|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
If you recall, Trump was forced to be accepted as the Republican runner, because he made everyone else look ridiculous. It was an Idiocracy of a show, with him resorting to ad hominems to win primaries (or whatever the intra political race is called).
At some point you just vote for the clown because the 'sane politcians' bickering over status quo bullshit doesn't cut it any longer. There are serious and competent politicians in the US on left and right both, but the ones in the race, the ones who actually want to lead the country, seem to be more member of the same circus Trump came from, than actual competent politicians.
I wonder if it all went to shit post Obama, or if he was an anomaly.
Post 2012 is generally my cutoff year where the world collectively plunged into a fever dream.
|
|
|
On December 24 2022 03:34 Uldridge wrote:
If you recall, Trump was forced to be accepted as the Republican runner, because he made everyone else look ridiculous. It was an Idiocracy of a show, with him resorting to ad hominems to win primaries (or whatever the intra political race is called).
At some point you just vote for the clown because the 'sane politcians' bickering over status quo bullshit doesn't cut it any longer. There are serious and competent politicians in the US on left and right both, but the ones in the race, the ones who actually want to lead the country, seem to be more member of the same circus Trump came from, than actual competent politicians.
I wonder if it all went to shit post Obama, or if he was an anomaly.
Post 2012 is generally my cutoff year where the world collectively plunged into a fever dream. Imo Obama was the moment that the racist part of the Republican party was presented with the undeniable proof that they lost the 'race war'. A black man became President. And they went a 'little' insane as a result. That gave rise to the tea party, which transitioned into Qanon, Yall'qaida and gave the world the Trump presidency.
|
On December 24 2022 03:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On December 24 2022 01:35 Razyda wrote:On December 24 2022 00:53 JimmiC wrote:
I do not think people would argue that there was questionable but sane reasons to vote for Trump in 2016, I mean how much worse could he be? Many still brlieved his myth of him being a good busjnessman and so on. Turns out lots, lots worse.
People who would vote for him now basically cant have sane reasons. My point isnt that people should vote for Trump, or Brexit. My point is that people are so desperate that they are willing to vote for anyone who promise them change from status quo, because status quo doesnt work for them. If I remember correctly it wasnt only Trump who rised in 2016. I believe Bernie also rise unexpectedly then (I may be wrong here) That status quo is neoliberalism, which in terms of electoral politics is a system that puts liberals on the left and the far right on the right. While they compete in the culture wars, the difference when it comes to economical policy is much smaller, with politics slightly to the left of standard neoliberalism for the left party and politics slightly to the right of standard neoliberalism for the right party. Every time you push the system to the right, its hierarchies solidify. The desperation that you talk about has been taken into account, and is exploited by the system. As a result this vote isn't shaking up the status quo, it is actually reinforcing it. You will never "shake up a system" by voting for one of the two parties that the system accepts as legitimate. A huge part of trumps speak the last 2+ years is that the system is not legitimate and that he should be the ruler in spite of the sytems and the rules it operates under. He was fine with it when he won, but against it whem he lost. He attempted a revolution to remain in power. Edit: one could also argue that he was actively trying to break/change the system with his judge appointments, breaking of all norms (releasing taxes, doing pardons based on whim, so on).
Yes, he campaigned as a populist (mainly as far right/fascist but also sometimes as a populist). And then when he got in power he didn't do any of the populist things he campaigned on. Which was not particularly surprising to a lot of people and should have been surprising to no one, because we all knew he was a massive liar for years.
If I was Razyda and I was concerned with these populists who were deceived by Trump into thinking the status quo would change, my main focus would be to show them that the deception they fell for was obvious, rather than to defend their honor among the rest of the population.
|
|
|
On December 24 2022 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
Yes, he campaigned as a populist (mainly as far right/fascist but also sometimes as a populist). And then when he got in power he didn't do any of the populist things he campaigned on. Which was not particularly surprising to a lot of people and should have been surprising to no one, because we all knew he was a massive liar for years.
If I was Razyda and I was concerned with these populists who were deceived by Trump into thinking the status quo would change, my main focus would be to show them that the deception they fell for was obvious, rather than to defend their honor among the rest of the population.
And how do you intend to sbow them the deception? Get into a shouting match or call them idiots for following a blatantly obvious circus clown?
You need common ground before you can start anything productive and worthwhile. Do you think you can get to some common ground with a MAGA cultist?
|
On December 24 2022 04:29 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:
Yes, he campaigned as a populist (mainly as far right/fascist but also sometimes as a populist). And then when he got in power he didn't do any of the populist things he campaigned on. Which was not particularly surprising to a lot of people and should have been surprising to no one, because we all knew he was a massive liar for years.
If I was Razyda and I was concerned with these populists who were deceived by Trump into thinking the status quo would change, my main focus would be to show them that the deception they fell for was obvious, rather than to defend their honor among the rest of the population. And how do you intend to sbow them the deception? Get into a shouting match or call them idiots for following a blatantly obvious circus clown? You need common ground before you can start anything productive and worthwhile. Do you think you can get to some common ground with a MAGA cultist?
No but I don't think maga cultists are populists, I think they're fascists. If you're a fascist you should definitely vote for Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson in the future, no deception is happening there.
|
Okay, fair, I was being hyperbolic. How would you find common ground between you and the person who voted for Trump or Brexit; the person who doesn't want to feel like being screwed over and over every political cycle by the system that was set in place.
|
On December 24 2022 04:46 Uldridge wrote:
Okay, fair, I was being hyperbolic. How would you find common ground between you and the person who voted for Trump or Brexit; the person who doesn't want to feel like being screwed over and over every political cycle by the system that was set in place.
I mean I can find common ground easily in that I'm also a populist, but in terms of getting them over to my side, it's difficult. It's a long process and they will have to do some of the work themselves. There's a decent amount of propaganda that they have to unlearn, and the influence of the culture wars makes it so that they view people like me as the enemy a lot of the time. Shows like Breaking Points are probably helping, but it's hard to quantify.
|
On December 24 2022 04:46 Uldridge wrote:
Okay, fair, I was being hyperbolic. How would you find common ground between you and the person who voted for Trump or Brexit; the person who doesn't want to feel like being screwed over and over every political cycle by the system that was set in place.
This is actualy something remarkable that I've experienced with talking to boomers at my work. If you talk about the things the left wants to do to people who voted for trump beacuse they hate the system you can get them to agree to a lot of socialist things as long as you ground your policy in reality and don't use buzzwords.
Do you want to pay less for healthcare and have better health outcomes? Show them the system that has worked every time.
Do you want secure elections that get called the night of? Show them the systems that have worked every time.
Do you want cheaper houseing? Show them the systems that have worked every time.
Do you want lower crime and drug use? Show them the systems that have worked every time.
Do you want a cheaper commute? Its called a train.
Do you want to solve homelessness? George bush had a plan that worked lets do that.
Do you want it to be cheaper to heat your house? Its called solar panels.
Do you want lower gas prices? The oil companies are refuseing to expand production.
Do you want lower inflation? The increased cooperate profits make up more than half of inflation.
Do you want us to stop shipping money to Ukraine? You hate russians and we're giving them stuff already bought and was going to go unused anyway. Do you want to see this drone video with clown music going on in the background?
Do you want better rock music on the radio? Consolidation of radio stations has caused radio playlists to cut down on the songs being played. Also heres phonk its pretty rad.
I have relatives that are in unions and voted for trump. I very much understand why they voted the way they did. The types of people who can't value the world in 20 years are not the types of people who you will ever win over with reason or logic. They will always value short term gain long term loss. You can't find common ground with people who don't share any common values with you and/or does not believe that you are a human beings that have value. Trump voters do not think that people who vote for biden are human beings that have value.
Specifically speaking there are people who voted for trump and then there are Trump voters. There are people who are Brexiters and there are people who voted for brexit. They are both allowed to admit they made a mistake that does not forgive what they did and the consequences that they brought with their votes. They were lied to and instead of doing any critical thought or any consideration of their choice they decided to just go with being a deplorable human being. Trying to justify voteing for brexit or voting for trump by saying that they were either too dumb or too gullible is not justification for us to not understand that they were too dumb or gullible to see through the lies and hate. Do not underestimate the deep ocean of hate these people contain. They are like Kwark if he was 100% serious all the time and was yelling his posts an inch from your face.
|
On December 23 2022 21:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 18:52 Harris1st wrote:On December 23 2022 18:49 Artisreal wrote:
I mean, we have planning permission legislation for that.
This applies whether the state company or a private company builds a nuclear power plant.
this seems rather obvious to me.
to add a bit of explanation. what I want is for nuclear to be built if it's still competitive in a 2035+ market environment.
I don't want another public moeny sink. We both know these are not nearly as strict and regulated when you throw money at them. Just look at Elon and his Gigafactory or Scholz/ China and Hamburger Hafen What is your takeaway here regarding government price guarantees for power produced by nuclear power plants? Because that's what I was talking about. The question goes out to Mikau as well.
We havent even begun to factor in decomissioning costs of nuclear.
Still, we can weigh up the excess cost of nuclear against investment needed in a futuristic power grid and power supply that is less reliant on big central generation facilities.
albeit this one is a solution whos uncertainty is more obvious, in contrast to the ostensibly clear cut build more nuclear (with many of its uncertainties lost in the details).
Id be up for being confronted with a vision how nuclear can factually help combat climate change respectively support the transition away from fossil fuels in a timescale that is as urgent as it is right now.
|
On December 24 2022 20:05 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 21:01 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 18:52 Harris1st wrote:On December 23 2022 18:49 Artisreal wrote:
I mean, we have planning permission legislation for that.
This applies whether the state company or a private company builds a nuclear power plant.
this seems rather obvious to me.
to add a bit of explanation. what I want is for nuclear to be built if it's still competitive in a 2035+ market environment.
I don't want another public moeny sink. We both know these are not nearly as strict and regulated when you throw money at them. Just look at Elon and his Gigafactory or Scholz/ China and Hamburger Hafen What is your takeaway here regarding government price guarantees for power produced by nuclear power plants? Because that's what I was talking about. The question goes out to Mikau as well. We havent even begun to factor in decomissioning costs of nuclear. Still, we can weigh up the excess cost of nuclear against investment needed in a futuristic power grid and power supply that is less reliant on big central generation facilities. albeit this one is a solution whos uncertainty is more obvious, in contrast to the ostensibly clear cut build more nuclear (with many of its uncertainties lost in the details). Id be up for being confronted with a vision how nuclear can factually help combat climate change respectively support the transition away from fossil fuels in a timescale that is as urgent as it is right now. I question if solar, wind or hydro can transition us away from fossil fuels in the timescale needed for how urgent it is right now.
The time to act was years ago, we didn't so now anything we do is to late. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be building for the future.
We can't just go 'well, we probably won't need nuclear power 10 years from now, so lets not build it'. That's what we did 10 years ago already.
As for guaranteed prices, if the private sector is not willing to shoulder the risk then the government can, but not through guaranteeing prices for private sector business where they get to rake in the profit if it works but the government shoulders the risk if it doesn't. At that point you might aswell have the government own it entirely so that they carry the risk and reward.
|
Germany 2023.A green politician backs destruction of German village to expand a massive coal mine.
https://www.ft.com/content/abb4e299-f10d-421a-b107-ec686c701dc2
Shortly after sunrise on Wednesday, hundreds of police poured into a tiny German village that has become a flashpoint for environmental protesters — and a symbol of the contradictions in Berlin’s climate policy.
Tensions have been rising for weeks between authorities and campaigners over the fate of Lützerath, an empty hamlet in western Germany’s industrial Rhineland that has now been taken up by protesters.
The stand-off captures the paradoxes of a ruling coalition in Berlin that promised to be the greenest government ever when it came to power 13 months ago, but has been forced to extend the life of coal-fired power stations after the country’s energy security was upended by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Is the plan still to close all remaining nuclear plants this year? I see coal makes up almost a third of electricity production in Germany now, huge rise from a few years ago, yet two months ago they agreed to closing coal power plants by 2030 brought forward from 2038.
People can't see how ridiculous this all is? That's not even mentioning all the future electricity requirements needed for the switch from oil to electric vehicles supposed to be happening in the next decade either.
|
Germany is really anti nuclear power. Like really against. Its hard to overcome decades upon decades of hearing how nuclear is terrible, I'm going to blindly guess that was fuelled by a coal lobby.
|
On January 14 2023 23:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Germany 2023.A green politician backs destruction of German village to expand a massive coal mine. https://www.ft.com/content/abb4e299-f10d-421a-b107-ec686c701dc2Show nested quote +
Shortly after sunrise on Wednesday, hundreds of police poured into a tiny German village that has become a flashpoint for environmental protesters — and a symbol of the contradictions in Berlin’s climate policy.
Tensions have been rising for weeks between authorities and campaigners over the fate of Lützerath, an empty hamlet in western Germany’s industrial Rhineland that has now been taken up by protesters.
The stand-off captures the paradoxes of a ruling coalition in Berlin that promised to be the greenest government ever when it came to power 13 months ago, but has been forced to extend the life of coal-fired power stations after the country’s energy security was upended by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Is the plan still to close all remaining nuclear plants this year? I see coal makes up almost a third of electricity production in Germany now, huge rise from a few years ago, yet two months ago they agreed to closing coal power plants by 2030 brought forward from 2038. People can't see how ridiculous this all is? That's not even mentioning all the future electricity requirements needed for the switch from oil to electric vehicles supposed to be happening in the next decade either.
What is your definition of huge and what does "few years" mean here?
The first time coal made a bit less than a third of the overall electricity generation in Germany was in 2020. 10 years ago it was still used for 50% of power generation.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Energiemix_Deutschland.svg/800px-Energiemix_Deutschland.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
|
On January 15 2023 03:17 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2023 23:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Germany 2023.A green politician backs destruction of German village to expand a massive coal mine. https://www.ft.com/content/abb4e299-f10d-421a-b107-ec686c701dc2
Shortly after sunrise on Wednesday, hundreds of police poured into a tiny German village that has become a flashpoint for environmental protesters — and a symbol of the contradictions in Berlin’s climate policy.
Tensions have been rising for weeks between authorities and campaigners over the fate of Lützerath, an empty hamlet in western Germany’s industrial Rhineland that has now been taken up by protesters.
The stand-off captures the paradoxes of a ruling coalition in Berlin that promised to be the greenest government ever when it came to power 13 months ago, but has been forced to extend the life of coal-fired power stations after the country’s energy security was upended by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Is the plan still to close all remaining nuclear plants this year? I see coal makes up almost a third of electricity production in Germany now, huge rise from a few years ago, yet two months ago they agreed to closing coal power plants by 2030 brought forward from 2038. People can't see how ridiculous this all is? That's not even mentioning all the future electricity requirements needed for the switch from oil to electric vehicles supposed to be happening in the next decade either. What is your definition of huge and what does "few years" mean here? The first time coal made a bit less than a third of the overall electricity generation in Germany was in 2020. 10 years ago it was still used for 50% of power generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg
I'm not claiming nettles has a point, but a graph ending in 2020, when he's explicitly talking about the reaction of Germany in the energy crisis of 2022 proves much of anything. If you have a similar graph showing coal is still on that steep decline in 2022 and projected to keep declining in 2023 then yeah, it'd show what you want, but as is, you're just talking past one another.
E: and for the record, I generally dismiss everything nettles says as hyperbolic nonsense.
|
Do you all think European social democracies generally (folks can answer for just their own if they wish) are getting more or less "social" compared to 5,10, 20, 40 years ago?
|
I'd say less social(In Germany). It appears as if a core pressure keeping a social democracy social was the system competition with the soviet union. With that gone, the owner class has less and less of an incentive to not just try to own ever larger pieces of the pie, because there is no fear of people just burning it all down if the owners get too greedy.
|
On February 23 2023 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do you all think European social democracies generally (folks can answer for just their own if they wish) are getting more or less "social" compared to 5,10, 20, 40 years ago?
It's complicated. Right now, the socialist party is governing in a coalition with the social democrats. The government has passed quite a lot of laws cementing worker rights and women's rights. On the other hand, they haven't done much to stop the degradation of the public healthcare service that was laid bare by Covid. But the degradation itself was started by previous governments. So overall I'd say it's considerably more "social" than 5 and 10 years ago. 20 years ago would be the end of Aznar, and he was a fascist asshole. But he did leave most of the social democratic reforms of the 20+ years after Franco died in place, so I guess now is less social than 20 years ago? 40 years ago was 1983, so just 2 years after the coup attempt by Francoists and at the start of Gonzalez's government. Spain is almost certainly a lot more "social" than 40 years ago, but this is probably an exception when compared to most of Europe.
|
On February 23 2023 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do you all think European social democracies generally (folks can answer for just their own if they wish) are getting more or less "social" compared to 5,10, 20, 40 years ago?
It seems to me that Switzerland is holding better than most, which I'd attribute to the different democratic system. But I agree with Simberto for Europe in general. There isn't really a whole lot holding liberals back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
