Anyone else suffering from a serious case of Deja vu?
The Trump Presidency : Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Anyone else suffering from a serious case of Deja vu?
There is no democracy without a free election and all those things I mentioned reduce your freedom to vote significantly.
Ironically whilst at the Federal level it's pretty fecked, at local level Democracy works as it's supposed to, for example:
A local area needs to raise taxes to pay for something, additional/new equipment for schools, police or fire departments for example, a proposal is put forward, a tax on something for a specific time period to raise the money to fund whatever it is
The local area says yes or no in a vote, if the proposal is approved then the tax is implemented but the money raised can only be used for the proposal voted on, it cannot be used for anything else
At local level the church and money influence is still insane, never mind the perennial electoral district issues.
When will this guy join Trump's Administration
That film is just a long wry smile.
What about the thresholds for third parties where they get funding -- not 100% sure on this mechanism in the US but think there is an aspect to that where you get y% of the vote, or whatever the calculus is, and you are entitled to funding of some kind. Could be wrong, entirely, just based off other nations.
That is a long-term option because the two party system they have is bankrupt and a complete farce at basically every level (there may well be great local level Democrats but not in the senate and house, at least, the ones who aren't shit you can count on two hands out of hundreds). It really is worth getting a third party above that 5% threshold in the long-run if you are a US citizen imo. The two parties sold themselves long ago to corporate interests and do not even pretend any more which is why its refreshing to hear Sanders call it out this time rather than semi-avoid it under Biden.
If that's true, then I'd go third party and allow them the funds to build grassroots. If not, I'd have a problem. Could not vote for that Harris campaign and would not vote for Trump. So would likely abstain given how oligarchic and ridiculous the US duopoly is.
Also, what is the Democratic position on these tariffs?
Last edited:
I was answering a direct question.
Also, this is tricky enough without hypotheticals.
You could turn this around and say what incentive do the GOP have to change? Why is it always Dems must be perfect, must be inspiring, have the highest ideals, must have the broadest appeal to every single demographic. But even then they get lumped in as "both sides are the same".
When the reality has never been clearer that is not the case. Democrats would not be in a trade war right now. Purposely crashing the entire economy to get tax breaks to billionaires. Democrats wouldn't be sending the VP to Greenland to try and "get the country" or whatever nonsense. Canada the 51st state? Rampant measles cases in multiple states now that you could easily have prevented with vaccinations and true scientific information from doctors and scientists.
GOP have zero incentive to change and can keep putting absolute idiots with zero real qualifications into positions all over the government and Cabinet because they do not get punished by voters. Yes that is people who abstain from voting, who think their vote doesnt matter. Who think Both sides blah blah.
Reality is the GOP need to lose over and over again consistently. Until they abandon the worst of their racist, hatemongering base. And are forced to start reaching out to where the rest of the country is.
The both sides issue is ridiculous. The Democrats do not actively target whole segments of the population, for punishment and targeting their rights and right to even live. The only comparison to the contrary is that MAGA think white people are the victims of the "woke libs". Thus all the attacks on Diversity and inclusion. To restore the 'rightful' white supremacy and all the minorities just be grateful for what they are allowed to have and know their place. Or go back to where they come from.
None of that changes until the GOP start losing all the time and see they have to send those people to the fringes of society where they belong. Not the White House, or Congress.
Just confirmed that apparently it is a 5% threshold for a third party to receive funding for the next cycle.
That is a solution imo. The democratic party is not reforming unless pressured from outside (it is internally fecked). General comment, not aimed at you.
Social Media is the problem, the number of teens and young adults being influenced by far right influencers is staggering, people who have no sense of history and that are mostly ok with facist rule and racist policies.
Not sure if this had been posted yet but Trump admin arbitrarily changing extended deadlines back to their originals so school districts lose thousands to millions of dollars in funding that had already been promised. This is just an article about Michigan but it's nationwide:
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/tr...m-from-michigan-schools-pre-approved-projects
Guess what school districts somehow lose the most looking at that list? Primarily majority black districts.
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/tr...m-from-michigan-schools-pre-approved-projects
Guess what school districts somehow lose the most looking at that list? Primarily majority black districts.
By creating Tiktok CCP couldnt come up with a better weapon to destroy Western Liberal countries withour firing a single shot.
Social media is part of the problem, but not the problem. The bullshit on there is only so attractive to many people, because many suffer from a lack of perspective. Their economical outlook is incredibly bad and these right wing parties and organisations offer them easy solutions.
And it’s not just social media which is an issue. They are the worst. But traditional media is by no means in any way as reliable and balanced as it should be.
Yeah, I can't see either party standing idle if a third party makes any progress. It's structurally fecked. It also explains a lot of the Dems inability to react to Trump. It's not like they are a blue collar bunch. They're compromised by being pretty much the same, overt racism and belligerence apart.
Agreed.
Isnt there a freaking billionaire who can fund hundreds of centrist moderate candidates to remove Republicans from power in several state houses and probably in Congress?
The centre is dangerously close to the left if you are a billionaire.
There is no billionaire who would want that, because any reasonable policy would make them lose wealth to redistribute it.
I doubt they care about internet randoms, but they certainly are on the hook of their neighbors and friends they condemned to deportations, the families of those pershing in Gaza and everyone who’s worse off due to Trump. It’s a slow process but if you look closely it’s already happening, with enablers of fascism and cowards afraid to admit their allegiance being ostracized - and rightly so. And it will only increase with the effects of Trump’s politics on the non-millionaire Americans, whether you like it or not.
What does this even mean? On the hook from who? The voting police? The Almighty? You?
I'm still not entirely sure what you're really saying here. I think its something like 'multiple parties systems offer more choices to voters than a two-party system' or "gerrymandering is an unfair mechanism that benefits vested interested' which are both true, but that doesn't mean a two-party system with gerrymandering is not a democratic republic which you seem to be concluding. It just means its a democratic republic with some really shite mechanisms that should be retired.
I think part of the issue is framing things as always a black and white on-off switch instead of describing things on a relative gradient. For instance, the US system in the 1990s was much more democratic than it was in the 1790s but it was still a democratic republic in the 1790s, just a less democratic one.
Trump is absolutely making the US more authoritarian, more fascist, more mercantilist, etc but it's still a democratic republic. The US was never a direct democracy (if that's what you're trying to say) but it has always been a democratic republic that, at least until Trump and the last 10 years, has trended to becoming more democratic over time. Trump and the people around him are the biggest threat to being a democratic republic in US history, I'd argue even more so than the Civil War because the Civil War never threatened the fundamental democratic republic system itself which Trump and his people are slowly doing. But at the moment it's still a democratic republic, albeit a currently dysfunctional one.
Surely you could critique NAFTA in the 90s (terrible move, just rewatched the debated on that at the time) as well as Citizens United as well as many other things with respect a timeline re the erosion of democratic norms that goes back longer than ten years. Other than that, I agree with most of what you're saying.
Citizens United is a great shout and I'd agree that might be a better demarcation point that started reversing the trend to becoming more democratic so I'd agree the trend predates Trump and maybe that 2010 ruling is the key turning point.
I don't agree about NAFTA being included there though, I don't think that relates to the US becoming less democratic.
Yep, idiots with principles are one of the biggest issues with democracy, it couldn't possibly be the parties that have no principles or morals and simply rely on "hey that guy is even worse".
This thread is amazing, the tiniest of minorities is to blame, not the gigantic party with billions of dollars and endless resources.
The life of the average republican voter must be insane. At the drop of a hat you will start hating another country.
We really have an impressionable bunch in this country don't we. Not that I expect that kind of brainwashing to not have any effect in other parts of the world too but the trend of the red line is something I suspect would be a lot harder to accomplish in healthier democracies (if we're still one to begin with).
Both can be an issue at the same time. Personally, I think the vast majority of the blame lies with the Democratic Party. However, I don’t think it’s wise to abstain from voting as some have done, even though I understand their reasoning.
If you understand the reasoning, why isn't it wise?
The life of the average republican voter must be insane. At the drop of a hat you will start hating another country.
Canada and Europe is a big country.
WTF was Kid Rock doing there and WTF was he dressed in
Trump loves his tariffs
Trump loves his tariffs
Because now there is a person in charge causing even more damage than the other option.
But I do think the issue goes deeper than voting or not voting for a certain candidate. The biggest issue here, at least to me, is that many Americans seem to think that voting is the only form of political participation that matters. The US lacks organised groups actually controlled by the people, that could sway the parties into their direction. The wise thing would have been to vote democratic, hate oneself for doing so and then start to organise politically in order to shift the democrats in the right direction.
But that’s a general issue, that goes beyond the war in Israel/Palestine. There is a severe lack of political participation by the American public and whatever groups there are, are mostly run by some lobby groups with sinister motives.
Oh god can we please just stop talking about who's to blame for Trump winning? There's the US Politics thread for that, or the Democrats thread, or the I don't give a feck thread
You're being absurd.
There's a sliver between the parties ideologically but surely you must realise people being snatched off the streets for such a marginal ideological difference is quite a price to pay. 'Principles' is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
If you read more than one line of one of my posts you'd see how stupid and counter productive that style of posting is.
I am a proud anarcho communist with years of grassroots work to my name and have been detained protesting against Israel several times decades ago but I'm also a strident anti fascist so yes, I'd do what ever it takes to get rid of such blatant fascism and that includes voting for Harris.
It's easy to draw arbitrary lines for the sake of creating a debate.
I guess your last line says everything. You're just drawing different arbitrary lines and not accepting other people's.
Again not reading or engaging with the whole argument.
What? How is that arbitrary? I've explained my position and logic. What's your actual argument?
It's maths. Anyone who didn't vote against Trump helped get him elected. That how it works. I think him being elected is bad. Ergo I think people should have voted to keep him from doing what he's doing.
What it comes down to is the question at which point election interference has reached a level that you define as enough. That obviously depends on personal opinions: We all agree that Russian elections aren't free while few would argue that those in central Europe aren't. But some of the stuff you read about election interferences in the US are more than just unfair mechanisms, they're nothing short of voter suppression and the kind of stuff that no democratic country should be willing to accept. But if the GOP can do this kind of stuff without consequences, how is that democratic? How is gerrymandering or filibustering be compatible with a democracy?
And that's not minor stuff, those things have made the difference in elections and prevented elected governments from seeing through their political agendas.
If I voted for biden/harris, I would feel sick with myself everytime I saw news about palestine. It would affect my mental health deeply. If it's selfish than so be it, but I couldn't live a healthy life knowing I voted for that. People keep using quotation marks on these words in order do dismiss them as some sort virtue signaling, but yeah, genocide was my red line and my morals and principles would never allow me to vote for that.
I was introduced to politics because of a genocide, I protested for the first time because of a genocide. I volunteered and donated money for the first time because of a genocide. Telling me the other guy is worse is not enough for me to vote for someone who supports genocide.
"Oh but single issue voters are being short sighted..." Maybe, but it's my issue, my red line. If people don't understand that I guess it's because they never felt that strongly about an issue.
And what are you doing to live up to those principles? If the situation is so unbearable to you that you can't even bring yourself to vote against Donald Trump, then you should morally obliged be on the streets demonstrating and working to overthrow the system. If you can't be bothered to do that, voting against him would have been the very least you could do.
And I've explained mine. I won't accept being called an idiot or virtue signaler just because my line is different than yours.
I'm doing plenty,.
Location: Lisboa