America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

The world-wide trend is not good recently, but this sentiment strikes me as a little too America-centric. I think the US is quickly becoming a cautionary tale that others can learn from.

Really? That seems overly optimistic. There has been a rise in authoritarian leadership in Hungary, Turkey & India, of course Russia and China, and substantial gains made by the far-right in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic etc.

Sweden?

"Founded in 1986 by Gustaf Ekström, a Nazi and former SS soldier, Ekström merged the Progress Party with the far-right Keep Sweden Swedish group. As Sweden slowly realises its wrongdoings on immigration, more voters are shifting to the far-right, normalising extremist policies, undermining the status-quo of progressive liberal values, and turning the Scandinavian state towards right-wing populism that threatens the values of the Western world."

Swedish right-wing populism is here to stay | Clingendael spectator

This is one of the four winning student columns from the Clingendael Spectator student column competition for the summer of 2024, written by Peter Sznewajs.1

spectator.clingendael.org

The sentiment seems to be pretty widespread & the tale from the US might be not so much "cautionary" as paradigmatic.
😟

 

[dylansan]

Just a reminder that every single Democrat in the Senate voted to confirm Marco Rubio.

...

Schumer and Jeffries' plan to stop Musk is to pass a law making the thing that's already against the law, illegal. And to hope that Republicans will help.

Democratic plans to oppose Trump would need outside help - Roll Call

Democratic lawmakers raised alarms Tuesday about the speedy way the Trump administration has sought to overhaul the federal government.

rollcall.com

“All we need are three principled Republicans in the House, and a lot of the madness and extremism that has been unleashed on the American people can be halted,” Jeffries said.

Schumer isn't going to bother using Trump's appointments as leverage, because apparently delaying Trump's plans, even a little, is not something he finds worthwhile.

...

I hope some can understand my disdain for the Democratic party. Being ineffectual is not something to be brushed off anymore. This is enabling. This is cooperation. These are not the people for this moment. They are unwilling to fight, too afraid of breaking norms to use the power they have.

If we get a chance to replace them with people who will actually fight for something, can we try it? Being a "moderate" or emphasizing bipartisanship is now a liability, not an asset.

 

[Danoff]

I look at Russia, China, US, and India, arguably the 4 most powerful countries on earth (and distributed pretty evenly across it!), and each one of them has a leader deeply uninterested in rules or laws and motivated almost entirely by personal aggrandizement and legacy. My fear is that liberal nations will need become illiberal out of fear of these 4, particularly when there is now nobody left to stand up for order & rules. The EU and a loose/unorganized/ineffective group of western hemisphere nations is kind of all that's left.

Really? That seems overly optimistic. There has been a rise in authoritarian leadership in Hungary, Turkey & India, of course Russia and China, and substantial gains made by the far-right in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic etc.

Sweden?

"Founded in 1986 by Gustaf Ekström, a Nazi and former SS soldier, Ekström merged the Progress Party with the far-right Keep Sweden Swedish group. As Sweden slowly realises its wrongdoings on immigration, more voters are shifting to the far-right, normalising extremist policies, undermining the status-quo of progressive liberal values, and turning the Scandinavian state towards right-wing populism that threatens the values of the Western world."

Swedish right-wing populism is here to stay | Clingendael spectator

This is one of the four winning student columns from the Clingendael Spectator student column competition for the summer of 2024, written by Peter Sznewajs.1

spectator.clingendael.org

The sentiment seems to be pretty widespread & the tale from the US might be not so much "cautionary" as paradigmatic.
😟

Don't read as much optimism into what I said as you did. As I said, the trend has not been good recently. Still, the US is obviously shooting itself in the foot. If the the people living in the liberal nations of the world cannot see that the US is flailing, then you two may be right. The cautionary tale that is the US is fully capable of being ignored.

I hope our example helps turn things around in some countries. Obviously not Russia or China.

Edit:

Let me put it another way. I do not believe that just because the US is coming apart that liberalism has failed worldwide. And I do not believe that as goes the US, so goes every other liberal democracy. Certainly they can follow us, but I don't believe it to be foregone.

 

[Danoff]

I hope some can understand my disdain for the Democratic party. Being ineffectual is not something to be brushed off anymore. This is enabling. This is cooperation. These are not the people for this moment. They are unwilling to fight, too afraid of breaking norms to use the power they have.

You have been well trained to blame your allies for the behavior of your adversary. It is, ultimately, why the democrats lack support. You simply cannot get out of your own way. Something goes wrong? How can we blame democrats for this?

You still, somehow, do not seem to comprehend that it's over.

 

[Scaff]

The CIA mess continues, help the purge along by just revealing enough info to make them identifiable to anyone who bothers.

CIA Lists Names Of All New Hires In Unclassified Email: Reports

"I remember when Donald Trump was always talking about Hillary’s emails," Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said. “What about this email?”

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Joey D]

I hope some can understand my disdain for the Democratic party. Being ineffectual is not something to be brushed off anymore. This is enabling. This is cooperation. These are not the people for this moment. They are unwilling to fight, too afraid of breaking norms to use the power they have.

If we get a chance to replace them with people who will actually fight for something, can we try it? Being a "moderate" or emphasizing bipartisanship is now a liability, not an asset.

It's because they don't care. Politicians are bought and paid for. They also only care about themselves, their careers, and their backers. Their backers are all pretty much the same people too, just a bunch of goons with money who want to collect politicians like they're Pokemon. There are very few politicians who probably actually care and the right amount of money would easily override their caring level. Granted, some politicians are way cheaper than others, but they all have a price. Others are better at pretending they aren't bought clowns, while others lean into it.

Democrats also don't want to do anything and only give the illusion of doing something because the party makes bank over this. Think about how much money they're going to get come the midterms running on the platform "fight back again Trump!" It wouldn't surprise me if they get a record haul. Then if they get power, they're going to do the bare minimum to appease people because if they solve problems, the money train slows down.

The quicker people realize it's not about liberal vs. conservative but the ultra-rich vs. everyone else, the better we will be. But people are told what to think en masse whether by the media or religion, and all the information is controlled by the ultra-wealthy elites. Bubba T. Cousinlover from the backwoods of Alabama who loves God, guns, and freedom, has way more in common with Jax Starblossom from San Francisco who is a non-binary, trans, art student than either has with assholes like Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, or Trump. The ultra-wealthy will use all of their power to make sure both groups hate each other though because once they quit hating one another and realize that neither one is the problem, there's going to be a lot of Green Marios running around playing the Purge with rich people.

I'm not entirely sure how you get past that though.

 

[dylansan]

You have been well trained to blame your allies for the behavior of your adversary. It is, ultimately, why the democrats lack support. You simply cannot get out of your own way. Something goes wrong? How can we blame democrats for this?

You still, somehow, do not seem to comprehend that it's over.

If every Democrat in office were a limp piece of celery, you'd be blaming my hatred of vegetables for Trump's success.


If you don't think I have a billion times the ire for Republicans as I do for Democrats, you don't understand me at all.


I don't ascribe to your worldview that we're not allowed to be critical of people whose goals align with ours. I'm allowed to care what my allies do. If I think their strategy is poor, I have no problem saying so. If I think they're unequipped for the task, I will express that.

Just yesterday I posted about an attempt by Dems on the Oversight Committee to subpoena Musk, an attempt which failed but which I 100% support and do not criticize them for. I even corrected misinformation about Ro Khanna's absense, despite the fact that I am critical of his previous statements indicating cooperation with DOGE.

Dems are doing some things right right now, including filing lawsuits, and witholding confirmation of State Department officials (which I also posted here as good news). I just think the things they're not doing are important because I haven't given up.


Believe it or not, Democrats "lacking support" is not high on my priorities right now, because:

A) Public support does not give Democrats currently in office more or less powers than they already have. They are in office, they have powers. They can use them whether or not the average American would be happy or angry about it.

B) I think if Democrats pushed harder and used every tool available to them, it would earn them public support, not lose it.




You think it's over? Then why are you still here? Feel free to hide in a bunker somewhere and accept your fate. The rest of us have opinions about the right course of action and we're going to express it and act on it.

 

[Danoff]

If you don't think I have a billion times the ire for Republicans as I do for Democrats, you don't understand me at all.

Maybe you should direct some of your attention to your actual ire then. When I see one of your posts, I know exactly what it will be complaining about before I read it.

I don't ascribe to your worldview that we're not allowed to be critical of people whose goals align with ours.

I don't ascribe to the worldview either.

If I think their strategy is poor, I have no problem saying so. If I think they're unequipped for the task, I will express that.

...and apparently direct all of your focus on it... while the Republicans control all of the government and have tossed any restraint due to law or process.

A) Public support does not give Democrats currently in office more or less powers than they already have. They are in office, they have powers.

You don't seem to understand the situation.

You think it's over? Then why are you still here? Feel free to hide in a bunker somewhere and accept your fate. The rest of us have opinions about the right course of action and we're going to express it and act on it.

During the last election, your vote, and your positions, did not appear to fully respect the gravity of the situation. Your continued complaints about why the democrats are ineffectual continues to reflect that lack of respect for the gravity of the situation. Your opinion, and their protest, no longer matters.

Why am I still here? I don't know, just chatting with people I guess. It's tough to read your posts though - mostly because they misplace blame. Rubio did something? Blame democrats. Musk did something? Blame democrats. I don't know how you live like that.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not entirely sure how you get past that though.

In 1776 the answer was a revolution.

 

[Danoff]

It's because they don't care. Politicians are bought and paid for. They also only care about themselves, their careers, and their backers.

This is the same mistake that right wingers make. They think that because the US system of checks and balances stops people from getting much done that their representatives don't care enough and aren't trying. It is fundamentally disrespect for the US government system, and it results in a drive toward authoritarianism, where someone at the top can force the issue with no checks or balances and get done the things that people want. Some of the people mistake this for "care" when actually it is power.

Don't mistake a lack of power for a lack of care.

This is part of the way that the US system of government has failed. Because folks like @dylansan and @Joey D see corruption where power is lacking. And many have a hard time noticing corruption where power is plentiful.

RFK's crusade, for example, is not something Trump actually cares about. It is payment.

 

[dylansan]

Maybe you should direct some of your attention to your actual ire then. When I see one of your posts, I know exactly what it will be complaining about before I read it.

Everyone in this thread does a decent job of covering all the atrocities of this administration. The reason I don't engage with it much here is because there isn't much discussion to be had when everyone (at least everyone I care to engage with) agrees that these things are bad. Do you want me to like every post about something terrible Trump or Musk or whoever has done? Do you want me to quote and say "yeah I agree, that sucks"?

I can't call my Republican representatives and tell them to stop what they're doing. For one, I don't have any Republican representatives, and for another, Republicans don't give a Trump what I think of them or their activity. Democrats are supposed to care what I think, and my representatives are supposed to represent me. I think considering their actions is far more useful and interesting than discussing things that are very obviously bad, done by people who have zero concern for me or my interests. It's still important to pay attention to what they're doing. But I don't have much discussion to add.


When Medicaid portals went down in all 50 States, I posted that. Not as a dig at Democrats but to inform people about something I hadn't already seen mentioned.


What I'm asking you to understand is that my criticism of Democrats only makes sense if I think what Republicans are doing is terrible. Why would I be mad about Democrats confirming Rubio unanimously if I didn't think he was a massive load of Trump? Why would I be upset that a motion to subpoena Musk failed (a motion I support) if I didn't hate Musk's guts?

If I were a soldier fighting in a bitter war, complaining of lack of supplies and dwindling food, recognizing strategic mistakes and poor leadership, would you tell me to direct my anger to the enemy forces?

They're not listening. I've told you explicitly several times that I thought Trump was dangerous, that I think he's far worse than any Democrat, that I blame Trump and Trump voters for all of this. The fact that I don't react with a sadface emoji every time he rips up another page of the constitution does not mean that I don't take him seriously.

During the last election, your vote, and your positions, did not appear to fully respect the gravity of the situation. Your continued complaints about why the democrats are ineffectual continues to reflect that lack of respect for the gravity of the situation. Your opinion, and their protest, no longer matters.

I made a strategic decision based on my privileged position as a resident of a very solidly blue state. It was a decision made with deep consideration and a willingness to change my mind. It was a decision I didn't take any joy in. It upset me that the decision was so difficult. I would have loved to vote for Harris despite my differences with her on many issues very important to me. But I chose not to because of an issue I found too important to ignore. I know you disagree with me on that. Don't rehash it here.

I am not a utilitarian or a consequentialist. Even if my vote somehow made Trump slightly more president than he otherwise would have been (it didn't), the responsibility for Trump's actions lies with Trump and his voters.

Your math is different than mine. But don't tell me I don't care. I wouldn't be here if I didn't care. I want Trump gone. That has been the motivating force for everything I've posted. I want the only opposing party to be strong enough to fight him. That requires actively engaging with what the Dems are doing, not ignoring them and assuming they know what they're doing.

Why am I still here? I don't know, just chatting with people I guess. It's tough to read your posts though - mostly because they misplace blame. Rubio did something? Blame democrats. Musk did something? Blame democrats. I don't know how you live like that.

Can you explain to me why a single Democrat voted to confirm Rubio? I don't directly blame Democrats for the actions of Trump, Musk, etc., and I don't even necessarily hold Dems directly responsible for the actions of Rubio.

But 45 Democrats and 2 Independents voted to say "yes, I support making Marco Rubio Secretary of State, and giving him all the powers associated with that."

Do you not find that interesting? Do you have any explanation why they might have done that? Or why they don't bear any responsibility for the consequences of that?

 

[Danoff]

If I were a soldier fighting in a bitter war, complaining of lack of supplies and dwindling food, recognizing strategic mistakes and poor leadership, would you tell me to direct my anger to the enemy forces?

Maybe. When your lack of supplies and dwindling food come from losing. And when you cry poor leadership with no humility.

But 45 Democrats voted to say "yes, I support making Marco Rubio Secretary of State, and giving him all the powers associated with that."

Do you not find that interesting? Do you have any explanation why they might have done that? Or why they don't bear any responsibility for the consequences of that?

Rubio is one of the most qualified (and this is a very low bar). You misunderstand the vote (and I think, votes in general). Democrats are not voting that they think Marco Rubio is their preference for secretary of state. If you think they want him in that office, you're making the same mistake that republican make when they stall confirmation hearings.

If any democrat votes for RFK, I'm with your sentiment on those democrats.

 

[TheCracker]

Can you explain to me why a single Democrat voted to confirm Rubio? I don't directly blame Democrats for the actions of Trump, Musk, etc., and I don't even necessarily hold Dems directly responsible for the actions of Rubio.

But 45 Democrats voted to say "yes, I support making Marco Rubio Secretary of State, and giving him all the powers associated with that."

Do you not find that interesting? Do you have any explanation why they might have done that? Or why they don't bear any responsibility for the consequences of that?

Who else was in the running for the position? - could simply be that the Democrats as a whole thought Rubio was potentially the best of a bad bunch.

 

[Joey D]

This is the same mistake that right wingers make. They think that because the US system of checks and balances stops people from getting much done that their representatives don't care enough and aren't trying. It is fundamentally disrespect for the US government system, and it results in a drive toward authoritarianism, where someone at the top can force the issue with no checks or balances and get done the things that people want. Some of the people mistake this for "care" when actually it is power.

Don't mistake a lack of power for a lack of care.

This is part of the way that the US system of government has failed. Because folks like @dylansan and @Joey D see corruption where power is lacking. And many have a hard time noticing corruption where power is plentiful.

RFK's crusade, for example, is not something Trump actually cares about. It is payment.

The Democrats don't care, and if they did, they would be doing more than they currently are. As @dylansan pointed out, every single Democrat voted to confirm Rubio in the Senate. Did they have the power to stop it? No, but they could also not be complicit with it. The Democrats in power have way more leverage to do things that mean something than any of the citizens they're supposed to represent. Me? I can't do anything to prevent what's going on, but those in power have at least a chance to do something, but they aren't. The Democrats are doing performative things to make it look like they give a damn, when really they don't because they're getting paid not to care. I mean what did they do when Musk closed USAID? A couple of Democrats went to the building so they could show they couldn't get it.

All politicians are corrupt because they cater to those with money, and the number of people with money is very small. The ultra-wealthy are playing both sides so they always come out on top. If Harris had won the election, Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg would be kissing her ass in the same way they are kissing Trump's ass because it gets them the influence they desire. Harris is likely smarter than Trump, so she probably would've gotten played less like a fiddle, but there's no way she wouldn't have catered to those wielding money.

The US government is failing because it no longer represents all people, it represents the interests of wealthy people who can afford to shape the agenda. If the government represented everyday people, it would be doing more to improve their lives. But all the government does is take, take, take and throw peanuts out there to "worthy" causes while funneling most of the money into the pockets of the wealthy through grants, government contracts, bailouts, tax breaks, and subsidies. I don't blame the poor for mooching away my tax dollars because, in the grand scheme of things, it's minor. It's the wealthy who mooch way more while trying to convince everyone else that the unwed mother of three is the problem because she needs food stamps.

I understand corruption just fine, too, thanks. It's everywhere in our government and in our economy. It's not going away because money and power will corrupt faster than anything else.

 

[dylansan]

Who else was in the running for the position? - could simply be that the Democrats as a whole thought Rubio was potentially the best of a bad bunch.

Republicans had enough votes to confirm Rubio regardless of how Democrats voted. The question is why did they help Republicans when they didn't even need the help?

The Democrats don't care, and if they did, they would be doing more than they currently are. As @dylansan pointed out, every single Democrat voted to confirm Rubio in the Senate. Did they have the power to stop it? No, but they could also not be complicit with it. The Democrats in power have way more leverage to do things that mean something than any of the citizens they're supposed to represent. Me? I can't do anything to prevent what's going on, but those in power have at least a chance to do something, but they aren't. The Democrats are doing performative things to make it look like they give a damn, when really they don't because they're getting paid not to care. I mean what did they do when Musk closed USAID? A couple of Democrats went to the building so they could show they couldn't get it.

All politicians are corrupt because they cater to those with money, and the number of people with money is very small. The ultra-wealthy are playing both sides so they always come out on top. If Harris had won the election, Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg would be kissing her ass in the same way they are kissing Trump's ass because it gets them the influence they desire. Harris is likely smarter than Trump, so she probably would've gotten played less like a fiddle, but there's no way she wouldn't have catered to those wielding money.

The US government is failing because it no longer represents all people, it represents the interests of wealthy people who can afford to shape the agenda. If the government represented everyday people, it would be doing more to improve their lives. But all the government does is take, take, take and throw peanuts out there to "worthy" causes while funneling most of the money into the pockets of the wealthy through grants, government contracts, bailouts, tax breaks, and subsidies. I don't blame the poor for mooching away my tax dollars because, in the grand scheme of things, it's minor. It's the wealthy who mooch way more while trying to convince everyone else that the unwed mother of three is the problem because she needs food stamps.

I understand corruption just fine, too, thanks. It's everywhere in our government and in our economy. It's not going away because money and power will corrupt faster than anything else.

I am, surprisingly, not quite this cynical. I agree that money is a hugely corrupting force, and the fact that any representative has financial incentives to vote or act a certain way is one of the biggest flaws in our democracy.

But I do believe there are at least some Democrats who are legitimately concerned about what's happening and want to stop it, but for whatever reason are unwilling to pull out all the stops to fight it. Some are probably concerned about violating norms. Others are worried about their electability. Some are afraid to break from party leadership. Some may be worried about losing donors. I think many of them just don't know how to fight back because they've never had to, and this is all unprecedented territory. But they've got to get their head in the game.

Trumpstains like Fetterman are not even real Democrats, so count them out. But there are people taking real actions to impede Trump, and I recognize it. It's just that we need so much more.

 

[dylansan]

May as well post some good news because this stuff does legitimately make me happy:

 

[pclark06]

I just heard the president has signed an executive order to end the Forza Horizon Festival in Mexico

(/s)

edit: should have posted this in the political satire thread

 

[GranTurNismo]

I would say that out of anyone active in this subforum, @dylansan and I are the most vocal about criticizing the Democratic Party where we see shortcomings, from a progressive left perspective. And it’s great to see that nearly everyone active in this forum can see Trump/Musk/the GOP for the draconian fascists that they are and do a great job of calling them out. So to be honest, yes, it may come across that I criticize democrats more often than republicans. Largely because there are comparatively few members on this sub forum who do so, even as many agree with these criticisms. Just by virtue of very openly being a progressive left Democrat should make it self evident that not only am I opposed to the GOP and all of the draconian fascistic policies and rhetoric it endorses, but it is a much bigger enemy than even the most milquetoast neoliberal corporatist Dems. So no, I do not feel the need to accompany or preempt every criticism I make of the Democrats with an equal (or worse) criticism of the GOP. It’s like saying that any Democrat who would like to criticize Israel’s genocide in Gaza must begin with “well of course Israel has its right to defend itself and I denounce Hamas” before getting to the actual criticism. It begins to quickly get very redundant. And of course, my criticism of the Democrats stem from the fact that I vote for them and would like to see the party not only embrace my own ideals but have a better chance of winning in the future.