Random Politics Thread

[Totenkindly]

You couldn’t get Democrats to storm a Hobby Lobby, much less the Capitol.

I dunno, man -- I really despise Hobby Lobby!

"AND THEN -- WE TAKE CHIK-FIL-A!"

 

[Red Herring]

(I didn't want to spoil the mood in the random movie thought thread)

Mind you, I do not recommend or support bricks and baseball bats, but maybe a really devastating satirical piece in the Times doesn't quite cut it anymore either. As to what would help ... I'm as clueless as the next one

 

[ceecee]

Far-right Israeli minister orders preparations for West Bank annexation

Remember when people said they couldn’t support “Genocide Joe”, and everyone said that despite how bad the Biden administration’s Israel policy was, Trump would be worse, but people still voted for Trump as a protest vote on the Gaza issue?

I mean, this was always so people like Jared Kushner could have waterfront property - Trump or Joe it doesn't matter.

On another note, it would be good if people listened to someone like Ilan Pappe but they won't.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Is this going to be the equivalent of Loose Change where people keep derailing the conversation with this, and insist on debating something irrelevant? What people need to focus on is how to face what is coming, on how to prepare for that. This is a distraction that nobody would do anything about even if it were true.

Like, let's suppose this is true. Fine. What do we do? That's what we need to figure out here.

If they have ways of pushing the scale in their favor, then it is relevant because they are going to keep doing it to stay in power

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If they have ways of pushing the scale in their favor, then it is relevant because they are going to keep doing it to stay in power

I have a response, related to how I feel about conspiracy theories regardless of partisan lean, but I'm going to try to take @Totenkindly 's advice until after Thanksgiving day. Maybe people will slug it out with family members and that will change things. (I myself have advocated for a small Thanksgiving; I don't think my sister needs to deal with gloating now)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It did seem to me like Netanyahu was waiting for a Trump victory:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-leaders-congratulate-trump-on-historic-victory-in-us-election/

Congratulations on history’s greatest comeback!” he said in an English-language statement written in Trump’s trademark over-the-top style.




“Your historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!”


“In true friendship,” Netanyahu signed off.

He certainly doesn't sound like someone for whom it's all the same to.

Also:

Netanyahu and Trump enjoyed a very warm relationship from 2017 to 2021, when the former president moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and oversaw the Abraham Accords.

These people are all pals with each other; it doesn't matter what the country is. At one time, I would have thought their nationalism meant they'd all be fighting with each other if they win, but it seems they can cooperate, perhaps because they can recognize that they share a similar worldview.

 

[Virtual ghost]

These people are all pals with each other; it doesn't matter what the country is. At one time, I would have thought their nationalism meant they'd all be fighting with each other if they win, but it seems they can cooperate, perhaps because they can recognize that they share a similar worldview.

Of course, they realized that they can't win globally if they don't coordinate with like minded people across the globe.
Many of the Trump's "never seen before" moves are basically just copying of European hard right for the most part. To me there is nothing really new in the guy. On the other hand my hard right also evolved. They went from completely against EU to "let's take over EU together with our friends". However the new message seems to be landing much better with people. Especially since it is warped into the story of saving the western civilization. What gives the whole story romantic feeling.

This is exactly how I came to the idea of "global college". World seen as 200 states and there is fight for control and dominance across the globe. From supply chains, supporting your allies, online shenanigans, taking over parliaments .... etc. The only thing is that there seems to be 4 groups in the game. First is the liberal-globalistic one. The second is the one of patriotism and conservatism. The third one is mild and hard Communism. The fourth are all those that don't relly fit into the boxes (we can call them "independents"). Not all options exist in all countries but this is how you can generally divide the whole world. Even if there can be national alliances between some groups. What is in order to inflict plenty of damage on one particular group in partiular country or region. Especially since this can cause chain reaction implosions in some regions. What then makes it easy to take control in various areas. Therefore in a way this is bascially like one very complicated version of Risk (the board game).

 

[Virtual ghost]

2024 House Election Live Results

The house just went red officially. It was obvious that this will be the case but now this is closed story. Although this will be one very thin majority.


However with this the elections are over.
What means that all polling and projections can be thrown into the bin of history. What was done was done.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Of course, they realized that they can't win globally if they don't coordinate with like minded people across the globe.
Many of the Trump's "never seen before" moves are basically just copying of European hard right for the most part. To me there is nothing really new in the guy. On the other hand my hard right also evolved. They went from completely against EU to "let's take over EU together with our friends". However the new message seems to be landing much better with people. Especially since it is warped into the story of saving the western civilization. What gives the whole story romantic feeling.

This is exactly how I came to the idea of "global college". World seen as 200 states and there is fight for control and dominance across the globe. From supply chains, supporting your allies, online shenanigans, taking over parliaments .... etc. The only thing is that there seems to be 4 groups in the game. First is the liberal-globalistic one. The second is the one of patriotism and conservatism. The third one is mild and hard Communism. The fourth are all those that don't relly fit into the boxes (we can call them "independents"). Not all options exist in all countries but this is how you can generally divide the whole world. Even if there can be national alliances between some groups. What is in order to inflict plenty of damage on one particular group in partiular country or region. Especially since this can cause chain reaction implosions in some regions. What then makes it easy to take control in various areas. Therefore in a way this is bascially like one very complicated version of Risk (the board game).

WIth number 2, it's not really about what group you belong to, anymore. It's about what your ideology is. If you're for strong ethnostates, you're basically fine. As I said, history doesn't repeat, exactly, even if it echoes and rhymes.

The problem with number 1, ironically, is that people in this bloc can't stop fighting with each other and drawing up and reinforcing all these unbridgeable divisions. To the extent that many hold that you can never talk to people you don't agree with 100%. If this continues to be a popular way of looking at things, this will pose a problem in resisting what's coming., because the resulting coalition will be extremely small.

I'm going to assume by number 3 you don't mean AOC, but second-world Sino-Soviet bloc communism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

WIth number 2, it's not really about what group you belong to, anymore. It's about what your ideology is. If you're for strong ethnostates, you're basically fine. As I said, history doesn't repeat, exactly, even if it echoes and rhymes.

The problem with number 1, ironically, is that people in this bloc can't stop fighting with each other and drawing up and reinforcing all these unbridgeable divisions. To the extent that many hold that you can never talk to people you don't agree with 100%. If this continues to be a popular way of looking at things, this will pose a problem in resisting what's coming., because the resulting coalition will be extremely small.

I'm going to assume by number 3 you don't mean AOC, but second-world Sino-Soviet bloc communism.

1. The liberal block is basically the one that is in largest decline currently. It is talking plenty of flak from all sides globally and it doesn't seem to have too serious plan on the long run. What makes sure that loses are substantial. Many of these people aren't even fully aware that there is a grand game going on.


2. The patriotic group is heating up internally and is making gains on the basis of increased cooperation between the states/countries that are under the control of this block. Especially since various instabilities are pushing various populations into their arms.


3. The communist block is trying to make as much instability as possible while trying to suck in as much resources, information and territory as possible. Basically they are playing aggressive waiting game. Since they want to play with the winner between first two and thus they want both weakened in the drama.


4. The independents are basically just various local forces scattered across the world and without any kind of global plan.



Therefore internal drama in US is deep cultural war between liberal and patriotic blocks. Since US is basically the largest prize in the game of global college (the California of the world). While the third block doesn't really exists in US. Therefore it wants to undermine US as much as possible, so that it is worth less after redistricting. What is because it has no realistic odds of taking it. While if they get it that basically means that they are already controlling the rest of the world and the game is over anyway.


This is basically our world when you draw the bottom line.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

1. The liberal block is basically the one that is in largest decline currently. It is talking plenty of flak from all sides globally and it doesn't seem to have too serious plan on the long run. What makes sure that loses are substantial. Many of these people aren't even fully aware that there is a grand game going on.


2. The patriotic group is heating up internally and is making gains on the basis of increased cooperation between the states/countries that are under the control of this block. Especially since various instabilities are pushing various populations into their arms.


3. The communist block is trying to make as much instability as possible while trying to suck in as much resources, information and territory as possible. Basically they are playing aggressive waiting game. Since they want to play with the winner between first two and thus they want both weakened in the drama.


4. The independents are basically just various local forces scattered across the world and without any kind of global plan.



Therefore internal drama in US is deep cultural war between liberal and patriotic blocks. Since US is basically the largest prize in the game of global college (the California of the world). While the third block doesn't really exists in US. Therefore it wants to undermine US as much as possible, so that it is worth less after redistricting. What is because it has no realistic odds of taking it. While if they get it that basically means that they are already controlling the rest of the world and the game is over anyway.


This is basically our world when you draw the bottom line.

Is Russia 2 or 3? What about China?

 

[Red Herring]

Is Russia 2 or 3? What about China?

Russia has an authoritarian presidential pseudodemocracy with a pronounced nationalistic, socially conservative vibe. They tend to get along fine with rightwing nationalists elsewhere. The Russian economy is mixed. It baffles me when I hear people (usually, but not always, Americans) call Russia communist. Maybe over 30 years ago (sort of) but in the frigging 21st century?! Even Soviet Russia was a socialist country, not a communist one.

China obviously has an extremely authoritarian one-party rule under an all-powerful president. The Chinese economy is mixed. It is nominally a communist country - and I assume that @Virtual ghost meant China when he said "communist" - but that word carries little meaning these days. While the revolution might have been progressive in some ways in its day there still is enormous economic inequality. And today's China under Xi is not only more and more authoritarian compared to a decade or two ago but there is also a strong push from the government to return to traditional ancestral values (specifically confucianism) and become more conservative.

I think the term "communist" is an empty shell unless it is immediately accompanied by a clear definition. Some countries at some points in history have strived for it or used its name but it is more of an abstract ideal. At some point, 70 -120 years or so ago it was the ideal of many artists and intellectuals in the world (not just the West) held dear until the reality in the Soviet Union scared most of them away. The attempts at implementation have all been less than convincing. For the last 40 years or so the word has mainly been used by rightwingers (not only, but mainly in the English-speaking world and especially in the US) to describe anything vaguely leftwing that they consider too radical.

When @Virtual ghost talks about "reformed communist" in the context of Eastern Europe these are usually the heirs of the previous regimes who favor a big government, mixed economy with greater government oversight and are for the most part pro-Russiam and socially conservative. The closests thing in my country might be Sarah Wagenknecht and her BSW.

There are precious few countries left that one might call communist: North Korea, Cuba ... maybe Nicaragua and Venezuela. But these don't really form a block.



I am not really convinced though as to how much sense a division into these blocks actually makes.

 

[Red Herring]

The Russian duma just passed a law that makes "propaganda for childlessness" illegal. JD Vance is probably jotting this one down in his notebook.

 

[The Cat]

This guy gets it.​

 

[The Cat]

Ruh Roh Raggy.​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Russia has an authoritarian presidential pseudodemocracy with a pronounced nationalistic, socially conservative vibe. They tend to get along fine with rightwing nationalists elsewhere. The Russian economy is mixed. It baffles me when I hear people (usually, but not always, Americans) call Russia communist. Maybe over 30 years ago (sort of) but in the frigging 21st century?! Even Soviet Russia was a socialist country, not a communist one.

China obviously has an extremely authoritarian one-party rule under an all-powerful president. The Chinese economy is mixed. It is nominally a communist country - and I assume that @Virtual ghost meant China when he said "communist" - but that word carries little meaning these days. While the revolution might have been progressive in some ways in its day there still is enormous economic inequality. And today's China under Xi is not only more and more authoritarian compared to a decade or two ago but there is also a strong push from the government to return to traditional ancestral values (specifically confucianism) and become more conservative.

I think the term "communist" is an empty shell unless it is immediately accompanied by a clear definition. Some countries at some points in history have strived for it or used its name but it is more of an abstract ideal. At some point, 70 -120 years or so ago it was the ideal of many artists and intellectuals in the world (not just the West) held dear until the reality in the Soviet Union scared most of them away. The attempts at implementation have all been less than convincing. For the last 40 years or so the word has mainly been used by rightwingers (not only, but mainly in the English-speaking world and especially in the US) to describe anything vaguely leftwing that they consider too radical.

When @Virtual ghost talks about "reformed communist" in the context of Eastern Europe these are usually the heirs of the previous regimes who favor a big government, mixed economy with greater government oversight and are for the most part pro-Russiam and socially conservative. The closests thing in my country might be Sarah Wagenknecht and her BSW.

There are precious few countries left that one might call communist: North Korea, Cuba ... maybe Nicaragua and Venezuela. But these don't really form a block.



I am not really convinced though as to how much sense a division into these blocks actually makes.

As you might expect I don't really agree on the part of Russia. For me Russia is in the Communist block, even if it masks itself because it can make large gains out of that. After all USSR was evidently a socially conservative state, especially by today's modern standards. However what is really the controversy here is the idea there are leftists that just hate LGBT people. Since that picture of the world complicates narrative on a number of big issues. Therefore many like to skip some elements of the story.


In other words the main reason why I actually disagree with you is because you are taking very strict definition of "Communism". In other words you seem to skip the idea that the concept can evolve over time (what includes various adaptations a well). Modern Capitalism simply isn't the same as Capitalism from a few generations back. Just the same can be said for Communism. In other words Russia has pretty good relations with pretty much every state that I would place into the Communist block in this division. Therefore at the end of the day I think this is their place, even if they don't fit the profile 100% at this point. I live in EU but my president none the less sometimes starts his rallies with "Hello Comrades!". Not to mention that he likes to celebrate holidays from that past era and includes that era into his campaigns. He is openly anti Ukraine and he will even take flak and insults over that. He openly spits on EU and wasn't really for introduction of Euro ... etc etc. However from what I understand the Russian press likes him. Plus he openly likes to hang with pro Russian politicians from the region. Even those that say they would be rather in BRICS than EU.



If you were truly correct this would not be a thing in the terms of iconography:

Another issue is that this is in Germany kinda suppressed info, so that people don't ask various questions about various business deals. However this is exactly why you were were completely unprepared for the current war. The fact that North Korean troops are coming to help Russians in the Ukraine only proves that I am more right than wrong about this.


All I am saying that we should call spade a spade.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Is Russia 2 or 3? What about China?

As I just explained Russia is 3 pretending to be 2 for the sake of easy gains.

While China is pure 3.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As you might expect I don't really agree on the part of Russia. For me Russia is in the Communist block, even if it masks itself because it can make large gains out of that. After all USSR was evidently a socially conservative state, especially by today's modern standards. However what is really the controversy here is the idea there are leftists that just hate LGBT people. Since that picture of the world complicates narrative on a number of big issues. Therefore many like to skip some elements of the story.

I would agree that except for the 20s and maybe the early 30s, the U.S.S.R was a socially conservative country. Russian art history is a good benchmark. There was a great deal of wild experimentation which eventually became repressed unless it conformed to Socialist Realism. Someone tried to convince me that Socialist Realism wasn't a socially conservative endeavor because some of the artists had hints of homo-eroticism in their work, but homo-eroticism in art is hardly new.

I think it makes sense to think of both Russia and China as Communist if they've retained so many elements of the pre-Cold War past, regardless of how closely they currently adhere to Marxist orthodoxy. (They never really adhered to it to begin with; Marx thought the revolution would happen in a highly developed country like Germany).

While we're at it I'd love to know the story (that's not necessarily your task, books would suffice) of how the West screwed up the end of the Cold War so badly that we're right back at it 30 years later.

I remember hearing about the breakup of the U.S.S.R on the news but I remember little else. Just something something Boris Yeltsin, really.
.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would agree that except for the 20s and maybe the early 30s, the U.S.S.R was a socially conservative country. Russian art history is a good benchmark. There was a great deal of wild experimentation which eventually became repressed unless it conformed to Socialist Realism. Someone tried to convince me that Socialist Realism wasn't a socially conservative endeavor because some of the artists had hints of homo-eroticism in their work, but homo-eroticism in art is hardly new.

I think it makes sense to think of both Russia and China as Communist if they've retained so many elements of the pre-Cold War past, regardless of how closely they currently adhere to Marxist orthodoxy. (They never really adhered to it to begin with; Marx thought the revolution would happen in a highly developed country like Germany).

While we're at it I'd love to know the story (that's not necessarily your task, books would suffice) of how the West screwed up the end of the Cold War so badly that we're right back at it 30 years later.

I remember hearing about the breakup of the U.S.S.R on the news but I remember little else. Just something something Boris Yeltsin, really.
.

The thing is that I said "communist" just to make things simple and that pretty much everyone gets the basic idea of the 3 teams that seem to be playing the game. Of course that all of this is much more complicated once you go into detail. Plus I am fairly bad choice for books on studying the issue. Since for me incomplete transition from Communism is something that is so everyday as tax cuts for already privileged are for you. The topic that everyone knows everything about. Therefore when president of NATO country opens speech in 2022 with "Hello comrades!" that is more of a category for Breaking news than academic debate.



However the reasons for our current global situation aren't that hard to explain.


1. Basically countries that introduced some form of Communism had a history of collectivism or war even before 20th century. So this in the end came as some kind of stimulator for what was basically already there. This is exactly why I insist that we shouldn't stick to various definitions too closely.

2. Current problem happened exactly because the west was a slave to the definitions. In the early 90s Communist world fell into serious glitch and chaos, since things weren't working. However this was solved by introducing consumerism and the state stopped going after religious people if they are ordinary citizens. What liberated plenty of energy and resources for something more useful. However the west completely wrongly interpreted the events, since it decided to stick with definitions. In star trek language: it did not realize that the Borg is adapting to the situation. However introduction of consumerism allowed plenty of trade and that was seen as success (in the west included). However there was never a real follow up in the terms of democratic development. However the trade was booming, manufacturing started to move into what became "the largest factory in the world". Various new energy pipelines were opened ... and numbers were looking good at the face value. Even if entire communities in the west collapsed due to deindustrialization.


3. This dynamic would have broken on time but then 9/11 happened and focus went somewhere else (especially in US). I mean I am pretty sure that everyone here knows how that story went. However the problem is that this completely masked the big picture problem. Which is that democracy never took off in the second world, while jobs were being exported there. After all corporations had huge profits and no one was in the real hurry to ask questions. Hunting down all those extremists in the Middle east was more of a priority. As I said to me it was always kinda strange that all those extremists didn't run out of ammo even after 20 years.

While in the meantime factories, rafineries, mines and new cities where poping all cross the second world. But no one really cared, corporations made large profits and the second world supposedly passed into Capitalism (so it is ok). Even if their system has little to do with understanding of Capitalism as it is in the English speaking world. Even the fact that coporations from the second world started to take over more and more didn't make any real drama. Since there is now globalization and we are all friends.



And then one day: shock. China is approaching US in GDP and it is already leading in volume of manufacturing. Large parts of the west are dependent on Russian energy. The democracy is starting to collapse in the central Europe due to people like Orban. While with time this populist wave eventually started to spread even to the core western countries. Russia is sending troops to Syria to save the regime from the west. Economic output in the west is no longer sufficient to cover all mistakes and shenanigans. What means that debts are going more and more up. Mass trolling on the internet is becoming the new normal. China's banks are spreading across the world. Putin openly invades Ukraine, what in the case that it worked would have completely crippled the west and it's influence in central Europe. However all of this none the less leaves the west more and more at the backfoot. Especially since it is no longer possble to ignore the problem that is evidently getting out of hand.



This entire process was visible the whole time but no one rally reacted to what was basically obvious. While media didn't really communicate any of this to the public since there were "bigger" concerns at the time. After all to the people it was said that Communism is dead and that was it. What in the end was evidently and completely short sighted if we observe current situation. The very fact that you have to ask me these kinds of things only proves that your worldview has one pretty large hole in it. To what I can only add "I am under impression that you guys were partying too hard for the last 30 years to notice the obvious".