Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Meeee tooo! I say frequently - the infrastructure of government is excellent. The issue are the people in it. I know big government and social dem flavored capitalist societies tend to have happy people and happy capitalists (see Norway). But so much is about trust in government and it simply doesn't exist in the US. It's depressing.

True, but the catch is that if you have plenty of people with libertarian thoughts that automatically means that it will be much harder to create government that truly works. So this is basically the closed circle of a dynamic. However if the circle isn't broken then the odds are that the system wouldn't be able to keep up with challenges of 21th century (as I explained few posts above).


Just saying the obvious.

 

[The Cat]

They cannot make their case and they cannot refute biden's case.
Doesnt sound like Biden has a memory problem, sounds like the right has a bad evidence problem.
They dont have a case for Biden Willfully retaining, documents, but they sure do for trump.
​

 

[The Cat]

​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term


Being 82 at the start of the second term is indeed kinda too old for a job that is basically 24/7.

 

[SensEye]

Doesnt sound like Biden has a memory problem, sounds like the right has a bad evidence problem.
​

True enough, in that I don't think Biden's cognitive decline makes him guilty in this case, but it certainly makes him unfit for president. Beau at least mentions that in a throw away statement ("you probably shouldn't vote for him" @11:05). I agree, you probably shouldn't. He should make a video solely dedicated to that issue.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Although it could be that the Dems are strategic about this. First you wait that Haley drops out and that there is no alternative to Trump. And then you put forwards someone much younger.

Probably not but this could be cooking.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, this story is all over the place. Since this is indeed something that can be considered to be genuine scandal.

However I am kinda amazed with one little detail that just about everyone missed. In other words NATO is basically a playground for quite a number of US companies. Which have Trillions in assets and revenues scattered across NATO countries. What basically implies that Trump wouldn't have the desire to protect property of US citizens if it came under direct fire or it is getting captured as a loot.

Not to mention that grinding just one NATO member would cause large domino effect of economic problems. What would evidently cause extra loses to US citizens. Hell, Ukraine isn't even the member of NATO and take a look at what that situation is causing to economy. So imagine what would it be like if Putin starts to pound something of real importance. Like Germany or UK.


It is true that certain countries in NATO should spend more on defense but this is just wrong way of talking about it. Since it just sounds as invitation to rise hell. On itself that isn't the problem but when that is happening for 473rd time that is kinda telling of certain things.

 

[SensEye]

The thing is, Russia has proven to be rather hapless. They have their hands full with Ukraine, and I suspect Ukraine would push them back if they still had support from the US. The EU is slowly stepping up, I just don't know at this point if they can supply arms/ammo to Ukraine fast enough. However, if Russia attacked the UK or Germany, and they really geared up for war, Russia would almost certainly get their ass kicked.

Of course, Russia has a large nuclear arsenal if Putin is that crazy. That would be a big issue if no sane people in Russian would stop him in if he seriously tried to go down that road. But in a 'conventional' war, Russian would have a hard time with any mid sized EU country, and if the rest of NATO stepped up to their treaty obligations (ex-US) that would be more than enough.

Also, per your graph elsewhere, all the Russian bordering states are spending their 2%+ GDP, so if that is Trump's hang up, he would still be obligated to come to their aid. Russia could never leap-frog those countries to attack Spain (for example). Trump is full of BS in general though, so who knows what he might do on any issue in reality.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The thing is, Russia has proven to be rather hapless. They have their hands full with Ukraine, and I suspect Ukraine would push them back if they still had support from the US. The EU is slowly stepping up, I just don't know at this point if they can supply arms/ammo to Ukraine fast enough. However, if Russia attacked the UK or Germany, and they really geared up for war, Russia would almost certainly get their ass kicked.

Of course, Russia has a large nuclear arsenal if Putin is that crazy. That would be a big issue if no sane people in Russian would stop him in if he seriously tried to go down that road. But in a 'conventional' war, Russian would have a hard time with any mid sized EU country, and if the rest of NATO stepped up to their treaty obligations (ex-US) that would be more than enough.

Also, per your graph elsewhere, all the Russian bordering states are spending their 2%+ GDP, so if that is Trump's hang up, he would still be obligated to come to their aid. Russia could never leap-frog those countries to attack Spain (for example). Trump is full of BS in general though, so who knows what he might do on any issue in reality.

If you take my words in a very simplistic terms then this is perhaps true. However there are more layers to this.

In other words if Trump wins 2024 who knows what will be on the agenda in 2027. By that time the mess in Ukraine could be long over one way or another and Russia could have another target. Just as it had the next target after mess with Chechens, after attack on Georgia, campaign in Syria ... etc.


Also it doesn't have to be a conventional war that there are problems. Just hitting some pipelines or critical infrastructure is enough to create a mess. However if Russians think that they can get away with it that makes the whole thing tempting.


Regarding Spain: I think you are wrong here. Since Spain is one of the NATO countries that evidently lacks in military spending. So if Russia takes it's fleet from the top of Scandinavia down there and starts to destroy vital infrastructure that could be problem and major economic disruption. As I told you, you think to much in Capitalistic terms. What is kinda wrong logic if you want to understand Russian leadership. Their logic is all about disruptions and hoping to cause disruptions that they can exploit. If you can give 15000 troops for a town like Bakhmut then what is 150 missiles for Spain's vital infrastructure.



Another layer in all of this is preventing the pro Russian politicians from getting elected across Europe.
If you think that everyone in Europe is against Putin then you evidently haven't payed attention. You have obvious people like Orban but there is plenty more. Le Pen was taking money from Putin and never she said something that is truly against him. Plus if the trends continue she could win in next elections. The winner of elections in Netherlands said that he doesn't support Ukraine. Belguim is going to split in two parts as it seem. Pro Russia party is first in Austria (while the next two ones are not too thrilled with Ukraine either). Croatian president says that Crimea will not be Ukraine ever again and that Ukrainians are attention whores with what they are doing. The current deputy prime minister of Italy was walking around with Putin on his T-shit before Feb 2022. What is probably why whole Italy sent only 0.5 billion $ in equipment to Ukraine over the last 2 years. German nationalists see Putin as an ally. The same can be said for pretty much entire Serbian mainstream politics. In Montenegro pro Russian half of the country is even requesting referendum on exist from NATO. Greeks never really severed economic ties with Russia from what I understand (and the place is half dictatorship at this point, with plenty of investemnts from China). For many years Spain wasn't spending even one percent of GDP on defense. New Slovak Prime minister ran literally on stopping aid to Ukraine (and came out first). While during Covid Slovakia was even importing Covid vaccines from Russia, since decent amount of people didn't trust those made by US companies. Turkey isn't really an ally for quite some time, Etc etc.


Therefore as you can see thinking that the Europe will come together against Russia is quite possibly wishful thinking. In other words you as Canadian never came across the narrative that Europe is under US occupation. What in the end comes down to NATO and similar mechanisms in the words of those in Europe that think this way. However this is why Trump's words are actually problematic. Since this signals that he wouldn't be interested in maintaining the status quo that existed in Europe for the last few generations. Not to mention he is personal friend with some of the people mentioned above. His words are actually much more problematic than it seems at the face value.


I know that the people on this forum wouldn't sleep better due to this post but some things have to be said.

 

[Coriolis]

In this instance I use woke in what I now consider the common use of the term (which is not the original definition of woke). I mean it in the sense of the politically correct dogmatic way that people parrot virtue signaling mantras without any real consideration of the pros and cons of a specific issue.

I grew up in a Christian culture but I am not a believer if that is what you are asking.

Yes, I was asking about your personal belief system or religious affiliation, and your usage of "woke". After all, I am interacting with you and trying to understand your specific meaning, not some trend or statistic. Your views of humanity are not consistent with Christianity, but then if you do not count yourself a believer, at least there is no hypocrisy in that. In my circles, "woke" means aware of the systemic injustices that underlie many of our current troubles, coupled with a recognition of our own responsibility to be part of the solution/improvement, as best we can in our individual circumstances. I do hope you are not confusing political correctness with common courtesy here, meaning being aware of the impact of your words and actions on others, so they accomplish your true intent. Of course, this assumes your intent is not harmful.

 

[SensEye]

Regarding Spain: I think you are wrong here. Since Spain is one of the NATO countries that evidently lacks in military spending. So if Russia takes it's fleet from the top of Scandinavia down there and starts to destroy vital infrastructure that could be problem and major economic disruption. As I told you, you think to much in Capitalistic terms. What is kinda wrong logic if you want to understand Russian leadership. Their logic is all about disruptions and hoping to cause disruptions that they can exploit. If you can give 15000 troops for a town like Bakhmut then what is 150 missiles for Spain's vital infrastructure.

I hope you are being too pessimistic here, but I know there is a lot of political craziness going on in the world. Polarization towards both the far right and far left are becoming common place and both are dangerous ways of thinking in my view.

However, on the Spain example front, I simply assume (and I hope I am right) that just because Trump might pull the US out of NATO that should not make all the other NATO members disband the organization. So if Russia tried to sail their navy down to Spain, why would the UK and the rest of NATO just sit by and watch? Even if they repeated the mistakes of pre-2022 thinking Russia is just bluffing and won't really invade (surely they would not be so stupid again after Ukraine), the moment Russia actually attacked Spain, the UK navy/air force alone should be able to send every one of their ships to the bottom of the sea.

I just can't believe the craziness currently infesting the American mindset is that wide spread. If it truly is, yes, WW3 and the collapse of modern society may be upon us. But surely sanity will prevail.

More to your worldview though, I read an article that Russia, now with Trump's blessing, might nibble at some other small NATO countries (like Estonia or Lithuania) and maybe the rest of NATO might stand around and complain but not intervene. That would be an appalling failure of the whole NATO treaty/organization though. In that case, the whole alliance was a paper tiger from the get go.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I hope you are being too pessimistic here, but I know there is a lot of political craziness going on in the world. Polarization towards both the far right and far left are becoming common place and both are dangerous ways of thinking in my view.

However, on the Spain example front, I simply assume (and I hope I am right) that just because Trump might pull the US out of NATO that should not make all the other NATO members disband the organization. So if Russia tried to sail their navy down to Spain, why would the UK and the rest of NATO just sit by and watch? Even if they repeated the mistakes of pre-2022 thinking Russia is just bluffing and won't really invade (surely they would not be so stupid again after Ukraine), the moment Russia actually attacked Spain, the UK navy/air force alone should be able to send every one of their ships to the bottom of the sea.

I just can't believe the craziness currently infesting the American mindset is that wide spread. If it truly is, yes, WW3 and the collapse of modern society may be upon us. But surely sanity will prevail.

More to your worldview though, I read an article that Russia, now with Trump's blessing, might nibble at some other small NATO countries (like Estonia or Lithuania) and maybe the rest of NATO might stand around and complain but not intervene. That would be an appalling failure of the whole NATO treaty/organization though. In that case, the whole alliance was a paper tiger from the get go.

True, US exit from NATO wouldn't be the automatic end of the organization. However the point of my post as a whole is basically questioning of where things are going on the long run for NATO. Since the real question is what will be in a few years down the road, instead of a week after the exit. Thus I tried to point out that the situation in the field is political mess. Therefore it could be quite hard to keep things together without US authority. Turkey is probably the first that will go away or switch sides. UK is a mess in post Brexit era. There is evident political turbulence inside of EU as a whole. In a sense all of this can work only in a way that leaving of US scares enough people and politicians that they decide to stick together no matter what.

Plus if US goes completely bonkers over the years it is evident we will have to expand NATO on pretty much any democracy that is left in the world.



Russia no longer perceived as top threat by Germans

A whopping 72 percent of the world's population now lives in autocracies, compared to 46 percent a decade ago.

This statement in the end is basically the bottom line. Things have globally gone to shit all the way to the point that the sewer is staring to flood even the most developed and democratic countries. What basically means that in the case of US exit the NATO as alliance has to go global. Because it just wouldn't have the volume to provide genuine deterrence otherwise. Since that last 25 percent of the world's population will have to play some serious co-op in order to stay afloat on the long run. US is only about 4 percent of the world's population, but it's firepower is quite hard to replace on short to medium term. However on the long run it can be done. Plus there is a chance that US will indeed split into red and blue US and that the blue US will rejoin alliance.

The foundations are cracking and thus all kinds of scenarios are possible. Thus taking things for granted seems as pretty bad idea at this point.

 

[Virtual ghost]

2024 Senate Election Interactive Map

New consensus map for the senate.

 

[SensEye]

The foundations are cracking and thus all kinds of scenarios are possible. Thus taking things for granted seems as pretty bad idea at this point.

We are in general agreement. But there is not much folks like you or I can do about it except what we are trying to do, make our voices heard where we can and hope for the best. That's not really going to move the needle though. I don't know if anything will. I think the underlying cause is the decline and fall of mass (responsible) media and the rise of unmoderated social media and as a byproduct, the rise of irresponsible mass media. Truth and/or balanced sensible analysis of issues no longer garners attention, emotional hot buttons and histrionics that lead to eyeballs, clicks and ad revenue rule the day.

People aren't very self aware, its human nature to want echo chambers and bias confirmation which leads to mob rule. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that this will change anytime soon. But one never knows. If one sensible leader was to replace Biden or Trump, and then win the US election comfortably (such that MAGA-ism would be perceived as a failed approach to power) things might improve significantly. Maybe mother nature will throw humanity a bone and kill one off from natural causes, since people can't seem to send either packing using common sense.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

But one never knows. If one sensible leader was to replace Biden or Trump, and then win the US election comfortably (such that MAGA-ism would be perceived as a failed approach to power) things might improve significantly.

I think you and I both know that isn't going to happen.

As for me, even though it's the same choice I was faced with four years ago, I find it an easier choice to make. Trump has done several things that have made him look even worse, while Biden has done a few things that made him look better.

The two things I can name off the top of my head include labor and student loans.

I don't remember any president ever even talking about labor before Biden. I think he handled that railway strike well, in the long run.

And he made a valiant effort to do something about student loans.

I think others have adequately covered everything Trump has done that's negative, so I won't repeat it.

But I don't feel like I did in 2020, where I felt as though I was stuck with the worst possible alternative to Trump, who I still voted for because he was an alternative to Trump. I think there is a favorable way political dynamics have shifted when compared with 10 years ago; I think in part there is now pressure on Biden to do the kinds of things mentioned above. We get the emergence of a Democratic base that's actually starting to demand things from Democratic politicians. Moreover, perhaps Biden's experience as a Washington insider has played a positive role in getting things done in difficult circumstances. If Biden could get re-elected, the trend would probably continue. If Biden loses, I think we're in for something else entirely.

 

[The Cat]

Russian Roulette is not the same without a gun, and baby when it comes to politics if it aint nuts it isnt fun.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, I was asking about your personal belief system or religious affiliation, and your usage of "woke". After all, I am interacting with you and trying to understand your specific meaning, not some trend or statistic. Your views of humanity are not consistent with Christianity, but then if you do not count yourself a believer, at least there is no hypocrisy in that. In my circles, "woke" means aware of the systemic injustices that underlie many of our current troubles, coupled with a recognition of our own responsibility to be part of the solution/improvement, as best we can in our individual circumstances. I do hope you are not confusing political correctness with common courtesy here, meaning being aware of the impact of your words and actions on others, so they accomplish your true intent. Of course, this assumes your intent is not harmful.

To this I will say something that you wouldn't like. But I am going to say it anyway.


What you kinda overlooked is that the two of you aren't from the same country and that makes one very big difference here. In other words woke is US designed "ideology" that is designed to address the situation in the US and on US way. However in other countries this set of positions is often considered to be a bag on none sense. Which came out of your explicitly bad form of governing, poor education and general sense of approaching things in religion like manner. However to none American this mumbo jumbo of ideology may look as something like your junk food, not something that you really want to consume (even if you are leftist).

However all of that has some pretty practical arguments in the mix. Woke generally supports various liberalizations of drug use, since that would mean that Police wouldn't have too much of a say in the issue. Does that make sense in US I am not sure. But in other developed countries this can be deeply problematic policy. In other words those countries have socialized healthcare. What in other words means that if you massively expand population that is on dangerous drugs you are basically undermining socialized medicine. Since you are exploding the costs and in a sense you are making idiots out of people who live normally and pay into shared insurance. As I explained a few months ago my local woke party was established a few years ago. However after initial partial success is started to fade and that didn't change with time. Since this is totally none adjust ideology for my central European landscape. Not to mention that since it is US based ideology that these people are basically to the right of my traditional Slavic right. Since drugs as pointed out is causing deregulation. Also wanting to place people of color into the country that is 99% white is also a form of deregulation. Since that creates alternative workforce that is willing to work in much more deregulated environment and for much less. So the appeal to working class is minimal, since the ideology is a complete miss for this area. Even my local far left (the actual far left) challanged the wokers that their approach is nonsens for the local working people.


Plus to make things worse woke likes to play blame games against the so called white people. However in Europe there are countries that never had any colonies and they weren't involved in colonialism and slave trade. What in a sense turns the whole things into false accusations that are repeated over and over. What in the end causes counter reactions ... and then everyone wonders "Orban won !? How is that possible ? He has 2/3 of the parilament !?". I mean what did you expect it will happen ? So woke maybe makes sense inside of USA but outside of it is basically pure nonssense that causes only harm. What is mostly because this minset is completely blind to circumstances. Which is exactly why my local woke party is falling apart and it already lost half of support it had after foundation. Plus the trend is likely to continue since there is genuine multiparty system in play here. What means that everyone is 100% replacable (woke included).


Just my 2 cents.

 

[Coriolis]

To this I will say something that you wouldn't like. But I am going to say it anyway.


What you kinda overlooked is that the two of you aren't from the same country and that makes one very big difference here. In other words woke is US designed "ideology" that is designed to address the situation in the US and on US way. However in other countries this set of positions is often considered to be a bag on none sense. Which came out of your explicitly bad form of governing, poor education and general sense of approaching things in religion like manner. However to none American this mumbo jumbo of ideology may look as something like your junk food, not something that you really want to consume (even if you are leftist).

However all of that has some pretty practical arguments in the mix. Woke generally supports various liberalizations of drug use, since that would mean that Police wouldn't have too much of a say in the issue. Does that make sense in US I am not sure. But in other developed countries this can be deeply problematic policy. In other words those countries have socialized healthcare. What in other words means that if you massively expand population that is on dangerous drugs you are basically undermining socialized medicine. Since you are exploding the costs and in a sense you are making idiots out of people who live normally and pay into shared insurance. As I explained a few months ago my local woke party was established a few years ago. However after initial partial success is started to fade and that didn't change with time. Since this is totally none adjust ideology for my central European landscape. Not to mention that since it is US based ideology that these people are basically to the right of my traditional Slavic right. Since drugs as pointed out is causing deregulation. Also wanting to place people of color into the country that is 99% white is also a form of deregulation. Since that creates alternative workforce that is willing to work in much more deregulated environment and for much less. So the appeal to working class is minimal, since the ideology is a complete miss for this area. Even my local far left (the actual far left) challanged the wokers that their approach is nonsens for the local working people.


Plus to make things worse woke likes to play blame games against the so called white people. However in Europe there are countries that never had any colonies and they weren't involved in colonialism and slave trade. What in a sense turns the whole things into false accusations that are repeated over and over. What in the end causes counter reactions ... and then everyone wonders "Orban won !? How is that possible ? He has 2/3 of the parilament !?". I mean what did you expect it will happen ? So woke maybe makes sense inside of USA but outside of it is basically pure nonssense that causes only harm. What is mostly because this minset is completely blind to circumstances. Which is exactly why my local woke party is falling apart and it already lost half of support it had after foundation. Plus the trend is likely to continue since there is genuine multiparty system in play here. What means that everyone is 100% replacable (woke included).


Just my 2 cents.

Everything you wrote points to why I asked Senseye, as I would ask anyone, exactly what they mean by "woke", or feminism, or liberal, or any of a handful of loaded terms with different meanings and interpretations in different places and contexts. The collection of perspectives in the usage of "woke" among people I interact with are largely meaningless or irrelevant in other societies. You outlined some of the reasons above. Sure, other nations have racial or ethnic tensions, but even they often have a different origin or flavor, and their governments take different approaches to them. Overall I find people from outside the US have a much greater propensity to consider the effects of their words and actions on others, and in general to be more aware of the causal connections involved in the issues of the day. Yes, that is a generalization and the US has no monopoly on either ignoramuses or the willfully ignorant with their heads in the sand. It often seems, though, that we have far more than our share of them.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Everything you wrote points to why I asked Senseye, as I would ask anyone, exactly what they mean by "woke", or feminism, or liberal, or any of a handful of loaded terms with different meanings and interpretations in different places and contexts. The collection of perspectives in the usage of "woke" among people I interact with are largely meaningless or irrelevant in other societies. You outlined some of the reasons above. Sure, other nations have racial or ethnic tensions, but even they often have a different origin or flavor, and their governments take different approaches to them. Overall I find people from outside the US have a much greater propensity to consider the effects of their words and actions on others, and in general to be more aware of the causal connections involved in the issues of the day. Yes, that is a generalization and the US has no monopoly on either ignoramuses or the willfully ignorant with their heads in the sand. It often seems, though, that we have far more than our share of them.

Ok, but to me woke has fairly clear definition and positions. There are some personal details and variations in all of this but the general idea seems to be pretty well defined. Most of the end desires of woke can't really be rated as bad, however the key part seem to be rhetoric. In other words from what I had the chance to observe that is the main thing that pushes away people. Which is why the term has become negative term and almost an insult in various cultures. In US there is basically nothing to the left of woke but in various other countries there evidently is. Therefore outside of US the idea just doesn't have the appeal that it has in US. . After all what woke is trying to achieve is often in practice for generations all over the developed world (already my grand grand mother had socialized medicine for example).

I guess inside US you can say that woke is something not too well defined but if you watch from outside there is distinct US feeling in the mix. What makes much more easy to define the term. For example my not so reformed Communists are trying to destroy, disperse or assimilate the woke groups. Since they want to take over the whole left part of the spectrum just for themselves. So woke is falling mostly since it loses ground from the left flank, especially since right side of the spectrum isn't really in position to drain them. Although they can knock out their voters so that they become none voters. Therefore since the woke is basically based in just one party that is for that set of people it isn't that hard to define woke. While in US where everyone has to fit into red and blue narrative that is perhaps harder to do. Since in that case you don't have political precision of multi party system.

Overall I find people from outside the US have a much greater propensity to consider the effects of their words and actions on others, and in general to be more aware of the causal connections involved in the issues of the day.

That is basically since those people aren't grown in the climate where they have to be full scale individuals. After all with socialized medicine, free college, etc attacking anyone verbally basically means going after the person that is directly helping to pay your bills. Or in other words it makes them smaller since the costs are dispersed. Which is exactly why woke often comes as too reactive over details, as I said there is one fairly US specific felling to the whole concept.