Random political thought thread.

[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.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've never heard anyone use the word woke in a non-pejorative fashion. I also feel that some of the above posts are describing it too proudly. I wouldn't describe fighting for universal healthcare as "woke" (well, I wouldn't use that word to begin with); that affects everyone, not just a specific group.

This post might be a mistake, but it's been rattling around in my brain for a while:

But I would split what it refers to into two groups: things I understand, and things I don't understand. If I had a problem with "woke" it would be that I don't feel free to ask questions about the things I don't understand. I can understand why you should use people's preferred pronouns, I can understand why you shouldn't use ethnic slurs, I can understand why women should be free to pursue any kind of career they want, etc.

The things I don't understand, well, I am under the impression that if I were to ask questions; I would be subject to heavy criticism, under the assumption that these are things that any decent person would already know the answer to. This mentality puzzles and distressed me, in response to the good faith questions that I believe I would make. I would not be asking these questions with a desire to destroy feminism or any equivalent movement. Can't you strengthen a movement by asking questions, by making your thinking stronger and more airtight and resistance to criticism? I'm inclined to think that this could actually be better for a movement. Is that wrong? What about someone terrible by someone stepping back for a moment, and saying, "Hey, I don't get this"?

I suppose they assume that any questions are bad faith questions. I don't see how a movement like that can triumph. If you can't handle good-faith questions, how can you hope to handle the bad faith questions, or the things that are worse than bad faith questions? If you insist it's imperative that everyone already understand something to the degree that such questions are not necessary, how is that good for a movement? You are either going to have a lot of members who don't really understand what they are fighting for, which isn't good, or have a lot of people outright refuse to join, which isn't good. You can't reach out or build something with this mentality.

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

I will weigh in here as @Coriolis was addressing me.

I had no problem being asked what I was meaning by woke. Because it has two definitions these days. The original definition which Coriolis mentioned and I have no problem with people with that kind of mindset. However, per JVD, woke is now more commonly used in the pejorative fashion, and indeed, that is how I was using it and tend to use the term in general. As a catch all condemnation of what I consider to be blind, non well thought out, virtue signaling nonsense combined with a holier than thou political correct overtone (never state a view that may offend someone). I consider those kind of woke people daft. And they are very common these days. So it's a good catch all term to describe that kind of thinking. The woke mind virus as it is also referred to.

My usage is not the original definition of woke and I am aware of it. Just like gay is much more commonly used to define sexual orientation vs it's original definition of festive. So I am fine with Coriolis seeking clarity of how I am using the term or we might have trouble understanding each other. S/he can generally assume I am using woke in the pejorative fashion.

The religious thing I had no problem with either. I'm not religious and that's just the way I am. Although I find it neither here nor there for political discussions. I mean, Trump is the favorite of most of the religious right, and that guy is all selfishness, condemnation, hate and fear mongering. There is not a charitable or 'love thy neighbor' bone in his body. In fact, if I was a believer in biblical prophesy, I would say Trump ticks all the boxes as a candidate for the antichrist. And yet many so called Christians in the USA seem to love him. Go figure.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The religious thing I had no problem with either. I'm not religious and that's just the way I am. Although I find it neither here nor there for political discussions. I mean, Trump is the favorite of most of the religious right, and that guy is all selfishness, condemnation, hate and fear mongering. There is not a charitable or 'love thy neighbor' bone in his body. In fact, if I was a believer in biblical prophesy, I would say Trump ticks all the boxes as a candidate for the antichrist. And yet many so called Christians in the USA seem to love him. Go figure.

That is because those people are afraid of "woke stuff" enough to forgive him anything. It is strange dynamic but it can be explained.

This is exactly why I would like that "the woke world" quiets down. Or that it develops more detailed or thought out explanations and plans. Since that would surely take some oxygen away from the Trump world. What could play a major role in November.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That is because those people are afraid of "woke stuff" enough to forgive him anything. It is strange dynamic but it can be explained.

This is exactly why I would like that "the woke world" quiets down. Or that it develops more detailed or thought out explanations and plans. Since that would surely take some oxygen away from the Trump world. What could play a major role in November.

I'm not convinced a lot of these people are really afraid of "woke" stuff. That's an excuse they give to make a lot of people sympathetic to them. What aspiring militia leader is actually afraid of a rainbow colored beer can? I don't buy it. I think the truth is that they just love populist authoritarianism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not convinced a lot of these people are really afraid of "woke" stuff. That's an excuse they give to make a lot of people sympathetic to them. What aspiring militia leader is actually afraid of a rainbow colored beer can? I don't buy it. I think the truth is that they just love populist authoritarianism.

Of course that they love that. But that is probably because that completely disrupts liberal ideas and their implementation.
I really do have the impression that there is some kinda of mission at the end of the line.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Of course that they love that. But that is probably because that completely disrupts liberal ideas and their implementation.
I really do have the impression that there is some kinda of mission at the end of the line.

For a lot of them in the U.S, it all has to do the with the Book of Revelation. This is the most important book of the Bible for them, and the best part is, it can always be adapted to current events whenever the previous prophecies fail to materialize. It's essentially an infinite loop.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Regarding marijuana:

Alcohol is legal almost everywhere except Islamic countries. Alcohol can cause many health problems, too, but has the advantage of centuries of tradition behind it. Too much marijuana is probably not good for you, but it's the same for alcohol.

Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is driven by a few different things, some of which I suppose in Europe might not apply because of history.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, and your arguments are based on things you feel. Obviously, feeling and analysis are used by all human beings to form an opinion. I think your 'worries' about the disabled and such are pure nonsense. The same hue and cry is raised by the anti medically assisted dying crowd. Yet MAID has been legal (in Canada anyways) since 2016. I am certain not one disabled person has been unwillingly euthanized.

I used to be for euthanasia. In more recent years, I'm not so sure. I understand there is consideration occurring to people with psychiatric disorders, and I know I'm strongly against this. My reasoning is quite simple: people suffering from this often have a distorted understanding of what is going on. They are not making a well-considered choice. Depression doesn't distort things in the way other disorders, exactly, but I find something wrong with the idea that people with depression should just kill themselves and that's fine.

But in general, I'm not in favor of these utilitarian considerations concerning life and death. It's reminiscent of the way the logic of the market dictates everything; I don't consider either of these approaches to be part of an ideal society.

None of this is religious instead, it's based on my developing an acute sense in my 30s of how callous society already is towards human lives. I suppose I already had the intellectual knowledge, but this is more experiential, which is a different beast entirely. I'm reluctant to shepherd this callousness further along.

It's pure emotion based fear mongering usually deployed when no reasonable data to support one's position can be found. However, if the mentally ill are murdering innocent and healthy and productive members of society, they have to be contained. Society does not have infinite resources, sometimes pragmatic decisions have to be made. I am always surprised at the almost zero concern for the victims. Their death is greeted with a collective shrug of indifference. It's like the ivory tower moralists think "well I committed no crime so who cares, but if I support the death penalty I might feel some guilt, best make my decision 100% based on protecting my own delicate sensibilities".

I have no problem with locking people up for life. I will also note that execution doesn't bring victims back, as far as I know.

I do things out of guilt frequently. This is a form of guilt that exists as a result of my private failures. My opinions on the death penalty have nothing to do with guilt.

 

[Red Herring]

I just listened to a podcast by Der Spiegel (highly influential German news magazine, vaguely center-left but not very ideological) on the history of the Republican Party in the US and how the process of radicalization came about.
What stuck with me and what is important to know for Americans who see me discuss the AfD and the German far-right with @Virtual ghost is that these days the US has one large party, the Democrats, that covers everything from the German far-left to the German still-socially-acceptable right (Like to CSU) and another large party, the Republicans, that covers the AfD and everything to the right of the AfD (a. k. a. the socially inacceptable right). Numberwise that would mean that at least 80% of Germans are politically closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, even though the country tends to be mildly center-right by its own standards.

The current debate over here is over whether to even invite those people to public events and whether the conservatives could at some point cooperate with them (mind you that conservatism is by definition anti-revolutionary and that Trump and the like are not conservatives at all but belong to the revolutionary right (for which there is of course a name of its own)).

Basically, we have vaguely similar trends to you Americans but Germany is at that point now where the US was some 20 - 30 years ago regarding the inner conflict of the right but we have not had our George W. moment yet and should therefor still be some years away from a German Trump.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I just listened to a podcast by Der Spiegel (highly influential German news magazine, vaguely center-left but not very ideological) on the history of the Republican Party in the US and how the process of radicalization came about.
What stuck with me and what is important to know for Americans who see me discuss the AfD and the German far-right with @Virtual ghost is that these days the US has one large party, the Democrats, that covers everything from the German far-left to the German still-socially-acceptable right (Like to CSU) and another large party, the Republicans, that covers the AfD and everything to the right of the AfD (a. k. a. the socially inacceptable right). Numberwise that would mean that at least 80% of Germans are politically closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, even though the country tends to be mildly center-right by its own standards.

The current debate over here is over whether to even invite those people to public events and whether the conservatives could at some point cooperate with them (mind you that conservatism is by definition anti-revolutionary and that Trump and the like are not conservatives at all but belong to the revolutionary right (for which there is of course a name of its own)).

Basically, we have vaguely similar trends to you Americans but Germany is at that point now where the US was some 20 - 30 years ago regarding the inner conflict of the right but we have not had our George W. moment yet and should therefor still be some years away from a German Trump.

First of all I have my doubts that the Democrats are covering this wide area of German politics. Since the party is evidently to the right in economic sense to just about anything that exists in Germany. If this correlation was the case then in blue states things would be pretty much like in Germany, and that evidently isn't the case. Social issues yes, but economy not really if my impression is even remotely right.


However that isn't really why I am making this post. In other words I am wondering if in Germany Trump has any appeal on the left side of the spectrum ? I mean in many Slavic places around Europe there is one decent chunk of the left that actually loves the guy. Not so much at the face value but because they hope he will make a complete mess out of US and in the end crash NATO. In US these people are collectively known as Russian trolls but they don't have to be Russians. Although to a typical US citizen all Slavs are basically Russians. Especially if they have anti US worldviews. For example my left wing president is basically bigger "macho" than Trump. In other words about a year ago Pelosi came to Croatia and the president didn't want to met with her. With explanation: she is a nothing-burger that really isn't worth my time. Plus she is about to lose midterms, so there really is no point in that meeting. Especially since some of her attention-whoring Ukrainian friends will be there". I mean this was said directly into the camera and after that he went to the beach to have some fun (instead of meeting Pelosi).

I mean this is the same guy about which you asked me why on Earth he wants to block Finland's NATO membership ? I mean the man is pure example of what people in the first world consider to be a "commie". On that we can add his comment that Crimea will never be Ukraine again. That COVID vaccines are a fraud. Public insulting of people bacause of their background. Going after family members of opponents (old Communist tactic). Slamming EU and Ursula in his Christmas massage. Pointing out gay politicans in public even if it isn't known that they are gay ...etc. I mean next to my president even Trump often sounds like a relatively nice guy. However despite this kind of rhetoric my president seems to have a shot at being re-elected. Since his leftist base doesn't seem to mind all that much. After all his center left struck down votes about helping Ukraine that they could crash (those that required 2/3 majority. What in the end party base actully liked (based on comments and the fact that they didn't lose anything in the polls) .


So in Germany you don't have this kind of political option ? Even if it is some minor party ?