|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 05 2025 01:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 23:53 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 12:02 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 08:45 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 05:56 WombaT wrote:Whether a rhetorical question for the benefit of the thread, or an earnest one that you’ve forgotten my previously stated position on, the answer is simply yes? + Show Spoiler +As I mentioned Schrödinger’s socialist a few pages back, so too do the Dems employ Schrodinger’s Fascist and have very liberally done so in recent times, especially post 2016
So dangerous that you should subsume all your principles to keep out the greater evil, but apparently not dangerous enough to refuse to confirn cabinet appointments. Or do much of much really.
A lot of shite is posted in this page so keeping track gets tricky, but I’ve always agreed with that contention, and have gone to bat on it multiple times.
Granted my contempt for the Democrats isn’t quite at your level, albeit pretty damn high.
There aren’t really any positive reads of recent Democrat strategy like.
The absolute best is ‘we don’t really think Trump is a Fascist but we thought it was a good electoral strategy’. Which isn’t great but does beat ‘we think Trump is a Fascist but if we wins an election we won’t do shit’. Or ‘Wait, Trump has Fascist tendencies? Really?!’
There’s also the issue of electoralism as a more general approach, and that approach within specific contexts.
It’s that level more hopeless in the US context than elsewhere. And it’s still frequently deficient elsewhere, but to much less pronounced degrees. A bit of both in that it raises the question of: How many fascist/enablers do you need in your party to be a party of fascists? But also, does it matter how many it takes if it is already everyone? How long is a piece of string? + Show Spoiler +
Is the metric being successful in preventing the onset of Fascism or just the moral purity of the attempt?
Is not wanting to trigger a complete further breakdown of political structures and precipitate a quite likely very destructive civil conflict in the name of anti-Fascism summat that makes you a Fascist?
I mean at a fundamental brass tacks level, sure.
It’s not like Trump’s brown shirts were going around beating folks intending to vote against him, or the whole shebang was rigged.
Folks coulda, I dunno. Voted or something?
We’d still be in that state of electoralism not delivering, and pondering what to do there but having staved off a previously covert but now much more mask off, overtly fascist regime.
For all the many failures of centrist politics to allay the encroachment of Fascists in recent times, the left has been even more ineffectual. Infuriatingly so if you’re so-inclined, as I am myself.
Even if it’s correct, ‘I don’t believe in electoralism so won’t do the lowest effort form of political engagement, but other folks are failing us by not being more politically engaged’ is up there with the most irritating, alienating messaging going.
That was a lot, but none of it seemed to answer the pretty straightforward questions. Maybe that was a reluctant/frustrated "yes Democrats are a party of fascists, but also, people should have voted for those fascists"? + Show Spoiler +It’s not a straightforward question, that’s the problem, and indeed why I didn’t give a binary answer to it for that reason.
I think you spend an inordinate amount of time pissing on the efforts of theoretical allies. I think you’ve got a hammer, and when you’ve got a hammer everything looks like the Dems. Who I shit on fucking frequently for the record.
I think expecting people to make principled stands that will potentially actively hurt their station in life against the Fascists is ridiculous when you give a pass on people having their wee protest against electoralism.
Is the Fascist threat real or not? Schrodinger’s Fascist goes both ways. I criticised the Democratic Party for it earlier, but they’re not the only entity here. Like fuck me, this irritates me, as a socialist myself. The fuck are you going to convince anyone who isn’t that way wired already? Being right has its own value, but you do have a bit of a point. Thing is, if anyone needs to understand the limited value of repeatedly pointing out that you're objectively right and the opposition to you is hypocritical and behaving foolishly, it's precisely the libs/Democrats that have made doing that to Trump/Republicans basically their entire politics (when they aren't shitting on people to their left). A lot of Republicans/MAGA are workers that have far more reasons to be theoretical allies with libs/Dems than either of them do with socialists (especially radical ones) or oligarchs. Once both Republicans/MAGAs and Democrats realize both their parties are scamming them, then they are primed to be socialists. The idea is that libs/Dems aren't like Republicans/MAGAs in that way, the evidence suggests otherwise. The point of the questions was to illustrate that you're unironically presenting the way to deal with the fascist threat as voting for people you yourself identified as fascists and a majority of Democrats identified as genocidal. + Show Spoiler +It’s a 1-2 punch as far as I consider it.
The Dems are still as ultimately deficient to my sensibilities if they win or if they lose, but with the former you don’t have the rather pesky problem of overt fascists running things for a bit.
Indeed, possibly more so as we’re somewhat apparently wired to judge incumbents much more harshly than what the party waiting in the winds is selling. I dunno, personally I think it’s better both in the long and short term to not have a Fascist party running things for any period. It normalises those politics. + Show Spoiler +And they’re already very normalised already, as Kwark pointed out a few posts back.
Mitigate the worst, prepare for the best is my broad approach to such matters.
Maybe there’s a case that Fascism being on the doorstep, rather than looming in the distance is needed to give people a wake up call and a kick up the arse, but Trump getting in once should have been sufficient to have done that. But "not a fascist party" isn't Democrats by your own metrics. If you’re down with this administration you’re either a Fascist or a happy Fascist enabler, and it’s as simple as that Democrats unanimously supported the Trump administration hire that immediately appointed this white nationalist to the State Department Darren Beattie, a former Donald Trump speechwriter who was fired in 2018 after CNN revealed he spoke at a conference attended by White nationalists, has been elevated to a top job at the State Department, multiple sources familiar with the move told CNN.
Beattie also has made a series of racially charged comments, writing in one tweet last year, “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.” He praised Dr. James Watson, the founder of modern genetics who later suggested Black people were less intelligent than White people, as the “greatest living American scientist.” Beattie repeatedly said Black lawmakers, policymakers, and groups need to “learn” their place and take “a knee to MAGA.”
I agree it's better not to vote for fascists and normalize their genocidal politics, but you're literally telling people to get "not a fascist party running things" by supporting and normalizing fascist (by your own metrics) and their genocidal politics (by the majority of Biden voters' metrics). That's unreasonable. No, I’m saying if one correctly identifies that the Dems aren’t going to be a particularly effective bulwark against Fascism, then one should try to avoid them being put in that position in the first place. + Show Spoiler +They won’t be effective in stopping it, but equally they’re not seeking to enact it.
Ya get the Dems in the spotlight, and you still get to make the same correct structural critiques, and seek to organise and illuminate, only without Fascists running the show.
And ultimately voting is easy. I think it’s ultimately ineffectual and we need a more involved electorate, and grass roots organisation and all that good stuff. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive things.
The latter becomes a difficult sell in that it’s hard and requires effort, if one doesn’t do the easy shit it’s considerably more difficult to then drag folks to do the hard stuff.
That ship has sailed. I think you're due for your own analysis and advice, and probably just leave it at that.
If you’re down with this administration you’re either a Fascist or a happy Fascist enabler [as Democrats are by your own metric], and it’s as simple as that. Gurn all you want, you made your bed so stop fucking whinging about a spade being called a spade.
|
On February 05 2025 00:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Trump keeps saying he wants Canada to become "the 51st state". Canada is far too big to be a single state. What Trump really wants is Alberta and its oil. Alberta gets a raw deal from Ottawa as its primary concern is saving the environment. The USA can give Albertans the freedom they crave.
Alberta is either the most and 2nd most right wing province in Canada and a sure win for Republicans.
This post gives a super creepy vibe -- do you really think it's okay that Trump is trying to annex Canada via a trade war?
|
On February 05 2025 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:36 WombaT wrote:On February 05 2025 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 23:53 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 12:02 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 08:45 WombaT wrote:On February 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 04 2025 05:56 WombaT wrote:[quote] Whether a rhetorical question for the benefit of the thread, or an earnest one that you’ve forgotten my previously stated position on, the answer is simply yes? + Show Spoiler +As I mentioned Schrödinger’s socialist a few pages back, so too do the Dems employ Schrodinger’s Fascist and have very liberally done so in recent times, especially post 2016
So dangerous that you should subsume all your principles to keep out the greater evil, but apparently not dangerous enough to refuse to confirn cabinet appointments. Or do much of much really.
A lot of shite is posted in this page so keeping track gets tricky, but I’ve always agreed with that contention, and have gone to bat on it multiple times.
Granted my contempt for the Democrats isn’t quite at your level, albeit pretty damn high.
There aren’t really any positive reads of recent Democrat strategy like.
The absolute best is ‘we don’t really think Trump is a Fascist but we thought it was a good electoral strategy’. Which isn’t great but does beat ‘we think Trump is a Fascist but if we wins an election we won’t do shit’. Or ‘Wait, Trump has Fascist tendencies? Really?!’
There’s also the issue of electoralism as a more general approach, and that approach within specific contexts.
It’s that level more hopeless in the US context than elsewhere. And it’s still frequently deficient elsewhere, but to much less pronounced degrees. A bit of both in that it raises the question of: How many fascist/enablers do you need in your party to be a party of fascists? But also, does it matter how many it takes if it is already everyone? How long is a piece of string? + Show Spoiler +
Is the metric being successful in preventing the onset of Fascism or just the moral purity of the attempt?
Is not wanting to trigger a complete further breakdown of political structures and precipitate a quite likely very destructive civil conflict in the name of anti-Fascism summat that makes you a Fascist?
I mean at a fundamental brass tacks level, sure.
It’s not like Trump’s brown shirts were going around beating folks intending to vote against him, or the whole shebang was rigged.
Folks coulda, I dunno. Voted or something?
We’d still be in that state of electoralism not delivering, and pondering what to do there but having staved off a previously covert but now much more mask off, overtly fascist regime.
For all the many failures of centrist politics to allay the encroachment of Fascists in recent times, the left has been even more ineffectual. Infuriatingly so if you’re so-inclined, as I am myself.
Even if it’s correct, ‘I don’t believe in electoralism so won’t do the lowest effort form of political engagement, but other folks are failing us by not being more politically engaged’ is up there with the most irritating, alienating messaging going.
That was a lot, but none of it seemed to answer the pretty straightforward questions. Maybe that was a reluctant/frustrated "yes Democrats are a party of fascists, but also, people should have voted for those fascists"? + Show Spoiler +It’s not a straightforward question, that’s the problem, and indeed why I didn’t give a binary answer to it for that reason.
I think you spend an inordinate amount of time pissing on the efforts of theoretical allies. I think you’ve got a hammer, and when you’ve got a hammer everything looks like the Dems. Who I shit on fucking frequently for the record.
I think expecting people to make principled stands that will potentially actively hurt their station in life against the Fascists is ridiculous when you give a pass on people having their wee protest against electoralism.
Is the Fascist threat real or not? Schrodinger’s Fascist goes both ways. I criticised the Democratic Party for it earlier, but they’re not the only entity here. Like fuck me, this irritates me, as a socialist myself. The fuck are you going to convince anyone who isn’t that way wired already? Being right has its own value, but you do have a bit of a point. Thing is, if anyone needs to understand the limited value of repeatedly pointing out that you're objectively right and the opposition to you is hypocritical and behaving foolishly, it's precisely the libs/Democrats that have made doing that to Trump/Republicans basically their entire politics (when they aren't shitting on people to their left). A lot of Republicans/MAGA are workers that have far more reasons to be theoretical allies with libs/Dems than either of them do with socialists (especially radical ones) or oligarchs. Once both Republicans/MAGAs and Democrats realize both their parties are scamming them, then they are primed to be socialists. The idea is that libs/Dems aren't like Republicans/MAGAs in that way, the evidence suggests otherwise. The point of the questions was to illustrate that you're unironically presenting the way to deal with the fascist threat as voting for people you yourself identified as fascists and a majority of Democrats identified as genocidal. + Show Spoiler +It’s a 1-2 punch as far as I consider it.
The Dems are still as ultimately deficient to my sensibilities if they win or if they lose, but with the former you don’t have the rather pesky problem of overt fascists running things for a bit.
Indeed, possibly more so as we’re somewhat apparently wired to judge incumbents much more harshly than what the party waiting in the winds is selling. I dunno, personally I think it’s better both in the long and short term to not have a Fascist party running things for any period. It normalises those politics. + Show Spoiler +And they’re already very normalised already, as Kwark pointed out a few posts back.
Mitigate the worst, prepare for the best is my broad approach to such matters.
Maybe there’s a case that Fascism being on the doorstep, rather than looming in the distance is needed to give people a wake up call and a kick up the arse, but Trump getting in once should have been sufficient to have done that. But "not a fascist party" isn't Democrats by your own metrics. If you’re down with this administration you’re either a Fascist or a happy Fascist enabler, and it’s as simple as that Democrats unanimously supported the Trump administration hire that immediately appointed this white nationalist to the State Department Darren Beattie, a former Donald Trump speechwriter who was fired in 2018 after CNN revealed he spoke at a conference attended by White nationalists, has been elevated to a top job at the State Department, multiple sources familiar with the move told CNN.
Beattie also has made a series of racially charged comments, writing in one tweet last year, “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.” He praised Dr. James Watson, the founder of modern genetics who later suggested Black people were less intelligent than White people, as the “greatest living American scientist.” Beattie repeatedly said Black lawmakers, policymakers, and groups need to “learn” their place and take “a knee to MAGA.”
I agree it's better not to vote for fascists and normalize their genocidal politics, but you're literally telling people to get "not a fascist party running things" by supporting and normalizing fascist (by your own metrics) and their genocidal politics (by the majority of Biden voters' metrics). That's unreasonable. No, I’m saying if one correctly identifies that the Dems aren’t going to be a particularly effective bulwark against Fascism, then one should try to avoid them being put in that position in the first place. + Show Spoiler +They won’t be effective in stopping it, but equally they’re not seeking to enact it.
Ya get the Dems in the spotlight, and you still get to make the same correct structural critiques, and seek to organise and illuminate, only without Fascists running the show.
And ultimately voting is easy. I think it’s ultimately ineffectual and we need a more involved electorate, and grass roots organisation and all that good stuff. But the two aren’t mutually exclusive things.
The latter becomes a difficult sell in that it’s hard and requires effort, if one doesn’t do the easy shit it’s considerably more difficult to then drag folks to do the hard stuff. That ship has sailed. I think you're due for your own analysis and advice, and probably just leave it at that. Show nested quote +If you’re down with this administration you’re either a Fascist or a happy Fascist enabler [as Democrats are by your own metric], and it’s as simple as that. Gurn all you want, you made your bed so stop fucking whinging about a spade being called a spade.
I think KwarK put it best a few posts back. The problem is not the Democrats -- the problem is the American people that are fine with, and actively voted for, this stuff. Replacing the Democratic party with the socialist revolutionary party will not fundamentally resolve this.
|
Norway28552 Posts
On February 05 2025 01:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:21 blomsterjohn wrote:
Concerning the fentanyl crisis, has Trump said or done anything as to if or how they plan to address it domestically?
He's said that just the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border last year was enough to kill 10 million Americans so that presumably means he's recognizing the success of the Biden administration in saving 10 million American lives. That's something.
The funny thing is, that's a really small amount. My googling tells me that 2 mg is a lethal dose, so to kill 10 million you only need 20 kg.
|
On February 05 2025 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:35 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2025 01:21 blomsterjohn wrote:
Concerning the fentanyl crisis, has Trump said or done anything as to if or how they plan to address it domestically?
He's said that just the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border last year was enough to kill 10 million Americans so that presumably means he's recognizing the success of the Biden administration in saving 10 million American lives. That's something. The funny thing is, that's a really small amount. My googling tells me that 2 mg is a lethal dose, so to kill 10 million you only need 20 kg.
Yep. You can say that the amount intercepted at the Mexican border in the last year could kill a few billion people as well.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg93nn1e6go
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On February 05 2025 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:35 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2025 01:21 blomsterjohn wrote:
Concerning the fentanyl crisis, has Trump said or done anything as to if or how they plan to address it domestically?
He's said that just the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border last year was enough to kill 10 million Americans so that presumably means he's recognizing the success of the Biden administration in saving 10 million American lives. That's something. The funny thing is, that's a really small amount. My googling tells me that 2 mg is a lethal dose, so to kill 10 million you only need 20 kg.
The actual White House missive that was posted a while back said the overall amounts of Fentanyl coming in would kill 4 billion humans.
10 million? Sheesh, rookie numbers.
As blomsterjohn also mentioned I’m also curious as to what the domestic policy prescriptions are, if they exist. I haven’t seen them, but obviously that doesn’t preclude it being a thing.
|
United States41934 Posts
On February 05 2025 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:35 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2025 01:21 blomsterjohn wrote:
Concerning the fentanyl crisis, has Trump said or done anything as to if or how they plan to address it domestically?
He's said that just the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border last year was enough to kill 10 million Americans so that presumably means he's recognizing the success of the Biden administration in saving 10 million American lives. That's something. The funny thing is, that's a really small amount. My googling tells me that 2 mg is a lethal dose, so to kill 10 million you only need 20 kg.
Presumably the fentanyl is diluted rather than being taken all at once. I'd imagine that you could do the same with lethal doses of a lot of things. Salt imports for example, if you ignored that salt is not typically consumed by itself.
As a fun exercise I checked the LD50 of water. It's about 9L for a 100kg human. Then I checked the volume on the Niagara Falls, 2,800,000L/second or about 311,000 lethal doses. 19m/minute. Enough to poison all of America in less than an hour.
It's probably a flawed assumption that Americans would drink the Niagara Falls all at once though, even though I'm sure it is used for drinking water at some point.
That's not to say that it's not an issue but the 10m number is obviously absurd, in part because we know that there aren't tens of millions of fentanyl deaths each year.
|
On February 05 2025 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:43 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2025 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2025 01:14 KwarK wrote:
The plan for protecting people from an out of control Trump administration running roughshod over the law is in from Democrat leadership: Just wait until Republicans vote for Dems in a couple years
Hard to share Schumer's confidence that Trump supporters will be so shocked and enraged when they discover Trump *checks notes* makes mistakes that they will rush to vote for Democrats.
Democrats don't respect their supporters' intelligence, or dignity for that matter. I don't think a commitment to taking power through elections is a fair criticism of a political party. If there is a need for a revolution then an establishment political party is not going to be the one leading the charge. "Go to the streets and tear it all down then build a new world in the ashes" is not a reasonable expectation from the Democrats. It's like you're complaining about the lack of steaks at a vegan restaurant. It's just not what they're selling. Of course I don't expect Democrats to have any functional solutions, but "watch Trump steamroll the constitution and hope Democrats win elections they aren't sure will happen" is worse than I would hope their supporters expected. But Democrat supporters will support basically anything (it was a theme of the 2024 election) so I can't say I'm surprised. A political party committed to democracy is not going to advocate for antidemocratic solutions. They're always going to say that the solution to the other party having power is voting for them instead next time. They're never going to say that there's a third option where you line them all up against the wall and shoot them because they're going to be against the wall too. It's just not a reasonable expectation and you should be capable of understanding that. I'm not saying that there isn't a need for a revolution, I'm saying that expecting agreement on that need for revolution from the establishment and complaining when you don't get it is idiotic.
Again, not expecting revolution from Schumer so you can drop the strawman. I expected better than effectively "watch him rip through the constitution like a Big Mac and wait to see if Republicans want to vote for us in a couple years because they discovered Trump makes mistakes"
Really, I expect more from Democrat supporters. I feel like Democrats are treating their supporters like idiots that will support them no matter how absurd they are, like unanimously empowering known white nationalists. No one was clamoring for Democrats to do that. They just did it for no measurable benefit to any of their supporters (except perhaps their "good billionaire" donors + Show Spoiler +)
The article about Democrats in disarray noted there are other ideas in the party. (EDIT: This is the full text of the NYT article)
On a private call with Schumer last week, a half-dozen Democratic governors pressed him to be more aggressive in opposing the entire Trump agenda
In addition, Senator Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii) said he would place a “blanket hold” on all of Trump’s State Department nominees until the administration’s attack on the U.S. Agency for International Development, a foreign-assistance agency, ends, the Wall Street Journal reported.
A group of Democratic leaders in Washington, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D, Md.), were denied entry into the USAID office on Monday, according to The Hill.
Van Hollen said lawmakers are working to file legal proceedings to stop the Trump administration from “undoing USAID.”
“What Trump and Musk have done is not only wrong, it’s illegal,” said Representative Don Beyer (D-Va.), the news agency reported.
(EDIT: These quotes are actually from a different article about the strategy discussion among Democrats)
Schumer, like Biden, is frankly too old and decrepit for this moment. The Senate needs more dynamic leadership period.
Of course those ideas are pretty weak imo. A "blanket hold" on a fraction of his nominees, allowing yourself to be turned away from USAID (which again is basically an anti-communist coconspirator in CIA activities in Africa and beyond + Show Spoiler +), and calling Musk letting crypto bros run rampant on government computers illegal instead of having the criminals arrested.
But Schumer isn't even helping to push any of those there, he's saying "let's wait and see how MAGA responds to discovering Trump makes mistakes". Now he's got you reflexively and embarrassingly defending his obviously trash position against a strawman you made up
|
On February 05 2025 01:56 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 00:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Trump keeps saying he wants Canada to become "the 51st state". Canada is far too big to be a single state. What Trump really wants is Alberta and its oil. Alberta gets a raw deal from Ottawa as its primary concern is saving the environment. The USA can give Albertans the freedom they crave.
Alberta is either the most and 2nd most right wing province in Canada and a sure win for Republicans. This post gives a super creepy vibe -- do you really think it's okay that Trump is trying to annex Canada via a trade war? Anything involving Canada or the US with Jimmy instantly becomes hating on Canada and extoling the glory of the US.
He's a Canadian who left for the US and now spends every discussion here trying to justify to himself that he made the right choice.
|
United States41934 Posts
On February 05 2025 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:56 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 05 2025 00:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Trump keeps saying he wants Canada to become "the 51st state". Canada is far too big to be a single state. What Trump really wants is Alberta and its oil. Alberta gets a raw deal from Ottawa as its primary concern is saving the environment. The USA can give Albertans the freedom they crave.
Alberta is either the most and 2nd most right wing province in Canada and a sure win for Republicans. This post gives a super creepy vibe -- do you really think it's okay that Trump is trying to annex Canada via a trade war? Anything involving Canada or the US with Jimmy instantly becomes hating on Canada and extoling the glory of the US. He's a Canadian who left for the US and now spends every discussion here trying to justify to himself that he made the right choice.
It's not whether the choice is right or wrong, it's just weird. Hockey and donuts and communism and deciding to become an Italian American by following other Italian Americans around and doing Jack Nicholson impressions or something. It's not about left or right, his posting is like the text equivalent of the CGI faces in The Polar Express, he's in the uncanny valley where something is just off.
|
His posting is a very perfect picture of the mid-50s uncle who you begrudgingly invite to Thanksgiving but he winds up talking about like two things over and over through the evening and whenever you talk about something else he brings it back to one of those two subjects, and theyre both super weird and niche and make everyone else uncomfortable and you tell yourself youre not gonna invite him next year, you're just too exhausted and then next year rolls around and you feel a little bad about not inviting him back so you do, repeat cycle.
|
With Musk targeting Ilhan Omar like this, it's a race to see who ends up in prison first, Musk/Trump or the Democrats that oppose them. I don't like Democrats odds.
Not to mention just prioritizing prosecuting "anyone who impedes" before recognizing the people being impeded are the ones committing crimes is ominous.
the interim U.S. attorney in Washington warned Monday his office would pursue charges against "anyone who impedes" the work of tech entrepreneur Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which President Donald Trump has tasked with dismantling the federal bureaucracy.
www.usatoday.com
But yeah, as far as the actually important issues are concerned, the uncanny valley thing has been how I've felt for years.
|
On February 05 2025 01:14 KwarK wrote:
I don't think a commitment to taking power through elections is a fair criticism of a political party. If there is a need for a revolution then an establishment political party is not going to be the one leading the charge. "Go to the streets and tear it all down then build a new world in the ashes" is not a reasonable expectation from the Democrats.
It's like you're complaining about the lack of steaks at a vegan restaurant. It's just not what they're selling.
I don't think GH's message was addressed at Chuck Schumer but to people in this thread who might ostensibly listen to that turd of a message.
I think GH has been nothing if not consistent in his messaging that if you are opposed to fascism and thought the Democrats were your solution, you should think again. So while nobody expects Chuck Schumer to take to the streets and demand change, if you actually want the fascists to leave the White House, that may be what *you* need to do: stop listening to Chuck Schumer and do something more sensible.
|
On February 05 2025 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2025 01:14 KwarK wrote:
I don't think a commitment to taking power through elections is a fair criticism of a political party. If there is a need for a revolution then an establishment political party is not going to be the one leading the charge. "Go to the streets and tear it all down then build a new world in the ashes" is not a reasonable expectation from the Democrats.
It's like you're complaining about the lack of steaks at a vegan restaurant. It's just not what they're selling. Of course I don't expect Democrats to have any functional solutions, but "watch Trump steamroll the constitution and hope Democrats win elections they aren't sure will happen" is worse than I would hope their supporters expected. But Democrat supporters will support basically anything (it was a theme of the 2024 election) so I can't say I'm surprised. A political party committed to democracy is not going to advocate for antidemocratic solutions. They're always going to say that the solution to the other party having power is voting for them instead next time. They're never going to say that there's a third option where you line them all up against the wall and shoot them because they're going to be against the wall too. It's just not a reasonable expectation and you should be capable of understanding that. I'm not saying that there isn't a need for a revolution, I'm saying that expecting agreement on that need for revolution from the establishment and complaining when you don't get it is idiotic.
Really? Because Sumar here would be organizing the protests and calling for civil disobedience against fascist policies. Heck, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PSOE joined them.
Being committed to the democratic process includes being committed to preventing the erosion of things like regulatory capture, the separation of powers and a host of other institutional checks and balances that are meant to stop the undemocratic abuse of power by a democratically elected government.
|
On February 05 2025 01:56 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 00:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Trump keeps saying he wants Canada to become "the 51st state". Canada is far too big to be a single state. What Trump really wants is Alberta and its oil. Alberta gets a raw deal from Ottawa as its primary concern is saving the environment. The USA can give Albertans the freedom they crave.
Alberta is either the most and 2nd most right wing province in Canada and a sure win for Republicans. This post gives a super creepy vibe -- do you really think it's okay that Trump is trying to annex Canada via a trade war?
Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't make a difference regarding the trade deficit. It would simply change from a trade deficit between countries to a trade deficit between US states. Materially, nothing much would change.
|
On February 05 2025 02:17 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 05 2025 01:35 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2025 01:21 blomsterjohn wrote:
Concerning the fentanyl crisis, has Trump said or done anything as to if or how they plan to address it domestically?
He's said that just the amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border last year was enough to kill 10 million Americans so that presumably means he's recognizing the success of the Biden administration in saving 10 million American lives. That's something. The funny thing is, that's a really small amount. My googling tells me that 2 mg is a lethal dose, so to kill 10 million you only need 20 kg. The actual White House missive that was posted a while back said the overall amounts of Fentanyl coming in would kill 4 billion humans. 10 million? Sheesh, rookie numbers. As blomsterjohn also mentioned I’m also curious as to what the domestic policy prescriptions are, if they exist. I haven’t seen them, but obviously that doesn’t preclude it being a thing.
The policy was clear right?
Step 1: tariffs
Step 2: ????
Step 3: fentanyl problem solved!
|
United States41934 Posts
On February 05 2025 03:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 01:14 KwarK wrote:
I don't think a commitment to taking power through elections is a fair criticism of a political party. If there is a need for a revolution then an establishment political party is not going to be the one leading the charge. "Go to the streets and tear it all down then build a new world in the ashes" is not a reasonable expectation from the Democrats.
It's like you're complaining about the lack of steaks at a vegan restaurant. It's just not what they're selling. I don't think GH's message was addressed at Chuck Schumer but to people in this thread who might ostensibly listen to that turd of a message. I think GH has been nothing if not consistent in his messaging that if you are opposed to fascism and thought the Democrats were your solution, you should think again. So while nobody expects Chuck Schumer to take to the streets and demand change, if you actually want the fascists to leave the White House, that may be what *you* need to do: stop listening to Chuck Schumer and do something more sensible.
People in this topic are dramatically underestimating what "do something more sensible" looks like in terms of stopping someone like Trump who enjoys widespread popular support.
By all means argue for direct action, though I'd recommend against doing it if you live in the US, but that direct action needs to be more than "let's all go to DC and wear vagina hats". They tried that already.
The day we abandon voting needs to be the day we embrace something direct. That's why my main criticism of GH has, for a while now, been "well fucking do something then".
|
I wonder if Democarts are starting to get it yet. That they fucked up THIS badly by letting all of this happen.
Everything that Trump is doing is straight out of Project 2025. We've known about Project 2025 for years, and yet despite knowing what the Republicans wanted to do, they ran Joe Biden again when he was so old and unfit that he couldn't even make it all the way through the election.
I hope they're proud of themselves. I hope the Democratic Party leadership is so happy that good thing they stuck to seniority and making sure to put "electable candidates" first, that they are happy watching everything go to complete hell, because at least they stuck to their precious gameplan. /barf
|
On February 05 2025 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
I wonder if Democarts are starting to get it yet. That they fucked up THIS badly by letting all of this happen.
Everything that Trump is doing is straight out of Project 2025. We've known about Project 2025 for years, and yet despite knowing what the Republicans wanted to do, they ran Joe Biden again when he was so old and unfit that he couldn't even make it all the way through the election.
I hope they're proud of themselves. I hope the Democratic Party leadership is so happy that good thing they stuck to seniority and making sure to put "electable candidates" first, that they are happy watching everything go to complete hell, because at least they stuck to their precious gameplan. /barf I tend to blame voters for who they vote for, not the opposition.
Maybe its a weird 'non-American' thing.
|
On February 05 2025 05:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2025 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
I wonder if Democarts are starting to get it yet. That they fucked up THIS badly by letting all of this happen.
Everything that Trump is doing is straight out of Project 2025. We've known about Project 2025 for years, and yet despite knowing what the Republicans wanted to do, they ran Joe Biden again when he was so old and unfit that he couldn't even make it all the way through the election.
I hope they're proud of themselves. I hope the Democratic Party leadership is so happy that good thing they stuck to seniority and making sure to put "electable candidates" first, that they are happy watching everything go to complete hell, because at least they stuck to their precious gameplan. /barf I tend to blame voters for who they vote for, not the opposition. Maybe its a weird 'non-American' thing.
that might make sense if there are more than two viable choices. but in this instance as much blame lays at the feet of republican voters as does the democrat party for not being a party worth voting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/9b96/live/55084920-e242-11ef-a819-277e390a7a08.png.webp)
