stop criminalizing upward mobility

There are several strains of thought coming together for this thread. First, the long standing issues with housing: https://www.typologycentral.com/threads/moral-imperative-for-a-housing-crash-and-permanent-devaluation.115441/post-3410898 Second, the sides of the left that are finally...

www.typologycentral.com

But when I talk about breaking markets in places that affect my livelihood:

Supporting Little Tech is the Practical Way to Deal with Big Tech

Imagine if, during the Luddite rebellion, instead of skilled laborers breaking the machines, we had newsboys who came around and beat up the skilled laborers instead. Imagine if, instead of passing regulations to help the "little guy" in an industry, you passed regulations to solidify the...

www.typologycentral.com

The CHIPS and Science Act, Moore's Law and other political acknowledgements of the importance of research for human progress

One of the things that has been an underlying force for a lot of the innovation we have seen for about the last 60 years is Moore's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law Again, this is not a physical law (nor is it a legal obligation, lol). There has been a multi-corporate...

www.typologycentral.com

 

[SensEye]

Regarding DEI: How can anyone be against inclusion? I think diversity is an essential part of more robust and competent groups. The reason is the same as why the wisdom of crowds works and why biodiversity keeps an ecosystem healthier. I don't believe Harris was a DEI candidate, either. I think someone started a whole thread about equity.

I am not against diversity per se, but competence must still be a major factor.

My beef with Harris is she never, ever, has struck me as a competent politician. Her communication skills are appallingly bad, she did terrible in the 2020 primary, and I am certain the only reason she got the VP nod was a 100% DEI appointment to balance out sleepy Joe, the 'old white man' at the top of the ticket. And to be fair, I think the only reason Biden ever got his VP job was also DEI, an 'old white man' as VP was the perfect counter balance for Obama.

Now, I don't require this kind of nonsense in my political appointments, all I care about is competence. It always shocks me how such obvious idiots have political success. MGT, Gaetz, Santos, Cawthorn, Boebert, Menendez, etc. The list goes on and on. How people can't recognize these clowns for what they are boggles my mind.

I don't care if Buttigieg is gay, hence I need to hear him speak and figure him out. However, I know many American's will freak out about this. So if the alternative is Trump or a Trump acolyte, now is not the time to fight this fight. The Dems need to oust Trump and cool down the whole MAGA movement first, then they can go back to their progressive ways if they are so inclined. That way, if the electorate does not agree with the Dems progressive tilt, the alternative is still at least reasonable government.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Crucial mRNA vaccine research at risk in the US

In other words someone else will finish the research and take awards/benefits.

 

[The Cat]

Crucial mRNA vaccine research at risk in the US

In other words someone else will finish the research and take awards/benefits.

Don't forget a lot of Americans are gonna die. That is after all the whole seeming point of this new regime.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Don't forget a lot of Americans are gonna die. That is after all the whole seeming point of this new regime.

I didn't forget, take a look at the post 4104.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

Fuck Accelerationism.
That's how we got here in the first place.
​