Random Politics Thread

[Virtual ghost]

Well, it actually does concern the US in that the United States are a key member of NATO and even though Ukraine isn't a member, the entire conflict is about the role of NATO and how far its sphere of influence goes. And even if you are understandably skeptical towards imperialism, there is a new cold war going on between large spheres of influence. America and Western Europe are in this together and any withdrawel of the West (you and us) means more power to an expansionist autogratic system. This isn't the West agressively pushing closer and closer to the Russian border to sell hamburgers and Coca Cola on the Red Square (even if Putin would like you to think so). Many countries of Eastern Europe have a long list of reasons, centuries of bad experiences, to fear Russian dominance. The annectation of the Krim peninsula has shown what they are capable of.

I am no friend of military solutions, in fact I despise anything military and think diplomacy is preferable by far. However, in this case I think categorical non-interventionism is not only morally dubious and intellectually lazy but strategically short-sighted.

That being said, Germany isn't exactly covering itself in glory in this situation.

Well this is why many are saying for years that Germany should get more serious about all this. I know you were all risen in "never again spirit" but that will not work in 21th century. Some reasonable security level has to be maintained. Especially now when US is out of juice and it will struggle just to maintain itself. Even if they somehow move against China the troubles with Russia are still our part of the problem/equation. We as the union have 3 times more people than Russia, about 10 times GDP, and something like 3rd army budget size on the planet. What is still under representative for our size and cards in hand. And that is if we don't count satellites such as Noway, Swiss, UK, Turkey, Ukraine etc. (which are all hostile towards Russia).

However Germany as a center of all this needs to stop going back to history lessons as soon as someone mentions military issues. Yes, there is now the continent with unprecedented peace era but external threats and influences are evidently still a problem (as you noticed). US can perhaps give some aid or advice but in the end of day this is our struggle. If we can't control so much weaker opponent we really should start to ask ourselves some hard questions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think it's honestly something Europe should take care of. I don't see why we have to maintain our dying empire or anything like that when we are obviously incapable of doing anything else. I'm furious that this is the one thing we can still do as a nation. Of course lots of money goes to defense contractors so that's one reason this is a priority.

U.S. defense spending is way too high and it should probably be closer to European levels especially given the geographical position of the US. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

The problem is that you guys went against the flow. When the world was developing over the last 20 years you went to war and now when there is objective need for "military stuff" you don't feel really like it. Plus you are using old American isolationism logic that probably isn't going to work. Since you as a country still float mostly because of influence and once you start to retreat the income will also start to drop, and then you surely wouldn't be able to pay off all those endless debts. Especially since there are hostile powers out there that want to take that influence and resources for them. Plus almost all military spending you do is returning back into your economy. What drained you is mass job outsourcing and financial/cultural shenanigans, not the military. As I said EU has to take it's part of the problem into it's own hands, but the old school isolationism will not work here. In 21th century there are no places on the continents that are out of reach. The very fact that this message will pass 5000 kilometers between us in a blink will prove me right. We now simply live in the world that is crowded and we are all boxed in one playground. Where the game is on regardless of how someone feels about it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The problem is that you guys went against the flow. When the world was developing over the last 20 years you went to war and now when there is objective need for "military stuff" you don't feel really like it.

Well yes, it was foolish to do that. I would be the first person to agree.

But nobody has really been held accountable for that and there's nothing in place to prevent that from happening again. I think you guys should not just be worried about Russia and China but also what the US might do in an attempt to maintain it's grip. The principal instigator of WWIII could just as easily be the U.S. I think "not feeling like it" is preferable to that (and for the rest of the world, as well) unless things actually stabilize internally.

John Bolton really wanted to go to war with Iran; it was actually Donald Trump that held him back. These people aren't actually gone (well some of them have died), and they haven't actually learned anything at all. It's something else that you should really be afraid particularly if you feel like social cohesion is at risk.

As I said EU has to take it's part of the problem into it's own hands, but the old school isolationism will not work here. In 21th century there are no places on the continents that are out of reach. The very fact that this message will pass 5000 kilometers between us in a blink will prove me right. We now simply live in the world that is crowded and we are all boxed in one playground. Where the game is on regardless of how someone feels about it.

I maintain that we should learn how to float based on something ese besides influence backed up by military force that we don't know or care about using wisely.

Europe also has lots of tariffs on U.S goods (correct me if I'm wrong) and somehow "conventional wisdom" in the US is that this is bad for economy even though it's working out for Europe. If we could place tariffs on European and Asian imports there would be more economic support for U.S. manufactured goods and more incentive to manufacture them. There are things we can do that don't revolve the risk of some other dipshit playing cowboy and landing on an aircraft carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished."

Again, people might argue that I "sound like Donald Trump" but this is something else I've believed for years and I'm not going to change my opinions just because of one reality show jackass.

I will also say that so you can't criticize the U.S for relying too much on its military and not spending more on domestic needs and then ask for the U.S to protect you/ intervene in some dispute with neighbors. At a certain point it starts to seem like Europe really does just want to bitch about the U.S. (This is about as jingoistic as I get).

I remember during the Obama administration when the Syrian civil war was going on France was saying "Somebody needs to do something. Why is nobody doing anything? Where is the US? Why aren't they stopping this?" and then the US did something and they immediately criticized the US for doing something. My guess is that the same thing would happen if we gave people are claiming we are "obligated" to provide. We'd hear something about American imperialism or American always relying on the military to solve problems.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well yes, it was foolish to do that. I would be the first person to agree.

But nobody has really been held accountable for that and there's nothing in place to prevent that from happening again. I think you guys should not just be worried about Russia and China but also what the US might do in an attempt to maintain it's grip. The principal instigator of WWIII could just as easily be the U.S. I think "not feeling like it" is preferable to that (and for the rest of the world, as well) unless things actually stabilize internally.

John Bolton really wanted to go to war with Iran; it was actually Donald Trump that held him back. These people aren't actually gone (well some of them have died), and they haven't actually learned anything at all. It's something else that you should really be afraid particularly if you feel like social cohesion is at risk.


I maintain that we should learn how to float based on something ese besides influence backed up by military force that we don't know or care about using wisely.

Europe also has lots of tariffs on U.S goods (correct me if I'm wrong) and somehow "conventional wisdom" in the US is that this is bad for economy even though it's working out for Europe. If we could place tariffs on European and Asian imports there would be more economic support for U.S. manufactured goods and more incentive to manufacture them. There are things we can do that don't revolve the risk of some other dipshit playing cowboy and landing on an aircraft carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished."

Again, people might argue that I "sound like Donald Trump" but this is something else I've believed for years and I'm not going to change my opinions just because of one reality show jackass.

Well, my post was made on the assumption that the force is used wisely and only when it is actually needed. "Mission accomplished" evidently isn't a part of that. Plus read my recent post to Herring about EU and military responsibility. That displays my position well on the issue.

Regarding tariffs, I don't really see your cultural point because they can indeed work. Completely unregulated market is basically US idea. That is exactly why I said plenty of times that for me "the right" and libertarianism are two different things. Actually not only that we have some tariffs for imports we even have plenty of outright bans on your goods. What is because plenty of your products don't meet our health standards (many foods are obvious example).

I will also say that so you can't criticize the U.S for relying too much on its military and not spending more on domestic needs and then ask for the U.S to protect you/ intervene in some dispute with neighbors. At a certain point it starts to seem like Europe really does just want to bitch about the U.S. (This is about as jingoistic nationalistic as I get).

But that is the catch of my post, if you reduce military substantially you will not have much to spend at home. I don't know why but US people really struggle with this. You have serious money problem and your desired solution is to close the profitable stores, simply because security guard is earning too much. While the real problem is lousy business strategy, decaying infrastructure, constant workplace drama etc. (since that is what cause the original money problems). However once you lose that profitable stores the game is over, your central company is going broke since it mostly just a hub. Which is currently floating only because it has so much under itself. Plus don't even get me started on the reserve currency of the world. Therefore you have to balance military, spending at home and alliances. Everything else is kinda doomed to fail here. In your place I would rather cut bloated healthcare costs at home than external security.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This forum is astonishingly silent on the situation at the Ukranian border. Any thoughts? I mean, in a worst case scenario it could mean war between the US and Russia and I didn't see anybody discuss it. It's the number one news story in Europe, I'd say.

Random question: Who do you support in incoming French elections ? (out of people that have any chance to win)

 

[Red Herring]

Random question: Who do you support in incoming French elections ? (out of people that have any chance to win)

Oh, that's a painful question. I think I could live with Macron winning again (which he is projected to do). No need to talk about the far right candidates and the center-left is almost dead. I'm obviously not a fan of the UMP either. I know that Macron is highly unpopular in his own country, partially because of his personality and partially because he did not tackle the social problems that drive people towards extremism. But I agree with his vision for the EU. So as a non-French person more effected by FRench foreign policy than interior politics I'd be fine with a few more years of him.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh, that's a painful question. I think I could live with Macron winning again (which he is projected to do). No need to talk about the far right candidates and the center-left is almost dead. I'm obviously not a fan of the UMP either. I know that Macron is highly unpopular in his own country, partially because of his personality and partially because he did not tackle the social problems that drive people towards extremism. But I agree with his vision for the EU. So as a non-French person more effected by FRench foreign policy than interior politics I'd be fine with a few more years of him.

Yeap, it is pretty much the same from my side.
Although I give him some benefit of the doubt over economy due to the 2 years of COVID. This really weren't the times for large reforms. But he is probably the best we can get out of those elections.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, my post was made on the assumption that the force is used wisely and only when it is actually needed. "Mission accomplished" evidently isn't a part of that. Plus read my recent post to Herring about EU and military responsibility. That displays my position well on the issue.

I did see that, yes.

I think you are willing to trust that the U.S will use it wisely. I do not, and I live here. Knowledge of geography and history besides "america rulez" is extremely limited. That is a recipe for disaster.

I would say that the people in foreign policy circles are largely even worse than the average person. Presumably they must have some knowledge of history and geography but seem to believe that the U.S. has a special destiny or is different so none of the historical lessons that might be learned are applicable, because of America's special role.

Regarding tariffs, I don't really see your cultural point because they can indeed work. Completely unregulated market is basically US idea. That is exactly why I said plenty of times that for me "the right" and libertarianism are two different things. Actually not only that we have some tariffs for imports we even have plenty of outright bans on your goods. What is because plenty of your products don't meet our health standards (many foods are obvious example).

Right, and it's a dumb idea. Another example of why "norms" are not something that we should treasure and always follow.

But that is the catch of my post, if you reduce military substantially you will not have much to spend at home. I don't know why but US people really struggle with this. You have serious money problem and your desired solution is to close the profitable stores, simply because security guard is earning too much. While the real problem is lousy business strategy, decaying infrastructure, constant workplace drama etc. (since that is what cause the original money problems). However once you lose that profitable stores the game is over, your central company is going broke since it mostly just a hub. Which is currently floating only because it has so much under itself. Plus don't even get me started on the reserve currency of the world. Therefore you have to balance military, spending at home and alliances. Everything else is kinda doomed to fail here. In your place I would rather cut bloated healthcare costs at home than external security.

Well, we could do something about infrastructure, and business strategy.

It doesn't necessarily need to all get cut at the same time. Also other countries buy our weapons all the time, so there would still be that.

Healthcare costs could probably be cut buy investing money in a public healthcare system. Which could be done with some of the money that goes to the military. There would be no 'how are you gonna pay for that" because that's the money that's already being spent.


We aren't actually "balancing spending on the military" and "spending at home" at the moment. What I am proposing is that we actually do that but you seem to object for some reason.

It seems like both you and Red Herring are taking issue with my argument that the US should spend more like a European country when you are constantly talking about how dumb the US for not spending money like a European country. Do you actually have a point to make or do you just like coming up with excuses to complain about Americans?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I did see that, yes.

I think you are willing to trust that the U.S will use it wisely. I do not, and I live here. Knowledge of geography and history besides "america rulez" is extremely limited. That is a recipe for disaster.

I would say that the people in foreign policy circles are largely even worse than the average person. Presumably they must have some knowledge of history and geography but seem to believe that the U.S. has a special destiny or is different so none of the historical lessons that might be learned are applicable, because of America's special role.

To some degree you are right here. Since I am talking about how US should be and not how it is. If it stays like it is then what I am saying is probably a bad idea or unrealistic idea. However I also believe in big transformations out of necessity. We will just have to see.

Right, and it's a dumb idea. Another example of why "norms" are not something that we should treasure and always follow.


Well, we could do something about infrastructure, and business strategy.

It doesn't necessarily need to all get cut at the same time. Also other countries buy our weapons all the time, so there would still be that.

Healthcare costs could probably be cut buy investing money in a public healthcare system. Which could be done with some of the money that goes to the military. There would be no 'how are you gonna pay for that" because that's the money that's already being spent.

Well, kinda the whole point of my current posts is that respecting the norms doesn't mean much if they don't fit the era in which the situation is happening. That is something like rule number one of getting things right.

We aren't actually "balancing spending on the military" and "spending at home" at the moment. What I am proposing is that we actually do that but you seem to object for some reason.

It seems like both you and Red Herring are taking issue with my argument that the US should spend more like a European country when you are constantly talking about how dumb the US for not spending money like a European country. Do you actually have a point to make or do you just like coming up with excuses to complain about Americans?

The fundamental problem here is that you seem to take capitalistic logic that military strength is very closely related to the amount of spent money. While I am actually saying that you shouldn't significantly reduce military strength in trying to fix all of your problems. In other words you should try getting the same thing for less money. Cut out what is evidently a waste, reduce prices in contracts, skip truly pointless conflicts, give some tasks to the allies, share a research project with them and spread the cost to all sides .... etc. Plus as I told you military IS mostly spending as home, almost all of that money is going directly back into the US economy on some way.




Another and bigger problem here is that you seem to think in the terms of absolute numbers instead of GDP size. What is misleading.

In other words US is spending just 1 to 1.5 percent more of it's GDP on military than UK and France. Which in my opinion have a good balance for European counties, below that 2% is actually problem zone of it's own. However those two countries have pretty much all social benefits that you want in your country. However how they can get all of that for that 1.5% difference ? They can because they have quite different understanding of life and economy. In other words they do the other 97% of economy differently. What leads to my point that your problem isn't really in military spending. What in the end means that you aren't really proposing the spending as those countries and the issue is going much much deeper than what you are suggesting.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In other words US is spending just 1 to 1.5 percent more of it's GDP on military than UK and France. Which in my opinion have a good balance for European counties, below that 2% is actually problem zone of it's own. However those two countries have pretty much all social benefits that you want in your country. However how they can get all of that for that 1.5% difference ? They can because they have quite different understanding of life and economy. In other words they do the other 97% of economy differently. What leads to my point that your problem isn't really in military spending. What in the end means that you aren't really proposing the spending as those countries and the issue is going much much deeper than what you are suggesting.

I appreciated when you provided the chart in response to my challenge. Actual facts to back up a point! I didn't know people still actually used those, but I'm glad you did. Now because you did, I am inclined to consider your point and think about what other aspects are perhaps contributing to issues in American society, culture, and government beyond just "military spending". You have called to attention areas where I could expand my understanding to get a more accurate picture of what is going on.

Having an accurate understanding of the nature of a problem is often helpful for solving it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I appreciated when you provided the chart in response to my challenge. Actual facts to back up a point! I didn't know people still actually used those, but I'm glad you did. Now because you did, I am inclined to consider your point and think about what other aspects are perhaps contributing to issues in American society, culture, and government beyond just "military spending". You have called to attention areas where I could expand my understanding to get a more accurate picture of what is going on.

Having an accurate understanding of the nature of a problem is often helpful for solving it.

Well, I suppose I can get even more specific than the past post.


In my opinion the socialized healthcare can't really work without socialized college. Because people that will actually work in treating people will get crushed when you cut high profit out of the equations (which are bloating the prices). Plus you want to get a generation of people that are doing this because they want to cure people, not make tons of money. Although even with this medicine is still one of the best paying jobs in Europe. While on the other hand lower cost of education is making sure that everyone has the money to pay taxes that allow the socialized healthcare. What in the end means you can use it in the case of medical problem free of charge and you never get huge medical bills (if any). Since the population established the safety net. Since this is basically a social contract between all citizens


Another problem is that for this to work you needs to greatly rise the quality of average diet and cut out substance abuse as much as possible. Since that is really rising the price of the whole system. However you will have problems with fixing that if you don't fix your farming. Where I live GM food is banned as well as hundreds of toxic chemicals that are legal in US. Since that is also rising healthcare costs significantly.


Another aspect of this is city planning. US is generally built in a way that you need to have a car or you are doomed. While in Europe you have this mixture of housing and commercial areas. Therefore you can go on foot to the grocery store or work. What is good exercise and it saves money on both car fuel and medical costs. As a matter of fact most if our cities have pretty developed public transportation in order to reduce costs. So that the money can be used to something smarter. Or that simply reduces the pollution and that again lowers the medical costs. We put green new deal on motion partially because it will lower the pollution and noise. What helps regarding health. Also you need to introduce paid sick leave, since that allows that the sick person doesn't spread the disease across the whole company. What is again huge saving in medical bills.


Also we have multiple times less people in prisons per capita and that is boosting the tax money going into healthcare. What is because friendly education and healthcare are very good in helping people stay away from crime. Especially if the guns are banned and it is hard to really get upper hand on another person. Here we even have various laws about protecting people from being thrown at the street from their living space due to money problems. Since we think that it is better to let people float when possible than push them into the dark path where they will become a problem.




I mean there is probably even more to this but I think you got the idea. Just cutting military spending will not provide the life and benefits that you want. Especially since this as already explained will sink the income from abroad. Therefore the transformation has to go much much deeper than that. I suppose this indeed sounds kinda discouraging but you basically asked for this explanation, so I felt the need to be open about this. The real problem is that other 97% of economy. The the key to socialized healthcare is reducing the costs and preventing medical problems before they even happen, not just finding some tax money that you will put pour into the system. Especially since individual approach on case by case basis requires plenty of paperwork and that is rising the cost. However if you suddenly go totally into socialized model you will get a fair amount of unemployed that we doing the paperwork. So you will need to find replacement jobs for those people. Therefore this really is about trying to establish some kind of "new normal" for the US and some existing norms have to be removed completely. Because simple solutions probably wouldn't do it and you will only get plenty of pissed people and the experiment will crash. The socialized healthcare really is kinda like the iceberg, the part you see is far from the full picture of what is really going on.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ukraine: The food factor


Something to think about.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The idea that if we be nice enough to Republicans and maybe they'll go along with some of what we want for the common good is probably the primary way in which the liberals are aiding and abetting the ever rightward drift of American politics.

I swear a lot of the mainstream Democratic positions and attitudes and even heroes are indistinguishable from that of the Bush era GOP. Sorry, I don't think this is a good thing nor do I think it's an effective tactic. From the GOP perspective, when the opposite party has this approach, it's clear that the GOP is the one with all the cards, so why would they give them up?

The Democratic Party has been trying this for the past 20 years and look at where we are now. Why am I the crazy one for saying that maybe this won't work this time, either? I expect 10 years from now the Democratic Party and folks in its orbit will be holding up Trump as an example of a "good" Republican. Maybe we don't have to go down that path? Maybe if we actually care about this stuff, we should fight for it and defend it?

In summary, I think if you have nicer things to say about Colin Powell than AOC you're probably part of the problem, too.

 

[Virtual ghost]

......

Europe’s digital future needs the private sector


What do you think about this ?
I ask because FDP in their campaign had a part about developing EUs digital industry and infrastructure. Plus we had some verdicts and decisions that go in the direction of digital self-sufficiency. So my question is do you see the connection ? I mean you evidently know more about what FDP is doing and what they actually placed into the program of your new government. Which evidently has a huge say in many things.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

One more thing before I take a break and get back to Virtual Ghost:

For those who think that mistrust in institutions is unwarranted, how would you explain these trends? Generally it seems that the more well off you are, the more trust you have. Why would that be? Is this unfair and that perhaps if they had more access to higher education they would learn why trust is warranted?

Is there a valid way to interpret this chart that would support different conclusions than the one I would draw? I'd like to be able to revise my conclusions if someone can show me why they are erroneous.

 

[Virtual ghost]

One more thing before I take a break and get back to Virtual Ghost:

For those who think that mistrust in institutions is unwarranted, how would you explain these trends? Generally it seems that the more well off you are, the more trust you have. Why would that be? Is this unfair and that perhaps if they had more access to higher education they would learn why trust is warranted?

Is there a valid way to interpret this chart that would support different conclusions than the one I would draw? I'd like to be able to revise my conclusions if someone can show me why they are erroneous.

In my book this is pretty simple. If you are doing well in the system you are by default more likely to place more trust in it. Especially since in US you are more likely to work or hang out with people who are mostly like you. Especially since the people are really diverse in their "cards". Plus older people seem to have more trust since they grew up in more stable and less questioning times.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In my book this is pretty simple. If you are doing well in the system you are by default more likely to place more trust in it. Especially since in US you are more likely to work or hang out with people who are mostly like you. Especially since the people are really diverse in their "cards". Plus older people seem to have more trust since they grew up in more stable and less questioning times.

I would say so. It also seems like in terms of numbers, there are more people who don't trust institutions, vs. people who do trust institutions.

So, let's approach this from a theoretical angle. Let's say we have two political parties. One party pretty much builds it's brand on catering to the fact that people don't trust these institutions, although it has no intention of fixing them. Another party prefers, on the whole to not address that fact, and tends to place fault with the people who don't have trust in the system, and works very hard to discourage people who might perhaps want to address the reasons why people don't trust these institutions.

Assuming there was no gerrymandering or other rigging going on, which party do you think would do better?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would say so. It also seems like in terms of numbers, there are more people who don't trust institutions, vs. people who do trust institutions.

So, let's approach this from a theoretical angle. Let's say we have two political parties. One party pretty much builds it's brand on catering to the fact that people don't trust these institutions, although it has no intention of fixing them. Another party prefers, on the whole to not address that fact, and tends to place fault with the people who don't have trust in the system, and works very hard to discourage people who might perhaps want to address the reasons why people don't trust these institutions.

Assuming there was no gerrymandering or other rigging going on, which party do you think would do better?

I admit, it is kinda insane show to watch.
The heaven itself created the blue trifecta so that the things can be cleaned up but the results are still "quite questionable". : political correctness :

 

[Red Herring]

One more thing before I take a break and get back to Virtual Ghost:

For those who think that mistrust in institutions is unwarranted, how would you explain these trends? Generally it seems that the more well off you are, the more trust you have. Why would that be? Is this unfair and that perhaps if they had more access to higher education they would learn why trust is warranted?

Is there a valid way to interpret this chart that would support different conclusions than the one I would draw? I'd like to be able to revise my conclusions if someone can show me why they are erroneous.

In case you are referring to me:

I feel like there is mome serious miscommunication gong on between us. Some of your recent posts made it clear to me that I had completely mistaken you on some issues (the abrasive communication style might have contributed) where we are actually much more in agreement than I thought. And I see that you keep completely misunderstanding what Virtual Ghost and I have been saying these last few years.

I'll get back to this in more detail when I can (it is 6 am and I will soon have to get up again to bring my kid to school and I have a tight schedule as I'm suppsed to have translated an entire book by the end of the month). For now let me just say that of course under current conditions it makes perfect sense for people who suffer the most from the current system to mistrust it the most. When I talk about trust and institutions, I don't mean what you seem to mean by these words. The cultural divide (and maybe different communication styles) makes this hard to bring across. You seem to think that i consider everything in the US to be just fine while I see the obvious need for profound reform. At the same time you recently got angry at me for supposedly being too critical of America and basically being an uppity foreigner who should better shut up.

I'm a working mum of two young children and barely get enough sleep. Calmly explaining something very abstract and complex (even if it has severe real life repercussions) takes a lot of time and I'm not even sure if you care to find out what I am actually on about and have been on about all this time.

Sorry, I'm a but frustrated right now and tired as hell. Will respond in a more composed, rational and structured way later on. Remind me to talk about Böckenförde.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In case you are referring to me:

I feel like there is mome serious miscommunication gong on between us. Some of your recent posts made it clear to me that I had completely mistaken you on some issues (the abrasive communication style might have contributed) where we are actually much more in agreement than I thought. And I see that you keep completely misunderstanding what Virtual Ghost and I have been saying these last few years.

I'll get back to this in more detail when I can (it is 6 am and I will soon have to get up again to bring my kid to school and I have a tight schedule as I'm suppsed to have translated an entire book by the end of the month). For now let me just say that of course under current conditions it makes perfect sense for people who suffer the most from the current system to mistrust it the most. When I talk about trust and institutions, I don't mean what you seem to mean by these words. The cultural divide (and maybe different communication styles) makes this hard to bring across. You seem to think that i consider everything in the US to be just fine while I see the obvious need for profound reform. At the same time you recently got angry at me for supposedly being too critical of America and basically being an uppity foreigner who should better shut up.

I'm a working mum of two young children and barely get enough sleep. Calmly explaining something very abstract and complex (even if it has severe real life repercussions) takes a lot of time and I'm not even sure if you care to find out what I am actually on about and have been on about all this time.

Sorry, I'm a but frustrated right now and tired as hell. Will respond in a more composed, rational and structured way later on. Remind me to talk about Böckenförde.

Did you think I was a Trump guy, or that I was farther left than I actually was? I think I'm pretty far left in an American context so I will kind of jokingly call myself a commie since I might as well be to a lot of people. But then there are the folks that have this kind of theoretical purity about "real leftism" and we just need to stop wasting time with Bernie or AOC or Contrapoints or any of the other succdems. What they seem to mean by a "succdem" (I am aware there is some German history involved here, but I think any debate about whether or not Ebert was right or wrong is besides the point) is anyone who claims to be left but isn't working towards having the masses rise up in a Marxist-Leninist "revolution", unlike what they are doing with their Reddit comments. I guess I'm to the right of those people, who seem to mostly be about being a left-wing version of an edgelord.

I know you are going to write a longer response but I just thought I'd help clear up a few more things:

I do often use really abrasive sarcasm, and yes, I am quite frustrated and filled with rage about the current situation. I think perhaps part of the disconnect is that it se, ems that you are not as immersed in American corporate media I am, and are not frequently subject to the views of those who have been shaped with it. I think you wrote before that you saw an American news program and did not care for how sensationalistic and "shouty" it was. Whenever I visit my family, it's usually on and I often beg them to change it.

To be clear, my immediate family are all Democrats and they are not watching Fox News, but I think the alternatives are far from ideal. I frequently see, interspersed between the frequent editorializing against Republican politicians or in favor of Democratic ones, (which is bad enough; give me the information, and let me form my own opinion) a lot of obfuscation or encouragement of tendencies in American society that I'm not really comfortable with. (It seems like things were better in this regard in the 90s but I was a dumb kid and didn't pay any attention to current events until the 2000s.) Robert Mueller and the FBI were made into heroic figures, ignoring the role the FBI has had as a repressive force in American politics.

And then there is the coverage about Putin and Russia. Now, I'm not under any illusions about Russian imperialism or anything like that. Some I suppose hold that because they are against a lot of the things the US has done in the world recently, that this must make Russia good. I think that's pretty dumb. But there is often a kind of jingoistic attitude spreading these sort of naive falsehoods about America's role in the world and contrasting that with Russia. I find it really disturbingly reminiscent of the kind of talk that went on about the Middle East after 9/11. During the Trump years I feel Russia's role in 2016 was given much more weight than it deserved (I suspect this may be to prevent coming face to face with a full reckoning of all the factors that played into Hillary's loss; I did vote for her, by the way).

I sense a degree of pious moralizing about Russia coming from the news anchors and pundits that reminds me too much of the moralizing that happened around Iraq. That was a moralizing that cared nothing for facts and found being reminded of them outright offensive; at times it seems like something like that is taking root among folks. On Friday, I had a conflict with my sister because I complained about the way they were talking about the US vs. Russia with regards to Ukraine; it was apparently offensive that I entertained skepticism and doubts about any of it.

(And yes, I kind of wish other things would have been seen as being as important by the Biden administration as this, which is also playing into my anger.)

So that's kind of what's at play when I went after you with regards to the Ukraine situation. You aren't coming from the same context I'm used to, so I apologize for that.

I think what I would like is not having the people on the news constantly tell me that Putin is a bad man and US good, and I'd like more details and information from the news about what's actually going on than this kind of emotionalist moralizing which sounds a lot like propaganda.

Oh, I said that would be short. Whoops.