Random Politics Thread

[Red Herring]

I think in this you may have a point.

I think Red Herring is pretty well informed about American politics, but I think there might be things about American culture that she might not be as familiar with as someone who has been swimming in them for thirty years.

One of these is the ways Americans discuss and conceive of foreign policy, when they do so at all.

That could be true. I am 41 years old now and started following politics and world events around the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, the Gulf War, all of that when I was 9 or 10 years old (not saying I understood everything, just that I took and interest and started following the news and asked questions to learn more about it). I remember cutting out political caricatures I liked from newspapers or old copies of Der Spiegel to save them for posterity at that same age.
Growing up in a small provicial village, I have always felt a strong interest in other countries, other cultures (also other historical eras). During my year as an exchange student in the US in the mid-90s I found Americans to be very friendly and open, maybe a little underinformed on the outside world, but sincerely interested. The country was also the epitome of cool and everybody at home was trying to imitate Americans. I studied to become a translator and interpretor with hopes to work for an international organization at some point (that never materialized). I spend a few semesters abroad again. A large part of our training was translating political speeches held in front of the UN or the EU parliament. I had enrolled in university classes in International Law, in International Organizations and in Geopolitics (the two latter ones during my time at another university in Spain) out of mere personal interest, so that suited me. I am and always have been an internationalist. By that I don't mean a free-trade-fetishist or whatever the far-right means by "globalist" when it isn't antisemitic dogwhistle, but someone who wants supranational organizations to play a larger role and to take power from the nation state and devolve it both to a more regional level (subsidiarity) and a more international level. All within democratic legitimization, of course. During those years at uni most of my friends were foreign philosophy PhD students who have by now moved on to their home countries to teach. We often talked politics over a glass of wine. While I was and am to the left of most Germans and far to the left of most Americans, I was too bourgeois for my literally card-carrying communist boyfriend at the time. Not radical enough, too trusting of "the system", too trusting of human nature.
I applied for a diplomatic career at the foreign ministry. While I passed all the written entry exams and was invited to Berlin for an interview, I flunked that interview and that was the end of that dream. So I became a freelance translator and interpreter. That meant working with both business executives and works council representatives, constantly speaking in the name of both, having to put myself in the shoes of both. It meant meeting academics, engineers, politicians, simple workers, entrepreneurs from different countries and different backgrounds. I like to think that this has broadened my perspective a bit and made it more nuanced at times.

The interest in discussing international politics remains. And while I know, on a theoretical level, that not everybody shares the same background, the same interest or the same debating style, I sometimes get carried away or forget about that when talking to an abstract voice online. So, sorry about that.

Why am I writing all this? Not to brag - my knowledge on any of the above mentioned topics is thin at best and I perfected the art of getting by with a little bit of last minute research (remember, INTP, jack of all trades, master of none). I neither claim any special knowledge nor special training or special brain power. And I most definitely am not part of any elite (yes, I have university training and health insurance, but no car of my own, no pension scheme, no savings to speak of and no job security whatsoever). I am writing it to explain where I am coming from in this and other debates like it. To explain, why I am hanging out in the politics subforum and spending my free time (actually, I should get back to work) on this. And why I am debating and talking the way I am.

Over and out. Sorry for the overlength.

 

[Maou]

You said last year it wasn't actually capitalism.

Because capitalism in of itself isn't the issue, it's people. As far as I am concerned, capitalism at its core is the exchange of goods and services for currency. What people hate about "capitalism" is what has evolved on top of this basic concept within the government, how it uses its money, and its ties to business and manipulation. Just like communism and socialism can become corrupt, so too, can capitalism. My opinions have evolved over the last year too, so unless you are going to quote me from the past. Don't bring it up, as it does nothing for the conversation if no one has any idea what you are talking about.

I am not hating on "capitalism" itself, but how the rich abuse the system of democracy, to gain control over assets, the government, and every institution. I also said last year, I now consider myself in support of anarchy (being an anarchist itself, is stupid, anarchy is a transition not a position). Because the system has failed, and it's only going to get worse. The people truly voted themselves into slavery, by giving the government too much control over their lives that they can never get back.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Virtual Ghost, I thought, was saying something about my positions being standard left Democrat, and attributed that to mistrust between the two sides and the division of the culture war. I'm not sure how it applies here because this is a Democratic president I'm criticiizing; we are theoretically on the same side of the culture war. What does this have to do with the fact that I don't trust Republicans when it's a Democrat I'm not trusting?

What I meant was that you belong to the left wing of the democratic party (aka progressives). However I am getting impression that this group is watching the US foreign policy as something fundamentally flawed and perhaps even beyond repair. That just seems as a general talking point of the group. While the problem here is that this is kinda simplistic. That policy seems fairly flawed but cutting out the foreign policy issues doesn't really solve the problems. They wouldn't go away just if you turn inward. The world is highly interconnected and you simply can't play the card of some lose colony at the end of the world anymore. Modern supply chains, power relations, climate change .... you can't fully retreat from that (as I explained the other day). Core of your problem actually is in foreign policy, or to be exact that you lost the first position in the most things. Some of that is of domestic making but a good chunk is simply because others really put plenty of effort into development. And how to address that requires plenty of foreign policy thinking ... what is kinda seen as unamerican in most situations. Since requires thinking about ideas and facts that are foreign or simply "outside". Therefore my point was that you all got kinda lost in perspective, since there is so much fail that you kinda lost perspective. What eventually leads into emotional burnout and confusion (at best).

 

[Red Herring]

What I meant was that you belong to the left wing of the democratic party (aka progressives). However I am getting impression that this group is watching the US foreign policy as something fundamentally flawed and perhaps even beyond repair. That just seems as a general talking point of the group. While the problem here is that this is kinda simplistic. That policy seems fairly flawed but cutting out the foreign policy issues doesn't really solve the problems. They wouldn't go away just if you turn inward. The world is highly interconnected and you simply can't play the card of some lose colony at the end of the world anymore. Modern supply chains, power relations, climate change .... you can't fully retreat from that (as I explained the other day). Core of your problem actually is in foreign policy, or to be exact that you lost the first position in the most things. Some of that is of domestic making but a good chunk is simply because others really put plenty of effort into development. And how to address that requires plenty of foreign policy thinking ... what is kinda seen as unamerican in most situations. Since requires thinking about ideas and facts that are foreign or simply "outside". Therefore my point was that you all got kinda lost in perspective, since there is so much fail that you kinda lost perspective. What eventually leads into emotional burnout and confusion (at best).

Yes, especially to the bolded.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Under US pressure, UK Tories pledge to change tack on dirty money

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

While I was and am to the left of most Germans and far to the left of most Americans, I was too bourgeois for my literally card-carrying communist boyfriend at the time. Not radical enough, too trusting of "the system", too trusting of human nature.

Where I am, I just see people who trust in the "system" too much continually disappointed and having a very hard time coping or even accepting when the system lets them down. Much has been made of Trump's positivity but I think it extends beyond him or even the GOP into American culture at large. I am used to the system continually failing at everything (except for brinksmanship with Ukraine, I guess). I prefer to acknowledge that it isn't really working anymore, but a lot of people really seem to be in denial. I've come to associate trusting "the system" with the toxic positivity.

Tellingly I am frequently criticized as being too cynical (at other times criticized as being too idealistic).

Over and out. Sorry for the overlength.

My impression is that U.S. culture changed a lot after 9/11, and not for the better. Having said that, it wasn't long before when I really started becoming aware of current events. I remember in 96 I didn't even know which party my parents supported. I think there's a good chance things have changed a lot since when you were an exchange student. I would expect that the lack of knowledge about other countries has remained but now there is either overt hostility or a vague idealization. I guess I would say that Americans have more opinions about foreign countries but about the same amount of knowledge.

I'd say most people are probably not really aware (and many probably don't even care) about how global perception of the U.S. has shifted. I guess they think we did an "oopsie" (I think a lot of people believe the lie that there was "no way they could have known") or two and everyone has put that behind them. Or something like that. I know politicians in the US still describe us as the "leader of the free world" and I think it's possible a lot of people might actually believe it (especially among the older generation).

I'm trying to articulate a position that I'm used to people not understanding or not wanting to hear. Which I think is going to probably make me a little defensive. People kind of view me as the bad guy because I say things that contradict their view of the world, and so they cannot possibly true. They can never tell me why they can't be true, all they tell me is that it makes them feel bad or that it's "radical". To me that suggests I'm running up against some cognitive dissonance. Barred of any meaningful challenge, I tend to assume that my position is probably true and correct since the challenges to them I get are so weak. I was actually delighted when you wrote me a long post that didn't contain any of the usual non-rebuttals.

I will say that I'm not really used to people giving me good faith responses that actually engages with the content. I'm used to people trying to protect their incoherent worldview usually influenced by whatever messaging they've been consuming recently, and approaching the entire discussion from that perspective.

What I meant was that you belong to the left wing of the democratic party (aka progressives). However I am getting impression that this group is watching the US foreign policy as something fundamentally flawed and perhaps even beyond repair.

I do think that as far as foreign policy is shaped by the usual suspects in Republican or Democratic administrations, it is fundamentally flawed beyond repair, because it is based on assumptions that are fundamentally flawed.

And how to address that requires plenty of foreign policy thinking ... what is kinda seen as unamerican in most situations.

Not the least by the people dictating foreign policy. I don't see how we can engage with the world in anything but a destructive fashion as long as ideas like American exceptionalism guide official policy.

The thing is that it is basically forbidden in American politics to not support American exceptionalism in some form, so how can foreign policy expect to be shaped in a different direction? I have seen neoconservatives pivot towards the orbit of the Democratic party in the last five years, and watched liberals accept them with open arms. Do you think a more sensible foreign policy will emerge from this?

At this point my main concern is just getting people to question the standard narratives about American foreign policy, which is proving distressingly difficult since nobody seems to have learned anything. Acknowledging things like "maybe Ukraine should be a buffer state" is so far off from where the American people are at.

 

[Maou]

I wonder how long before a false flag happens at the Ottawa protest, so Trudeau can exorcise his Martial law.

 

[Red Herring]

Since news coverage was mentioned before, I thought I'd add a few examples of what I mean by different presentation styles ...

This is Tagesschau, a 15 minute news program run several times a day on most public channels. It's the most watched and most trusted news program in the country:

(the headlines read "High hidden figure - Health minister on the state of corona data", "Heads of state and government - EU special summit on corona pandemic", "Meeting in Davos - Beginning of the World Economic Forum" and "Ukraine conflict - Increasing concern over further escalation")

It is a rather sober program. They strive to be dry and objective and abstain from explicit commentary. That's the news program I gew up with and still watch today.

When I talk about American news channels being too shouty and shrill and too color saturated and having too many news tickers competing for attention with each other, each trying to be more sensational than the next, with breaking news occuring several times a day rather than a few times a month, I am think of this:

I never know where to look first and the end of the world always is nigh

 

[Virtual ghost]

Not the least by the people dictating foreign policy. I don't see how we can engage with the world in anything but a destructive fashion as long as ideas like American exceptionalism guide official policy.

The thing is that it is basically forbidden in American politics to not support American exceptionalism in some form, so how can foreign policy expect to be shaped in a different direction? I have seen neoconservatives pivot towards the orbit of the Democratic party in the last five years, and watched liberals accept them with open arms. Do you think a more sensible foreign policy will emerge from this?

At this point my main concern is just getting people to question the standard narratives about American foreign policy, which is proving distressingly difficult since nobody seems to have learned anything. Acknowledging things like "maybe Ukraine should be a buffer state" is so far off from where the American people are at.

My point was that the people themselves will have to think more about the foreign policy. Of course that the current status quo isn't working, that was never really the topic. The point was in how to get out. So my point was that all problems have exploded over the years because people don't care too much about foreign policy. Which basically dictates economy and general social climate. Therefore I suggested more thinking about this. Especially since here a miss is much harder to undo then in domestic issues.


However I am also saying that the logic of questioning everything without clear conclusions is something that probably leads into analysis paralysis. Therefore this should also be avoided if possible.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I never know where to look first and the end of the world always is nigh. When I talk about American news channels being too shouty and shrill and too color saturated and having too many news tickers competing for attention with each other, each trying to be more sensational than the next, with breaking news occuring several times a day rather than a few times a month, I am think of this

Well, this is indeed kinda annoying and hard to watch. Especially if we add all the moralistic drama that is usually a part of the cake.
However this is kinda exactly why US is having growing anti-media sentiment. Especially since for them media stories much less match real life. What is because in US news are about making money and therefore you end up in a similar problem as with healthcare. The model doesn't really fit the task at hand.

 

[Virtual ghost]

MEPs green-light urgent financial aid to Ukraine

The EU Parliament has struggled to find unanimity over Russia. A small but vocal minority of MEPs have a pro-Russian agenda — a reality that has complicated the Parliament’s efforts to present a united front on the Ukraine crisis. All MEPs from French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, National Rally, voted against the the package, as did others from the Identity and Democracy Group, a handful from the European Conservatives and Reformists and several from The Left.

This basically only proves that Identity and democracy group is a problem. They are the most fascism friendly block in the EU parliament and this kinda proves what is on their mind. The bulk of their support comes from France and Italy. Therefore if you crash them there they will basically become irrelevant.

 

[Maou]

You shouldn't watch American politics to begin with. It is all just for "show", and for profit.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I never know where to look first and the end of the world always is nigh

I hate it so much. The problem is really not just Fox News. I think it actually makes people that watch it dumber and more hysterical by hijacking the amygdala.

My point was that the people themselves will have to think more about the foreign policy. Of course that the current status quo isn't working, that was never really the topic. The point was in how to get out. So my point was that all problems have exploded over the years because people don't care too much about foreign policy. Which basically dictates economy and general social climate. Therefore I suggested more thinking about this. Especially since here a miss is much harder to undo then in domestic issues.


However I am also saying that the logic of questioning everything without clear conclusions is something that probably leads into analysis paralysis. Therefore this should also be avoided if possible.

Interesting. Could you explain a little more? Are you saying that in addition to criticism, solutions would be provided? If we had a functioning system and experts that were actually reliable, this would be something the foreign policy community could provide. I am open to ideas from outside, certainly, but beyond that I am usually presented with a binary option between what the two parties are providing (if there is even a difference between those), or perhaps essays and editorials from printed outlets that contain many of the same false assumptions that seem to guide official policy.

You shouldn't watch American politics to begin with. It is all just for "show", and for profit.

No wonder Trump entered it.

 

[Maou]

No wonder Trump entered it.

Yet people still took it so seriously, they got depression over it. They couldn't see behind the curtain, and fell for the MKUltra tier psyops tactics the Plutocracy was employing to keep people voting themselves into slavery.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yet people still took it so seriously, they got depression over it. They couldn't see behind the curtain, and fell for the MKUltra tier psyops tactics the Plutocracy was employing to keep people voting themselves into slavery.

Well, I loathe the fact that in 2020, it came down to a choice between Biden and Trump. I would have preferred almost any other pair but that (except John Hickenlooper, I guess). I will admit that I was wrong in thinking Biden would lose to Trump, but his administration is playing out exactly as I predicted for the most part. It wasn't a great idea to go with the guy who is literally one of the people that actually got us into this mess to begin with through all the disastrous policies he eagerly shepherded into being and seemed as off his game cognitively as Trump. But hey, the media said he was "electable" and Obama approved, so people went with that. They also said Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were electable, so I couldn't figure out for a long time why that line of argumentation keeps working. I've come to the conclusion that it's probably because it plays on people's fears of Trump getting re-elected (enhanced by amygdala-hijacking of sensationalistic media) to go with one of the most conservative options.

I'm starting to think that often anyone ostensibly on my side starts endorsing questionable policies because prominent figures support them or reacting with the same hostility to criticism of Democratic administrations that they called "authoritarian" under Republican administrations, it's from a place of fear (much as it is for Republicans).

I will say that the depression is better than the January 6th riot. You might have heard vague claims about "Russia hacking the election" from them but they never took it seriously enough to get up off their asses to interfere with the democratic process. Trump Derangement Syndrome and the reaction to Trump getting pwned Biden are not really in the same ballpark. The way the Republican party has dealt with their loss is so much more unhinged than the Democratic one.

.(Russians hacked the DNC, but I think it's a stretch to say that's hacking the election. It is probably worth being concerned about, but I am not convinced it was the decisive factor in the election... if there was a single decisive factor, that's heroic patriot and resistance hero James Comey. But saying that Russia "hacked the election" makes it sounds like they were getting into voting machines and changing votes, which there is no evidence of. I thought facts mattered, lol.)

People did appear unwilling to accept the fact that Hillary lost the election legitimately (for a variety of reasons, some of which she could have done something about), but that's nothing compared to the way Republicans reacted to Trump losing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Interesting. Could you explain a little more? Are you saying that in addition to criticism, solutions would be provided? If we had a functioning system and experts that were actually reliable, this would be something the foreign policy community could provide. I am open to ideas from outside, certainly, but beyond that I am usually presented with a binary option between what the two parties are providing (if there is even a difference between those), or perhaps essays and editorials from printed outlets that contain many of the same false assumptions that seem to guide official policy.

This is kinda why I suggested to you that you watch/follow more foreign media on youtube, since that way you evidently expand your thinking and the pool of facts (most relevant sources have a channel on English). As you said you as a nation need to change the status quo, but how exactly will you do it is open for debate. However multiparty system or plenty of primaries at least are probably the way to go if you want genuine change without bloodshed. Since in the end all of your problems are coming down to political system that isn't really up to the task and is kinda out of date on most things. On the other side of the Atlantic the impeachments, removing people from office, coalitions, snap elections ... etc. are much more often. What basically makes sure that the system cleans itself better and that it is much harder to consolidate power. Especially since people can basically always just form new party and reset the game.


Here is one current example
Polling average Politico


The new center left party got created just before elections and the entire political system is buckling. What is because many people there want something completely new. What is why I defend genuine multiparty system as a must for modern times if you want to have a real democracy, as well as flexibility. My point was simply that just watching what the others are doing can save you from a lot of trouble. Either in preemptive way or in a way of finding a solution that fits the situation. The number of countries in the world is rising and there is about 200 of them out there. Also the none government factors are getting exponentially louder, either as radicals, activists or big business. Climate change and environmental issues are a big twist. Therefore this model of two sides full of old people isn't going to work. However how will people like you exactly change your country is hard for me to say because I don't really know all the cultural and practical details in the field. However you have to learn about alternatives in depth and then figure out how to deploy/advocate some of the stuff you actually want. But the world isn't going to wait for too long for the adaptation. Since we are evidently in the middle of a game.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Politico polls


Judging by this Florida will once again have a red governor.

 

[Maou]

Well, I loathe the fact that in 2020, it came down to a choice between Biden and Trump. I would have preferred almost any other pair but that (except John Hickenlooper, I guess). I will admit that I was wrong in thinking Biden would lose to Trump, but his administration is playing out exactly as I predicted for the most part. It wasn't a great idea to go with the guy who is literally one of the people that actually got us into this mess to begin with through all the disastrous policies he eagerly shepherded into being and seemed as off his game cognitively as Trump. But hey, the media said he was "electable" and Obama approved, so people went with that. They also said Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were electable, so I couldn't figure out for a long time why that line of argumentation keeps working. I've come to the conclusion that it's probably because it plays on people's fears of Trump getting re-elected (enhanced by amygdala-hijacking of sensationalistic media) to go with one of the most conservative options.

I'm starting to think that often anyone ostensibly on my side starts endorsing questionable policies because prominent figures support them or reacting with the same hostility to criticism of Democratic administrations that they called "authoritarian" under Republican administrations, it's from a place of fear (much as it is for Republicans).

I will say that the depression is better than the January 6th riot. You might have heard vague claims about "Russia hacking the election" from them but they never took it seriously enough to get up off their asses to interfere with the democratic process. Trump Derangement Syndrome and the reaction to Trump getting pwned Biden are not really in the same ballpark. The way the Republican party has dealt with their loss is so much more unhinged than the Democratic one.

.(Russians hacked the DNC, but I think it's a stretch to say that's hacking the election. It is probably worth being concerned about, but I am not convinced it was the decisive factor in the election... if there was a single decisive factor, that's heroic patriot and resistance hero James Comey. But saying that Russia "hacked the election" makes it sounds like they were getting into voting machines and changing votes, which there is no evidence of. I thought facts mattered, lol.)

People did appear unwilling to accept the fact that Hillary lost the election legitimately (for a variety of reasons, some of which she could have done something about), but that's nothing compared to the way Republicans reacted to Trump losing.

No, you were right that Biden would lose. Because he did, and the election was stolen. The establishment learned their lesson, on allowing the possibility of outsiders. They employed the same tactics that Venezuela did. But of course, no one on the Left cares because the media told them it is a conspiracy. As long as the Democrats wins, they don't care how Authoritarian the Democratic party gets. Biden literally had nothing, he had zero support. The only people who "voted" for Biden, are those who vote D regardless of who the fuck it is. Hitler could run as a Democrat, and they would vote for him. That little "pause" on voting day, mirrors exactly what happened in many 3rd world countries when their elections were stolen by the Communist party. And yes, his "administration" is playing out exactly like how I predicted too, if not worse. Except he isn't running the show, and I knew he wouldn't. He is a literal husk of a human being with hardly any comprehension, propped up entirely by the plutocracy and corruption. It is honestly elderly abuse.

As far as I am concerned, every politician in my lifetime that had ran for president that got elected is just "controlled opposition", except for Trump. Republicans, and Democrats are on the same side. You should say it is the party of the "Global elite" vs the "Useful idiots". Of course, you have the people who are trying to change that. But let's face it, these people never get elected because the system is so rigged by money, control, and influence. Nothing is going to change for the better, for the people. Trump was the only exception in my opinion, and look at how he was treated. The sheer amount of visceral hatred that was directed at Trump, is proof that he was an actual outsider. It was nothing compared to Obama and Bush's supposed "outrage". They still blame him for so much shit, even now. Democracy in America, is a joke. They market politicians to the American people, with false promises and deliver on none of them to simulate a mockery of an Republic. They lie, just to inspire hope. Then when they get elected they carry out their promises to the Rich and throw the finger to the people. The founding fathers are literally rolling in their graves.

The January "riot" was nothing compared to the BLM "protests", and you know it. This is just a fucking false flag bullshit to scare people into not protesting an obviously stolen election. How they treated the protestors on January 6th was a threat to the American people. I sometimes wonder if you guys live under a fucking rock, and don't even watch the protests that you support. Like you guys are stuck in the idea, and don't know shit about the reality of the situation because it's "Scary". Get your head out of your ass, and look around. Look at how they are treating the Ottawa protestors the same way. Literally threatening martial law, over the most peaceful protest, and biggest protest in history in a long time for Canada. Just a little while ago. Trudeau was literally supporting India's road blockades. He is a fucking joke, and should have never been elected to begin with. But Canada is suffering from the same corruption and cancer than America is.

Russia was a scapegoat. It always is. The election hacking was an inside job. It wasn't "Russia". All they did was have someone show up with a thumb drive and stick it into the machine, as well as a ton of ballots delivered via mail that were counted but were not legit. Whenever the Plutocracy does some shit, it blames Russia and China. That is extremely obvious. Not to say those two countries do not interfere with our shit, but it is no where near the same scale our own politicians fuck with our own institutions. Republicans are controlled opposition. Most people hate Republicans, but its the only thing they can vote for. That is why this shit system doesn't work. Also, we should get voter ID. You need a license for literally everything else, there is zero fucking excuse. Saying "Black people can't get one" isn't true at all. They can get a drivers license or a state ID, they can get a fucking voter license. If you still think its an issue, have your local politicians bus them to the DMV. Most other countries already have them as well.

Hillary vs Trump election didn't have a super long pause in the counting process that would instigate a untrustworthy response. You know that was abnormal, especially the supper massive jump in numbers out of no where. As well as the TV literally recording a drop in count for Trump. Calling it an "error" was bullshit. That has never fucking happened before.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

No, you were right that Biden would lose. Because he did, and the election was stolen. The establishment learned their lesson, on allowing the possibility of outsiders. They employed the same tactics that Venezuela did. But of course, no one on the Left cares because the media told them it is a conspiracy. As long as the Democrats wins, they don't care how Authoritarian the Democratic party gets. Biden literally had nothing, he had zero support. The only people who "voted" for Biden, are those who vote D regardless of who the fuck it is. Hitler could run as a Democrat, and they would vote for him. That little "pause" on voting day, mirrors exactly what happened in many 3rd world countries when their elections were stolen by the Communist party. And yes, his "administration" is playing out exactly like how I predicted too, if not worse. Except he isn't running the show, and I knew he wouldn't. He is a literal husk of a human being with hardly any comprehension, propped up entirely by the plutocracy and corruption. It is honestly elderly abuse.

You're doing Biden Derangement syndrome, you know.

You're not better than people blaming Trump on Russia that you were criticizing a few posts back, and you know it.

Some of what you say is basically right, but you cling to Trump out of fear so you can't stand any criticizing of him or think that any accusations of not having the cognitive capacity for the job don't also apply to Trump (lots of Democrats do the same with Biden, so you are in good company).

But that's what so shitty about this system. I can't say that it isn't good that we had two people who can't mentally handle the task on that debate stage, I'm supposed to go on and pretend that one doesn't actually have cognitive impairment. You're much more mainstream than you think in that.

The entire American political system has been gaslighting me for the past 20 years and I'm sick of it. Trump, Biden, Bush, Obama they're all grifters and crooks. Sorry everyone for including one of your "faves" in there.

 

[Red Herring]

The current reports in the German media very cautiously point at a positive development of the talks. Scholz has just visited Moscow and my husband and I speculated just now if maybe his hesitance to be more outspoken in public might have something to do with some sort of behind-the-stage negociations going on even before his official visit.