Random Politics Thread

[Virtual ghost]

I was just showing that your estimation of how much we would end up or should be paying was short of the actual numbers.

Regarding refugees, how does it make sense to fly them across the atlantic when you don't have to? Why pay the money per refugee to do that? I'm sure we are taking some esp those with family in the US.

Also absolutely the rest of the countries aren't worthless. I wouldn't ever make that point.

The point made is that regardless of the % of GDP number we are doing more in net terms just like we do with foreign aid generally. And that matters no matter how you want to slice it.

I'll get to the rest of your points later as replying to them can be wrapped up into my reply to your larger response to me above.

Flying refugees over the Atlantic is absolutely pointless. Especially since most of them want to get home as quickly as possible. My point was simply that your graph was just about military aid, but that isn't full picture. It is quite important part but it isn't everything. Nothing more.

I agree that US right now doesn't have too much money to burn. However in the situations like Ukraine not acting could easily prove to be much more costly for entire first world (due to already mentioned reasons). I don't think that hawkish solutions are usually the right ones but in Ukraine I give those advantage. There simply can't be truly pretty solution. Plus the country brings a fair amount of industry, energy and food to the table. Therefore it is evidently worth it from that perspective as well. It isn't that only abstract principles are on the line there.


Replay when you can, I am not in a hurry.

 

[ceecee]

Florida taxpayers could face a $1 billion Disney debt bomb if its special district status is revoked

The Florida legislature on Thursday cleared a bill that would dissolve Disney's special improvement district, effective June 2023.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I know what to do, since we're so afraid to lay the blame on an individual or culture or in any way judge anyone ever (except conservatives may shit be upon them) lets throw money at schools and social programs which I'm sure have a proven track record of alleviating endemic crime and not just enriching themselves by adding administrative positions becoming in effect bleeding heart jobs programs. Its not like social programs generally have a vested interest in not actually solving the problems they were designed to lest all those administrators lose their jobs with nothing else to fight for.

Oh my god that Scooby Doo image is the perfect image to encapsulate the GOP.

The idea that "conservative values" include personal responsibility is laughable. They haven't shown personal responsibility for anything they've ever done, for any of the myriad disasters that have blossomed as a result of their policies. Like Iraq... I'm sure you were waving your pom-poms around on that one and were probably still defending for it a long time. Funny how now everyone is against war... it sure as shit wasn't that way back when they were first starting up; there was a massive cancel culture that existed against people who didn't think they were a good idea. I remember this with a great deal of clarity because it was when I first started becoming politically aware.

Another example of avoiding personal responsibility talking about the ill effects of globalization while talking about the ability of the free market to fix all problems for years. Let me guess your only solution for dealing with the devastation of capitalist globalization is stopping immigration, haha. They'd rather blame Mexicans than accept the consequences of their own policies or even the business practices of the people they VOTE FOR. Donald Trump employs lots of undocumented immigrants at his properties.

And yeah, you told me that you no longer believe in free market supremacy but it seems like you only mean that if you can punish companies for sharing views you don't like. Yeah, really doing a great job of standing up for liberty there. Much more money goes to the police than those social programs that you claim are so ineffectual and just for people to get rich off of (yeah social workers roll in the cash) The police have the bulk of the budget and they aren't reducing crime.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I was just showing that your estimation of how much we would end up or should be paying was short of the actual numbers.

Regarding refugees, how does it make sense to fly them across the atlantic when you don't have to? Why pay the money per refugee to do that? I'm sure we are taking some esp those with family in the US.

Also absolutely the rest of the countries aren't worthless. I wouldn't ever make that point.

The point made is that regardless of the % of GDP number we are doing more in net terms just like we do with foreign aid generally. And that matters no matter how you want to slice it.

I'll get to the rest of your points later as replying to them can be wrapped up into my reply to your larger response to me above.

Yo, if you're against the wars now that you probably supported in the past you should probably support the settlement of refugees from the countries you were so eager to destroy if you were truly regretful for them. Personal responsibility again.


If you acknowledge that you ruined people's lives and you actually give a shit about it you have a responsibility to them. That's what "personal responsibility" would actually look like it if it were really a "conservative value".

A culture that shares the regard for "personal responsibility" conservatives demonstrate isn't equipped to handle or address any single problem at all, let alone create a good environment for future generations. Blaming the result of your shitty policies on the Mexicans isn't something you do when you actually accept responsibility for your mistakes, let alone wish to correct them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In before a "but Clinton" or a "but Obama":

Make no mistake, the Democratic party is kind of shitty on the whole too, but at the very least when they get into power it doesn't seem like they delight in finding the dumbest possible way they can handle any situation.

The shittiness of the Democratic party is largely because (facilitated by a combination of corruption and myopia) they tend to just continue the existing dumbness Republicans already thought up while doing some small reforms. But that's better than being an innovator in the field of the dumbassery like the Republicans.

Pretty much all the shitty things Democrats have done are things Republicans would think was awesome (or maybe still think it was) if they were the ones who did it. Like the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is possible to hold the opinion that the Democratic party sucks while not concluding that "hey, maybe I should vote Republican."

Also, that act was voted for by 51 Republicans (with only two Republicans voting against it, one of whom was and is loathed as a RINO) and 30 Democrats. It is a bit rich to claim about the outsize powers media titans like Disney now have after cheering on crap like this. I guess it was only good back when you thought there was no way it would be used against you.

If Republicans were serious about the getting rid of the media-corporate monopoly and not just bloviating because of LGBT moral panics, they would want to repeal/undo that law. I don't think we'll be seeing that. They generally hold that stuff look this is good unless there's a chance that companies might have content with opinions they might disagree with.

But guess what? That's the big fucking problem with media monopolies, dumbasses; the enormous levels of unaccountable influence and power they have.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I am outsider but regarding the internet I have access to everything that typical American can access (if I want to watch/read that). As I said: if I want to find out when the Thai restaurant in southern Denver closes I can do that at any time. I can even use Google earth to see how the restaurant actually looks like from outside (or the streets around it). If they have their own page I can even see inside.


In other words when you open US media use see: the other side will end the country, they are cheating, they are nuts that watch Disney, they hate gays, they hate children, they are exploding debt, lawsuits are flying all over the place, then the Jan 6 stuff, ..... etc. When you open most of US political Youtube channels you will see: they are cheating, they are nuts that watch Disney, they hate gays, they hate children, they are exploding debt, lawsuits are flying all over the place, then the Jan 6 stuff, ..... etc. Even if you open entertainment such as talk shows or Oscar awards you will clearly see the elements of culture wars. Also when I open my own domestic media: US is very divided and it is getting unstable. At this point many in the country trust more various foreigners than the other party. The deep economic crisis is creating riots in US. Hurricane leveled a few town that probably aren't coming back. Gun violence in US is out of control .... etc.

What I'm wondering about is how much only internet access effects an opinion. Typically only the most polarized voices show up online, with the exception of an occasional genuinely rounded journalist or pundit. People who actually live here have direct access to observation of what the world looks like around us - with the exception of quarantine, where we had probably only slightly better access to observation (mostly interacted online). But even then the vast majority of people I know (and have known my entire life) live here and I had regular access to their POV online, rather than trying to parse together an impression from stranger's expressed POVs.

I brought Canada up as an example because I imagine that my understanding of what's going on up there (based on limited access, to just a couple people I know and news sources) is similar to how people outside the U.S. understand what's going on here. I feel like there are *a lot* of puzzle pieces missing in that understanding. The gist seems to be that embracing conspiracy is bleeding over into Canada from the U.S., although I cant begin to estimate how strongly or how widespread.

It's difficult enough for us to form a reliable opinion of what's going on here. I do know it's worse on days I doomscroll through social media, so I can't imagine that being my primary source of information. I agree we're far too divided, but I think everything is more stable than 2019-21. It was scary to have a pathologically lying POTUS who grossly abused his power: shut down warranted investigations he didn't like; forced investigations of people he didn't like (hoping enough dirt would be found to make the investigation seem retrospectively warranted); pardoned a bunch of allies who were guilty; somehow managed to convince a legion of followers that the OTHER side was doing everything his own side was actually guilty of, etc. This was a guy who probably would have lost the first election without help from a country that is currently perpetrating genocide on its neighbor. We were hit with absolutely so much unfathomable bullshit at once that even 1/10 of it would have caused a lot of instability (and a lot of politicians are riding that wave of instability to exploit the tribal instinct in people, to solidify their support). But I feel like the worst of the instability is over, rather than getting worse? Even if the GOP takes back half or all of Congress, the "it couldn't happen here" shock of propaganda actually being effective has passed (or if it's still here, at least it won't utterly blindside us again) and I feel like we're a little bit better equipped to deal with it. Even if they do take Congress: there's more awareness that they did so with a minority vote, and that they don't remotely actually represent the majority in this country.

I'm really hoping a better strain of journalism springs from all this, and outrage-driven "news" becomes more recognizable for what it is. I think it's what we need, more than anything else.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In before a "but Clinton" or a "but Obama":

Make no mistake, the Democratic party is kind of shitty on the whole too, but at the very least when they get into power it doesn't seem like they delight in finding the dumbest possible way they can handle any situation.

The shittiness of the Democratic party is largely because (facilitated by a combination of corruption and myopia) they tend to just continue the existing dumbness Republicans already thought up while doing some small reforms. But that's better than being an innovator in the field of the dumbassery like the Republicans.

In my opinion the problem is actually in the fact that the democrats generally lack focus (I guess you can call it myopia). Therefore even if they want to change something that gets dragged through confusions. Especially since their base isn't so much attached to the party as that is the case with the right. What is a problem since because of that the party often lacks seats. They don't energize the base enough and then they lack seats to pass stuff. In the case that they picked a few more seats in the senate in 2020 the current situation would look differently. I mean there were some seats that were very narrow in result but people didn't vote. Since there was too much empty philosophy in party and voters.

What leads to the topic of bad geography and narrow ideas. Democrats are today concentrated in the cities, however that is how they campaign as well. They seem to offer little to the rural voters and therefore they leave huge areas to GOP (especially due to winner takes all). What are often exactly the seats they need or votes that they need to win critical state races. What returns us to the lack of focus as a problem. Campaigning for the people that will probably vote for you anyway just isn't enough, especially in winner takes all environment. If you are just dig in the cities then it is easy to gerrymander you. Since you are highly concentrated and you probably can't really surprise anywhere. The country is full of those blue +35 district and counties and this is where bad logistic is visible. Since there is not enough desire to fight/address this and the base itself also tends to concentrate. What in US style system makes you quite vulnerable.

Another lack of focus is obvious in the issues at hand. They are pushing new ideas without explaining the idea and why that is needed and how exactly it works. On the right that can even work but on the left and with attracting new voters this is all pretty questionable strategy. Especially since this way you are vulnerable to smears and trolls that will disrupt your points if they aren't clear. Kinda the same is with various cities where democrats govern and the situation is evidently bad. What is basically the obvious anti-campaign that can be used over and over against the party (and it would stick). The results are often so bad that it is obvious that this can be done in a better way and the real question is why it isn't. What again leads us to the problem with focus and getting practical.


So in my book there is a serious problem in how the party deals with practical problems at hand (establishment and voters). Even if they actually try to do something they often get lost in the process or they get lost because they don't have enough seats to push through all the status quo rules. What is evidently related to the problems with focus. Reforms and upgrades without focus will end badly almost by default.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In my opinion the problem is actually in the fact that the democrats generally lack focus (I guess you can call it myopia). Therefore even if they want to change something that gets dragged through confusions. Especially since their base isn't so much attached to the party as that is the case with the right. What is a problem since because of that the party often lacks seats. They don't energize the base enough and then they lack seats to pass stuff. In the case that they picked a few more seats in the senate in 2020 the current situation would look differently. I mean there were some seats that were very narrow in result but people didn't vote. Since there was too much empty philosophy in party and voters.

Yes, this is the biggest problem. But they still tend to think the path to success is by winning over moderate republicans and centrist independents, who don't exist in the numbers they think they do, or don't dislike Trump enough to abandon the party that promises to deliver on the one thing they care about, whether it's abortion or taxes. Biden really lucked out that Trump screwed up the pandemic so badly.

I think there is much to your other points, as well. I think what you call focus, I would probably call clarity. Some people think this is odd but I do believe achieving clarity and consistency in political questions is not only possible but desirable. Politics operate by causality just as anything else does, therefore, it is possible to determine what approaches can work and what cannot. I think one's political viewpoint isn't well-served by muddled thinking and is hindered rather than aided by it.

Although, there are probably areas where my thinking is muddled which is one reason why I enjoy hashing them out if I'm in the right mood, because it helps develop better clarity.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What I'm wondering about is how much only internet access effects an opinion. Typically only the most polarized voices show up online, with the exception of an occasional genuinely rounded journalist or pundit. People who actually live here have direct access to observation of what the world looks like around us - with the exception of quarantine, where we had probably only slightly better access to observation (mostly interacted online). But even then the vast majority of people I know (and have known my entire life) live here and I had regular access to their POV online, rather than trying to parse together an impression from stranger's expressed POVs.

I brought Canada up as an example because I imagine that my understanding of what's going on up there (based on limited access, to just a couple people I know and news sources) is similar to how people outside the U.S. understand what's going on here. I feel like there are *a lot* of puzzle pieces missing in that understanding. The gist seems to be that embracing conspiracy is bleeding over into Canada from the U.S., although I cant begin to estimate how strongly or how widespread.

It's difficult enough for us to form a reliable opinion of what's going on here. I do know it's worse on days I doomscroll through social media, so I can't imagine that being my primary source of information. I agree we're far too divided, but I think everything is more stable than 2019-21. It was scary to have a pathologically lying POTUS who grossly abused his power: shut down warranted investigations he didn't like; forced investigations of people he didn't like (hoping enough dirt would be found to make the investigation seem retrospectively warranted); pardoned a bunch of allies who were guilty; somehow managed to convince a legion of followers that the OTHER side was doing everything his own side was actually guilty of, etc. This was a guy who probably would have lost the first election without help from a country that is currently perpetrating genocide on its neighbor. We were hit with absolutely so much unfathomable bullshit at once that even 1/10 of it would have caused a lot of instability (and a lot of politicians are riding that wave of instability to exploit the tribal instinct in people, to solidify their support). But I feel like the worst of the instability is over, rather than getting worse? Even if the GOP takes back half or all of Congress, the "it couldn't happen here" shock of propaganda actually being effective has passed (or if it's still here, at least it won't utterly blindside us again) and I feel like we're a little bit better equipped to deal with it. Even if they do take Congress: there's more awareness that they did so with a minority vote, and that they don't remotely actually represent the majority in this country.

I'm really hoping a better strain of journalism springs from all this, and outrage-driven "news" becomes more recognizable for what it is. I think it's what we need, more than anything else.

If you live outside of course that you can gather the data only indirectly. However news, youtube, this forum, good chunks of entertainment, statistics .... it all points to the drama, division and decay. Plus there are plenty of videos of the actual drama on the streets. Therefore in the sum of it all it is reasonable to presume that there is something evidently wrong with the place. That this isn't just a matter of opinion.


Plus for me Trump era didn't end. I just don't see current era as something fundamentally different. Since all objective problems stayed (some are perhaps even worse). The country is still quite divided, debts and money problems are rising further, your enemies became even openly aggressive, house and senate are made of mostly the same people (as well as CEO circles) COVID will probably escalate again in the fall (if now sooner). I really don't see too much of a difference/improvement when compared to the last year. That is why I said that you as a nation are going into the culture wars, since nothing ever really changes and through that you are trying to accomplish the sense of change. For comparison take a look at my local environment: we are remaking our entire tax system, we are introducing a new formal currency, the green new deal is in active implementation phase, multiple new political parties have entered the parliament, some really big infrastructure projects are being finished, some corrupt people got arrested .... etc. There is still plenty of problems and stuff to do but you don't really have this sense that you are completely and fundamentally stuck. Therefore I can turn the argument around and say that typical American doesn't know what is real change. What means that American and none American can see the same data differently.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, this is the biggest problem. But they still tend to think the path to success is by winning over moderate republicans and centrist independents, who don't exist in the numbers they think they do, or don't dislike Trump enough to abandon the party that promises to deliver on the one thing they care about, whether it's abortion or taxes. Biden really lucked out that Trump screwed up the pandemic so badly.

I think there is much to your other points, as well. I think what you call focus, I would probably call clarity. Some people think this is odd but I do believe achieving clarity and consistency in political questions is not only possible but desirable. Politics operate by causality just as anything else does, therefore, it is possible to determine what approaches can work and what cannot. I think one's political viewpoint isn't well-served by muddled thinking and is hindered rather than aided by it.

Although, there are probably areas where my thinking is muddled which is one reason why I enjoy hashing them out if I'm in the right mood, because it helps develop better clarity.

Ok, focus and clarity are kinda the same idea/concept. But I prefer focus since focus has more of "goal" vibe to it.


Yes, it is kinda strange if you consider that half of the people doesn't even vote. Just grabbing into that pool would quickly make a difference by making at least 5 to 10 points tilt in many places. All these people are up for grabs but for some reason they aren't interesting.

Politics without clarity is a scenario for disaster however you turn it. You simply have to watch ahead and know what you are doing. That is how it works when you run a city and is especially the case when you lead a country (a big country).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Btw NY map got dropped.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Plus for me Trump era didn't end. I just don't see current era as something fundamentally different. Since all objective problems stayed (some are perhaps even worse). The country is still quite divided, debts and money problems are rising further, your enemies became even openly aggressive, house and senate are made of mostly the same people (as well as CEO circles) COVID will probably escalate again in the fall (if now sooner). I really don't see too much of a difference/improvement when compared to the last year. That is why I said that you as a nation are going into the culture wars, since nothing ever really changes and through that you are trying to accomplish the sense of change. For comparison take a look at my local environment: we are remaking our entire tax system, we are introducing a new formal currency, the green new deal is in active implementation phase, multiple new political parties have entered the parliament, some really big infrastructure projects are being finished, some corrupt people got arrested .... etc. There is still plenty of problems and stuff to do but you don't really have this sense that you are completely and fundamentally stuck. Therefore I can turn the argument around and say that typical American doesn't know what is real change. What means that American and none American can see the same data differently.

I would agree that things are stuck.

It will take significant grassroots pressure to create change. What's interesting is that it is not all bleak on this front. There is a renewed drive towards unionization (in service industries that badly need it, I should add) which has not been seen in decades. We can see the potential impact of these changes already in the responses by the Starbuck CEO and how he is attempting to appease his labor force. It likely works much the same within legislative bodies when pressure is applied.

Power is ultimately needed to affect political changes. Simply imploring politicians to do the right thing will accomplish with nothing; the issue with many liberals is that they seem to think this is enough and are ignorant of the reality of how this actually works. Conservatives generally aren't, at least when they bother to think about such things, which is why they've had greater success. The bright spot is that it seems like people with non-shit ideas are starting to wake up to this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would agree that things are stuck.

It will take significant grassroots pressure to create change. What's interesting is that it is not all bleak on this front. There is a renewed drive towards unionization (in service industries that badly need it, I should add) which has not been seen in decades. We can see the potential impact of these changes already in the responses by the Starbuck CEO and how he is attempting to appease his labor force. It likely works much the same within legislative bodies when pressure is applied.

Power is ultimately needed to affect political changes. Simply imploring politicians to do the right thing will accomplish with nothing; the issue with many liberals is that they seem to think this is enough and are ignorant of the reality of how this actually works. Conservatives generally aren't, at least when they bother to think about such things, which is why they've had greater success. The bright spot is that it seems like people with non-shit ideas are starting to wake up to this.

Yeah, I saw that.

What is kinda logical since in US labor laws are objectively quite weak next to the other developed countries. Especially since often you don't have even the basic welfare programs in the terms of healthcare and education. Therefore when things go bad there is little that can prevent some serious pain. I mean always when the shit hits the fan various alternatives start to pop up. This is simply how world works.

While democrats have also one more fundamental problem. This should be the party of change and progress, which in currently lead by ultra old people that should evidently be in retirement at this point. Pretending that it is 1965 isn't really the logic of progress at this point and they don't really understand the current technological revolution (and that means that they don't understand economy). Actually the entire US politics could really use the change of generations. Especially since old people also struggle with what I called "focus" a few points back. I really believe that after 65 you shouldn't be able to run for some high office. You can perhaps teach/advise newest generation of the party or sit in the parliament, but some serious executive/top office shouldn't be able to accept that kind of people. Purely out of biological reasons.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

If you live outside of course that you can gather the data only indirectly. However news, youtube, this forum, good chunks of entertainment, statistics .... it all points to the drama, division and decay. Plus there are plenty of videos of the actual drama on the streets. Therefore in the sum of it all it is reasonable to presume that there is something evidently wrong with the place. That this isn't just a matter of opinion.

It seems to me like you're responding to something I'm not saying. I didn't say there aren't serious problems. I'm just saying that the instability isnt getting worse than it was in Trump's last year. And we're going to have to agree to disagree if you're saying someone isn't inherently at least a little better informed about problems when their lives are fully immersed in a place vs reading about it online.

Plus for me Trump era didn't end. I just don't see current era as something fundamentally different. Since all objective problems stayed (some are perhaps even worse). The country is still quite divided, debts and money problems are rising further, your enemies became even openly aggressive, house and senate are made of mostly the same people (as well as CEO circles) COVID will probably escalate again in the fall (if now sooner). I really don't see too much of a difference/improvement when compared to the last year. That is why I said that you as a nation are going into the culture wars, since nothing ever really changes and through that you are trying to accomplish the sense of change. For comparison take a look at my local environment: we are remaking our entire tax system, we are introducing a new formal currency, the green new deal is in active implementation phase, multiple new political parties have entered the parliament, some really big infrastructure projects are being finished, some corrupt people got arrested .... etc. There is still plenty of problems and stuff to do but you don't really have this sense that you are completely and fundamentally stuck. Therefore I can turn the argument around and say that typical American doesn't know what is real change. What means that American and none American can see the same data differently.

Most of last year Biden was POTUS, but there's a significant difference between the end of Trump's administration and the current one. For one, the rioting stopped. But even more important: it makes a big difference when a pathologically dishonest, deranged megalomaniac has POTUS power - pardoning guilty friends, illegally investigating innocent people (hoping to find dirt that'll justify the investigation), shutting down investigations of his own illegal activity - versus simply being a citizen with a lot of influence. And a lot of the same people are in Congress, but I don't think they are more openly aggressive than during Trump's administration. Plus they're not currently in charge of Congress. If that were true earlier, one or both impeachments would have ended in convictions; God only knows convictions were warranted, but the rule of law meant *nothing* under Trump. We are in much better shape than we'd be in if Trump had actually won again or even if they'd won part of Congress.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It seems to me like you're responding to something I'm not saying. I didn't say there aren't serious problems. I'm just saying that the instability isnt getting worse than it was in Trump's last year. And we're going to have to agree to disagree if you're saying someone isn't inherently at least a little better informed about problems when their lives are fully immersed in a place vs reading about it online.


Most of last year Biden was POTUS, but there's a significant difference between the end of Trump's administration and the current one. For one, the rioting stopped. But even more important: it makes a big difference when a pathologically dishonest, deranged megalomaniac has POTUS power - pardoning guilty friends, illegally investigating innocent people (hoping to find dirt that'll justify the investigation), shutting down investigations of his own illegal activity - versus simply being a citizen with a lot of influence. And a lot of the same people are in Congress, but I don't think they are more openly aggressive than during Trump's administration. Plus they're not currently in charge of Congress. If that were true earlier, one or both impeachments would have ended in convictions; God only knows convictions were warranted, but the rule of law meant *nothing* under Trump. We are in much better shape than we'd be in if Trump had actually won again or even if they'd won part of Congress.

And you are saying something I am not saying either: I am simply saying that over the last few years there is a general continuation in the big picture. Yes, the cheery on the cake is changed but at the end of the day this is still pretty much the same cake. I even explained it why I think so. You as a country is still going bankrupt due to trillions in deficits and new debt. BBB is stuck and probably dead (it will be especially dead after the midterms). Wars are raging abroad. Inflation is worse because of that. House and the senate are made of mostly the same people as a few years ago. CEOs are the same. COVID lurks in the shadows. For me changing a POTUS is basically in the domain of cultural war. Since the person can be formally and informaly blocked/obstructed from so many sides that in many cases the person isn't much more than a cherry on the cake (no matter how they behave). For me what really matters are the slices of the cake underneath the cherry. Since that is the actual system and I don't see too much of change there when it come to substance that goes deeper then cheap cultural wars. Yes, at this point your side is gaining in cultural war but that isn't the substance that actually runs the foundations of the country. In that department there are no big changes for decades at this point.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

@Virtual ghost My only gripe with that^ is that it sounds like bothsideism.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

In other words when you open US media use see: the other side will end the country, they are cheating, they are nuts that watch Disney, they hate gays, they hate children, they are exploding debt, lawsuits are flying all over the place, then the Jan 6 stuff, ..... etc. When you open most of US political Youtube channels you will see: they are cheating, they are nuts that watch Disney, they hate gays, they hate children, they are exploding debt, lawsuits are flying all over the place, then the Jan 6 stuff, ..... etc. Even if you open entertainment such as talk shows or Oscar awards you will clearly see the elements of culture wars. Also when I open my own domestic media: US is very divided and it is getting unstable. At this point many in the country trust more various foreigners than the other party. The deep economic crisis is creating riots in US. Hurricane leveled a few town that probably aren't coming back. Gun violence in US is out of control .... etc.


So however you turn it the impression is that the place is falling apart and people are panicking. Therefore they are grabbing various issues that matter or may not matter just to have something to fight. Since the politics in general status quo by design and therefore if it is a bad one all you can do is rant about Disney or whatever.

Getting back to this: this is not what i see when I open Facebook. For the most part, people I know have stopped posting anything political (mostly). A couple Trumpublicans freaked out when Fb started refusing to let them share disinformation, but they still hang out on Fb for social reasons. I'm almost the only one I know who occasionally posts something political, and I am careful to clearly state what I'm venting about (instead of just mindlessly chanting my side's talking points) and I do it more for hoping someone can clarify than pure venting. If I try to assess Red vs Blue hostility by Fb: things are WAY better than two years ago. People (friends I know) are generally calmer - there's definitely still a problem, but at least we once again have SOME parameters around "what's the worst thing that can happen today."

I have no friends I know on Twitter. I don't use it to interact or banter. I use it (in part) just for information gathering (also for the levity of comic relief). It's a very different experience, and if it were my primary means of understanding what's going on around me in this country then I think my understanding would indeed be shortsighted. Although I do see *a lot* of tweets expressing deep gratitude that a demented man-child is no longer in charge.

Same with news. Stories about aspects of how much calmer this place is when an authoritarian abuser of power isn't POTUS don't sell papers as well as stories about all the ways it's still happening.

Youtube alone spread A LOT of misinformation during the BLM protests and conspiracy theories about coronavirus before it clamped down on their standards.

I mean, I'm still reluctant to go too far in rural areas - because I still wear a mask indoors, and I've heard so many stories of hysterical people being triggered by that and actually attacking people who wear masks - but I do realize it's *probably* 97% unfounded concern.

Another thing I've seen (that's cultivating a bit of hope) is that people are starting to "use their words" instead of just venting with the talking points that were initially available. Before 2016, a lot of us took Democracy for granted and those next four years pulled the floor out from underneath us (repeatedly - we didn't have time to adjust to the current shock before the next shock dropped, again and again). Political talking points were the only ways to vent disbelief at first. Trump et al kept taking things that weren't nailed down, because no one ever imagined such a shameless POTUS - one who didn't begin or pretend to give a fuck about the part of the country that didn't vote for him - would be a problem. He actively lied - and not white lie, but absolutely over-the-top insane lie - about that part of the country to CAUSE divisiveness. Almost everyone I know either vented disbelief that Republicans were still enabling him or they were chanting Republican talking points. But that's shifted more in the direction of wanting better understanding.

I'm hearing you say the Red vs. Blue problem is getting worse ("getting unstable") than it was; am I mistaken in hearing that? That's not what I'm seeing, and that's why I asked what specific sources you're getting this from. And I'm asking from genuine curiosity, not trying to be antagonistic.

 

[Red Herring]

I have been curious for quite a while who these people are that put laugh reacts under reports about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's mostly young men from non-Western countries who have a great dislike for all this Western and somehow see the invasion of Ukraine as God's payback for all the bad things white people have done over the centuries (somehow the poor Ukranians are also at fault for Bush's invasion of Iraq (which an ample majority of Europe opposed at the time)).
However, today I checked the laugh reacts to an article on possible further Russian attacks on other Eastern European countries and one of them was a stoner primarily posting about drugs, and the others were mentally unstable people thinking Bill Gates wants to block out the sun (Mr. Burns style, Simpsons already did it!) or some such thing. It's probably a mixture.

 

[Virtual ghost]

@Virtual ghost My only gripe with that^ is that it sounds like bothsideism.

That is because my claim kinda is bothsideism by decent margin. This is exactly why I told you that American and none American will often see American politics in different light. In other words you live for so long in the current US system that you don't understand how actual alternatives look like. I have healthcare as a human right since birth and already my grand grand mother had the benefits of that program. Never in my life I went to the private insurance company to get insurance there. Also I have zero in student debt since the government helped me with education costs. The GMO food is banned. Green new deal is being openly implemented. Guns are banned. Street crime is minimal or none existent. Public debt is again going down after the pandemic. What is because most businesses survived due to constant help of the government (what was possible since those could pay more in taxes due to government help, and that kept the economy going numerically). There is blue trifecta in US and they still bother us with deregulation in some sectors. Since local laws give more of a say to the consumer. Etc. Etc.



Therefore you are right I am using bothesideism. However I don't think that here it is that much of a mistake to do that if you have my cards in hand. You are voting for the party that in economic sphere is usually to the right of my local far right. I mean I am simply trying to be open despite how elitist that word sounds. To me good chunks of standard Democratic platform are either extremist or the implementation is pretty much a fail. As I said I have my local problems and not everything is great but next to even that that both US parties usually completely miss the mark in my book. In order to understand my claims you have to watch the issues with my own eyes. Since only then you will understand the source of my bothsideism. After all I am not a Democrat or Republican and I will never be either, and the odds are that I will never vote for either.

 

[Red Herring]