Random political thought thread.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Upset about Gaza? Nobody talks about how Trump instigated the tensions that led up to October 7th attack by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US capital there, at the behest of Sheldon Adelson, who donated $100 million to a Republican SuperPac.

Fuck Sheldon Adelson. I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[Stigmata]

Fuck Sheldon Adelson. I'm going to leave it at that.

It's Merrick Garland for me that deserves the biggest one. Homeboy watched too many episodes of The West Wing, and in typical moderate fashion, is more obsessed with civility and decorum than actually upholding Democracy. Private Citizen Donald Trump had Merrick Garland terrified of his own shadow, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to mount even the most softball rebuke of him stealing national security documents after he begged him pretty please with sugar on top to give them back.

He ran out the clock on indicting him for January 6th, to the point where he gave the excuse that it was political persecution to indict a political opponent running for office.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's Merrick Garland for me that deserves the biggest one. Homeboy watched too many episodes of The West Wing, and in typical moderate fashion, is more obsessed with civility and decorum than actually upholding Democracy. Private Citizen Donald Trump had Merrick Garland terrified of his own shadow, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to mount even the most softball rebuke of him stealing national security documents after he begged him pretty please with sugar on top to give them back.

He ran out the clock on indicting him for January 6th, to the point where he gave the excuse that it was political persecution to indict a political opponent running for office.

Uggh, I know who Merrick Garland but I was only vaguely aware of that. Yes, I am sick of that kind of thing as well, to put it politely.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yeah, Garland is a centrist pusscake. Any legal actions against Trump, however soft handed, were going to be labeled as a witch-hunt by him regardless, so the DOJ may as well have instigated a scorched earth campaign on Trump and his surrogates. He could have been in prison by now. Instead, he’s about to be back in the big seat, and he will probably pardon every one of his allies that have been convicted. It’s a joke

I wish the mainstream of the Democratic Party today more resembled the 1860s Radical Republicans and the Republican and Democratic Progressives of the 1890s-1910s. I guarantee the MAGAs would not get away with half of their antics if they faced opposition like that. Democrats need to find their balls.

 

[Kephalos]

I know the biggest factor is just "the economy stupid," despite it being a better economy than most of the rest of the world.

You know, I never liked that slogan. That simplistic deterministic way of thinking about how and why people act in the public sphere is nothing but vulgar Marxism, folk historical materialism. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising, having appeared in the 1990s, when such thinking was practically universal, from the incredibly vulgar (and quite honestly, despicable as a man) politician who made it up, to former ideologues and apparatchiks like Yegor Gaidar (and the infamous "Harvard/MIT Boys" such as Аndriusha Shleifer, i.e. the reverse of the "Chicago Boys") who thought that formerly Communist Russia could be turned into a European-style liberal democracy through economic reform -- that is, the guys who unleashed Putin into the world.

 

[ygolo]

You know, I never liked that slogan. That simplistic deterministic way of thinking about how and why people act in the public sphere is nothing but vulgar Marxism, folk historical materialism. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising, having appeared in the 1990s, when such thinking was practically universal, from the incredibly vulgar (and quite honestly, despicable as a man) politician who made it up, to former ideologues and apparatchiks like Yegor Gaidar (and the infamous "Harvard/MIT Boys" such as Аndriusha Shleifer, i.e. the reverse of the "Chicago Boys") who thought that formerly Communist Russia could be turned into a European-style liberal democracy through economic reform -- that is, the guys who unleashed Putin into the world.

I've never been a huge fan of the slogan. But as a slogan as an explanation of why people voted the what they did, I think it gets the point across.*

*If you could expand on the "Harvard/MIT Boys," I think it may lead to an enlightening discussion.

In this economic case, as many people I know have attested to, they may prefer an actual recession to continued high cost of living. As far as that goes, its not eggs and bacon (though they matter), its rents and mortgages for those on the outs.

Even when the likes of Jon Stewart, who seems to be one of the most reasonable people in the legacy media, dismissed the large proportion of stories of young people in a focus group experiencing homelessness, and likely many others living on the edge of that.

 

[ygolo]

Most people, especially busy people just trying to make ends meet, are not going to spend a lot of time on political subtleties.

That's not necessarily stupidity. You can call it ignorance, maybe. But it is a strategic ignorance needed to stay alive.

 

[SensEye]

You're doing the standard US conservative thing where you label anyone left of Ronald Reagan "far left" -- it's used as a branding strategy moreso than a legitimate critique of the opposing side's policies, mostly meant as a means of scaring moderate liberals. They've done this since the 80s where they repeat "far left radical" ad nauseum, to where it eventually becomes automatically associated with any sort of Liberal politician. True far left progressives weren't thrilled with Harris, and are the group often most disillusioned with the Democratic party.

That said, there really is no true leftist movement in the US that holds any degree political power at any level. The Overton window in this country is just so far skewed to the Right, that what would otherwise be considered center to center-left (at absolute best) politicians are labeled as "rAdICaL lEfT LiBruHs" ad nauseum by our corporate owned media structure here.

I'm not actually, but I can see how I could come across that way. I don't really think of things like minimum wage or universal health care as far left policies. I consider those basically centrist and I don't think the American electorate is opposed to them. I was just fine with Obama's policies from where I sit on the political spectrum, which is admittedly right of the active user base here.

I think the utter failure of Biden to address the border crisis until very late in the game was a huge problem. That seemed to be an issue for a vast swath of the electorate and I don't know who was encouraging him to ignore it. I can only assume some sort of progressives among his courtiers. So that's one area the Dems need to move towards the center on. Border regulation.

There was also a perception the Dems are soft on crime after the defund the police boondoggle. While I'm not sure crime was actually an issue at the time of the election, I think that perception was still tied to the Dems. They should always stay firm on law and order messaging.

I also think the Dems should move away from identity politics. I think this is the core of their problem. Progressives love that kind of stuff but most of the mainstream don't. Everyone knew a woman, and especially a woman of color would face an uphill battle. Especially one that got her position purely based on DEI identity politics. Beating Trump should have been a low bar to clear, but the Dems did pretty much everything they could to make it difficult, primarily sticking with Harris (and senile Biden before her).

I don't think the whole notion that this was a change election and the Dems simply weren't going to win holds any water. Against a traditional Republican maybe, but not against a crazy like Trump. I think a Mark Kelly type (who I perceive as a more centrist Democrat) would have got the job done. We'll never know now though.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Stigmata]

I don't think the whole notion that this was a change election and the Dems simply weren't going to win holds any water. Against a traditional Republican maybe, but not against a crazy like Trump. I think a Mark Kelly type (who I perceive as a more centrist Democrat) would have got the job done. We'll never know now though.

Voters around the world wish a plague on all incumbents.
Democrats Join 2024’s Graveyard of Incumbents

“The reason I make these assertions is that the economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world.”

This election loss isn’t without a greater geopolitical context. Without some major robust changes to the social safety net system in this country, a loss was all but guaranteed given the state of the post-Covid global economy.

That’s what I’ve been saying the Republicans are taking away all the wrong lessons away from this election: this wasn’t about people being upset about trans athletes playing in boys/girls sports, or white males feeling demonized by the left. That’s what they’ll take from it, but that’s not what this was about.

This election was about people saying “yeah, I’ll willing to put my moral qualms about Trump and the Republicans aside if they can actually deliver on what they’ve promised.”

Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and we’re already starting to see the effects of his win in a way that doesn’t bode well for what’s in store over the next 4 years, between the sweeping tariff policy and the potential fallout of getting rid of the Department of Education.

As swiftly and decisively as the pendulum swung on November 5th, it can swing back in the opposite direction just as quickly if Republicans don’t deliver, and if 2017 was any indicator of Republicans delivering last time they held both chambers of Congress and the White House, chances aren’t very high they’ll do so this time. They’ve got no one to blame if they fall on their faces in 2026.

 

[The Cat]

November 5 2024 will be remembered as a slow steam roller that could and should have been easily avoided.
​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

On the obsession with and fawning over the brilliance of entrepreneurs, the flip side of this is the opprobrium heaped upon AOC for having been a bartender. I found that infuriating.

Like, what's wrong with being a bartender? We've had lots of people in congress who were traditionally considered qualified, and look where that's gotten us.

I'd trust a bartender more than a glorified con artist like Trump.

 

[ygolo]

I think I am going through the bargaining phase of the grieving process.

I keep having false, fanciful hopes, like maybe we should clamor to keep Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, and we can convince Trump.

I hope that the elected officials understand that their mandate is for populism, not a direct shift rightward.

 

[Coriolis]

This election was about people saying “yeah, I’ll willing to put my moral qualms about Trump and the Republicans aside if they can actually deliver on what they’ve promised.”

Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and we’re already starting to see the effects of his win in a way that doesn’t bode well for what’s in store over the next 4 years, between the sweeping tariff policy and the potential fallout of getting rid of the Department of Education.

As swiftly and decisively as the pendulum swung on November 5th, it can swing back in the opposite direction just as quickly if Republicans don’t deliver, and if 2017 was any indicator of Republicans delivering last time they held both chambers of Congress and the White House, chances aren’t very high they’ll do so this time. They’ve got no one to blame if they fall on their faces in 2026.

But what promises are those? Further restrictions on women and LGBTQ people? Mass deportations of pet-eating immigrants? Replacing career civil servants with political lackeys? I would like to believe people were just voting their pocketbooks, but you would have to be really stupid to think widespread tariffs are going to reduce prices. Americans aren't (that) stupid, but like anyone, can be manipulated. There is an entire industry whose business is exactly that.

Until we can cut through the fog of deliberate manipulation and misinformation, our collective will is going to swing back and forth, like a small boat tossed in the wind. Right now, Trump/MAGA is a very strong headwind. When the economy tanks and more lives are lost through medical restrictions and unchecked violence, Progressive tailwind may rebound. This is no way to control a sailboat much less a nation. Accurate, reliable information is the rudder we have lost hold of, the ropes that control the sails, with which we can steer a deliberate course in the direction that will benefit everyone.

 

[Lark]

On the obsession with and fawning over the brilliance of entrepreneurs, the flip side of this is the opprobrium heaped upon AOC for having been a bartender. I found that infuriating.

Like, what's wrong with being a bartender? We've had lots of people in congress who were traditionally considered qualified, and look where that's gotten us.

I'd trust a bartender more than a glorified con artist like Trump.

A con artist is exactly what he is and why I find him so objectionable, the whole of his so called business smarts are nothing more than duping rubes like some sort of two big PT Barnum, Musk is just another example of it and he's thrown his lot in so heavily with Trump because its just about one of the only ways of keeping the shambling corpse which is twitter going for another year or two, he'll still not break even, maybe he'll run for office if Trump can ever be persuaded to relinquish office that is.

A friend of mine has sworn off all social media and all news broadcasts or other sources of news since these developments.

He's actually much happier for it all told.

 

[Lark]

But what promises are those? Further restrictions on women and LGBTQ people? Mass deportations of pet-eating immigrants? Replacing career civil servants with political lackeys? I would like to believe people were just voting their pocketbooks, but you would have to be really stupid to think widespread tariffs are going to reduce prices. Americans aren't (that) stupid, but like anyone, can be manipulated. There is an entire industry whose business is exactly that.

Until we can cut through the fog of deliberate manipulation and misinformation, our collective will is going to swing back and forth, like a small boat tossed in the wind. Right now, Trump/MAGA is a very strong headwind. When the economy tanks and more lives are lost through medical restrictions and unchecked violence, Progressive tailwind may rebound. This is no way to control a sailboat much less a nation. Accurate, reliable information is the rudder we have lost hold of, the ropes that control the sails, with which we can steer a deliberate course in the direction that will benefit everyone.

While I have witnessed plenty of people opting for "something other than", and I DO think that has a hell of a lot to do with Trump's repeated success, I would agree that its real hard to decipher what his promises or pledges may be.

I honestly do think that globally the right wing has played a blinder of framing all political discourse what so ever, so they tell liberals what they are, liberals do a great job of conforming to it, then they tell everyone else what liberals are, liberals do a blindingly great job of conforming to just that, and the mass of people simply dont relate to what that is any longer and decide to vote against it, no matter what it is they are voting for so long as its not "liberalism".

Honestly, how liberalism thought it was ever a great idea to abandon universal claims to justice or fairness to instead strongly identifying with, almost exclusively so, niche sexual preferences, and expect it to work as a constituancy or "vision for all" I just dont know.

 

[Lark]

I think I am going through the bargaining phase of the grieving process.

I keep having false, fanciful hopes, like maybe we should clamor to keep Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, and we can convince Trump.

I hope that the elected officials understand that their mandate is for populism, not a direct shift rightward.

Even if it is, and I think you're right BTW, objectively it will be a rightward shift, if only in so far as Trump will use it as an opportunity to award his friends with money, jobs and tax breaks.

He's already made his boss in moscow a lot bolder and whatever his followers might believe a war in europe isnt going to be something that they can safely ignore while it results in the destruction of a least two perceived rivals.

Those "rivals" are trading partners and markets that the US needs access too, autarky, even if they drill the crap out of every national part the US has remaining AND some how annexed Canada for its oil reserves, will turn out to be too expensive for anyone other than the 1%.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Who is Trump's EPA pick Lee Zeldin?

 

[Coriolis]

While I have witnessed plenty of people opting for "something other than", and I DO think that has a hell of a lot to do with Trump's repeated success, I would agree that its real hard to decipher what his promises or pledges may be.

I honestly do think that globally the right wing has played a blinder of framing all political discourse what so ever, so they tell liberals what they are, liberals do a great job of conforming to it, then they tell everyone else what liberals are, liberals do a blindingly great job of conforming to just that, and the mass of people simply dont relate to what that is any longer and decide to vote against it, no matter what it is they are voting for so long as its not "liberalism".

Honestly, how liberalism thought it was ever a great idea to abandon universal claims to justice or fairness to instead strongly identifying with, almost exclusively so, niche sexual preferences, and expect it to work as a constituancy or "vision for all" I just dont know.

Universal justice and fairness include "niche sexual preferences", as well as what I suppose you would call "niche religious preferences" like being Jewish (2.4% of US population), which really is a preference vs. something hardwired into our makeup, like being black, gay, female, or disabled. As long as any group is limited or excluded based purely on who they are, we do not have that universal fairness. The smaller groups make good targets because 1) they are not a large enough voting block, so no risk alienating them, and 2) many people will not personally know anyone in the group, so can more easily be manipulated into fearing or even hating them.

Put another way, the downside of majority rule is the possibility of oppressing minorities. Progressive government includes protections to ensure that does not happen. The smallest, most "niche" group, to use your terminology, becomes the canary in the mine shaft. As long as they are treated fairly, everyone else probably is, too. Once it becomes OK to limit, bully, or oppress them, it's just a matter of time before the next group comes under attack, and the next, and the next.

 

[Lark]

Universal justice and fairness include "niche sexual preferences", as well as what I suppose you would call "niche religious preferences" like being Jewish (2.4% of US population), which really is a preference vs. something hardwired into our makeup, like being black, gay, female, or disabled. As long as any group is limited or excluded based purely on who they are, we do not have that universal fairness. The smaller groups make good targets because 1) they are not a large enough voting block, so no risk alienating them, and 2) many people will not personally know anyone in the group, so can more easily be manipulated into fearing or even hating them.

Put another way, the downside of majority rule is the possibility of oppressing minorities. Progressive government includes protections to ensure that does not happen. The smallest, most "niche" group, to use your terminology, becomes the canary in the mine shaft. As long as they are treated fairly, everyone else probably is, too. Once it becomes OK to limit, bully, or oppress them, it's just a matter of time before the next group comes under attack, and the next, and the next.

View attachment 31833

I dont think alienating the majority has worked so far but you keep it up and I guess we'll all see how it works out.

Maybe promoting and profiling homosexuality will be something it was worth jettisoning everything else for but I dont think so.

Dont see why you're mentioning preferences and jewishness, seems a bit random but maybe it makes sense to you, sometimes its really not a good idea to fight every single battle like it was the last one and continually hark back to those glory days, again, just my opinion.

We'll do it your way and see what happens. Its not like there's not sufficient evidence already but anyway. The lesson keeps being repeated until the learning happens.