|
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 21 2025 22:13 Sadist wrote: This is the dumbest fucking timeline.
Now Trump wants to fire the USPS board.
Republicans want to get their grubby little hands on everything. Have you seen how much it costs to send stuff vs UPS/Fedex? Its outrageous compared to USPS.
Yeah, but no billionaire makes money with that. So better break the USPS to make sure someone can make money off of you.
|
I know it's just ironic that we now have to defend ourselves when we lash out and they get to wave to wand of "free speech regulation to safeuard a certain class of people". That certain class of people of course being the elite big brother government that's trying to silence/destroy everything it deems unworthy of protection from its own perspective. Too bad giving a damn about a fellow human being is so difficult for these people. Well, I should say, they don't view them as human any longer so it's actually very easy. How long do you think will it take before Trump/Musk start building "LGBTQ re-education camps"?
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On February 21 2025 09:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 09:00 WombaT wrote:On February 21 2025 08:33 Acrofales wrote:On February 21 2025 08:12 WombaT wrote:On February 21 2025 07:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 07:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 20 2025 23:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2025 23:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 20 2025 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Does anyone besides white supremacists and the people that "coincidentally" support them get/deserve this sort of political coddling? I mean, sure? I think right wingers describing social democratic policies as communist is counter productive for their cause, too, and that if you saw this happen from moderate right wingers towards moderate left wingers, it'd be likely to push them away more than it'd convince them to join them. + Show Spoiler +Similarly from left to right - if I'm arguing with a voter of the Norwegian conservative party and they're like hey, we need to reduce sick pay to make people less likely to stay home from work when they're not actually sick, then I do a piss-poor job convincing them if I start off by describing their preferred solution as an ayn randian hellscape.
Like picture these scales
communist -------social democrat -------centrist --------conservative/economically liberal------- ayn rand
I think people that are placed on various degrees of this axis can easily end up moving from one of these descriptions to the other. Centrists are potential social democrats and also potential conservatives/economically liberal, social democrats are potential communists but also potential centrists, the conservative/economically liberal can be swayed towards ayn rand or towards centrism - but not towards communism. I further think that if the conserative/economically liberal are conversing with the social democrats and they say 'you guys are communists', the social democrats will be less likely to move towards centrism from that interaction.
not racist ----------------------------- racist
While I don't have fitting terms to describe the potential positions on this scale, I can imagine a similar mechanic unfolding. Say there are 5 points of the not racist to racist scale (like above) - while a 1 (least racist) is less racist than a 3, describing the 3 as a racist does not move the 3 towards the 2 (where he can potentially be swayed), but rather towards the 4. Trying to reach the 5 is a hopeless endeavor, but if you're a 1, you'd rather have more 3s than 4s and you can predict that even if the 3 is guilty of some racist thoughts and actions, he could still be considerably more racist, and he himself will not consider himself racist (the racists are the 4s and 5s, obviously).
not nazi --------------------------- nazi
Same applies here - except while for racism you can argue that tons of people find themselves somewhere between 2 and 4, I think with nazism the gray area is significantly smaller, there aren't really any 'well I'm fine with genodicing half a million jews but 5-6 million is too many'-people. Except in the US we saw Trump and Republicans do the opposite. Put simply, they incessantly called basically anyone to the left of Liz Cheney a communist and won the popular vote. Trump didn't go from polling behind Carly Fiorina at 1% to being King president by coddling centrist Clinton supporters. Propaganda towards your base has some very different criteria for being successful compared to talking to other people who disagree with you. Propaganda towards your base should, for maximum efficiency, combine enthusiasm towards your own cause with anger towards the other group. Whereas if you are talking to someone and you represent one side and they the other, and you want any chance at convincing them that you are in the right, anger is the one emotion you really want to avoid invoking. Like - being laser focused on Trump putting kids in cages and separating children from their parents as part of a 'he's a fucking racist monster'-package is a great tactic for riling up your own base and getting them out to vote. (To what degree Trump's policy differed from what democrats had done in the past is completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making here, btw.) Telling Trump supporters that they themselves are racists because they wanted to reduce illegal immigration and that's what this looks like under Trump is however a terrible tactic if you are at all interested in having those people not vote Trump next time. Trump went from less than 1% of voters supporting him, to being the only president in history to get more votes each run while running 3+ times. That led to being the only Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years. That seems to me to pretty objectively be about more than just rallying a Republican base that didn't like him. Especially when we remember that basically every other Republican candidate (and their supporters) started as Trump haters and he didn't win them over by coddling them. That's not a special metric, nor even particularly impressive. Other presidents could only run twice because they won both their elections, such as how GWB had 50M votes in 2000, and then got wayyy more votes in 2004 (62M), and then had to stop because he couldn't run again lol. Also, everyone starts at 0% initial support. Yeah but Trump has increased his vote over time the more overtly Fascist he’s become. 2016 Trump there were already plenty of warning signs, but you can maybe make a case that it was less mask off, people thought a lot was bluster, other dissatisfaction etc. The MAGA was still there sure, but there was much more of a general disruptor kinda vibe. Look even then I thought it was horseshit, but I’m being generous, first time for everything. Next time round he’s running after what he did in his first term, including ‘Stop the steal’ and Jan 6th. Grabs more votes. Last time he grabs more again, possibly by the pussy, despite his historic record, and despite a much more overtly hard right campaign. Gone are the types enthused by Bernie Sanders who think Trump still might be preferable to a Clinton type because he dangles a few plausible deniability carrots their way, that kind of stuff has long been dropped/seen right through. But I think in pointing this trend out GH is augmenting other arguments more than his own. I find it better (crude) evidence that the US’ populace is getting more fascist, or is more tolerant of it than anything else. And if it’s trending in that direction then other political movements breaking through gets less and less likely over time. I think I might be with Kwark here (and pretty sure GH is as well): if you're hoping elections are going solve this, you've been smoking too much weed. I'm a bit more hopeful than Kwark, because I don't think we're in 1934 yet. More like 1932. And plenty can still go wrong for Trump and his fledgling fascist takeover. But people have to actually mobilize and do something to stop it. There is some tiny hope on that front too: at the rate they're dismantling the US government, the effects should be pretty obvious to everybody pretty soon. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/20/trump-federal-worker-firings-impactBetween sucking up to Russia, stopping meemaw from receiving welfare, allowing toxic waste dumps to poison drinking water, slashing funding to air safety, etc. it'll be a grab bag of terrible ideas which everyone should be able to find something in that is objectively made much worse by Trump. Perhaps that'll motivate people to some form of activism. People’s collective ability to assess the effects of policy unless it’s a grotesquely obvious one with a very clear cause and effect, I’m not so sure of. Today’s obligatory Brexit mention. Still a good idea in many minds, doesn’t matter how the numbers are all fucking atrocious. And if there are recognised problems, they’ll be blamed on external actors and not the policy. I’ve seen it over here, I expect we’ll see it in the US when Trump’s moves don’t pay dividends. I imbibe certain other substances, weed isn’t really my vibe. I don’t think elections solve a lot of this at all. My contention is merely that agitation to not beat Mr Fascist at the ballot box means you’re electing to play on hard mode. It may still be a brutal challenge anyway, but one is handicapping oneself. I’m not advocating voting as a solution to many ills, merely that doing all the other important activism and groundwork that is somewhat lacking in our societies would be more effective if you didn’t have to do it merely to counteract legitimately elected Fascists. You could still do that in a Harris administration, and you should do that. Obviously not electing Trump in the first place would've been the right move. That ship sailed. I'm not talking about past elections. I'm saying that there is 0% chance of any future elections getting rid of them (without also a serious groundswell of popular activism to force fair elections). I'll have to dig to find it again. I think it was Nate Silver, but it could have been propublica or something else that analysed the 2024 elections and found that a major reason for Trump's victory was voter suppression. They estimated that without voter suppression, Kamala would've won most of the swing states, and the popular vote. Good luck with that now that they are actually back in control of the government. E: of course it was neither of those. https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/ I must say on face value that makes a pretty compelling case. I’d initially thought ‘surely not, folks would have been screaming some equivalent of “stop the steal” ever since if it could conceivably flip an election?’
My understanding of voter suppression also appears to be somewhat flawed and in need of updating.
For me the calculus was, make things somewhat less convenient, in ways that disproportionately inconvenience the poor, or certain demographics clustered in areas. For obvious partisan reasons of manipulation.
However, in ways that functionally deter an unenthused voter, i.e. yes more inconvenient, that may suppress turnout for, but something that’s also relatively simple to get through if you’re set on voting, or that a real motivating candidate could punch through more widely.
Incidentally I’ve opposed the odd floated proposals over here for anything similar. I’ve never bought the ‘if you can’t be arsed to overcome a bit of inconvenience or some hoops to jump through, you don’t value the voting process do you?’ argument. Nor if it’s measures implemented to ‘deal’ with supposedly widespread fraud without compelling evidence of such fraud even existing, plus a soundly laid out argument on how any solution would actually help.
Anyway where I seem to be way off is in the seeming sheer amount of well, fuckery going on. There’s not really a better word for it.
Well, I learned something today and as per usual in the political realm, it ain’t good.
Again to reiterate, I was aware of many facets of this, facets that are obvious horseshit. Hoops to jump through that have no justifiable reason to be there, that kinda thing. But my assumption was that suppression measures effective because people were put off by the hoop jumping process. This article makes a pretty compelling case that even people who sailed through the hoop jumping and got awarded a perfect 10 score by the judges would still get fucked over anyway.
Thanks for the share I guess, albeit I’ve enough depression in my life right now :p
|
On February 21 2025 22:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Steve Bannon just gave a Nazi salute during a CPAC speech, after saying that Trump should be president during the 2028 term too. Is it more or less plausibly deniable than Musk's? My initial reaction was that it was weaker than Musk's, but without the "my heart goes out to you" cover, it feels a bit more naked even if less enthusiastic. Ezra Klein recently opened his show by pointing out he talked to a bunch of Democrats about what they would be doing if they had won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. They all told him they didn't know. If people are going to insist on relying on Democrats, they are going to need to demand better/more of them. Democrats (ultimately capitalists generally too, but they are freebasing with Trump/Musk right now) need a Project 2026/New Deal to rally around. Obviously my version would be much further left than anything they'd come up with, but every hour they go without having this as THE "other thing to talk about" besides whatever Trump and his cronies are breaking, is unforgivable political malpractice. Less enthusiastic than Musk's two Nazi salutes, definitely. Doesn't make it any less plausible imo though; they both know what they're signaling. Feel like Bannon's lack of enthusiasm was meant for the "see they call everyone a Nazi!" troll but just read as a sign of weakness to me. Means there's still time to do something.
I think that should be socialist in nature. You have inexplicably and steadfastly refused to join those efforts afaict. Opting instead to echo JO's call for contacting politicians (I did this btw, don't know if you tried, but pretty sure it just went to a "not my constituent" Voicemail purgatory?) and threats of primaries.
I'd like this to be reciprocal, but I'll make the first steps regardless. I'll try make a good faith effort to post/act as a lib/Dem/ilk in the context of this thread like I've requested of you and others to do as socialists in my blog.
This is your (and the rest of the libs/Dems/ilk) chance to point me in the direction you prefer. You could also all demonstrate your own capacity to act in good faith reciprocity to at least seriously consider the alternatives on the table for organizing against the rising tide of fascism in the US and beyond.
|
On February 21 2025 22:13 Sadist wrote: This is the dumbest fucking timeline.
Now Trump wants to fire the USPS board.
Republicans want to get their grubby little hands on everything. Have you seen how much it costs to send stuff vs UPS/Fedex? Its outrageous compared to USPS.
And even then the USPS is used for last mile because it's often not profitable for private business to handle it.
So many rural folks will just straight up not get mail if the post gets privatized.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On February 21 2025 22:44 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 22:13 Sadist wrote: This is the dumbest fucking timeline.
Now Trump wants to fire the USPS board.
Republicans want to get their grubby little hands on everything. Have you seen how much it costs to send stuff vs UPS/Fedex? Its outrageous compared to USPS.
And even then the USPS is used for last mile because it's often not profitable for private business to handle it. So many rural folks will just straight up not get mail if the post gets privatized. Attempts to privatise our equivalent (at least AFAIK), the Royal Mail profitable haven’t gone well.
Hey it turns out trying to extract profitability from universal services, not always a great idea! The two domains are frequently in direct conflict.
I’m not against innately against market competition in the space, there’s money and efficiency/quality of service to be had that can run in parallel alongside that universal service.
But potentially if you shred that universal public service element, it’s nae great.
|
On February 21 2025 22:13 Sadist wrote: This is the dumbest fucking timeline.
Now Trump wants to fire the USPS board.
Republicans want to get their grubby little hands on everything. Have you seen how much it costs to send stuff vs UPS/Fedex? Its outrageous compared to USPS.
He wants to create new Robber Barons that face no regulation.
He doesn't understand how wealth is created.
When the postal service is privatized, they will try to make do with less workers, doing the same job for higher prices.
And then they will cut the remaining worker's benefits. And then they will say that a letter now doesn't take 1-3 businessdays, but about 3 weeks..or whatever.
You can always measure any policy on the benchmark of "Can you buy yourself free of the incoming consequence?"
If prices get hiked to the moon, and service enshittficates.. that's bad for people relying on that subsidized service for their small business.
If you are rich, you just pay for the better service with the private Contractor... and not a dollar in taxes.
|
I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc. I’m not so sure, they gotta bite hard and they gotta bite on a personal level, and they gotta bite in such a way that it’s effectively impossible to attribute them to other factors.
Todays’s Brexit mention. You’re effectively not dealing with a sober assessment of policy success, but people’s pride as well. And many will find any alternative explanation other than ‘hm, might have got that one wrong’.
This is assuming people are even honest as to their motivations in the first place, which they often aren’t. See - Elon Musk and Twitter. Didn’t really matter that he kept doing the exact things (or to a more extreme degree) some people said were the problems with the platform under previous management.
It also requires a vague knowledge of how various systems interact, which frankly I don’t think a lot of people possess seemingly.
|
On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc.
Are you sure about that? If Trump successfully dismantles the USPS, then that's the end of reliable mail-in voting, which means Democrats won't ever win again, especially coupled with other voter suppression attempts from Republicans. That should sound pretty darn good to all the fascist Republicans out there.
|
On February 22 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc. Are you sure about that? If Trump successfully dismantles the USPS, then that's the end of reliable mail-in voting, which means Democrats won't ever win again, especially coupled with other voter suppression attempts from Republicans. That should sound pretty darn good to all the fascist Republicans out there.
There are people seriously looking at cutting medicare and medicaid. Separately, if we pull troops out of Europe and keep firing federal workers thats even more people who will vote against him.
|
On February 22 2025 00:55 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc. Are you sure about that? If Trump successfully dismantles the USPS, then that's the end of reliable mail-in voting, which means Democrats won't ever win again, especially coupled with other voter suppression attempts from Republicans. That should sound pretty darn good to all the fascist Republicans out there. There are people seriously looking at cutting medicare and medicaid. Separately, if we pull troops out of Europe and keep firing federal workers thats even more people who will vote against him.
One would think that would matter, but I feel like Trump supporters have been bending over backwards to make every excuse or justification for Trump's missteps at every turn. Trump literally convinced them to be okay with nearly 100 felonies, without any Obamacare or alternative healthcare options, and also not to get medical protection during a global pandemic, and he still didn't lose support, so I'm sure that Republicans will just pretend like Medicare and Medicaid are unworthy programs the second Trump starts removing funds from them, because why else would God Trump do such a thing unless there was a perfect reason for it?
|
Na i think it would be different because it would impact them personally. Its easy to be against all these things when you dont use them.
|
On February 22 2025 01:14 Sadist wrote: Na i think it would be different because it would impact them personally. Its easy to be against all these things when you dont use them.
I sure hope it'll be different.
|
On February 21 2025 22:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 22:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Steve Bannon just gave a Nazi salute during a CPAC speech, after saying that Trump should be president during the 2028 term too. Is it more or less plausibly deniable than Musk's? My initial reaction was that it was weaker than Musk's, but without the "my heart goes out to you" cover, it feels a bit more naked even if less enthusiastic. Ezra Klein recently opened his show by pointing out he talked to a bunch of Democrats about what they would be doing if they had won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. They all told him they didn't know. If people are going to insist on relying on Democrats, they are going to need to demand better/more of them. Democrats (ultimately capitalists generally too, but they are freebasing with Trump/Musk right now) need a Project 2026/New Deal to rally around. Obviously my version would be much further left than anything they'd come up with, but every hour they go without having this as THE "other thing to talk about" besides whatever Trump and his cronies are breaking, is unforgivable political malpractice. Less enthusiastic than Musk's two Nazi salutes, definitely. Doesn't make it any less plausible imo though; they both know what they're signaling. Feel like Bannon's lack of enthusiasm was meant for the "see they call everyone a Nazi!" troll but just read as a sign of weakness to me. Means there's still time to do something. I think that should be socialist in nature. You have inexplicably and steadfastly refused to join those efforts afaict. Opting instead to echo JO's call for contacting politicians ( I did this btw, don't know if you tried, but pretty sure it just went to a "not my constituent" Voicemail purgatory?) and threats of primaries. I'd like this to be reciprocal, but I'll make the first steps regardless. I'll try make a good faith effort to post/act as a lib/Dem/ilk in the context of this thread like I've requested of you and others to do as socialists in my blog. This is your (and the rest of the libs/Dems/ilk) chance to point me in the direction you prefer. You could also all demonstrate your own capacity to act in good faith reciprocity to at least seriously consider the alternatives on the table for organizing against the rising tide of fascism in the US and beyond.
I did read your socialist blog post, and I do read the discussion that takes place there. I've watched the videos you've recommended (not just the ones in your blog, but other ones you've posted here, in the past). I personally don't think that promoting socialism is a viable way to address Trump's fascism, as labeling anyone as Socialist/Communist immediately scares away half of the population (not saying it's justified).
I think that economic philosophy labels like socialism and capitalism are generally going to work in favor of the latter when it comes to Americans' feelings, and the best move would be to gradually push for smaller socialized policies which could accumulate over time into that socialist label, as opposed to coming out of the gate with a push for capital-S Socialism. I think it'd be easier to get people to agree that they like the sound of [socialist policy 1] and [socialist policy 2] and [socialist policy 3] without them needing to identify as Socialists. Taboo, and all that crap.
|
On February 22 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 22:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 22:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Steve Bannon just gave a Nazi salute during a CPAC speech, after saying that Trump should be president during the 2028 term too. Is it more or less plausibly deniable than Musk's? My initial reaction was that it was weaker than Musk's, but without the "my heart goes out to you" cover, it feels a bit more naked even if less enthusiastic. Ezra Klein recently opened his show by pointing out he talked to a bunch of Democrats about what they would be doing if they had won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. They all told him they didn't know. If people are going to insist on relying on Democrats, they are going to need to demand better/more of them. Democrats (ultimately capitalists generally too, but they are freebasing with Trump/Musk right now) need a Project 2026/New Deal to rally around. Obviously my version would be much further left than anything they'd come up with, but every hour they go without having this as THE "other thing to talk about" besides whatever Trump and his cronies are breaking, is unforgivable political malpractice. Less enthusiastic than Musk's two Nazi salutes, definitely. Doesn't make it any less plausible imo though; they both know what they're signaling. Feel like Bannon's lack of enthusiasm was meant for the "see they call everyone a Nazi!" troll but just read as a sign of weakness to me. Means there's still time to do something. I think that should be socialist in nature. You have inexplicably and steadfastly refused to join those efforts afaict. Opting instead to echo JO's call for contacting politicians ( I did this btw, don't know if you tried, but pretty sure it just went to a "not my constituent" Voicemail purgatory?) and threats of primaries. I'd like this to be reciprocal, but I'll make the first steps regardless. I'll try make a good faith effort to post/act as a lib/Dem/ilk in the context of this thread like I've requested of you and others to do as socialists in my blog. This is your (and the rest of the libs/Dems/ilk) chance to point me in the direction you prefer. You could also all demonstrate your own capacity to act in good faith reciprocity to at least seriously consider the alternatives on the table for organizing against the rising tide of fascism in the US and beyond. I did read your socialist blog post, and I do read the discussion that takes place there. I've watched the videos you've recommended (not just the ones in your blog, but other ones you've posted here, in the past). I personally don't think that promoting socialism is a viable way to address Trump's fascism, as labeling anyone as Socialist/Communist immediately scares away half of the population (not saying it's justified). I think that economic philosophy labels like socialism and capitalism are generally going to work in favor of the latter when it comes to Americans' feelings, and the best move would be to gradually push for smaller socialized policies which could accumulate over time into that socialist label, as opposed to coming out of the gate with a push for capital-S Socialism. I think it'd be easier to get people to agree that they like the sound of [socialist policy 1] and [socialist policy 2] and [socialist policy 3] without them needing to identify as Socialists. Taboo, and all that crap. I recognize and appreciate your skepticism, as I trust you do mine. You know, if you talk to me over in my blog, I could probably work with you to find socialists that largely share your perspective (probably more than Democrats) and we could still work together from that angle? That said, I'm pretty confident you and LibHorizons are going to get along.
LibHorizons: I'm with you on messaging, use what works. That simple. I think what Sen. Chris Murphy is saying here (echoing 2016 Bernie really) is how you breakthrough to everyday Americans across the political spectrum. Starts to show that you understand what went wrong, and you're going to do something about it. + Show Spoiler + Democrats and Republicans gave into this idea. That was really in vogue, about 20 years ago, that markets could fix everything right? That if you sort of properly tweak markets, ultimately those markets will be able to deliver happiness. And more than just markets, global markets. Jobs will be moved overseas, but the'll be replaced by cheaper goods and different, better jobs that will eventually raise the standard of living. Democrats bought into that, Republicans bought into it. It was a fucking lie! It was a fucking lie that was perpetrated on us by these masters of the global economy, the only people who really benefited from being able to move capital seamlessly and goods country to country.
We told Americans that if they just bought stuff, if they just were good consumers, if they got a little but higher income, if they got on that career ladder, ultimately, you know, that was meaning, that was purpose, that was fulfilment. It never, ever has been.
We made an enormous mistake believing in what I guess is referred to as the neoliberal economic order, markets will cure everything, and we're paying a huge price for that now. LibHorizons: Don't agree with everything he said in the interview, but that's the kind of message (tuned differently for different audiences) I think they need to be bringing to as many people as they can as soon as possible en masse. It is the very minimum we need from them to energize people to take the various actions we'll need them to over the coming days, months, and years.
On February 22 2025 01:14 Sadist wrote: Na i think it would be different because it would impact them personally. Its easy to be against all these things when you dont use them. LibHorizons: I think it is more likely government funds are redirected to private/religious services (in this case delivery/distribution) to subsidize them based on algorithms meant to maximize support for a sort of vague "white(club) Christian Nationalism" complementing a growing Neo-feudalism
+ Show Spoiler +...As the distribution of political power shifted in the 1970s and 1980s, the financial industry began reprivatizing systems of law and finance. They invented new strategies of financial speculation to which regulators gave their blessing. Leverage buyout artists began acquiring entire companies using almost none of their own money, with the target company’s stock as collateral. In the new, pro-market environment, regulators concluded that this was legal.
The LBO business mutated into private equity, in which trillions of dollars of transactions were outside the system of securities regulation on the premise that these were not public offerings of shares. What had been a very small loophole in the structure of New Deal securities law metastasized into a largely unregulated multitrillion-dollar industry. Complex layers of derivatives securities were invented, in which immense and largely hidden multiples of leverage were possible. When some regulators expressed an interest in taking a closer look, a Congress newly beholden to the financial industry acted in 2000 to expressly prohibit regulation of derivatives, either as insurance, securities, or as gambling.
In the same period, public agencies delegated regulation to regulated industries via more than a dozen industry-controlled entities known as self-regulatory organizations (SROS). The original self-regulatory organization was the New York Stock Exchange, created in 1792. Prior to the New Deal, the Stock Exchange functioned as a private club, and its failure to enforce transparent and fair dealing had vast consequences for the public well-being when markets periodically crashed.
From the inception of securities regulation in 1933, there was bitter contention over how much enforcement would be the direct province of the new sec and how much would be delegated to the privately operated stock exchange. It is a testament to the residual power of capital that even at the nadir of its disgrace, the New York Stock Exchange won many of these initial skirmishes, setting an unfortunate pattern to be exploited once FDR was gone. Against the wishes of the sec’s original architects, the stock exchange was permitted to supervise many of its own activities with the sec relegated to watchdog, supervising at one remove. In 1939, the sec allowed the first explicitly recognized SRO, the National Association of Securities Dealers, to govern the system of over-the-counter (off-exchange) stock trades. This was just the beginning of a vast reversion.
After Wall Street invented financial derivatives in the 1980s, the whole field of derivatives creation and trading came to be governed by rules established by the industry trade association, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). At its simplest level, a financial derivative is analogous to an insurance policy against a bond or other security failing to pay back interest or principal. But ISDA, not a government agency, gets to decide how derivatives work and under what circumstances that obligation must be paid. This is neo-feudalism, par excellence. The democratic state plays no role whatever, except to bless the privatized realm of law.
In the area of accounting standards, the sec expressly delegated monitoring and enforcement to the industry trade association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). When self-regulation failed and accounting frauds led to the Enron scandal and kindred abuses, Congress restored some direct regulatory standards via the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. However, that same legislation created a new body, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), that enabled industry self-regulation to persist in a different form. PCAOB was created as a dot-org, not a government entity. Its president is paid over $670,000 a year. It is dominated by the Big Four accounting firms. The sec delegated a great deal of regulatory enforcement to it, as well as to another industry private association, FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (which used to go under its original and more accurate name, the National Association of Securities Dealers). By definition, the self-interest of securities dealers is not identical to that of the investing public.
SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, is a lobbying and trade association. But with the approval of the government, SIFMA also sets the regulatory standards for repos (overnight loans) and money-market and securities lending transactions through its “master templates.” There are similar industry groups that “regulate” the terms of municipal bond underwriting and sales (the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board); the terms for creation and trading of futures (the National Futures Association); as well as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
All of these industry self-regulatory bodies have their own systems of jurisprudence, far less transparent or committed to the public interest than the direct public regulation of the New Deal schema. Roosevelt’s original alphabet soup of new public agencies has mutated into a toxic stew of self-regulatory and self-interested organizations. It is one giant conflict of interest.
|
On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc.
If people cared about that kind of stuff, they would have voted against him before. He clearly said all the things he would do. They loved it.
If it negatively impacts them, they will just find someone else who is at fault for the negative effects. Probably Biden, immigrants or trans people.
Or Trump just prints money and mails everyone a 5000$ check of printed money, claim that it is the saved money, and they will love it.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On February 22 2025 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 22:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 22:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2025 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2025 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Steve Bannon just gave a Nazi salute during a CPAC speech, after saying that Trump should be president during the 2028 term too. Is it more or less plausibly deniable than Musk's? My initial reaction was that it was weaker than Musk's, but without the "my heart goes out to you" cover, it feels a bit more naked even if less enthusiastic. Ezra Klein recently opened his show by pointing out he talked to a bunch of Democrats about what they would be doing if they had won control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. They all told him they didn't know. If people are going to insist on relying on Democrats, they are going to need to demand better/more of them. Democrats (ultimately capitalists generally too, but they are freebasing with Trump/Musk right now) need a Project 2026/New Deal to rally around. Obviously my version would be much further left than anything they'd come up with, but every hour they go without having this as THE "other thing to talk about" besides whatever Trump and his cronies are breaking, is unforgivable political malpractice. Less enthusiastic than Musk's two Nazi salutes, definitely. Doesn't make it any less plausible imo though; they both know what they're signaling. Feel like Bannon's lack of enthusiasm was meant for the "see they call everyone a Nazi!" troll but just read as a sign of weakness to me. Means there's still time to do something. I think that should be socialist in nature. You have inexplicably and steadfastly refused to join those efforts afaict. Opting instead to echo JO's call for contacting politicians ( I did this btw, don't know if you tried, but pretty sure it just went to a "not my constituent" Voicemail purgatory?) and threats of primaries. I'd like this to be reciprocal, but I'll make the first steps regardless. I'll try make a good faith effort to post/act as a lib/Dem/ilk in the context of this thread like I've requested of you and others to do as socialists in my blog. This is your (and the rest of the libs/Dems/ilk) chance to point me in the direction you prefer. You could also all demonstrate your own capacity to act in good faith reciprocity to at least seriously consider the alternatives on the table for organizing against the rising tide of fascism in the US and beyond. I did read your socialist blog post, and I do read the discussion that takes place there. I've watched the videos you've recommended (not just the ones in your blog, but other ones you've posted here, in the past). I personally don't think that promoting socialism is a viable way to address Trump's fascism, as labeling anyone as Socialist/Communist immediately scares away half of the population (not saying it's justified). I think that economic philosophy labels like socialism and capitalism are generally going to work in favor of the latter when it comes to Americans' feelings, and the best move would be to gradually push for smaller socialized policies which could accumulate over time into that socialist label, as opposed to coming out of the gate with a push for capital-S Socialism. I think it'd be easier to get people to agree that they like the sound of [socialist policy 1] and [socialist policy 2] and [socialist policy 3] without them needing to identify as Socialists. Taboo, and all that crap. I recognize and appreciate your skepticism, as I trust you do mine. You know, if you talk to me over in my blog, I could probably work with you to find socialists that largely share your perspective (probably more than Democrats) and we could still work together from that angle? That said, I'm pretty confident you and LibHorizons are going to get along. LibHorizons: I'm with you on messaging, use what works. That simple. I think what Sen. Chris Murphy is saying here (echoing 2016 Bernie really) is how you breakthrough to everyday Americans across the political spectrum. Starts to show that you understand what went wrong, and you're going to do something about it. + Show Spoiler + Show nested quote +Democrats and Republicans gave into this idea. That was really in vogue, about 20 years ago, that markets could fix everything right? That if you sort of properly tweak markets, ultimately those markets will be able to deliver happiness. And more than just markets, global markets. Jobs will be moved overseas, but the'll be replaced by cheaper goods and different, better jobs that will eventually raise the standard of living. Democrats bought into that, Republicans bought into it. It was a fucking lie! It was a fucking lie that was perpetrated on us by these masters of the global economy, the only people who really benefited from being able to move capital seamlessly and goods country to country.
We told Americans that if they just bought stuff, if they just were good consumers, if they got a little but higher income, if they got on that career ladder, ultimately, you know, that was meaning, that was purpose, that was fulfilment. It never, ever has been.
We made an enormous mistake believing in what I guess is referred to as the neoliberal economic order, markets will cure everything, and we're paying a huge price for that now. LibHorizons: Don't agree with everything he said in the interview, but that's the kind of message (tuned differently for different audiences) I think they need to be bringing to as many people as they can as soon as possible en masse. It is the very minimum we need from them to energize people to take the various actions we'll need them to over the coming days, months, and years. Show nested quote +On February 22 2025 01:14 Sadist wrote: Na i think it would be different because it would impact them personally. Its easy to be against all these things when you dont use them. LibHorizons: I think it is more likely government funds are redirected to private/religious services (in this case delivery/distribution) to subsidize them based on algorithms meant to maximize support for a sort of vague "white(club) Christian Nationalism" complementing a growing Neo-feudalism+ Show Spoiler +...As the distribution of political power shifted in the 1970s and 1980s, the financial industry began reprivatizing systems of law and finance. They invented new strategies of financial speculation to which regulators gave their blessing. Leverage buyout artists began acquiring entire companies using almost none of their own money, with the target company’s stock as collateral. In the new, pro-market environment, regulators concluded that this was legal.
The LBO business mutated into private equity, in which trillions of dollars of transactions were outside the system of securities regulation on the premise that these were not public offerings of shares. What had been a very small loophole in the structure of New Deal securities law metastasized into a largely unregulated multitrillion-dollar industry. Complex layers of derivatives securities were invented, in which immense and largely hidden multiples of leverage were possible. When some regulators expressed an interest in taking a closer look, a Congress newly beholden to the financial industry acted in 2000 to expressly prohibit regulation of derivatives, either as insurance, securities, or as gambling.
In the same period, public agencies delegated regulation to regulated industries via more than a dozen industry-controlled entities known as self-regulatory organizations (SROS). The original self-regulatory organization was the New York Stock Exchange, created in 1792. Prior to the New Deal, the Stock Exchange functioned as a private club, and its failure to enforce transparent and fair dealing had vast consequences for the public well-being when markets periodically crashed.
From the inception of securities regulation in 1933, there was bitter contention over how much enforcement would be the direct province of the new sec and how much would be delegated to the privately operated stock exchange. It is a testament to the residual power of capital that even at the nadir of its disgrace, the New York Stock Exchange won many of these initial skirmishes, setting an unfortunate pattern to be exploited once FDR was gone. Against the wishes of the sec’s original architects, the stock exchange was permitted to supervise many of its own activities with the sec relegated to watchdog, supervising at one remove. In 1939, the sec allowed the first explicitly recognized SRO, the National Association of Securities Dealers, to govern the system of over-the-counter (off-exchange) stock trades. This was just the beginning of a vast reversion.
After Wall Street invented financial derivatives in the 1980s, the whole field of derivatives creation and trading came to be governed by rules established by the industry trade association, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). At its simplest level, a financial derivative is analogous to an insurance policy against a bond or other security failing to pay back interest or principal. But ISDA, not a government agency, gets to decide how derivatives work and under what circumstances that obligation must be paid. This is neo-feudalism, par excellence. The democratic state plays no role whatever, except to bless the privatized realm of law.
In the area of accounting standards, the sec expressly delegated monitoring and enforcement to the industry trade association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). When self-regulation failed and accounting frauds led to the Enron scandal and kindred abuses, Congress restored some direct regulatory standards via the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. However, that same legislation created a new body, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), that enabled industry self-regulation to persist in a different form. PCAOB was created as a dot-org, not a government entity. Its president is paid over $670,000 a year. It is dominated by the Big Four accounting firms. The sec delegated a great deal of regulatory enforcement to it, as well as to another industry private association, FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (which used to go under its original and more accurate name, the National Association of Securities Dealers). By definition, the self-interest of securities dealers is not identical to that of the investing public.
SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, is a lobbying and trade association. But with the approval of the government, SIFMA also sets the regulatory standards for repos (overnight loans) and money-market and securities lending transactions through its “master templates.” There are similar industry groups that “regulate” the terms of municipal bond underwriting and sales (the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board); the terms for creation and trading of futures (the National Futures Association); as well as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
All of these industry self-regulatory bodies have their own systems of jurisprudence, far less transparent or committed to the public interest than the direct public regulation of the New Deal schema. Roosevelt’s original alphabet soup of new public agencies has mutated into a toxic stew of self-regulatory and self-interested organizations. It is one giant conflict of interest. I somewhat agree with a lot of what Murphy said in that interview you previously linked, although I somewhat disagree with some of his conclusions, and cheers for the link.
MAGA isn’t some wholesale rejection of neo-liberalism, economically it is the ‘market with tweaks’ of which he speaks.
Or in a sense it isn’t that both left and right are battling to establish some new path with the old orthodoxy thrown out. It’s the right being largely happy with it, with a few tweaks, the left (rightly IMO) dissatisfied with it, and a big swathe of the centre happy enough with it.
So yeah a pivot will enthuse some people, I’m just not sure it defuses many others so to speak.
Now this doesn’t mean I don’t think the pivot is worthwhile doing, to the contrary for many reasons.
|
On February 21 2025 14:03 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2025 01:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Trump calls Team USA for tonight's big game against Canada. "I’ll be calling our great American Hockey Team this morning to spur them on towards victory tonight against Canada," he said, adding that he won't be at the game because he will speaking with governors in Washington.
"We will all be watching, and if Governor Trudeau would like to join us, he would be most welcome," Trump said. LOL, Trudeau and Freeland spoke with substantial disdain about Republican voters for years. This is return fire. https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/trump-wishes-team-usa-good-luck-ahead-of-4-nations-final-1.2254803Both of Canada's major sports networks are talking Trump rather than hockey. LOL. A sign of the health of the USA's middle class is the growing #s of youth hockey participants in the country. Hockey is a very expensive sport. For the first time ever, the USA has more youth hockey players than Canada. If the USA wins tonight it'll be very far from a "Miracle On Ice". It'll be expected. LOL Keep your 'Neville' Trump. Canada rides again. What a game!
I was quite blown away by basically every commercial talking about how much of their product or supplies was Canadian. WestJet also said their US bookings are down 25%. Bunch of people I know changing their spring and summer travel plans away from the US, and I live in the most rightwing province and most rightwing area.
Not sure if this is kneejerk or will be lasting but Trump is hurting his country fairly significantly.
|
On February 21 2025 23:53 Sadist wrote: I dont think hes going to make it to the end of his term if he keeps up with all this stuff. These policies are going to be wildly unpopular amongst his constituents if they start being realized. I can see people (Republicans and Democrats) demanding republican members of congress and the senate do something. Be it town halls or whatever. He and Elon are going to do damage to our country that will take decades to fix. Alliances,supply chains, etc. You make the mistake that facts and logic mean anything to these people. They were told very clearly what was going to happen and they did not care. They are being told what is happening right now and they do not care to listen to facts and logic. The CBOL labeling thing is a simple explanation but the simple act of explaining something to them that contradicts what musk says is taken as a personal attack that they need to retaliate for.
When things go wrong they will blame biden and democrats. His base will believe it and will refuse to see whats right in front of their face.
|
|
|
|