Random Politics Thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Cumtown was a Chapo Trap House adjacent thing for people that don't know. Adam Freedland and Nick Mullen (the rest of Cumtown) have their things too. I think its wild that people are realizing those dirtbag left guys should probably be people you listen to - including more mainstream leftys like Same and Emma (Matt Lech and David Grisom also have a great show) if you want to have a grasp on what the left is. Anyway, I love Stav, I listen to his thing on TY when I'm cleaning the house.

Here's Adam Freedland interviewing Chris Cuomo. This will never not be hilarious to me. It also shows how much Americans should not be watching MSM.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7401985944464690463

CTH is extremely vulgar, which I don't mind at all, but it might be too much for others. I appreciated the way they state things that so many politicians have tried to sweep under the rug or conceal behind elevated-sounding or convoluted constructions.

For me it was a nice "you're not actually crazy" (at least not in that way).

 

[Lark]

Reading Confessions of a Thug, I know its fiction but its subject matter is not and is established fact, has made me think about the extent to which "simple" crime and criminal underworlds influence everything else, I think that it can and does explain A LOT, if you consider that so much of populism is an attempt to discover all the current buzz words, hot topics, spin to keep a big enough number of the public's attention, the whole thing is liable to be nothing more than a slight of hand to cover criminal enterprises.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Reading Confessions of a Thug, I know its fiction but its subject matter is not and is established fact, has made me think about the extent to which "simple" crime and criminal underworlds influence everything else, I think that it can and does explain A LOT, if you consider that so much of populism is an attempt to discover all the current buzz words, hot topics, spin to keep a big enough number of the public's attention, the whole thing is liable to be nothing more than a slight of hand to cover criminal enterprises.

Being tough on crime never means white collar crime. There's also many things people can get away with that aren't illegal.

 

[Coriolis]

That was just a part of it, since there was plenty of "He isn't legitimate president" in the whole mix. The democrats never genuinely accepted what happened in 2016.


I understand that people are frustrated beyond any kind of normal levels. However for me this is simply the game that isn't worth it. Especially since I actually had to go though violent implosion of state as kid. Plus to be honest that was all basically because half of the country couldn't stand "that guy". People have the right to believe what they want but in my book all of this just isn't worth it. All people should just stop before it it truly too late. Because when shit truly hits the news from bigger US cities will look like those from Ukraine. Modern civil war is much more devastating than it was in those romantic days of 1860s. The firepower is simply incomparable. Therefore in my book this just isn't worth it for anyone in the country. If people indeed have too much extra energy focus that on some dictator overseas or your own local crime problems. There really is enough work for everyone.

Not sure what you have been reading, but while I recall significant disappointment, frustration, and even anger over the 2016 election from Democrats, the result was accepted as simply what the current system gives us. Yes, the result added fuel to the arguments for abolishing the electoral college, but that position was not at all new. Trump in 2020 was the first presidential candidate to refuse to accept the results. This has set a very bad precedent, one of many set by him and his supporters.

The idea of focusing on local problems is being taken up on many fronts, from the governors of our more progressive states, to charities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups. Practical, goal-oriented people recognize that weathering the next 4 years will require community building, neighbors helping neighbors, and changing what we can change, which is often easier on the local level. This will also help lay the groundwork for course corrections, possibly as soon as our midterm elections in 2026.

Being tough on crime never means white collar crime. There's also many things people can get away with that aren't illegal.

Indeed. Note that, in his campaign against illegal immigration, Trump has said nothing about penalizing the companies that hire them. They know they can't get alot of this work done without undocumented folks, since Americans won't take these low-paid, menial jobs.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Not sure what you have been reading, but while I recall significant disappointment, frustration, and even anger over the 2016 election from Democrats, the result was accepted as simply what the current system gives us. Yes, the result added fuel to the arguments for abolishing the electoral college, but that position was not at all new. Trump in 2020 was the first presidential candidate to refuse to accept the results. This has set a very bad precedent, one of many set by him and his supporters.

The idea of focusing on local problems is being taken up on many fronts, from the governors of our more progressive states, to charities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups. Practical, goal-oriented people recognize that weathering the next 4 years will require community building, neighbors helping neighbors, and changing what we can change, which is often easier on the local level. This will also help lay the groundwork for course corrections, possibly as soon as our midterm elections in 2026.

That is the problem, the impression that I have didn't came from reading. It came from watching "blue MSM" that is openly partisan. Therefore I dare to say that some of those clips/broadcasts really aren't that much better than what Trump did after 2020 elections. I mean if you don't watch that kind of material you probably skipped what I am talking about. Formally the party accepted the result but on the air there were really all kinds of stories and conspiracies on what happened. While all of that was simply to cover the fact that Hillary made a pretty vague and unclear campaign that got lost in it's bottom line.


Therefore which side is doing "the gossip" is kinda irrelevant. Especially since the system seem to be relatively fragile and legally vague. So if someone starts to spread rumors you are soon in the zone of "mass doubt". What evidently isn't good.


But yeah, the next 2 years until 2026 are evidently going to be turbulent and perhaps even hard.

 

[The Cat]

That is the problem, the impression that I have didn't came from reading. It came from watching "blue MSM" that is openly partisan. Therefore I dare to say that some of those clips/broadcasts really aren't that much better than what Trump did after 2020 elections. I mean if you don't watch that kind of material you probably skipped what I am talking about. Formally the party accepted the result but on the air there were really all kinds of stories and conspiracies on what happened. While all of that was simply to cover the fact that Hillary made a pretty vague and unclear campaign that got lost in it's bottom line.


Therefore which side is doing "the gossip" is kinda irrelevant. Especially since the system seem to be relatively fragile and legally vague. So if someone starts to spread rumors you are soon in the zone of "mass doubt". What evidently isn't good.


But yeah, the next 2 years until 2026 are evidently going to be turbulent and perhaps even hard.

when it comes to msm there's only honestly one side. Manufacture outrage and consent in equal measures across the classes.

 

[Virtual ghost]

when it comes to msm there's only honestly one side. Manufacture outrage and consent in equal measures across the classes.

Pretty much.
I am aware that I was watching "propaganda". However from time to time I do that to see what people are watching and thus to "check the pulse".

 

[The Cat]

Pretty much.
I am aware that I was watching "propaganda". However from time to time I do that to see what people are watching and thus to "check the pulse".

Its a real frustrating thing imo because if you dont stick your head into the shit you dont know what all bullshit is being spread around to everyone else. The big thing that frustrates me is how many people think that its not at all just propaganda. What a world I guess.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Its a real frustrating thing imo because if you dont stick your head into the shit you dont know what all bullshit is being spread around to everyone else. The big thing that frustrates me is how many people think that its not at all just propaganda. What a world I guess.

Exactly, however this doesn't have to be done on regular basis. It is enough that you just see the general narrative and on what is the focus.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Not sure what you have been reading, but while I recall significant disappointment, frustration, and even anger over the 2016 election from Democrats, the result was accepted as simply what the current system gives us. Yes, the result added fuel to the arguments for abolishing the electoral college, but that position was not at all new. Trump in 2020 was the first presidential candidate to refuse to accept the results. This has set a very bad precedent, one of many set by him and his supporters.

In 2000, there was a case to be made for a stolen election. People were upset about this for a while, and then 9/11 happened and people seemed to forget about it.

I'd say the Supreme Court may have really been what set the precedent that has screwed us all over since.

The idea of focusing on local problems is being taken up on many fronts, from the governors of our more progressive states, to charities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups. Practical, goal-oriented people recognize that weathering the next 4 years will require community building, neighbors helping neighbors, and changing what we can change, which is often easier on the local level. This will also help lay the groundwork for course corrections, possibly as soon as our midterm elections in 2026.

It will truly require a grassroots approach, whatever happens.

Indeed. Note that, in his campaign against illegal immigration, Trump has said nothing about penalizing the companies that hire them. They know they can't get alot of this work done without undocumented folks, since Americans won't take these low-paid, menial jobs.

I think this was tried in the 80s but was decided that this was impractical for some reason. I don't remember the specific reason that was given.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The issue of illegal immigration and displacements are about money, its a trade as reprehensible as the slave trade, which I think left wingers should be just as concerned about even if for very different reasons than the racists who just hate the sight of the people who're duped, coerced or otherwise caught up in the racket. I also wonder about the states from which all these individuals come, are they not suffering for the sudden exit happening? Are there any consequences for them if they know about it and do little or nothing to arrest it? Are they fine with the criminal elements organizing it all on their turf? Again its that issue of neglect, and they probably are getting kick backs, money or menaces play a part, but if there was state building attempted to counter drug harvesting, terrorist infestations or the like in the past why not something like that now? I know a lot of the bone heads are nationalists and cant see beyond their borders (often the end of their road, literally) or dont want to be bothered looking beyond that (again the neglect) but something should change about that.

Human trafficking is a serious issue. Coyotes are not good people, as far as I know. I cannot avoid stating the following three things:

Anti-immigration is what really provided the rocket fuel that allowed Donald Trump to enter into the realm of politics. This was a constant focus of his early campaign in 2015. It turned out to be pretty popular. It turns out that dumping on immigrants is still a pretty great way of being popular in U.S. politics. As usual, nobody learns anything.

Regarding the Middle Eastern immigrants to the U.S. and Europe, those are probably the result of U.S. policies in the region, although, like with so many things, nobody ever says this. Which is strange, because I thought our wars in the Middle East were supposed to be about helping people and giving them freedom, and that we were such a noble people for waging them. I would have thought such a generous people such as ourselves would be delighted to have them as neighbors.

I also think the state apparatus that will be set up for this problem will inevitably be used on U.S. citizens. Don't we (Americans) all have to sign I-9s when we start a new job, for instance? These people claim to care about freedom, but their preferred policies will increase the role of law enforcement in all of our live. Ultimately as a result of these freedom-loving people we will just have more cops sticking their noses in our business, if we're lucky.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A general point:

I think the start of this century marks something analogous to the beginning of the fall of Rome. I doubt the trajectory can be altered now.

(I should read more history on Rome, but I get the impression Edward Gibbons is considered outdated and inaccurate. )

 

[Coriolis]

That is the problem, the impression that I have didn't came from reading. It came from watching "blue MSM" that is openly partisan. Therefore I dare to say that some of those clips/broadcasts really aren't that much better than what Trump did after 2020 elections. I mean if you don't watch that kind of material you probably skipped what I am talking about. Formally the party accepted the result but on the air there were really all kinds of stories and conspiracies on what happened. While all of that was simply to cover the fact that Hillary made a pretty vague and unclear campaign that got lost in it's bottom line.

Therefore which side is doing "the gossip" is kinda irrelevant. Especially since the system seem to be relatively fragile and legally vague. So if someone starts to spread rumors you are soon in the zone of "mass doubt". What evidently isn't good.

But yeah, the next 2 years until 2026 are evidently going to be turbulent and perhaps even hard.

I'm using the term "reading" loosely, to mean any media consumption, most of which is online nowadays. I also know that most people, especially among Trump supporters, get their news from other than mainstream media. Personal connections on social media figure prominently, as do echo chambers run by influencers, commentators, and other talking heads. All media has bias. That being said, I observed two trends in my own consumption of media. 1) media with a progressive (Democratic-aligned) bias contained far fewer blatantly non-factual statements (e.g. Haitian immigrants are eating their neighbors' pets) among the hype and labelling. 2) despite the supposed Democratic bias, mainstream media held Trump and Harris, and Biden before her, to very different standards. Any small slip from Biden became major news, while Trump routinely misspoke, rambled, mixed up where he was and who he was talking about, with little notice. I am not talking about statements called out as outright lies or defamation, but ordinary attempts to explain policy or discuss current events with his audience. In my estimation, his health and cognition no better than Biden's and likely worse, and he doesn't have Biden's strong moral compass and skilled advisor cadre to keep him on track. At this point, I can only hope that he is able to serve out his term, or most of it, as Vance would be worse.

In 2000, there was a case to be made for a stolen election. People were upset about this for a while, and then 9/11 happened and people seemed to forget about it.

I'd say the Supreme Court may have really been what set the precedent that has screwed us all over since.

It will truly require a grassroots approach, whatever happens.

I think this was tried in the 80s but was decided that this was impractical for some reason. I don't remember the specific reason that was given.

Likely the traditional bias in favor of business. The business lobby can be strong, especially on the local level where federal actions by a Republican administration could harm down-ballot candidates. Illegal immigrants, in contrast, have no political voice so can be penalized with impunity.

 

[SensEye]

It turned out to be pretty popular. It turns out that dumping on immigrants is still a pretty great way of being popular in U.S. politics. As usual, nobody learns anything.

Especially the Dems. Soft on immigration is a fast track to right wing populism. And rightfully so. There is simply no good reason for illegal immigration. If you need cheap labor, issue temporary work visas and then you can keep things manageable. It seems the left can't bring themselves to control the border based on some misguided progressive ideology. It's never made any sense to me. So you get Trump and the like as a result.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm using the term "reading" loosely, to mean any media consumption, most of which is online nowadays. I also know that most people, especially among Trump supporters, get their news from other than mainstream media. Personal connections on social media figure prominently, as do echo chambers run by influencers, commentators, and other talking heads. All media has bias. That being said, I observed two trends in my own consumption of media. 1) media with a progressive (Democratic-aligned) bias contained far fewer blatantly non-factual statements (e.g. Haitian immigrants are eating their neighbors' pets) among the hype and labelling. 2) despite the supposed Democratic bias, mainstream media held Trump and Harris, and Biden before her, to very different standards. Any small slip from Biden became major news, while Trump routinely misspoke, rambled, mixed up where he was and who he was talking about, with little notice. I am not talking about statements called out as outright lies or defamation, but ordinary attempts to explain policy or discuss current events with his audience. In my estimation, his health and cognition no better than Biden's and likely worse, and he doesn't have Biden's strong moral compass and skilled advisor cadre to keep him on track. At this point, I can only hope that he is able to serve out his term, or most of it, as Vance would be worse.

Ok, but I am not talking about progressive media. I am talking about MSNBC and similar to that.


However I do wonder why you think that Vance would be worse ? (for me there is still too many unknowns in the mix even if general picture is known).

 

[Virtual ghost]

A general point:

I think the start of this century marks something analogous to the beginning of the fall of Rome. I doubt the trajectory can be altered now.

If by "Rome" you mean liberal democratic approach to life this claim will probably be true. However will that truly be the end of western civilization aka "Rome" ? That is simply the story without clear conclusions at this point. My house was build in a dictatorship, my local medical center where I am getting cured by single payer system was also built in a dictatorship. My gas pump was also build in a dictatorship period , while the gas in it is from the country that is still open dictatorship ... ETC. After all it can even be argued that you can't have real Rome without dictatorship. What makes current events to actually be the rise of Rome, not the fall of it.


What I am simply trying to say is that first world liberals too often equate their opinions with "life" and the opposite is seen as "death". However that isn't fundamentally true picture of the world. After all even if democracy falls the life will go on and that means the history will continue no matter what.


The trying times are clearly ahead, however it is way too early for absolute conclusions on the matter.
I know that I am being intellectually provocative but I really do think that this isn't as simple as most people think it is.

 

[The Cat]

Ok, but I am not talking about progressive media. I am talking about MSNBC and similar to that.


However I do wonder why you think that Vance would be worse ? (for me there is still too many unknowns in the mix even if general picture is known).

He's younger. Shown he's willing to sell out everything he says or does to play ball with whomever pays the best.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If by "Rome" you mean liberal democratic approach to life this claim will probably be true. However will that truly be the end of western civilization aka "Rome" ?

I mean the latter. If they establish a dictatorship, do you think these people can effectively run things? Trump isn't Tito.

I don't think it's a great sign when they put RFK Jr. in charge of the FDA. That gives me a good idea of what to expect.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Especially the Dems.

No, the Democrats tried to pass a bill combating illegal immigration and seemed to mention it frequently during the campaign season from the few bits I watched. They still lost.

How do you explain that? Do you think they could have gone far enough right on this issue that they could outflank the Republicans? I'm skeptical.

Soft on immigration is a fast track to right wing populism. And rightfully so. There is simply no good reason for illegal immigration. If you need cheap labor, issue temporary work visas and then you can keep things manageable. It seems the left can't bring themselves to control the border based on some misguided progressive ideology. It's never made any sense to me. So you get Trump and the like as a result.

Why do companies and businesses keep hiring undocumented workers?

 

[ceecee]

Especially the Dems. Soft on immigration is a fast track to right wing populism. And rightfully so. There is simply no good reason for illegal immigration. If you need cheap labor, issue temporary work visas and then you can keep things manageable. It seems the left can't bring themselves to control the border based on some misguided progressive ideology. It's never made any sense to me. So you get Trump and the like as a result.

Give me a break. There has been no immigration policy in the US since Regan. You can explain to all of us how this is strictly a Democrat issue. You can also explain to all of us how exactly the idea of "the border" is also a Democrat issue only.

Also, get a handle on your own country and your own border and stop sending illegals into the US.

More migrants are crossing the northern border from Canada into the U.S.

Photos show migrants crossing the border at night in frigid temperatures, including a family with an 8-month-old and a 2-year-old.

www.nbcnews.com

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5091259/indian-migrants-immigration-canada-northern-border-illegal-us-customs-and-border-protection

Right wing populism comes from the same place it has ALWAYS come from. The right.

Right-wing populism, also called national populism and right populism,[1][2][3][a] is a political ideology that combines right-wing politics with populist rhetoric and themes. Its rhetoric employs anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking to or for the "common people". Recurring themes of right-wing populists include neo-nationalism, social conservatism, economic nationalism and fiscal conservatism.[5] Frequently, they aim to defend a national culture, identity, and economy against perceived attacks by outsiders.[6] Right-wing populism has associations with authoritarianism,[7][8] while some far-right populists draw comparisons to fascism.[9][10]

While it isn't fascism, it's certainly adjacent and when it comes to the "other" invading the country, conservatives/nativists simply replace the ethnic group from time to time. Germans, Irish, Italian, Mexicans....it is the identical thing over and over. You would think people would smarten up but they don't and can't be bothered to do so. That is why right ring populism becomes popular over and over again.